The Chief Justice as his own witness

AMADO P. MACASAET

‘If Mr. Corona obliges Senator Enrile, he will merely sit on the witness stand. My guess is he will not answer any questions.’

IN ordinary court trials, the accused is presented by his lawyers for his own defense. In the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, his lawyers do not have a mind to present him as a witness for himself.

However, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, urged the accused to testify. Enrile wanted to hear from the respondent his own version of the peso and dollar accounts discovered in two banks under the name ofthe Chief Justice.

The team of defense lawyers will discuss this matter on Friday. My guess is the lawyers will not allow their client to sit on the witness stand although counsel and client both said the deposits will be explained in due time.

Probably, Enrile feels that the time has come but, again probably, he does not feel it is coming from the Chief Justice. So, he took it upon himself to ask the respondent to explain how the deposits came about and under what circumstances.

If Mr. Corona obliges Senator Enrile, he will merely sit on the witness stand. My guess is he will not answer any questions. He will invoke his right to remain silent.

I will not make a guess on whether Senator Enrile, the presiding officer can force thewitness to answer questions which he feels will not incriminate him. Neither am I in a position to guess what the presiding officer will do if the witness refuses to answer.

The simple fact is the Chief Justice is trapped. His refusal to testify on his peso and dollar accounts can lead to a presumption adverse to him. The senator-judges may believe that he admits his alleged crimes by silence.

That could very well be reason to convict.

In the remote possibility that he testifies, he will be hard put explaining the wealth he did not include in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

His problem is he declared – in relation to several properties in his name or that of his wife – that he will give the said assets away to anybody who can prove they exist.

As if confused, he later said he and his wife come from families of means, suggesting thatthe properties were bought from the riches of said families. That is juxtaposed to his earlier statement that the properties are not his and that he would give them to anybody who can prove they exist.

It must again be said that these properties are not listed in his SALN. Therefore, he lied under oath. If asked how he can explain these inconsistencies, he probably will refuse to answer invoking his right to remain silent.

What impression will that silence give to the senator judges? That he is innocent? Probably not. There is such a thing as admission by silence.

Again, this is reason to convict.

The more difficult part of the presumed ill-gotten wealth is invoking bank secrecy in refusing to divulge the details of the peso and dollar accounts. Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law states that the details of the deposits may be pried open if the money involved belongs to one who is under impeachment or is presumed to be ill-gotten.

The doctrine is nobody is ever allowed to benefit from his own crime.

The defense insists that the evidence covering the accounts cannot be accepted bythe impeachment court because they were illegally obtained. What will the senators consider as having a higher value in the efforts to restore the rule of law and forever throw the culture of impunity to the four winds?

The truth that the deposits exist or theillegality of obtaining proof of the truth that there are deposits which Mr. Corona and counsel said will be explained in due time to the impeachment Court? The answer should be obvious to the senator judges.

Dura lex, sed lex (the law is hard but it is the law) is a time-honored doctrine. But if its application shields a crime and helps perpetuate a culture of impunity and destruction of the rule of law so basic in a democratic society, there should be an exception. The case of the Chief Justice is one such exception.

The greatest good for the biggest number should be supreme to any legal maxim or doctrine.

It must be stressed that the incompetence ofthe prosecution which senator-judge Miriam Defensor tries to make obvious does not weaken, least of all leave meaningless the evidence proving the offense of the Chief Justice.

In reality as is already known to all, impeachment is a political process where the contending parties go through the motions of introducing and scrutinizing the integrity of the evidence but at the end of the day, the votes for conviction or acquittal are essentially based on political convenience.

Only President Aquino can provide that convenience. He will give it to secure conviction of Mr. Corona. There is no argument that conviction is the only way Gloria Arroyo may be fairly tried – eventually -- by the Supreme Court.

That objective is a the biggest step taken towards the restoration of the rule of law and majesty of the Supreme Court.