Set as home page

A cut above the rest

EDITORIAL
Click to enlarge

01/26/2012

It will be a great mistake on the part of the Senate impeachment court to allow the prosecution to enter several documents it had marked as the panel’s evidence for the sub-charges against Chief Justice Renato Corona in Article 2 of the complaint, without the House first amending its Articles of Impeachment.

Senator-Judge Miriam Santiago, citing her experience as a senator-judge during the impeachment trial of then sitting President Joseph Estrada, said the lesson learned is that documents should be open to the public, although she did say that when she voted not to have the controversial envelope opened, it was because she first had wanted an amendment to the complaint.

The basic mistake that can be made in allowing the prosecution to present these “extraneous” documents as evidence in sub-charges in Article 2, apart from the fact that such is clearly a denial of due process of the CJ and a violation of his constitutional rights, is that there may be no end to the prosecution presenting more and more extraneous “evidence” which up to today, on the second week of trial, the prosecution is continually fishing.

A report comes out to state that the relatives of Mrs. Corona has questioned the loan taken by the CJ, claiming that the corporation was no longer existing. Quickly, the prosecution pounced on this, saying it will call on the Corona relative to testify.

Another report of Lauro Vizconde waiting to testify against the CJ on the Hubert Webb case, came out, and again, the prosecution said it will be calling on Vizconde to testify against the CJ.

When will all these fishing expeditions stop? And how much longer are they to demonize the CJ by continuing to conduct a trial and conviction by publicity?

Yet it is evident, even to non-lawyers, that one who is accused in court of say, stealing someone’s jewelry cannot be accused and tried in court for both stealing and murdering someone else, if the information or charge sheet does not state that he had committed the murder, but merely suspects him of murder, which as nothing to do with the robbery, even if it has also been suspected and reported. Clearly, even to laymen, that is an injustice to the accused.

The lead prosecutor, Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., appears to have a very difficult time defending the prosecution’s position that Article 2 of the complaint is not just the failure of the CJ to disclose his statement of assets and liabilities networth (SALns), but that this includes his “suspected” and “reported” hidden wealth, which should be another article, as this is yet another charge, apart from the fact that one cannot charge an accused on the basis of suspicion or reported criminal act.

This is why Tupas, in his manifestation, sought from the presiding officer to be “liberal” in the prosecution’s manner of asking questions and for flexibility for the prosecutors, which the presiding officer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, cut to pieces like an expert surgeon through his searing questions to Tupas on how flexible and liberal should he be, as Enrile’s questions all went to the core of how an impartial trial should be conducted — upholding the rule of court and law.

But Tupas’ plea for Enrile to change the court rules in the prosecution’s favor tended to show that there was some kind of a move from Malacañang to have Enrile replaced as presiding judge in the impeachment court to facilitate the conviction of the CJ, as Enrile spoke of his willingness to give up his seat, if that is the wish of the senators.

Tupas came up with his manifestation in order to have the senators openly vote on this issue, and with it also came the Palace’s hope that a change in the Senate leadership would now favor whatever the prosecution demands, and a resignation of Corona would come.

One must not forget that not too long ago, Noynoy and his allies had already started to call Sen. Franklin Drilon Senate President Drilon.

But even this was thwarted, as the senator-judges stood in open support of Enrile and his even-handed conduct of the trial.

Truly, no one can say that Enrile, as presiding officer, is partisan or incompetent in the law.

Enrile has proved that he is a cut above the rest.

|