Prosecutors scolded, prevented from presenting witness during Corona trial

 

During the 21st day of the impeachment trial, the prosecution team attempted to present Philippine Airlines (PAL) vice president for sales Enrique Javier to prove that Corona and his wife allegedly received benefits from the airline while it had cases pending before the court.

 

But Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, disallowed the presentation, saying his testimony would be an attempt at "expanding" the coverage of the Articles of Impeachment.

 

The ruling was made after lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas manifested that Javier's testimony was "irrelevant, immaterial, and impertinent in the subject matter of case."

 

Javier was supposed to be the second witness to be presented in connection with Article III of the Articles of Impeachment.

 

Article III accuses Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for his “failure to meet and observe the stringent standards of the Constitution that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases."

 

The first witness for Article III was Robert Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, who blamed Corona for the recall order on FASAP's 13-year-old labor dispute against PAL.

 

'Fishing for evidence'

 

Earlier in the hearing, Enrile also scolded private prosecutor Arthur Lim for insisting on marking Corona’s bank records from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as evidence even though these documents were requested by the defense panel, who later withdrew its request, and Senator Franklin Drilon.

 

“Counsel, you are fishing for evidence. You did not subpoena these documents. This court used its discretion to get this evidence. The fact that you tried to adopt them for your own is misrepresentation,” Enrile said.

  

Cuevas also blocked Lim’s attempt to ask for assurance from Corona’s lawyers that they will present records from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) once it is their turn to present evidence.

 

“Why should we be compelled to produce documents, if it’s in our favor?... Do we have any legal obligation?” Cuevas said.

 

BPI-Ayala branch manager Leonora Dizon earlier told the impeachment court that Corona had P12 million in his BPI account at the end of 2010.

 

In the hands of the court 

 

But Enrile told Lim that the prosecution can still adopt the bank documents as evidence, which BPI-Ayala assistant manager Mara Arcilla already turned over to the impeachment court.

 

“They [the documents] are already in the hands of the court… If you want to mark these documents as evidence at that time, do it,” he said.

 

Upon the request of the defense camp, the Senate President also ordered that these confidential bank records be placed inside a sealed envelope to prevent public exposure.

 

Since the impeachment court only requested the documents, Arcilla was not allowed to testify and was immediately discharged by the Senate court.

 

After the bank official was discharged, lead public prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. manifested that the prosecution is already finished presenting evidence on Article II of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Corona of non-disclosure of some of his properties in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

 

Ill-prepared?

 

Earlier during Tuesday's trial, Enrile had already scored the House prosecutors for being ill-prepared for the impeachment trial.

 

He explained that the House of Representatives has the role of a grand jury, meaning they should have prepared evidence against the impeachable official before the trial even started, which he said the prosecution team has repeatedly failed to do.

 

"You are supposed to have prepared the evidence beforehand ...and that is why we have a problem in the course of this trial [because] we are using compulsory process to gather evidence for you," he said. 

 

"I warned you several times that what you're doing might be fatal to the proceedings," he added.

 

But prosecutor Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas reasoned that they had to elevate the impeachment complaint immediately because they already had the support of one third of the lawmakers in the House.

 

"Yung impeachment po kasi emergency power po ito ng mamamayan.  Halimbawa po kung yung pangulo ng bansa o punong mahistrado, sa tingin isa sa bawat tatlong miyembro [ng kongreso] ay kailangan panagutin kaaagad-agad hindi na po dadaan doon sa grand jury style kundi idudulog na po agad ito at lilitisin," Fariñas said.

 

Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution says that the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment while the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all the cases of impeachment.

 

Enrile, however, said that this does not mean that the prosecutors should have come to the impeachment court unprepared.

 

"Ang ibig po ba ninyo sabihin na kahit 1/3 ng House of Representatives ang pipirma eh pupulutin ninyo sa hangin yung ilalagay ninyo sa Articles of Impeachment na wala kayong batayan?" he said.

 

He likewise said that even the Articles of Impeachment was not presented in a clear manner.

 

"Alam mo kaya magulo ang inyong Articles of Impeachment... kaya nga nahihirapan kami kung saan namin papasyahan yung mga ebidemsya na ipinapasok ninyo. Halu-halo yung alegasyon ninyo eh pag binuksan ninyo yan makikita natin ang kamalian," he said.

 

Fariñas, for his part, said that they stated clearly their allegations against Corona.

 

Reexamine rules

 

Meanwhile, the defense panel earlier in the day moved for the reexamination of Rule 17 of the rules of impeachment which states:

 

"If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness,he or she shall do so within two minutes.  A Senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or counsel. He or she may also offer a motion or order, in writing, which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer."

 

"We are pleading for a reexamination of this rule to avoid the usual occurence of what is known as mistrial because while it is true that the proceedings as of the moment may not amount to a mistrial, it is equally discernible that it may be raised in the future in the event that the situation goes worse," said Cuevas.

 

Cuevas explained that there is a need to reexamine the rule because neither camp can object to a senator-judge's questions or motions, which he said is worse than a subpoena request which they can oppose.

 

"Under such a situation, we have no other recourse. Probably the only recourse is to go to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, that will be not only burdensome but a nullity because it will take time," he said.

 

Fariñas, however, said the rules are "perfect."

 

"There's a saying in English which says if it aint broke dont fix it," he said.

 

Enrile, for his part, said he wasn't personally in favor of the rule but that they will still have to discuss the matter in caucus.

 

"I cannot rule on this at the moment. This has to be taken up in a caucus as we have practiced to arrive on a reasonable resolution," he said. — RSJ, GMA News