JPE Rebuffs Prosecution

Senate Rejects Witness; House Panel Insists PAL Exec's Testimony Relevant

By ROLLY T. CARANDANG and MARIO B. CASAYURAN

February 21, 2012, 11:17am

MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile censured the prosecution for trying to expand the scope of their allegation in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, saying the bid is unacceptable in the trial.

The rebuff came when CIBAC party-list Rep. Sherwin Tugna, one of the House prosecutors, was about to present Philippine Airlines Vice President for Sales Enrique Javier as their first witness on Article 3. Enrile later ruled to bar Javier from testifying, saying he considers his testimony a “trash.”

Enrile issued the ruling after lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas manifested that Javier’s testimony was “irrelevant, immaterial, and impertinent in the subject matter of case.”

Javier was already on the witness stand ready to testify on the supposed perks such as free PAL tickets for Mr. and Mrs. Corona, but Enrile, after hearing defense counsel former Justice Cuevas’ motion to quash, announced that the court had ruled that the testimony was irrelevant to Article 3 of the impeachment complaint.

“This witness is irrelevant… You are expanding your charges… I already told you that this is the trouble with your articles of impeachment and you want to expand it in the course of the trial,” Enrile told the prosecution panel.

“The court has ruled, you take me to court,” Enrile added.

Despite Enrile’s ruling, private prosecutor Marlon Manuel tried to argue that the testimony would help prove Article 3, but Enrile stood pat on his ruling.

“This evidence means nothing. If your Articles of Impeachment are defective that is your problem. Your statement that he has no competence, integrity, probity is a conclusion of fact based on what you want to prove and now you present a stranger in paradise… I consider this a trash,” Enrile said.

“I warned you several times… there’s a limit to the patience of this court...You’re expanding the coverage, the court will not allow the expansion unless you amend it, so ordered,” Enrile said.

Under Article 3, it states that Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution which provides that “[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”

But Enrile stressed said Article 3 does not allege bribery, which is what the witness may have tended to prove.

Prior to the ruling, public prosecutor Sherwin Tugna had said the prosecution sought to prove the lack of integrity on the part of Corona.

The prosecution earlier alleged Corona got special privileges from PAL despite the fact that it had pending case before the Supreme Court in connection with its labor dispute with the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).

The prosecutors are referring to the SC decision recalling a final decision on the retrenchment case filed by FASAP against PAL. They alleged that Corona acted on a “mere letter” from PAL legal counsel Estelito Mendoza.

“You want to allege the receipt of gifts, then amend your articles because you are in effect alleging that he was bribed to make that decision,” Enrile said.

Javier was supposed to be the second witness to be presented in connection with Article III of the Articles of Impeachment.

The prosecution’s first witness for Article III was Robert Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, who blamed Corona for reversal of the earlier decision of the SC that favored FASAP on their 13-year-old labor dispute against PAL.

Chief House prosecutor Rep. Neil Tupas tried to argue the prosecution’s case, saying the “very heart of Article 3 is probity, integrity.”

“I do not know where you learned your art of pleading but do not lecture me on your allegations. I will not change my ruling,” Enrile stressed as he stood pat on his ruling, barring Javier from testifying.

Tupas also argued that technicality should not prevail in the impeachment proceedings.

But Enrile retorted: “You have alleged bribery that is the tendency of the evidence… This is not a technicality. You are going too far. You want me to lecture you more?

Earlier Tuesday, the 21st day of the trial, Enrile had already scored the House prosecutors for being ill-prepared for the impeachment trial.

He explained that the House of Representatives has the role of a grand jury, meaning they should have prepared evidence against the impeachable official before the trial even started, which he said the prosecution team has repeatedly failed to do.

“You are supposed to have prepared the evidence beforehand, and that is why we have a problem in the course of this trial [because] we are using compulsory process to gather evidence for you,” he said.

“I warned you several times that what you’re doing might be fatal to the proceedings,” he added.

But prosecutor Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas reasoned that they had to elevate the impeachment complaint immediately because they already had the support of one third of the lawmakers in the House.

But Enrile said that this does not mean that the prosecutors should have come to the impeachment court unprepared.

“Ang ibig po ba ninyo sabihin na kahit 1/3 ng House of Representatives ang pipirma, eh pupulutin ninyo sa hangin yung ilalagay ninyo sa Articles of Impeachment na wala kayong batayan?” Enrile asked.

Testimony Relevant

Meanwhile, the prosecution panel said they were saddened and surprised at the sudden strictness of the impeachment court on Article 3.

According to Rep. Sonny Angara, the testimony of Javier is relevant in connection with their allegations that Corona enjoyed free travel and other perks with PAL while there is a pending case with the SC.

“We were really surprised why the court suddenly became strict when the testimony of our witness is in support of Corona’s lack of integrity,” Rep Angara said.

Rep. Romero Quimbo, another prosecution spokesman who also expressed surprise over the impeachment court ruling, said they will have to reassess their position as far as Article 3 is concerned.

Rep. Erin Tañada said even if bribery is not included in the complaint, accepting special privileges from PAL by the chief magistrate while there is a pending case in the SC is still a betrayal of public trust.

Earlier, Enrile assured the defense panel that Corona will be accorded a fair trial.

He gave the assurance after Cuevas sought a review of the rules of the Senate impeachment court, particularly the provision that bars the prosecution and defense panels to object against the clarificatory questioning by a member of the impeachment court.

Defense Ploy Scored

Meanwhile, Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP) Chairperson Sister Mary John Mananzan, who has been a truth and justice advocate since the dark days of martial rule in the country, is urging the impeached Chief Justice to resign, or at least go on leave, saying he has lost the moral ascendancy to occupy his current position.

“The main issue here is trust. Does he still enjoy the trust reposed on him as Chief Justice? I believe people would admire him if he already resigns from his post, or at least go on a leave of absence,” Mananzan said.

She made this call during an interview over television network NBN 4, during a break in the live coverage of the impeachment trial Monday afternoon.

Mananzan also deplored the continuing legal maneuverings and the tendency of the defense lawyers of Corona to resort to legal technicalities, a fact that has not been lost on those who keenly follow the ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate. “What else do we need? The amounts in the peso accounts of Chief Justice Corona alone are not enough evidence?”

“What we just want is to get at the truth. So much time has been wasted on debates on legal technicalities, on whether or not this is allowed or that is not allowed. All parties, the prosecution, the defense, the senator-judges, all say that they want to get at the truth, but the trial has been mired for weeks in hours and hours of debates on what is allowed and not allowed by the rules,” Mananzan complained.

The activist nun, responding to what has already been pointed out by Corona’s lawyers that due process and the rule of law must be followed, retorted what exists in the country now is a legal system, whereas what it needs is a justice system that would make those who break the law, no matter how powerful, be held accountable.

She said that the distinction is that in a legal system like what the country has at present, those in power can use the law in their favor.

When asked whether she and her group are in favor of people power, Mananzan did not hesitate to respond in the affirmative, saying that they are willing to resort to people power if only to express their sentiments and emphasize that Corona does not deserve to remain as Chief Justice.