IMPAIRED BY RULES OF TRIAL
[PHOTO
- Lead counsel Serafin Cuevas]
MANILA,
MARCH 3, 2012 (INQUIRER) - Lead
counsel Serafin Cuevas on Thursday ruled out the possibility the defense would
put Chief Justice Renato Corona on the witness stand, pointing out that the
panel could not intervene in the questioning by senator-judges.
"I believe this is not good because the members of the impeachment court can
examine him on all angles and Justice Cuevas cannot object," Cuevas said in an
ANC TV talk show. "The moment I start (raising questions), the judges will say
'out of order.'"
A day after the prosecution rested its case, Senate President Juan Ponce
Enrile said on Wednesday that the Chief Justice's best defense was to take the
witness stand and personally rebut charges he fudged his statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN), and showed partiality toward former President
and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Cuevas has repeatedly complained that the Senate rules prevented both the
prosecution and the defense from interfering in the senators' examination of
witnesses, unlike in the impeachment trial of then President Joseph Estrada in
2000.
In the TV interview, the former Supreme Court associate justice also
expressed concern about protocol and sitting arrangements in the Senate
tribunal.
"We are not adoring him or we're not idolizing him, but it is not for Chief
Justice Corona only but for everybody similarly situated in the future. I hope
there will be none in the future," Cuevas said.
However, he conceded Corona could be called to testify if necessary to
explain his bank accounts.
Tranquil Salvador III, another defense counsel, worried over "wider
implications" in Corona appearing in the Senate and that these issues were being
discussed.
Difficult situation
"He might be placed in a difficult situation," Salvador said. "Some people
may take advantage of this just to taunt him, to ridicule him, to make fun of
his office, even his person and family."
Salvador, a remedial law professor in various law schools, explained that the
prosecution enjoyed "wide latitude in terms of cross-examination."
Asked about this, Salvador replied that Cuevas as head counsel has a "strong
say" on the issue which would have to be made before the defense presentation
begins on March 12 after a nearly two-week break in the trial.
"Personally, if you ask me, it might be possible. But being part of a team,
if the team reached a decision, I will have to abide by it," Salvador said.
"The way I view it, it might not look good because the members of the Senate
impeachment court can examine him on all angles, but Justice Cuevas cannot
object. The moment I start (to object to the line of questioning of
senator-judges), the judges will say, 'out of order' because I cannot object
(under Senate rules)."
Salvador, however, refused to elaborate on Corona's testimony, including
matters that the impeached Chief Justice would be testifying on.
Difficult decision
Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara, a prosecution spokesperson, said
Corona faced a difficult decision.
"Whether to testify or not is the difficult decision the Chief Justice faces:
on the one hand, he is the best person to testify since he would know about all
the bank accounts, properties, condominiums and he could talk about the
discrepancies in his SALN, which we have brought out," Angara said.
"He could also testify that he did not extend special treatment to any
litigant or any person. On the other hand, this has its attendant risks as his
credibility and the consistency of his testimony could be tested severely once
he is subjected to rigorous cross-examination by the prosecution, and the
searching questions by senator-judges," he added.
"If they are confident of his ability to withstand the rigors of questioning
then they will likely present him as a witness. If they feel it is too risky,
most likely he will not be presented as witness."
Enrile on Thursday said Corona's lawyers could begin arguing his case despite
the unresolved issue of whether his purported dollar account should be
scrutinized in the impeachment court.
But the tribunal's presiding officer urged Corona to appear in the trial,
saying doing so "will be good for the nation."
"It will settle a lot of issues," the Senate President told reporters. "He is
the best witness to clarify the issues… I'm not the lawyer of the Chief Justice,
but to me, the best person to controvert, to rebut everything that has been said
against him is himself."
Dollar account
Enrile downplayed apprehensions by the defense lawyers that Corona would only
expose himself to enemy fire, saying "I'm sure that he can handle the
questions."
He said Corona would be in the best position to clarify the matter of his
bank deposits, including the "internal problem" in the Supreme Court.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima earlier testified and used a dissenting
opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, as part of the prosecution's
effort to nail Corona for allegedly favoring Arroyo.
Enrile said Corona's lawyers could start presenting evidence upon the trial's
resumption on March 12.
But for that to happen, both the defense and the prosecution should agree,
considering that the Supreme Court is yet to resolve a Philippine Savings Bank
(PSBank) petition against disclosing Corona's purported dollar account.
Enrile said the Senate would eventually have to decide on the prosecution's
desire to look into the alleged dollar deposits "at a certain point."
No amendment needed
He pointed out that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, was
designated in the Constitution as the body with "the sole power to try and
decide" impeachment cases.
"No one else can make the decision but the Senate alone," Enrile said in
Filipino. "It means that we are not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in terms of having the 'sole power to try and decide' all impeachment cases."
Enrile said the high tribunal would have jurisdiction only if "private rights
are involved in the course of the trial."
Enrile was not keen on asking prosecutors to amend the articles of
impeachment in the wake of their decision to focus only on three charges against
Corona.
An amendment would require them to send the complaint back to the House of
Representatives for another round of voting.
"At this point, I will not require an amendment," he said, noting that an
amendment would be tantamount to dismissing the case and as such, would leave a
"bad impression" among the people. "We have to proceed up to completion. We will
make a judgment."
But Enrile said criticisms on the quality of the articles of impeachment
should serve as a lesson for House prosecutors.
"I hope the House will take this as a friendly advice that before they bring
the articles of impeachment here, they should be well-crafted leaving no doubt
as to what they really want to say." With reports from
Michael Lim Ubac and TJ Burgonio
FROM THE PHILSTAR
JPE wants Corona to testify in trial By Marvin Sy
(The Philippine Star) Updated March 01, 2012 12:00 AMComments (104)
MANILA, Philippines - It would be best for Chief Justice Renato
Corona (photo) to appear before the impeachment court and provide the best
defense for his case by testifying on the allegations raised against him, Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile said yesterday.
Enrile said Corona himself would best be able to provide the senator-judges
with his side on all the charges hurled against him in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of
the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives.
"It would be good if Chief Justice Corona would appear (before the court)
because in my opinion, that is how we can hear the truth," Enrile said in
Filipino over radio station dzBB.
"This will be good for the case of the Chief Justice, for the process and the
nation," Enrile added.
The prosecution has ended the presentation of its case by announcing that it
is withdrawing five of the eight Articles of Impeachment against Corona.
Enrile admitted the prosecutors would have no chance of securing a conviction
of Corona based on the five Articles of Impeachment that they withdrew the other
day.
He said the withdrawal of the five articles by the prosecution was the right
move because they would have a hard time proving their case on those grounds.
"If they use the five as their basis, they won't be able to remove the
respondent. That is the truth," Enrile said.
Enrile said he always believed the prosecution could have ended their
presentation within a month if they were fast.
"But if they pushed for the eight (articles), this cannot be finished in a
month," Enrile said.
"They knew that if they pushed for that, the five they removed, they could
not have gotten the vote to remove the respondent, the Chief Justice," he added.
'We are ready'
After 25 trial days, the prosecution panel presented its witnesses and
proposed evidence on Articles 2, 3 and 7.
[PHOTO - Photo credit: Tobias Engay, MRS-PRIB
/ 12 December 2011 07:12:41 PM: After eliciting 188 signatures, Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II and Justice
Committee Chairman Niel Tupas, Jr. show media the documents detailing the
eight-point Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato
Corona following a majority coalition caucus before Monday's plenary session.]
Lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. told the impeachment court that
the prosecution panel is withdrawing Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 because they
believe they already have enough to secure a conviction of Corona.
Now it is the turn of the defense to present its case and debunk the
allegations raised against the Chief Justice.
The defense panel yesterday declared they are ready to present their case to
controvert the allegations against Corona.
"We are ready to present our case… but we are still relying on when the
prosecution will end their presentation of the evidence. We are ready for eight.
If they will drop the five articles, we are also ready. By March 12, we are
ready to go," said defense panel spokesman Rico Paolo Quicho.
Quicho said the defense would take opportunity during the almost one week
break to rest their souls and mind, and get ready to present their case.
But as to the call for Corona to testify during trial, defense lawyers said
they have not reached a consensus.
Another defense lawyer, Jose Roy III, revealed "there are two different
views" on the issue.
"Everybody thinks it might be appealing to the public to have the Chief
Justice there because it is an intimate, personal insight into him. And the
other side, why should we subject the CJ to that if it is not necessary?" Roy
said.
"So these things you know, really I suppose everybody wants to hear it from
him. But you know, is it necessary? Do we want to create a pattern when every
time a high official is accused, the only expectation is for him to come out and
bare his soul? That is not the way things work," he said.
Enrile explained the defense lawyers would have to present their witnesses
and evidence to disprove the allegations of the prosecution, particularly the
issue of Corona's bank deposits and his supposed failure to include these in his
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
However, if Corona himself testifies for the defense panel, Enrile said the
chief magistrate would provide every member of the court with the best
explanation possible on the allegations.
"There is no one else who can explain the bank accounts other than the Chief
Justice because these are under his name. (He can say) if these are not his or
why he did not include these in his SALN," Enrile said.
He said Corona's presence would also allow the senator-judges as well as the
prosecutors to directly question the Chief Justice and get the answers directly
from him.
"This is where we will see the skill of each and every one (of the judges and
prosecutors)," Enrile said.
Enrile said the prosecution panel was probably of the belief that they
presented enough evidence to convict Corona.
Tupas manifested the prosecution has already enough to secure a conviction of
Corona with what they presented for Articles 2, 3 and 7.
Article 2 deals with the allegation that Corona did not disclose to the
public his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth as required by the
Constitution, and that he did not declare certtain assets in his SALN.
In Article 3, Corona was faulted for the flip- flopping by the Supreme Court
on the case of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines
(FASAP) against the Philippine Airlines (PAL) management and his excessive
entanglement with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through the
appointment of his wife to a government post.
For Article 7, the House of Representatives alleged Corona showed his
partiality to Arroyo when the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order
on the watchlist order of the Department of Justice against Arroyo to allow the
former president to leave the country and escape prosecution.
'Not a show'
Defense panel spokesperson Karen Jimeno pointed out the Corona
trial should not be judged through trial by publicity but through what happened
during the trial.
"This is a litigation, not a show. We have to determine if he should take the
stand… if his (Corona) testimony will be relevant or not," Jimeno said.
Quicho also lashed out at the prosecution for always blaming the defense for
their mistakes and delaying the trial.
"This is about procedural rights and due process of the accused," Quicho
said.
Tranquil Salvador III, for his part, said the defense wants a clear notice
from the prosecution on whether they are dropping the five other charges without
prejudice to the respondent.
"This way, we can know whether we have to present evidence for all eight
articles or simply focus on three articles," Salvador said.
Roy, on the other hand, also ruled out the possibility the prosecution might
impeach Corona again on the same offenses next year.
"…Twice for the same. My goodness, if you will do that, you're gonna keep
trying to sue him until you get the result that you want. That is ridiculous.
This is not the way our system of justice works," he said.
Asked if double jeopardy applies in the impeachment proceedings, Salvador
expressed belief that since the impeachment proceedings are akin to a criminal
case, then the respondent should not be charged again with the same offense.
"You cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense. In my view, if he is
acquitted or the case is dismissed, it should not be filed again," Salvador
said.– With Christina Mendez
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/
