JPE: THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL
[PHOTO - Senate President Juan
Ponce Enrile talks with Justice Secretary Leila de Lima during Day 23 of the
impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Thursday. POOL PHOTO]
MANILA, FEBRUARY 25, 2012 (MANILA TIMES) Written by : RITCHIE A.
HORARIO CORRESPONDENT AND LLANESCA T. PANTI REPORTER - THE Senate impeachment
court on Thursday threw out the testimony of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima
that Chief Justice Renato Corona influenced the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) favoring former President Gloria Arroyo for being
hearsay.
On the 23rd day of the impeachment hearing, de Lima again took the witness
stand for the cross-examination of the defense team headed by Serafin Cuevas.
The Justice chief was presented as witness by the prosecution panel to prove
Article VII of the Verified Impeachment Complaint, which accuses the Chief
Justice of betraying public trust by showing "partiality in granting a TRO in
favor of former President Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to give them an
opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in
distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO."
In her testimony, de Lima cited Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno's
dissenting opinion, which stated that the resolution issued did not reflect the
voting of the justices.
Cuevas asked the Justice secretary why she gave more emphasis to the
opinion of Sereno over the other dissenting opinions of several justices.
He insinuated that de Lima wanted to emphasize Sereno's dissenting opinion so
that she would be absolved by the High Court from contempt charges for not
honoring the TRO.
But de Lima said that she gave importance to Sereno's opinion because it
divulged the alleged irregularities committed by the High Court in issuing the
TRO.
"I am highlighting the dissenting opinion of Sereno, not because of the
discussion there on the merits of her dissent on the grant of TRO, but on the
various revelations she made that gave us the picture of irregularities that
committed by the court in issuance of the TRO and interpretation of legal issue
of TRO," she explained.
[PHOTO FROM ABS-CBN- Justice Secretary Leila
de Lima testifies at the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona on
Wednesday. De Lima narrated incidences related to the temporary restraining
order issued by the Supreme Court on the watch list order on former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Photo by Mammy Marcelo, Senate
Pool]
However, Cuevas said that de Lima's testimony was purely hearsay since she
had no personal knowledge when the Supreme Court justices deliberated and voted
on the issuance of the restraining order against the watch list order (WLO)
issued by the Department of Justice to prevent Mrs. Arroyo from leaving the
country.
When de Lima admitted that her testimony was hearsay, Cuevas moved to strike
it out from the record.
House prosecutor Raul Daza protested, saying that de Lima's testimony should
be given a "presumption of truth" and should be treated as a "matter of defense
and weight."
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile granted Cuevas' motion.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago also sided with the defense team, saying that
de Lima's testimony is hearsay as stipulated in the rules of admissibility on
hearsay evidence.
"Hearsay testimony should be excluded . . . A witness shall only testify on
personal knowledge and that no opinion will not be allowed except for an expert
witness," she added.
Enrile, who also sits as the presiding officer of the impeachment court,
ruled that the narration of facts on the dissenting opinion of Sereno should
stay in the court's record as part of her testimony.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson supported Enrile's decision.
"Talagang 'di pupuwede, kasi (It's not possible, because) it's hearsay,
because Secretary de Lima admitted [that] she was not present during the en banc
deliberation," he said.
Lacson added that the prosecution panel should have presented a clerk of
court who attended the en banc session of the High Court so that the testimony
could not be considered as hearsay.
But Daza said that court employees were also covered by the Senate
impeachment court's ruling barring High Tribunal justices from appearing and
testifying as a sign of respect to a co-equal body.
Lacson also chided de Lima for defying the restraining order, even if she had
no idea if the conditions set by the High Court have been complied with by the
petitioners.
The senator said that the Justice chief cited national interest in issuing
her decision to stop the Arroyos from leaving the country when the Constitution
only allows three exemptions in the upholding of an individual's right to
travel—national security, public safety, and public health.
Forum shopping Meanwhile, the prosecution also on Thursday claimed that there
was no guarantee that Corona would accept the verdict of the Senate impeachment
court.
Rep. Romero Quimbo of Marikina City (Metro Manila), one of the spokesmen of
the prosecution panel, said that the Chief Justice was not ready to face his
fate since he has been seeking refuge from the High Court.
Quimbo was referring to Corona's petition seeking to declare the impeachment
proceedings null and void.
"People have forgotten that there are two actions that have been pursued by
the defense. One of which is vigorously defending their client here and they
have done it with most urgent effort and at the same time they have petitioned
for certiorari with the Supreme Court," Quimbo told reporters.
"Should the Senate decides to acquit him, would they accept it? None of the
senators have asked them that question," he said.
The lawmaker-spokesman added that Corona's lawyers were defending him and at
the same time claiming that the complaint against the Chief Justice was wrong.
"They are struggling between two venues. They are forum shopping," Quimbo
said.
Rep. Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna party-list said that they would formally
ask the Senate to invite Sereno to testify before the impeachment court on
Monday.
"We will probably file a motion come Monday (to that effect) because the
Senate has already set a precedent by inviting Rep. Bolet Banal of Quezon City
(Metro Manila)," Colmenares added.
Banal was invited to explain how he was able to secure a photocopy of what
turned out to be a dollar account of Corona with Philippine Savings Bank.
from the daily inquirer
Enrile: This is not a criminal case By Christian
V. Esguerra Philippine Daily Inquirer 2:50 am | Friday, February 24th, 2012
We must remember that we are not trying a criminal case. We are
trying an impeachment case … and, therefore, the hearsay rule contained in our
rules of evidence does not apply strictly in impeachment cases."
So said Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile after the lead defense counsel,
Serafin Cuevas, moved on Thursday to strike out as hearsay the entire testimony
of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who cited alleged irregularities mentioned in
the dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court's temporary lifting of a travel ban
on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo last year.
"We're going to decide this case on the basis of the quantum of evidence that
we think is best to be used in determining whether he is guilty or not guilty,
not beyond reasonable doubt because this is a not a criminal case. It is akin to
a criminal case, but not really a criminal case."
Enrile, the presiding officer of the Senate impeachment tribunal, allowed to
remain on record De Lima's narration of the dissenting opinion by Associate
Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, which revealed purported irregularities in the
interpretation, among others, of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by
the Supreme Court on Nov. 15.
"I understand your position, but we are not proving … the guilt of the
respondent beyond reasonable doubt," Enrile told Cuevas on Day 23 of the
impeachment trial of Corona for alleged culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of public trust and corruption.
"But to the extent of the truth or falsity of what the dissenting opinion of
Justice Sereno contained, to the extent of those facts, whether they are true or
not, that the Chief Justice influenced this or the Chief Justice did that or
somebody else did something else—then to that extent it is hearsay because the
witness was not present when those things were being done or being said," he
ruled.
"And so I will allow the testimony of the witness to remain into the record
and … suggest to the court to disregard … the statement on the Chief Justice or
what he did or other justices did in that deliberation, because those are not
within the competence of the witness to testify on," Enrile said.
'Providential'
The prosecution welcomed Enrile's ruling as "providential" after setbacks
this week, which saw Enrile reject a witness called to testify on alleged
special privileges Corona and his wife enjoyed from Philippine Airlines while
the Supreme Court was considering a pending case involving PAL. Enrile ruled
that the testimony was irrelevant because bribery was not specified in the
impeachment complaint.
Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas said that what
Enrile had stated on the De Lima testimony was the prosecution's position from
Day 1, stressing that the only issue was Corona's fitness to remain as Chief
Justice.
"If not fit anymore, he is removed. A criminal case can then follow. So, this
is a positive development for us," Fariñas said.
"In fact, it is just any proof that any judge is willing to accept to support
a verdict of conviction or acquittal. So it is entirely up to the senators to
make a decision. There is no quantum of evidence actually required or set, and
lastly, is that hearsay is actually admissible in terms of impeachment cases,"
said Representative Miro Quimbo, a prosecution spokesperson.
Under cross-examination by Cuevas, De Lima on the second day of her
appearance said that her testimony was based only on Sereno's dissenting
opinion.
Sereno alleged that justices, voting 7-6, found that Arroyo and her husband
did not comply with the conditions of the TRO. But Corona purportedly tried to
make it appear that compliance had been made.
