Set as home page
ENRILE: NO IMPEACH AMENDMENT, NO ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH RAP VS CJ
01/28/2012
More than a hundred witnesses, among them are the 14 members of the Supreme Court and journalists, have been listed by the prosecution team as its witnesses and submitted last Friday to the Senate for the Senate Court’s subpoenas in the impeachment case against SC Chief Justice Renato Corona.
At the same time, presiding Senate Court Judge, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, made it clear yesterday that the ban on Article 2, paragraph 4, or Article 2. 2.4, which delves into the “suspected” ill-gotten wealth of the CJ stays, with the Senate refusing to hear the prosecution’s charges on this 2.2.4 Article unless the House amends its complaint.
The House of Representatives’ prosecution panel intends to present over a hundred more witnesses against the Chief Justice in his ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate, it was stated Friday during a press conference the spokesmen held.
The list also includes Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Lauro Vizconde, members of the media, other officers of the Supreme Court, Commission on Audit officials, a representative of the World Bank, and doctors of former president Gloria Arroyo.
They will be presented by the prosecutors to prove each and every article of impeachment filed against the country’s chief magistrate.
The 14 associate justices of the high court wanted summoned by the prosecution to the Senate Impeachment Court to testify are SC Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Jose Perez, Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Mendoza, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Mariano del Castillo, Arturo Brion and Court administrator Midas Marquez. Marquez would be a hostile witness they said.
Online journalists and bloggers, as well as two broadcasters covering the SC were also listed, among whom are blogger Raissa Robles, Criselda Yabes and Marites Vitug, who are to testify on the “close personal relationship between Corona and Mrs. Arroyo. Vitug is also to testify on her research on the Supreme Court inner processes.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is also to testify on the criminal cases filed against Arroyo and her husband.
Also included are are Principal Physician of the former President, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. Mario Ver, whom prosecutors said they want to attest to GMA’s continuing recovery and her positive prognosis.
In a press conference held yesterday, the prosecution panel’s spokesmen announced that they have around 100 witnesses in the course of the trial.
“We have a long way to go that is why we are asking the Presiding officer to be liberal in the presentation of evidence, and some have been sensitive to it,” Aurora Rep. Sonny Angara said yesterday.
Angara, Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo and Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada, held a press conference yesterday at the House Media Center.
Tañada said that the presentation of documentary and testimonial evidence could take a few weeks if the defense panel would stop raising all sorts of technicalities to delay the process.
During the same press conference, Quimbo, Angara and Tañada said that defense panel of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has failed to present a single evidence that would refute the charges against the chief magistrate during the past seven days of the impeachment trial.
According to Angara, all that the defense panel, headed by retired Supreme Court Chief Serafin Cuevas, did was to file motions that would block the disclosure of the truth relative to the charges in the eight Articles of Impeachment.
“All that the defense panel did was to thwart the impeachment process,” Angara said, adding that since the start of the trial two weeks ago, the defense had tried to dismiss the case.
“They filed a motion for preliminary hearing, they file a motion to dismiss the case, the filed a motion to prevent private prosecutors from participating and they tries to block the presentation of evidence on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and on the Income Tax Returns (of Corona),” Angara said.
Quimbo and Tañada said that it is clear that Corona is trying to delay the proceedings.
“They have been resorting to moves that would delay the proceedings,” Quimbo said.
On the part of the Senate court, it said, through its presiding judge, that unless the accusers of Corona decide to “amend” their complaint, or the Articles of Impeachment, they cannot insist on the court to hear their charges of purported CJ’s ill-gotten wealth.
Enrile emphasized this yesterday echoing the “advice” given by one of the senator-judges during Thursday’s proceedings to the prosecution panel when Corona’s accusers attempted anew to introduce information alluding to wealth amassed purportedly by the chief justice in the last few years.
The matter of ill-gotten wealth as among the allegations in the verified impeachment complaint, cannot be taken up in the trial, Enrile said.
“Ill-gotten wealth is having a conclusion of fact and law. That’s out of the question because it violates the Supreme Court decision as well as the rule on impeachment that every charge must be covered by separate article of impeachment. The remedy would be to amend (it). You will bring back the issue to Congress,” Enrile informed reporters.
This is in relation to the ruling handed down by the impeachment court earlier this week effectively barring the prosecution panel from presenting information and declaring any documents as pertaining to the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the chief justice, contained under paragraph 2.4, Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.
Such was the meat of the ruling handed down by the impeachment court and read at the opening of proceeding by the Enrile, on the memorandum filed by the defense panel objecting to the inclusion of charges paragraphs 2.3, 2.3 and 2.4 of Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.
“The impeachment court has arrived at a decision in a caucus that this court will allow the introduction of evidence on impeachment Article No. 2 paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 but not the introduction of evidence of paragraph 2.4 and so, all parties must be guided accordingly. The prosecution may introduce, if it has evidence, that would support the allegations contained in paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3 under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment but not introduce evidence under paragraph 2.4 of Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment. So ordered,” the presiding officer said in reading the ruling last Wednesday at the start of the proceedings.
Enrile explained that the prosecution panel cannot present documents pertaining to the bank deposits of Corona, unless they have laid down the basis or the significance of the matter in their charges.
Under paragraph 2.2, the prosecution panels alleged that the “Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution” while paragraph 2.3 says that “It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.”
Paragraph 2.4 reads as follows: ”2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Megaworld Property development at the Fort in Taguig. Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALn) Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?”
In which case, however, should the prosecution panel decide to withdraw the complaint and amend such provision, Enrile said they might ran afoul with constitutional provision which prohibits the filing of another impeachment or two impeachment complaints or more than one impeachment in the same year against the accused.
“We do not have to send the Articles (of Impeachment) back (to the House of Representatives) but if they want to send evidence on Article 2.4, they have to amend the articles of impeachment. They better read the decision of (former SC) Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales and concurred in by Justice Antonio Carpio,” he said.
The Senate chief was referring to the decision penned by the now Ombudsman concerning the previous impeachment complaint of resigned Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez which stipulated that each accusation should be contained in one article.
Senator-judges debated during Thurday’s proceedings what some of them noted as multiplicity of charges in Article 2 and in which they decided to take up in next week’s caucus before they resume the trial.
On the matter of charges of graft and corruption, Enrile stressed that he will not tell his colleagues how they will treat the issue.
“That’s provided by law on how it will be treated. I want to make the rulings of the court according to my best light that it will not show any bias, one way or the other, and a clear-cut decision on issues that will be denied and allowed.
“No, they are not technicalities. They are substantial matters that affect the right of the respondent,” he added.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago brought up the issue of amending the impeachment complaint when she noted to the prosecution panel, during the resumption of the introduction of information on Article 2, some documents which she said are not relevant to the charges.
The matter was seconded by Senators Joker Arroyo, Francis Escudero and even Enrile.