Senate junks bid to summon four SC justices to Corona trial
Citing respect for the confidentiality of Supreme Court sessions and the basic principle of separation of powers, the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday denied a prosecution request to subpoena four high tribunal justices and testify regarding Article III of the complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, on Wednesday denied a request from the prosecution to subpoena four Supreme Court justices to the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In a resolution read by Senate Secretary Emma Lirio-Reyes during the televised trial, the court noted it was respecting the "confidentiality of court session," adding that summoning the four justices would be "transgressing the basic principle of separation of powers."
On Jan. 30, the prosecution asked that the Senate summon Associate Justices Martin Villarama Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Presbitero Velasco to testify on Article III of the impeachment complaint against Corona.
Article III focuses on four points, citing that Corona allowed the SC to act on mere letters that led to the "flip-flopping" of decisions, his “excessive entanglement” with Arroyo through the appointment of his wife, as well as dipping his hands in public funds and talking with litigants specifically, Lauro Vizconde of the Vizconde massacre case.
As an example of "flip-flopping” decisions, the prosecution team cited the labor dispute between Philippine Airlines (PAL) management and its union, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).
More witnesses for Article III
Also Wednesday, the House prosecution team said they will present more witnesses to shed light on "the bigger picture" of Corona's hand in the recall order involving the PAL labor case.
The prosecution cited the rationale for summoning the SC justices. "They will testify on the participation of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the October 4, 2011 Supreme Court en banc session, specifically, in the deliberations of A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC... and the action that was made by the Supreme Court relative to such case," read the prosecution's request.
Last October 4, the Supreme Court cited a technicality and reversed its "final entry of judgment" favoring FASAP, but after PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza submitted a letter pointing out that the Third Division, and not the Second Division, should have handled the case.
Public prosecutor Kaka Bag-ao told the impeachment court on Wednesday that prosecution will call more people to the witness stand to prove Corona’s culpability in PAL-FASAP case.
Senator judge Loren Legarda noted that despite FASAP president Roberto Anduiza’s testimony at the witness stand for the second successive session, prosecution failed to establish the link and relevance of Mendoza’s letters to the Supreme Court and the allegation in Article III.
Senate disagrees with prosecution
In summoning the SC justices, the prosecution also argued that the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government — Executive, Legislative and Judiciary — does not apply to the impeachment trial because the Senate as an impeachment court is not functioning as a legislative body.
The Senate disagreed.
"This court… is not ready to accept the prosecution's contention... Whether performing legislative functions or sitting as an impeachment court, the Senate is not insulated from the principle of separation of powers."
Several senator-judges including Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Francis Pangilinan concurred with Enrile’s ruling, but said they will file their respective concurring opinions.
Cayetano emphasized, however, that his concurrence only applied to the issue at hand, and may not necessarily apply in future rulings.
Meanwhile, senator-judge Teofisto Guingona also concurred with the decision except that when the Senate is the impeachment court, it is not co-equal with the Supreme Court because the chamber is exercising “a special, specific juridical function.”
Asked how the Senate ruling would affect the defense's own plan to present justices in the impeachment court, defense lawyer and spokesman Tranquil Salvador III said after Wednesday's trial that they do not plan on requesting subpoenas in the first place.
Meanwhile, Rico Paolo Quicho, one of the defense lawyers, said in a media briefing that the bank records supposedly handed over by a certain "short lady" to the prosecution should be deemed inadmissible.
"Malinaw po ang aming paniniwala na may katanungan muna na dapat sagutin. Unang-una ang paglabas ba ng ebidensyang ito ay nakabatay sa batas? Ang pinagkuhaan ba ng dokumentong ito ay from a legal source," Quicho said.
The defense counsel also cautioned the public against jumping to conclusions after hearing about Philippine Savings Bank president Pascual Garcia's testimony that Corona had five peso accounts with them.
"The mere presentation of the bank accounts, we should not conclude that there is already an illegal act done," Quicho said.
