By Marvin Sy and Chritina Mendez
MANILA, Philippines - The first witness for Chief Justice Renato Corona testified yesterday that he was not shown the impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives before being asked to sign it – something that would render the complaint invalid.
Even before Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco testified for the defense, however, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, refused to throw out the impeachment complaint, with senators pointing out that it was already too late for this.
Tiangco said Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. had told members of the House of Representatives at a caucus in December last year that Corona “is a protégé of GMA (former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo)” and would be impeached on that day.
“This is non-debatable. No questions will be entertained,” Tiangco quoted Belmonte as saying. Tiangco did not sign the complaint.
Belmonte disputed the story and said House members were merely advised to vote however they pleased.
Tiangco said when Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon complained that congressmen were being asked to sign an impeachment complaint that they had not even read, Belmonte allegedly told them they could get their copies later: “Ginagawa pa sa likod, kumuha na lang kayo mamaya (It’s still being printed in the back, get your copies later).”
Instead lead prosecutor Niel Tupas of Iloilo gave a PowerPoint presentation of the eight Articles of Impeachment in “bullet points” with accompanying “narrative,” Tiangco said.
Tiangco also claimed Malacañang had used the congressional pork barrel to punish those who didn’t go along with the impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez as ombudsman. The insinuation was that fear of similar sanctions prompted 188 members to sign the impeachment complaint against Corona.
“Hindi po ako pumipirma kung hindi ako bumabasa (I don’t sign if I don’t read it),” he said, recalling that he eventually made a privilege speech the next day, condemning the act.
Meanwhile, the Senate impeachment court rejected yesterday the latest attempt of the defense to throw out the Articles of Impeachment.
The defense was hoping to present witnesses to show that the impeachment complaint against Corona was invalid because it failed to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
In a ruling, the court denied the defense’s applications to subpoena the secretary-general of the House of Representatives, lawmakers and the staff of a cable television news program on grounds that the court had already settled the matters involved in the pleadings in a previous ruling.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, impeachment court presiding officer, said the Senate had already acquired jurisdiction over the case, and that the trial has already reached an advance stage.
“The purpose of the subpoena is to present evidence on the circumstances of the verification of the Articles of Impeachment, which has been previously ruled on by this court when it considered the motion for preliminary hearing filed by the defense,” he said. “The request is hereby denied. It is the opinion of this court that it is too late to raise the question of the verification at this point.”
Retired Supreme Court associate justice Serafin Cuevas, the lead defense counsel, said Corona was not given due process when the impeachment complaint was transmitted without any notice to him, as well as hear his side.
“The due process clause enshrined in our fundamental law is a condition sine qua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding,” he said. “It is a matter of fact that there was no determination of probable cause. In other words, there were no evidences, there were no allegations that would prove the existence of probable cause and yet the public officer involved was immediately impeached.”
Sen. Joker Arroyo said the impeachment complaint, once it secures the required signatures of one-third of all the members of the House and is transmitted to the Senate, the upper chamber has no choice but to accept it.
“What is the objective in filing this motion?” he asked. “As I see it, supposing the Senate will grant your request, if the allegation is true, the Senate has to dismiss the complaint?”
“In the prosecution of (President Joseph) Estrada, the same issue arose. What the House transmits to Senate, 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,” he added.
Sen. Franklin Drilon said the defense arguments were the same as those contained in their motion for a preliminary hearing that the Senate had denied.
“The Jan. 18, 2012 ruling of this court categorically validated the verification,” he said.
“If there was no need to present evidence on the matter of the preliminary hearing, there is no need to present evidence on the affirmative defenses.
“So it was not true that it was only the motion for preliminary hearing that was denied, it is the validity of the verification itself that was ruled upon.
“The purpose, obviously, of a hearing on the affirmative defense, is to have the case dismissed because of lack of verification, which has been ruled upon by this court on Jan. 18, 2012.”
Cuevas responded, “If that commentary was made by the members of the prosecution arm, we would have no objection. We are worried that this may be interpreted as an argument by a prosecutor.”
Drilon shot back that he took exception to the statement of Cuevas as “totally improper.”
Sen. Francis Escudero wanted the court to be more liberal and allow the defense to present some members of the House, as long as it would limit its presentation to no more than three to five members as Cuevas had stated.
Escudero said the concern of the court was that the defense might present all 188 signatories to the complaint and bog down the proceedings.
“But if it is to set the tone of the impeachment case, and you will not present all 188, some bending over may be given (by the court to the defense panel),” he said.
The defense intends to call as adverse witnesses Representatives Romero Quimbo of Marikina, Lorenzo Tañada III of Quezon and Joseph Emilio Abaya of Cavite, Cuevas said.
The defense, in trying to seek a dismissal of the impeachment complaint, had intended to argue that non-compliance with requirements in the impeachment process, including rules on verification of the lawmakers’ signatures on the complaint, rendered it defective.
Tiangco also linked President Aquino and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad in the alleged “pattern to pressure” congressmen into signing important measures in the House of Representatives, including impeachment complaints.
The Navotas congressman, a first-termer, also cited text messages and communication with Abad inquiring about delays in the release of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations after he decided not to sign the verified complaint against Corona last Dec. 12, 2011.
Dennis Manalo, the lawyer designated by the defense to present the witness, explained to the court the need to make Tiangco take the witness stand in a bid to create “reasonable doubt” on the integrity of the complaint.
“There are two points… first, the testimony will tend to prove that the grounds relied upon in the Articles of Impeachment are not substantial or do not rise to the level of the impeachment offense,” Manalo said.
