REVERSAL: MIRIAM PURRS, DRILON ROARS
[PHOTO - PRESIDENT BENIGNO AQUINO III]
MANILA,
MARCH 14, 2012 (INQUIRER) By
Marlon Ramos - What exactly is a bald prediction?
Apparently taking a swipe at the balding President Benigno Aquino III, a
lawyer of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Monday dismissed as a "bald prediction"
Malacañang's claim that there was "no way" Corona would be cleared in the Senate
impeachment court.
Speaking with reporters before the resumption of Corona's trial, Jose Roy III
belittled the Palace statement that the House prosecutors were able to present
enough evidence to secure a conviction for the Chief Justice.
"We have heard so many fairy tales. Now we're hearing about … bald
predictions. Bold predictions, I'm sorry," he said.
Told to elaborate, Roy replied he just "misspoke."
"It's a slip of the tongue. I had lengua for lunch," Roy said, eliciting
laughter from members of the media.
He said Palace officials who were making their own predictions about how
Corona's impeachment trial would end "probably have a crystal ball."
"I have yet to see infallibility in predictions, but I have heard a lot of
false bravado," Roy said.
In his previous media interviews, Mr. Aquino said he was certain the Senate
would eventually hand down a guilty verdict on the Chief Justice.
In an interview over state-owned dzRB radio on Sunday, deputy presidential
spokesperson Abigail Valte said the President was expecting Corona's guilty
verdict "given the weight of the evidence that has been presented" before the
Senate.
"It will eventually lead to a conviction," Valte said.
But Roy said the decision of the House prosecutors to drop five of the eight
articles of impeachment showed the quality of the evidence they have against the
Chief Justice.
"It's quite simple. If you have a strong case, what fool of a lawyer would
withdraw that case? If the case is solid (which would) surely result in a
conviction or ouster … why would you withdraw the case? Why would you drop the
articles?" the lawyer said.
"Are we fools? Do they think we don't know how it works? No lawyer worth his
salt will withdraw a strong case. It's that simple."
Asked if the Palace statement was intended to pressure the senators, Roy
said: "I don't want to keep repeating myself about the efforts of Malacañang to
manipulate or influence the senators."
Lead defense counsel engages senator-judge in heated verbal
exchange By Maila Ager INQUIRER.net 4:45 pm | Monday, March 12th,
2012
[PHOTO - ROY, CUEVAS,
DRILON]
MANILA, Philippines–Tension temporarily gripped the impeachment trial of
Chief Justice Renato Corona Monday when his lead counsel took a swipe at a
senator-judge, who has been accused of favoring the prosecution team.
It started when Senator Franklin Drilon stood up and read to Corona's lead
counsel,former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas, the Jan. 18, 2012 ruling of
the Senate of its denial to a preliminary hearing sought by the defense team.
Drilon pointed out that the alleged defects in the verification of the
impeachment complaint filed against Corona was the same argument that the
defense team used when it sought a preliminary hearing.
The same argument was used by Cuevas when he insisted to subpoena several
congressmen and an official of the House of Representatives before the Senate
despite the chamber's denial of the motion.
"The purpose obviously of a hearing of the affirmative defenses is to have
the case dismissed because of lack of proper verification which has already been
ruled upon by this court on January 18,"Drilon said.
"If that commentary was made by the members of the prosecution, we would have
no objection your honor," Cuevas answered. "We are worried your honor that this
may be interpreted your honor as an argument by a prosecutor."
Cuevas' statement drew a sharp retort from Drilon, who said: "I take
exception to the statement of the prosecution of the defense counsel and that's
totally improper."
And when Cuevas tried to cut him, the senator said, "I'm still speaking !"
Cuevas answered, "Go ahead…" to which Drilon retorted, "Don't interrupt!"
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile intervened and just ordered the reading of
the January 18 ruling.
Reversal of roles: Santiago purrs, Drilon roars By
Michael Lim Ubac Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:41 am | Tuesday, March 13th, 2012
[PHOTO -Sen. Franklin Drilon. LYN RILLON]
At the start of Chief Justice Renato Corona's defense presentation, Senator
Miriam Defensor-Santiago was uncharacteristically meek as a lamb, while Senator
Franklin Drilon, roared like a lion.
As Santiago delivered the opening prayer on Monday, gone was the famous
temper that led to a prosecution volunteer lawyer being cited in contempt for
being disrespectful to the court.
Santiago politely reminded the defense panel that it was estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, at
this stage of the proceeding.
"There is no constitutional issue involved," said Santiago, explaining that
it was "discretionary" on the part of any court to grant a preliminary hearing
after a complaint had been filed.
Drilon briefly took the floor, but two minutes were enough to trigger yet
another tense moment at the hearing.