He assured that the defense will present their counter-arguments to Garcia's statements when the time for the defense to present its own witnesses comes. — KBK/ELR/VS/KG, GMA News
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, on Wednesday denied a request from the prosecution to subpoena four Supreme Court justices to the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In a resolution read by Senate Secretary Emma Lirio-Reyes during the televised trial, the court noted it was respecting the "confidentiality of court session," adding that summoning the four justices would be "transgressing the basic principle of separation of powers."
On Jan. 30, the prosecution asked that the Senate summon Associate Justices Martin Villarama Jr., Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Presbitero Velasco to testify on Article III of the impeachment complaint against Corona.
Article III focuses on four points, citing that Corona allowed the SC to act on mere letters that led to the "flip-flopping" of decisions, his “excessive entanglement” with Arroyo through the appointment of his wife, as well as dipping his hands in public funds and talking with litigants specifically, Lauro Vizconde of the Vizconde massacre case.
As an example of "flip-flopping” decisions, the prosecution team cited the labor dispute between Philippine Airlines (PAL) management and its union, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).
More witnesses for Article III
Also Wednesday, the House prosecution team said they will present more witnesses to shed light on "the bigger picture" of Corona's hand in the recall order involving the PAL labor case.
The prosecution cited the rationale for summoning the SC justices. "They will testify on the participation of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the October 4, 2011 Supreme Court en banc session, specifically, in the deliberations of A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC... and the action that was made by the Supreme Court relative to such case," read the prosecution's request.
Last October 4, the Supreme Court cited a technicality and reversed its "final entry of judgment" favoring FASAP, but after PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza submitted a letter pointing out that the Third Division, and not the Second Division, should have handled the case.
Public prosecutor Kaka Bag-ao told the impeachment court on Wednesday that prosecution will call more people to the witness stand to prove Corona’s culpability in PAL-FASAP case.
Senator judge Loren Legarda noted that despite FASAP president Roberto Anduiza’s testimony at the witness stand for the second successive session, prosecution failed to establish the link and relevance of Mendoza’s letters to the Supreme Court and the allegation in Article III.
Senate disagrees with prosecution
In summoning the SC justices, the prosecution also argued that the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government — Executive, Legislative and Judiciary — does not apply to the impeachment trial because the Senate as an impeachment court is not functioning as a legislative body.
The Senate disagreed.
"This court… is not ready to accept the prosecution's contention... Whether performing legislative functions or sitting as an impeachment court, the Senate is not insulated from the principle of separation of powers."
Several senator-judges including Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Francis Pangilinan concurred with Enrile’s ruling, but said they will file their respective concurring opinions.
Cayetano emphasized, however, that his concurrence only applied to the issue at hand, and may not necessarily apply in future rulings.
Meanwhile, senator-judge Teofisto Guingona also concurred with the decision except that when the Senate is the impeachment court, it is not co-equal with the Supreme Court because the chamber is exercising “a special, specific juridical function.”
Asked how the Senate ruling would affect the defense's own plan to present justices in the impeachment court, defense lawyer and spokesman Tranquil Salvador III said after Wednesday's trial that they do not plan on requesting subpoenas in the first place.
Meanwhile, Rico Paolo Quicho, one of the defense lawyers, said in a media briefing that the bank records supposedly handed over by a certain "short lady" to the prosecution should be deemed inadmissible.
"Malinaw po ang aming paniniwala na may katanungan muna na dapat sagutin. Unang-una ang paglabas ba ng ebidensyang ito ay nakabatay sa batas? Ang pinagkuhaan ba ng dokumentong ito ay from a legal source," Quicho said.
The defense counsel also cautioned the public against jumping to conclusions after hearing about Philippine Savings Bank president Pascual Garcia's testimony that Corona had five peso accounts with them.
"The mere presentation of the bank accounts, we should not conclude that there is already an illegal act done," Quicho said.
He assured that the defense will present their counter-arguments to Garcia's statements when the time for the defense to present its own witnesses comes. — KBK/ELR/VS/KG, GMA News
We welcome healthy discussions and friendly debate! Please click Flag to alert us of a comment that may be abusive or threatening. Read our full comment policy here.
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
