Day 3 of Corona Impeachment Trial – SALN Drama
The legal fireworks in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona reached a crescendo yesterday with the testimony of Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal. Called yesterday to the witness stand by virtue of a subpoena requested by the prosecution, Ms. Vidal was at first a very hesitant witness. Questions propounded by Atty. Mario Bautista elicited very few information and were expectedly confronted by objections from the defense, led by Atty. Serafin Cuevas. Ms. Vidal eluded questions concerning the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of Chief Justice Renato Corona and hid behind the 2 May 1989 En Banc Resolution of the Supreme Court that required authorization before the Clerk of Court can release the SALN of any justice.
At the end, it took the queries of Senator Franklin Drilon andseveral senators-jurors and a firm order from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to convince Ms. Vidal to turn over the SALN of Chief Justice Renato Corona to the impeachment court.
So what were the important legal lessons in day 3 of the trial? First, is the importance of obeying a subpoena. As defined under the Section 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, a subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also require him to bring with him any books, documents, or other things under his control, in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
As seen yesterday, even if Ms. Vidal tried to convince the senators-jurors that she needed the authorization of the Supreme Court before submitting the SALN to the impeachment court, she had no choice but to comply since the said documents were requested through a validly issued subpoena. Had she continued to be non-cooperative, she could have been cited for contempt.
Impeachment Court vs. Supreme Court
As the impeachment trial progresses, it seems that the impeachment court and the Supreme Court are on a collision course due to the complex and conflicting issues being tackled. At no time has this been more evident than in yesterday’s hearing when the senators-jurors asserted its independence from the Supreme Court on the issue of Corona’s SALN. It seems that the impeachment court is of the opinion that they are a constitutionally created body and that the Supreme Court is co-equal to the Senate only when it is performing its legislative duties. It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court can review the decision of the impeachment court later on.
Lawyer vs. Senator-Juror
Another interesting highlight of the impeachment trial yesterday was the objection posed by Atty. Cuevas to a question propounded by senator-juror Franklin Drilon to Ms. Vidal. A sheepish Atty. Cuevas had to backtrack when reminded by Senate President Enrile that this was not allowed under the Rules on Impeachment promulgated by the Senate.
Even during proceedings in regular courts, a judge is allowed to question witnesses and any lawyer worth his salt would not object to this. As held by the Supreme Court in several cases, a judge is called upon to ascertain the truth of the controversy before him. He may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time (Domanico v. Court of appeals, 122 SCRA 218, 225 [1983]) and clarify obscure and incomplete details after the witness had given direct testimony. (Valdez v. Aquilizan, 133 SCRA 150, 153 [1984]). After all, the judge is the arbiter and he ought to satisfy himself as to the respective merits of the claims of both parties in accord with the stringent demands of due process. (People v. Ancheta, 64 SCRA 90, 97 [1975]).
NOTED…Private Prosecutor Atty. Mario Bautista had to be reminded that he had to state the purpose of his witness’ testimony…Atty. Cuevas was very active in his objections and cross-examinations and came off as a better litigator…Senate President Enrile continues to be an effective and patient Presiding Officer, its a good thing that a lawyer, a very wise and experienced one at that, is the captain of a ship, which is always weathering legal storms…From their performance yesterday, it seems that the private prosecutors are also experiencing “birthing pains” in the impeachment trial, looks like its time to stop delegating litigation work on the law firm associates and hit the trenches once again.
Day 2 of Corona Impeachment Trial
January 18, 2012
“Sec. 22.Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.”
”Sec. 24.Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a)The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.”
The second legal principle tackled is the right to self incrimination. This issue cropped up when the impeachment court denied the prosecution’s motion to subpoena several documents related to the purchase of properties allegedly acquired by Corona and his family through ill-gotten means. The right to self-incrimination is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and found under Section 17 Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. It is worth mentioning that an ordinary witness may invoke the right but he may only do so as each incriminating question is asked. On the other hand, an accused in a criminal case (who is akin to an impeached official) may invoke the right, but unlike the ordinary witness, he may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.