"Based on your answer now, I gather the impression that all the matters you
stated a while ago came from your perusal or reading of Justice Sereno's
dissenting opinion?" Cuevas asked.
"Yes, sir, I'm not a member of the Supreme Court," she responded.
"In other words, what you have told us insofar as you are concerned, are
merely, purely hearsay because they do not come from your own personal
knowledge," Cuevas said.
Splitting hairs
Representative Raul Daza, who conducted the direct examination
of De Lima, objected and said Cuevas' questioning was "misleading." Enrile
overruled Daza.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago scolded Daza for claiming that De Lima's
testimony was exempted from the hearsay rule.
A former trial judge who has been elected to the International Criminal
Court, Santiago said De Lima could not express her opinions in her testimony
unless she had been qualified as an "expert witness."
"Why are we splitting hairs? It's very, very clear. A witness can only
testify to what he perceived himself," she said angrily. "In effect, what we've
been hearing is a series of opinions extrapolated or made to us by the witness."
Santiago added: "She was not present when these so-called irregularities or
discrepancies were taking place so how could she be a witness on all this
instance?"
The senator also sought to put in perspective the "weight" of a dissenting
opinion in a "collegial" body like the Supreme Court.
Majority rule
She cited a 2006 ruling in which the Supreme Court said: "It is the majority
decision, not the dissenting opinion, that is the controlling jurisprudence."
In a more recent ruling in 2008, the high tribunal stressed that "elementary
decision-making teaches that we cite the majority opinion as precedent, not
lonely dissenting opinions," Santiago said.
"Our quest here is factual in nature: was the Chief Justice personally and
individually responsible for what are perceived deficiencies or irregularities
in the issuance of the TRO? Can one judge be held liable for the decision of a
collegial body?" she said.
Santiago said another ruling by the high tribunal averred that, "although the
Chief Justice is primus inter pares, he cannot legally decide a case on his own
because of the court's nature as a collegial body. Neither can the Chief Justice
by himself overturn the decision of the court, whether by a division or the en
banc."
Never disputed
Cuevas questioned De Lima on why she "laid too much emphasis" on Sereno's
dissenting opinion, noting that there were other dissenters.
"Apparently, you give us the impression that, permit the language, you
swallowed hook, line and sinker the truth of what is alleged or incorporated in
that dissenting opinion," Cuevas said.
"I have given it credence, serious credence because it was never disputed or
denied by any other member of the court," De Lima replied.
"But it remains to be a dissenting opinion up to now unless modified or
reversed by the Supreme Court in the final adjudication of the case," Cuevas
shot back.
Liable for defiance
De Lima said she "highlighted" Sereno's opinion because of "the various
disclosures or revelations that she had made, which give us the picture of the
irregularities that were committed within the court insofar as the issuance of
the TRO, as well as the interpretation of the legal status or effect of the
TRO."
Cuevas suggested that De Lima was bound to benefit from Sereno's revelations,
considering the unresolved issue on whether she should be cited for contempt for
disobeying the TRO.
"It almost exempts you from criminal liability … It saves you from the
trouble of being made liable for having allegedly disobeyed the order of the
honorable Supreme Court because there is a restraining order, (but) you issued
an order that was countermanding that order. Is it not?" he said.
"The issue of my alleged defiance would still be there even in the absence of
these disclosures or revelations," De Lima responded.
Presumed police powers
Senator Panfilo Lacson questioned De Lima at length on the hold-departure
order, eliciting an admission from her that this was contained in a department
circular and not based on any specific law but on presumed police powers under
the administrative code.
"I know that the former President used that (circular) to go against her
perceived enemies," said Lacson, an Arroyo critic.
Lacson evaded a hold-departure order and disappeared for 14 months beginning
in January 2010 after he was implicated in the murders of publicist Bubby Dacer
and his driver in 2000.
"Maybe it was used then. You don't have to worry about that under my watch,
sir," De Lima said.
She added that her department was drafting proposals to allow the department
to prevent the departure of people under investigation for alleged criminal
offenses. With reports from Cynthia D. Balana, Cathy Yamsuan
and Marlon Ramos
Chief News Editor: Sol
Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE
NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
