Day 24 Highlights of Corona trial: Heated discussion about prosecution's intent to put SC Associate Justice Sereno on witness stand

Published February 27, 2012 8:43pm

Senator-judge Trillanes withdraws motion during caucus

Presiding officer and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile announced that during Monday’s caucus of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, Senator-judge Antonio Trillanes IV withdrew his motion to send questions for Supreme Court Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno by snail mail.

As regards the prosecution’s “motion for clarification” on Enrile’s ruling to disallow the testimony of a Philippine Airlines official, the presiding officer reiterated that the articles of impeachment cannot be expanded.

Getting SC employees to attend the trial

Rep. Neri Colmenares, the lead House prosecutor for Article VII that accuses Chief Justice Renato Corona of betraying public trust through his alleged partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo last November, made a manifestation.

Colmenares said Justice Secretary Leila De Lima was served a copy of the temporary restraining order (TRO) by two SC personnel who turned out to be a security guard and a driver. He lamented that although the two had been present in the Senate building, both were called back to the SC by their superiors. He asked the Senate to enforce its subpoenas because those SC employees would only be testifying on “administrative matters” such as the time of service of TRO upon De Lima.

Asked by Enrile what could be done to the SC employees if they defy the subpoena, Colmenares replied that the impeachment court could cite them for contempt.

At this juncture, Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III said the SC had sent the Senate a letter-request to exempt SC employees from testifying in view of the Feb. 14 SC resolution on “judicial privilege.” He told Colmenares that the issue of the SC employees would be better discussed by the clerks of court, respectively, of the SC and of the impeachment court.

Inviting Justice Sereno to testify

As regards the prosecution’s intent to put SC Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno on the witness stand, Enrile told Colmenares to try inviting her because the Senate had already ruled against issuing subpoenas to SC justices. Besides, added Enrile, what did the prosecution expect to happen should Sereno turn down the invitation or defy the subpoena? Colmenares replied that he “trusted” Sereno would accept the invite or follow the subpoena.

Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago scolded the prosecution for prodding the Senate into a “collision course” with the Supreme Court. She lectured the prosecution that in the same way that the Executive branch has “executive privilege” and Congress has “legislative privilege”, the Judiciary has “judicial privilege” or “deliberative process privilege.”

Colmenares recalled that in Senate vs. Secretary Neri, the Senate succeeded in limiting the scope of executive privilege to only certain matters, adding that this should apply to judicial privilege. But Enrile pointed out that the Supreme Court itself decided on limiting the scope of executive privilege. Enrile stressed that the impeachment court was carefully doing its job to avoid disrupting the system of government.

Senator-judge Francis Escudero said the prosecutors themselves should invite Sereno instead of relying on the Senate’s compulsory processes because it was the “duty of the prosecution to present its witnesses.”

When Colmenares expressed the prosecution panel’s fear that inviting Sereno might be construed as “forcing her,” Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson castigated the prosecutors for passing the buck to the Senate. Colmenares said that prosecutors don't have the same power of the Senate, adding that the Feb. 14 SC resolution prohibits summoning SC employees.

Senator-judge Joker Arroyo expressed amazement when Colmenares claimed it was difficult to get witnesses to testify against the chief justice. The prosecution is backed by the President of the Philippines, the senator-judge noted.

Gloria Arroyo’s doctor testifies

Private prosecutor Arthur Lim conducted the direct examination of Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, main attending physician of former President Arroyo at St. Luke’s Medical Center.

Cervantes was considered an “ordinary witness” to establish Mrs. Arroyo’s medical certificate on October 1, 2011 — submitted to SC before the deliberations on the TRO against the watch list order that kept the Arroyo couple from leaving the country.

Lim confirmed to defense lead counsel Serafin Cuevas that the medical certificate was connected to the SC TRO.

From the Office of the Vice-President

House prosecutor Rep. Raul Daza conducted direct examination of Emma Abanador — Office of the Vice-President administrative officer. Prosecution was trying to establish Corona’s close ties with Arroyo even before he was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2002.

Abanador authenticated the April to December 2001 Certificate of Service rendered by Corona to Arroyo, as well as a consultancy agreement between them on January 24, 2001. The defense team did not cross-examine her.

Media person authenticates video

Private prosecutor Al Parreño conducted the direct examination of ABS-CBN cameraman Edmond Losalla, who authenticated three “raw” videos that include the SC’s Nov. 15, 2011 press conference on the issuance of the TRO and an interview with Arroyo’s legal counsel Ferdinand Topacio.

Cuevas argued Losalla’s statements were “immaterial and irrelevant” to the case, and that the video showing SC spokesperson and court administrator Jose Midas Marques was “not binding on the Supreme Court.” Cuevas also noted the video showing a bag of P1-million cash simply reflected the payment of the cash bond as one of the conditions set in the TRO.

Senator-judge Loren Legarda concurred with Cuevas that the video was “not very relevant or material at this point.” She requested for a transcript of the video because some portions were inaudible.

As Cuevas was cross-examining Losalla, Senator-judge Jinggoy Estrada noted the questions have no connection to the case because the cameraman was there merely to authenticate the video footages and not testify on the news coverage. Enrile agreed, saying that the video was the “best evidence.” Among other questions, Cuevas asked Losalla about his salary history at ABS-CBN.

Senator-judge Aquilino Pimentel III asked Cuevas whether he was following the “proper procedure” in having a document shown to Losalla — who “had nothing to do with the document” — marked as an exhibit. Cuevas assured Pimentel that it was the “right time” to mark it for the defense because it had already been previously marked by prosecution as their exhibit. He maintained that “even if we adopt the strictest rule this will pass judicial scrutiny.”

— Marlon Anthony R. Tonson/VS/KG/HS, GMA News

Tags: coronaimpeachmenthighlights, coronaimpeachment