Another legal principle that was discussed is the right of the prosecution to alter the sequence of the presentation of evidence. A lengthy debate ensued during the trial but it was unclear on whether this was indeed the right of the prosecution or merely discretionary upon the court. Eventually, it was agreed that the prosecution should just rearrange the sequence of the presentation of their evidence.
The prosecution also seemed to have forgotten the best evidence rule and the manner in presenting documentary evidence in court when Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, one of the prosecutors, admitted before the impeachment court that they did not have witnesses to authenticate “computer-generated” documents from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) on Corona’s alleged properties. The “computer-generated documents” may not pass the best evidence rule found under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states:
“When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.”
Trial Notes….The lack of trial technique and practice of the prosecution was very evident in today’s trial….The first issue was put to vote by the senators-jurors when Senator Alan Cayetano disagreed with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s ruling to deny the issuance of the subpoena to Corona’s family members. Eventually, the Senate President was upheld through a 14-6 vote. Is this a portent of things to come?….Those voting to uphold were Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Vicente Sotto III, Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, Franklin Drilon, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Sergio Osmena III, Francis Pangilinan, Ralph Recto, and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. Those opposed were Senators Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Aquilino Pimentel III, Teofisto Guingona III, Antonio Trillanes IV, and Manuel Villar….The Supreme Court averted what could have been a constitutional crisis when it did not issue a TRO on the impeachment trial.
Impeachment Trial of CJ Corona Begins at Senate
January 16, 2012
The trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona began today at the Senate, with the Senators acting as an impeachment court. There were several key developments in today’s hearing, to wit:
- Corona’s motion for a preliminary hearing was denied.
- The motion to cite the prosecution team for contempt was dismissed due to lack of standing by the movant.
- The prosecution gave their opening statement, through Rep. Niel Tupas, calling Corona a “loyal servant of GMA” and showing the properties he allegedly obtained. He also declared Corona, due to his misdeeds, unfit to remain Chief Justice.
- The defense gave their opening statement, through Atty. Eduardo de los Angeles, by reiterating that the Chief Justice does not own 45 real estate properties as alleged by impeachment prosecutors and that President Aquino is antagonistic to the Supreme Court because of its ruling in the Hacienda Luisita case.
- Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile advised both parties to exercise some “degree of caution” in exposing evidence outside of the impeachment court.
- The lawyers for both parties entered their appearances.
Chief Justice Corona was present at the hearing, together with his wife and Court Administrator Midas Marquez. It is expected that the impeachment trial will last anywhere from 1 to 6 months. The prosecution has stated that they will begin presenting their witness by tomorrow.
Corona Impeachment Process
December 15, 2011
The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona took a different route from the case of former President Joseph Estrada and former Ombusdsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Instead of a filing made by a citizen and endorsed by a Member of the House of Representatives, the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment was signed by 188 Congressmen which more than complies with the one-third requirement under Section 3 (4), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. As a result of this fast-track process, the verified complaint no longer passed thru the House Committee on Justice to determine if it is sufficient in form and substance. Moreover, because of this method, the verified complaint already constitutes the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed
Under Section 3 (6), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. Since for this particular case the person on trial is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, only the Senate President shall preside. To get the ball rolling, CJ Corona would have to be formally issued a writ of summons and a copy of the Articles of Impeachment after which he would have 10 days to give his Answer. Once the Senate receives the Answer, the prosecution team from the House of Representatives will have five days to submit their reply, should they opt to do so. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate is needed to convict the Chief Justice.
If convicted, the Chief Justice shall be removed from office and shall be disqualified to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. He will also be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law. It is, thus, clear that the liability does not end at the Senate, the person impeached shall also be held for appropriate action as a result of his illegal and improper acts.
0 (mga) komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento