SENATE President Juan Ponce Enrile yesterday warned the 11-man House prosecution panel anew that it is jeopardizing its chances of securing the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona not only because of technical defects in the crafting of the Articles of Impeachment but also because it is gathering evidence through the impeachment proceedings.
Enrile, presiding officer of the Senate acting as an impeachment court, made the remarks earlier during Day 21 of the Corona impeachment trial, after prosecutor Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas responded to a request of the defense panel for a review of the rules of the impeachment court.
At the latter part of the trial, the prosecution moved on to Article III of the Articles of Impeachment, only to see its witness rejected by Enrile.
"I would like to explain to the public that the discharge of the witness is not the fault of this court. It is your fault, or the way you’re presenting your case and allegations in your Articles of Impeachment," Enrile told prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas.
The defense led by retired associate justice Serafin Cuevas asked for a review of the impeachment court’s rules which prohibit the defense from objecting to the manner of questioning of some senator-judges, which he said tended to favor the prosecution.
But Fariñas said Rule 17 of the rules of impeachment which Cuevas sought to be reviewed by the Senate is already "perfect," noting that even in the US Senate, "questions (from senators) are written and submitted to the (Senate) president but they are certainly allowed to ask questions."
This led to Enrile’s reminder to the prosecution that it should have prepared all the evidence before the trial because its role is like that of a jury.
"You are supposed to have prepared the evidence beforehand. In fact, your power to gather evidence beforehand is plenary, in fact, inquisitorial in nature and that’s why we have a problem in the course of this trial because we are using compulsory process to gather evidence for you," he said.
Enrile reiterated this was the same reason "I warned you several times that what you’re doing might be fatal to the proceedings."
He took the prosecution to school, saying the prosecution should have read American jurisprudence in impeachment cases.
"Should have read before you instituted these articles of impeachment…at this point, too late to backtrack but it’s a lesson," he said.
Fariñas said the House prosecutors did not have much time to prepare for the trial and exercise their powers because the Articles of Impeachment was automatically transmitted to the Senate for trial after 188 congressmen signed the complaint.
The constitutional requirement on the number of signatories is a third of all House members.
"If indeed it (complaint) passed through the committee on justice, then we could have been accorded all the time to exercise the powers akin to that of a jury," Fariñas said, noting they had to immediately send the complaint for trial as part of the people’s "emergency powers."
Fariñas was not among the 188 signatories.
Enrile told Fariñas, "Tama po iyun, pero ibig ba ninyong sabihin, na kahit na one-third ng House of Representatives ang pipirma, pumirma, ay pupulutin ninyo sa hangin yung ilalagay niyo sa Articles of Impeachment na wala kayong batayan?"
Fariñas said a verified complaint was prepared and filed, a reply which prompted Enrile to point out what he said are defects in the 79-page complaint.
"Alam mo, magulo yun inyong Articles of Impeachment. Kaya nga nahihirapan kami kung saan namin papasyahan yun mga ebidensyang ipinapasok niyo. Kaya sa Article II lamang, nagkaroon tayo ng problema. Pagdating natin sa Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VII? Halo-halo yung alegasyon ninyo, pag binuksan ninyo yan makikita natin ang kamalian," he said.
Article III accuses Corona of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly failing to act with competence, integrity, probity and independence.
Article III, Enrile earlier noted, contains a sub-allegation that is not included in the main cause of action which is Corona’s alleged use of influence which caused the Supreme Court’s flip-flopping decision in the case of Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines vs. the Philippine Airlines.
Enrile said paragraph 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 of Article III which accuses Corona of "reportedly" using judicial funds as his own personal expense account and charging to the judiciary was not part of the main allegation – the same reason why the court earlier refused to accept evidence under paragraph 2.4 of Article II which accuses Corona of having ill-gotten wealth when the main cause of action is his alleged failure to file his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
Article III 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 alleges that Corona "dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses, numerous personal expenses that have nothing to do with the discharge of his official functions such as lavish lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and parties and reportedly being charged by respondent to judicial funds."
BANK DOCUMENTS
Enrile, in an interview before the trial, said the admissibility of Corona’s bank records at the Philippine Savings Bank as evidence in the trial is at stake.
He said he is convinced that officials of the PSBank were not the source of the leak but either the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
He said bank officials submitted Corona’s bank records only "by virtue of respecting the authority" of the BSP and the AMLC during an audit in 2010.
"I am convinced that the leak did not come from the bank," he told reporters. "Whether the (AMLC) or the BSP was the source of the leak is a conclusion that can be drawn from the questions that I asked," Enrile said.
Enrile on Monday grilled PSBank president Pascual Garcia III and the bank’s Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson on the possible source of the leak.
Asked if evidence leaked by the AMLC would be admissible in the impeachment trial, he replied: "Illegal yun. Bawal. The prohibition covers everybody, from the President down."
"If it’s not a fake document, at least it is an altered document. It has a relation to the admissibility of the document as evidence," he said, referring to the documents submitted by the prosecution which prompted him to subpoena Corona’s bank records.
He said the AMLC is not supposed to examine any account "without going to court."
"That goes to private rights already," he said, adding: "If that’s true, then they’re not respecting the law anymore. They’re not following the law, which they’re supposed to obey and implement. The executive department is the implementing body."
REJECTED
For Article III, the prosecution team attempted to present PAL vice president for sales Enrique Javier to prove its allegation that Corona and his wife received benefits from the airline while it had cases pending before the court.
Enrile disallowed the presentation, saying Javier’s testimony would be an attempt at "expanding" the coverage of the Articles of Impeachment by including bribery which Enrile said is a criminal offense.
He said even if it is expanded, the impeachment court has to decide whether bribery is a "high crime," one of the grounds stated in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.
He said technicalities have nothing to do with his decision to prevent Javier from testifying against Corona under Article III.
The prosecution alleges that Corona received travel benefits from PAL while a case was still pending before the High Court in relation to the retrenchment of flight stewards and attendants.
It also alleges that Corona’s wife Cristina was appointed to the Camp John Hay board by former president Gloria Arroyo because of Corona’s influence, and that Corona told Lauro Vizconde that Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was lobbying for the reversal of a lower court ruling convicting Hubert Webb and company in the Vizconde massacre case.
TECHNICALITIES?
Tupas complained that the panel was prevented from presenting the witness because of some "technicalities."
Enrile, apparently irked, said, "This is not a technicality. The grounds of the impeachment are clearly stated in Article II of the Constitution. We are already very liberal (with the prosecution panel). Who are we to review the decision of the Supreme Court? We will not allow it."
Tupas appealed and said Javier’s testimony is the heart of their complaint.
Enrile told Tupas, "You are going too far. Do you want me to lecture you more?"
Tupas meekly said, "No more, your honor."
Enrile continued: "If you want to allege the receipt of gifts, of valuable things of the respondent (Corona) then amend your Articles of Impeachment because in effect you are alleging a crime which we will evaluate if it’s a high crime. You are in effect alleging that the respondent had been bribed to make that decision."
‘TRASH’
Enrile even described as "trash" the evidence of the prosecution when it comes to Corona’s alleged lack of independence in relation to the PAL cases.
"This evidence is nothing. Let it remain as a manifestation. It will be appreciated by the members of this (impeachment) court. We will discuss this in due time," he said.
Addressing Tupas, Enrile said: "You know, Mr. Prosecutor, please we have been very lenient (with you). I tried to help you but there’s a limit. If your Articles of Impeachment is defective, that is your responsibility. You made an allegation (against Corona) such as his lack of probity, integrity and independence. It is a conclusion of fact. And now you‘re offering a stranger from paradise to prove (your complaint). I consider this as trash."
"I’m basing my ruling on your allegation (in the Articles of Impeachment). And if you’re going to insist, I will say, I will not change the rule. You want me to order you to amend your Articles of Impeachment and send it back to the House?" he asked Tupas, to which the latter replied in the negative.
"If you want to introduce (this evidence, you must) amend your Articles of Impeachment. This is the trouble in your articles of impeachment. You’re not very careful in your allegation and you want to expound it in the course of the trial. There is a limit to the patience of this court," Enrile said.
The ruling was made after Cuevas manifested that Javier’s testimony is "irrelevant, immaterial, and impertinent in the subject matter of case."
Javier was supposed to be the second witness for Article III. The first was Robert Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, who blamed Corona for the recall order on FASAP’s 13-year-old labor dispute against PAL.
Also rejected by Enrile was a manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, for being an "incompetent" witness. The witness was for Article II.
‘FISHING FOR EVIDENCE’
Earlier in the hearing, Enrile also scolded private prosecutor Arthur Lim for insisting on marking Corona’s bank records from the BPI as evidence.
"Counsel, you are fishing for evidence. You did not subpoena these documents. This court used its discretion to get this evidence. The fact that you tried to adopt them for your own is misrepresentation," Enrile said.
Lim later withdrew his request.
Cuevas also blocked Lim’s attempt to ask for assurance from Corona’s lawyers that they will present records from the BPI once it is their turn to present evidence.
"Why should we be compelled to produce documents, if it’s in our favor...Do we have any legal obligation?" Cuevas said.
Enrile told Lim that the prosecution can still adopt the bank documents as evidence, which BPI-Ayala assistant manager Mara Arcilla already turned over to the impeachment court.
"They are already in the hands of the court…If you want to mark these documents as evidence at that time, do it," he said.
Since the impeachment court only requested the documents, Arcilla was not allowed to testify and was immediately discharged by the Senate court.
After the bank official was discharged, Tupas manifested that the prosecution is already finished with presenting evidence on Article II.
No comments:
Post a Comment