“And actually, our second reason is to question the integrity not only of the complaint but also of the complainants so as to create a doubt that will later on prove to be invaluable to the senator-judges when they decide whether or not to convict or acquit the impeached officer,” Manalo explained.
“To us, your honor, this creates a reasonable doubt and this will be material in the evaluation that will be made by the senator-judges when the time comes,” Manalo said.
Manalo made the manifestation after Sen. Francis Pangilinan sought a clarification on the relevance of Tiangco’s testimony to Corona’s defense.
Apart from Pangilinan, Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada and Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III also sought clarification.
Earlier in the trial, Manalo cited “proof or pattern of scheme that took place in the House with regard to the filing of the impeachment complaints.”
Ilocos Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, one of the prosecutors, sought to strike off Manalo’s statement but he was overruled by Enrile who argued that “the court is intelligent enough to evaluate these things.”
Prosecution spokesman Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara pointed out that the prosecution sees “nothing damaging in Tiangco’s testimony.”
“It is not beneficial to the defense of Chief Justice Corona,” Angara said.
Prior to the signing of the complaint last Dec. 12, Tiangco revealed that he received text message from a staff member of Belmonte informing him of a caucus.
Tinagco also quoted Belmonte as saying, in Filipino, that “he (Corona) will just protect GMA and that he would be a big hindrance to the good intentions of President Aquino.”
“I felt it was not a simple impeachment of the CJ, but an attempt to control the Supreme Court,” said Tiangco.
In his testimony, Tiangco recalled that during the impeachment case of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Rep. Abaya had declared that those who would not sign the complaint would get “zero” PDAF.
According to Tiangco, the records of the House of the Representatives will bear him out on the issue.
Tiangco said he received a text message from Abad telling him that “I alone cannot withhold the PDAF release.”
Tiangco said the budget secretary reminded him that Belmonte could help him establish a line with the President.
Tiangco identified Abad’s cellphone mobile number during trial.
Shortly after being interviewed by media on the issue of “pressure” and non-release of his pork barrel, Tiangco said he again received a text message from Abad wherein he was directed to get his SARO at the Speaker’s office.
Rep. Fariñas tried to block Tiangco from testifying on the matters considered part of legislative privilege.
Enrile also asked the defense a number of times to explain.
Manalo said that Tiangco was testifying on the “pressure that he received for the approval of the impeachment complaint against Merceditas Gutierrez” and that “there is a pattern or scheme or modus operandi with majority to intimidate or exert undue influence to approve their measures such as impeachment.”
Fariñas said Tiangco did not even sign the complaint
Near the end of the trial, Cuevas also asked the court to issue a subpoena to three other congressmen - Hermilando Mandanas of Batangas, Cavite’s Crispin Remulla and Cagayan de Oro’s Rufus Rodriguez - to appear before the Senate body.
Sen. Franklin Drilon moved to have the same discussed in the caucus because this would entail the issue of inter-parliamentary courtesy.
Defense spokesman Tranquil Salvador III explained that the goal was to show that the impeachment complaint was “hastily signed without the reading and consequent oath required by the Constitution.”
Evidence accepted
The Senate has accepted almost all the exhibits offered by the prosecution panel as evidence in the impeachment trial.
But senator-judges kept their reservation yesterday on the presentation of the dollar accounts of Corona at Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) later on in the trial.
At the same time, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, denied the motion of the defense panel to acquit the Chief Justice on Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Articles of Impeachment since the prosecution would no longer pursue these in the trial.
On day 27 of the trial, the court announced its ruling that only documents related to the platinum cards of Corona and his wife Ma. Cristina from Philippine Airlines (PAL) would be excluded because these serve no purpose in the case.
The PAL documents were related to the allegation of the prosecution that Corona and his wife received perks and privileges from PAL even when there was a pending case before the Supreme Court between the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines and the airline.
Reading from the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the offer of the prosecution on these documents was disallowed as being improper because they tend to prove bribery, which is not part of the allegations against Corona.
The Senate had previously ruled that the issue of the benefits from PAL would not be considered and in fact, PAL vice president for sales Enrique Javier was not allowed to testify by the court.
With the ruling of the Senate, all of the exhibits offered by the prosecution, including the peso accounts of the Chief Justice at PSBank, would be admitted as evidence.
The bank documents were presented in support of Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, which alleges that the Chief Justice did not disclose his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) to the public as required by the Constitution.
Based on what was presented by PSBank president Pascual Garcia III and the bank’s Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson during the trial, questions were raised on the discrepancies between the amounts that were in the accounts and the entries made by Corona in his SALN.
In the case of the dollar accounts, the prosecution was barred from securing these after the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in response to a petition filed by PSBank.
The Senate voted to respect the TRO issued by the Supreme Court (SC) and filed its response to the petition through the Office of the Solicitor General.
If and when the SC decides to lift the TRO, the prosecution would be allowed to present the dollar accounts as evidence to the court even though they have already ended their presentation of evidence.
On the matter of the five Articles of Impeachment that the prosecution has decided to forgo by waiving presentation of evidence, the Senate ruled that it would no longer take any action on this.
The defense panel asked the impeachment court to formally dismiss the five articles, which would in effect acquit the Chief Justice on the allegations contained in those articles.
However, Enrile said that the senator-judges have decided not to entertain and act on the motion of the defense to dismiss the charges in the five articles.
Enrile said that the prosecution and the defense would no longer be allowed to present any witnesses and evidence for those five articles and senator-judges would no longer be voting on any of the five Articles of Impeachment.
The prosecution ended its presentation of witnesses and evidence on Articles 2, 3 and 7 only, confident that they already had enough to secure a conviction of Corona on these three articles alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment