De Lima Pins Down CJ

Palace Still Satisfied With Prosecution Despite Setback
By ROLLY T. CARANDANG, GENALYN D. KABILING, and HANNAH L. TORREGOZA

MANILA, Philippines — Justice Secretary Leila de Lima on Wednesday testified before the Senate impeachment court that there were irregularities when the Supreme Court (SC) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the travel ban against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband Former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo.

De Lima was the prosecution’s first witness in Article 7 of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

De Lima cited in particular the dissenting opinion of Justice Lourdes Sereno on December 2, 2011, where the latter noted how the Supreme Court Justices voted on the TRO.

De Lima noted that Sereno cited the instruction of Corona, through Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., not to promulgate the lady justice’s dissenting opinion.

While De Lima tried to pin down Corona through the dissenting opinion of Sereno, she told the Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, upon clarificatory questioning, that there was no instance that the Chief Justice acted alone in issuing any order, process, or resolution relevant to the issue.

“In the entire period that these petitions to restrain the DOJ in carrying out Circular 41 and the watch list order up to now, is there any instance that the respondent acted alone in issuing any order, process, or resolution bearing on this issue?” Enrile asked De Lima, who answered: “No.”

Under Article 7 of their impeachment complaint, they accused Corona of partiality in granting a TRO in favor of former President Arroyo and her husband in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the SC decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO.

De Lima had played a critical role on SC TRO when she prevented the Arroyo’s from leaving the country through her directive to immigration authorities.

3 Charges Dropped

Before De Lima’s testimony, the prosecution dropped three charges contained in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint.

House prosecutor Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao informed the impeachment court that only the case of Philippine Airlines against the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) remains in Article 3.

Dropped from Article 3 are: (3.4) Corona further compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March 23, 2007 from Mrs. Gloria Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC); (3.5) Corona failed to maintain high standards of judicial conduct in connection with the Vizconde massacre case, in the process, casted doubt upon the integrity of the Supreme Court itself; and (3.6) Corona, with undue haste, impropriety and irregularity, dismissed the inter-petal recreational corporation case under suspicious circumstances.

Palace Satisfied

Meanwhile, Malacañang remains “satisfied” with the performance of the prosecution team despite the setback it suffered last Tuesday, Day 21 of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, when Enrile ruled to bar an official of the Philippine Airlines from testifying for Article 3 of the complaint.

This developed as Enrile said he won’t bow to the members of the prosecution panel’s call for the impeachment body to extend them parliamentary courtesy when they are presenting their case before the court.

“What parliamentary courtesy? What do they want? We are in a trial. They are here as trial lawyers. I do not know what they are talking about, parliamentary courtesy. Eh, kung i-debate namin yan sa legislative matters sometimes it becomes heated, di ba? But here we are trying a person to deprive him of his honor and dignity for a lifetime. It will demonize him and totally destroy his life. Are they taking this lightly and very cavalierly?” Enrile asked.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson supported Enrile’s stand and also castigated the prosecutors, saying they should not even ask for parliamentary courtesy because they entered their appearance before the court as prosecutors.

“Pumasok sila rito as prosecutors. I suppose some of them volunteered, some of them were asked if they wanted to join. So pinili nilang pumasok as prosecutors, they should not invoke parliamentary courtesy kasi dalawa ang personality nila rito, bilang congressmen at bilang prosecutors,” said Lacson, a perceived ally of the Aquino administration.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said perhaps the members of the prosecution panel should bear in mind that the Senate impeachment court is no longer part of Congress.

“Probably we should remind some of our colleagues that as a Senate and the House of Representatives there is really what we call parliamentary courtesy. But our fellowmen should realize that it is different when there is an impeachment court. We are no longer part of the Congress, we are wearing a different hat at hindi na kami kasama sa tinatawag na kabuuan ng parliament,” Sotto said.

Besides, Sotto said, the presiding judge has become so lenient and flexible to accommodate the prosecution lawyers.

“We’ve bent backward so many times. We’ve been very flexible, kaya siguro naabuso, eh. When you are flexible sometimes you tend to go overboard. I think that was the feeling of our Senate president. If you notice not a single member of the court stood up to go against the ruling or even to question the ruling of the Senate president,” said Sotto.

While presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda remains satisfied with the prosecution’s performance, he expressed dismay that the public was unable to appreciate the testimony of PAL Vice President for Sales Enrique Javier after he was prohibited by Enrile from testifying.

Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, prevented Javier from testifying as what he was supposed to testify tend to point to bribery charge which is not included in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint.

Under Article 3, Corona is accused of culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust for his role in the Supreme Court’s flip-flopping on cases, including the one between PAL and its labor union.

“It’s unfortunate that the Senate President has decided to disallow the reception of evidence with respect to Article 3. But, as they say, the fight goes on and so far we believe that the evidence as culled from Article 2 with respect to the bank accounts, with respect to the properties of the Chief Justice would be a strong basis for the senators to rule on the impeachment,” Lacierda said in a Palace news conference.

Asked to assess the performance of the prosecution team, Lacierda took pride that the prosecution has been able to present “sufficient” evidence, including huge discrepancies between the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) and bank accounts of Corona, for the senator-judges to base their judgment.

He also denied that the prosecution team has been complacent in preparing the impeachment complaint against Corona. He said some evidence like the bank documents of Corona would only be gathered through a court subpoena.

“There are ups and downs in the trial. I think everybody can see that,” he said.

Lacierda also found “unfortunate” that Rep. Neil Tupas Jr., lead prosecutor, has taken all the brunt of the statements of Enrile during Tuesday’s trial. “But that is his role as lead prosecutor. He takes success as well as he takes the criticisms,” he said.

Enrile, in justifying his ruling barring the PAL official from testifying, noted that even other senator-judges did not oppose him when he made the decision.

“They (senator-judges) could have disowned me if they wanted to. They could have objected and we could have divided the house. But I think they realized too the fairness demanded that I have to issue that ruling,” Enrile said.

The Senate leader also said it is up to the prosecution panel if they want to expedite the impeachment proceedings.

“I told them to study their articles of impeachment very carefully because that is a fatal flaw if you do not watch out. You are treading a very dangerous ground. They should reread the decision of Justice (Conchita) Carpio-Morales. What did she say in writing articles of impeachment? You have to charge one charge in one article. Yung sinasabi (nila) na mayroong bribe, influence, that’s a bribe. That’s written in the Constitution as a ground (for impeachment). They should have asserted that!” Enrile said.

The Senate president, who was also a trial lawyer in the past, also said he can’t help feel a “little disappointed” with fellow lawyers in the profession who come to court unprepared.

“I have been in many trials. I have also been chastised by court and disciplined for not exercising my right to cross examine my witness. But I have my own strategy,” he said.

“I know I handled a case once involving a civil case. My opponent was the late Jose W. Diokno who was a very capable and respected trial lawyer. It was in my younger days then. A judge who was presiding over the case was Judge (Arsenio) Solidum and if you read the history of Solidum, he was a field judge, very strict and very acid in his remarks,” Enrile recounted.