Drilon blew his top over remarks of the lead defense counsel, Serafin Cuevas,
that the senator was sounding like a member of the prosecution. Drilon has
repeatedly been slammed for helping the prosecution fish for evidence.
"If that commentary was made by the members of the prosecution, we would have
no objection," Cuevas said.
"We are worried that this will be interpreted as an argument by a
prosecutor," he added.
Improper
A peeved Drilon shot back: "I take exception to the statement of the defense
counsel, and that is totally improper. We are just reading …"
But Cuevas interrupted Drilon, prompting the senator to declare: "I'm still
speaking."
Unperturbed, Cuevas bluntly told the senator to "go ahead."
Drilon—staring at Cuevas who was just a few steps in front of the
senator—warned the lawyer, saying: "Then don't interrupt … because I was just
explaining the ruling of the court."
Before matters got out of hand, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ordered
Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III "to reread the (January18) ruling of this
court."
The verbal tussle was triggered by Drilon's manifestation that the defense,
in seeking to have the court validate the signatures of the 188 House members
who impeached the Chief Justice on Dec. 12, 2011, was "making a plea that they
be allowed to present evidence on their affirmative defenses."
According to Drilon, the defense panel asserted that the January 18 ruling of
the impeachment court did not touch upon the "affirmative defenses" but only the
motion for a preliminary hearing.
"The grounds relied upon by the affirmative defenses are precisely the
grounds relied upon when the defense asked for on a preliminary hearing; and, in
fact, on page 2 of the resolution of January 18, the Chief Justice (asserted)
that since the verified complaint for impeachment lacks a proper verification,
it should be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect, and
should therefore be dismissed," Drilon said.
Estrada precedent
Drilon disagreed with this contention, saying that the January 18 ruling
"categorically validated the verification."
Quoting the ruling, the senator said: "It appeared that the filing of the
verified impeachment complaint was made in accordance with … the Constitution,
there is no more need for a preliminary hearing to receive evidence on this
matter."
The senator then explained that if there was no need to present evidence on
the matter of preliminary hearing, then "there is no need to present evidence on
the affirmative defenses."
Senator Joker Arroyo also appeared annoyed at the defense for wanting to
dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds. He said he was part of the
prosecution in the 2000 impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada.
"The same issues arose—the defects and all. Our argument was that the House
impeaches. The Senate hears and decides," Arroyo said.
"What the House transmits to the Senate—faults and all—everything, defects
and all, will have to be accepted by the Senate because the Senate cannot direct
the House on how to make an impeachment complaint because the Constitution
simply says that the House impeaches, the Senate tries and decides," he added.
Mention of Estrada impeachment sparks minor tiff
By Cathy C. Yamsuan Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:44 am | Tuesday,
March 13th, 2012
[PHOTO -Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. INQUIRER FILE
PHOTO]
The ghost of President Joseph Estrada's impeachment was raised on Monday when
Senate President Pro Tempore Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada recalled that then House
Speaker Manuel Villar and his supporters had "railroaded" the verified complaint
against his father.
"Once the complaint gets the necessary number of signatures, there is nothing
you can do.
In our time, even if we cried or rolled on the floor in agony, the complaint
had no choice but be transmitted to the Senate," Senator Estrada said at the
start of the defense presentation in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Renato Corona.
In November 2000, opposition congressmen managed to gather the signatures of
one-third of the House members to a verified complaint that accused then
President Estrada of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of
public trust for allegedly receiving payoffs from operators of jueteng, an
illegal numbers game.
Villar drew criticism for suddenly inserting the text of the verified
complaint in the opening prayer he read at the start of the session. The chamber
then considered the complaint passed despite protests from Estrada's allies.
"Of course that is already history. What is important now is that the defense
would present witnesses to prove that the Chief Justice really provided the
truth in his (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth)," said Senator
Estrada, who recalled the event after Corona's lead counsel, Serafin Cuevas,
insisted that his client was deprived of due process.
Villar rose and pointed out that unlike the impeachment complaint against
Corona that was signed by 188 congressmen and transmitted to the Senate in two
days, "our complaint took about a month and was signed under more difficult
circumstances."
Villar said the House justice committee also had two hearings before the
impeachment complaint against Estrada was circulated. He stressed that during
that time, the congressmen were trying to impeach a sitting president.
"Anyone who signed understood that he could lose all his perks. Things are
different now when a congressman signs an impeachment complaint to please the
President. There is a big difference, it is 100 times different," he said.
The younger Estrada again took the floor, this time to say he did not want to
"belabor the point."
"I hate to use the word railroaded but I think, I hope (Villar) respects my
opinion. That impeachment case against (my father) was really railroaded. It is
already history," he said.
Villar also returned to the podium if only to say he "would no longer say
anything on this case."
The two then shook hands.
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/
