Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Prosecution’s failure to prove 45 CJ properties a ‘major blow’

By Angie M. Rosales

The prosecution’s penchant for trying and convicting publicly Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona by providing media with manufactured evidence against him has boomeranged on House prosecutors and their spokesman, as they have not only been shown up as presenting before the media accusations backed up by a fictitious and bloated lists of the alleged CJ’s properties, but also that they now suffer from serious credibility problems, having been caught at their lies.

Another setback the prosecution may well suffer is the probable rejection of the Senate impeachment court of its request for subpoenas for the bank accounts of Corona.

The admission of the prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Corona that it doesn’t have proof to back up claims on his alleged 45 properties, managing to present evidence on only 24 of them, was a major blow to their case.

“Publicly yes. Actually, what was the more obvious setback was when they denied they were the ones responsible in making public the issue. Everybody knows that they (prosecutors) presented it in public before just before the trial,” Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero said yesterday.

In a radio interview, this was stated by Escudero, who was responding to a query on the observation of many that Thursday’s proceedings where lead prosecutor, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., admitted before the Senate impeachment court that the prosecution does not have and will not be able to present proof of the 45 alleged properties of Corona, claiming they will only be able to present only 24, even justifying their inability to back up their claim by saying that some of the properties listed have already been sold and transferred.

The senator, who is sitting as one of the judges in the impeachment case of the chief magistrate, said even television news footage would bear him out on the prosecution panel previous claims that they will bring before the court the alleged 45 properties of Corona.

“It was repeatedly shown on TV and if I’m not mistaken, it was last Jan. 12,” he said.

The senator said it’s lamentable that such statement made by Tupas could stir various consequences especially among the senator-judges if and when they rule for or against Corona.

“That’s what we’ve been complaining about all this time. They have been presenting their issues outside of the impeachment court. These things should be discussed in the proper forum, the Senate,” he said over at dwIZ.

Another possible setback for the prosecution in the days to come is the matter of having the records on Corona’s alleged bank accounts subpoenaed by the impeachment tribunal, the senator said.

The Senate is confronted with at least three issues, one of which is the matter of the law on foreign currency deposits, if and when Corona is to be alleged as keeping deposits in foreign currencies, as there exists a law protecting such bank accounts from scrutiny or its secrecy.

“That law, enacted during the Marcos regime, was adopted to protect foreign investors then and until now it has not been amended,” he said.

Another was the ruling made by the presiding officer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, in Thursday’s proceedings where the prosecution panel was told again to first lay down the basis as to the reason the court has to subpoena bank records.

When Tupas asked the court to act on the prosecution’s filed motion on the issuance of subpoena on bank records, he was rebuked by Enrile.

Enrile said he will not sign any requests for a subpoena on the alleged Corona accounts in PSBank and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) unless the prosecution would first lay the basis, as he does not want the court to be given the impression that it is allowing the parties to the case as engaging in a fishing expedition.

“So please when you (prosecution) ask us to issue subpoenas, specify the account number and the particular transaction involved and the documents that you want to be subpoenaed.

“That’s why I said ‘specify with specificity so that we will not be accused of unwarranted search’,” Enrile was quoted as telling Tupas toward the end of the proceedings.

Enrile also turned down the issuance of subpoena on the records of SC reminding the prosecutors that such is violative of the principle on the separation of powers of the judiciary and the legislature.

“You are requesting us to subpoena the records of the Supreme Court, well, we cannot request you to subpoena your (House) records neither you can request to subpoena our (Senate) records.

We have to observe the separateness and co-equalness of the three departments of government,” the presiding officer said.

Escudero said the impeachment court cannot just issue subpoenas to any bank especially those suspected to be keeping Corona’s alleged deposits, unless such had already been ascertained as a fact.

Nowwhere in the Articles of Impeachment does the charge of graft and corruption or even the charge of his amassing of hidden wealth is mentioned.

Article 2, 2.4 mentions “suspected” ill gotten wealth, but this 2.4 charge was rejected by the Senate court which banned any evidence presented for this charge. Neither, for that matter, would evidence be accepted in the matter of graft and corruption related to Article 2, 2.3 pertaining to the properties of the CJ, as graft and corruption have not been mentioned as a charge.

In the same interview, Escudero issued a warning to the prosecution against pushing to the limit its plea for the court to be more “liberal” in its rules.

“Not all crimes are deemed impeachable to an impeachable officer. All the allies of President Aquino are the ones grilling Corona. I am also close to President Aquino. My fear is that they may use this type of charges on other impeachable officer if they rush this.

“I am not saying that this should be rushed, but this may become a precedent natin. There has not been no impeachment case in the country that has been finished. This is the first time we may have to finish it to the end. If we allow this amid such weak and non-impeachable charges against an impeachable officer, which includes the president, vice president and other impeachable officers, then it would be so easy to impeach any of them.

This is why we have to really study the grounds. It is not just the chief justice that is being accused on non-impeachable grounds. Also included are other impeachable officers. We cannot afford to make this a precedent, as a tradition of the country’s impeachment system,” he said.

Meanwhile, the defense team of Corona went on the attack yesterday, scoring a TV network and a prosecution spokesman for claiming that CJ Corona was ready to do an “I-am-sorry spiel, not unlike former President Gloria Arroyo’s, after the “Hello Garci” tapes made their way to radio, television and print.

The defense said that ABS-CBN reporter RG Cruz at 7:52 pm in its portal www.abs-cbnnews.com, it stated that “House prosecution spokesman Lorenzo Tañada III feels Chief Justice Renato Corona may be preparing to do an “I am sorry“ speech regarding his SALn.

He said Corona may be preparing to explain the discrepancies in his SALn by saying “I am sorry, lapse of judgment” similar to Arroyo’s speech, apologizing for talking to a poll commissioner during the 2004 polls.”

“Mr. Tañada’s comment is truly unfounded and has no basis since he is neither a spokesman of the Chief Justice nor is he in any position to second guess what the Chief Justice is thinking,” stated Defense Spokesman and counsel Rico Quicho.

“For the author, Mr. RG Cruz, to even post it without getting the side of the Defense or of the Chief Justice is bothersome. Maybe ABS-CBN should be more balanced” pointed Quicho.

Defense Spokesman lawyer Mon Esguerra likewise questioned the motive of Tanada.

“By introducing the ‘I am sorry’ is like throwing the GMA card into the arena. The Defense has not even started our presentation of witnesses and documents and Tanada thinks they have already proven Article 2? Tañada should be fair; and the Impeachment Court has warned all of us,” pointed Esguerra.

No comments: