Day 5: Highlights of Corona impeachment trial at the Senate

Published January 24, 2012 4:02pm

Call to order

Corona still presumed innocent

Senator-judge Gregorio Honasan asked both the prosecution and defense panels to put on record whether the presumption of innocence was applicable in the trial.

House panel lead prosecutor Rep. Neil Tupas Jr. affirmed that Chief Justice Renato Corona was still presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in the impeachment trial.

Defense team lead counsel Serafin Cuevas agreed that everyone must adhere to the principle and cannot deviate from observance of due process.

The Presiding Officer, Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile, appealed to both parties to limit their arguments because the public was becoming impatient in waiting for the impeachment court to find out the truth.

Justice delayed is justice denied

Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago pointed out the “quasi-political and quasi-judicial” nature of the impeachment trial, which dictates the need for a speedy trial that would satisfy the public while adhering to the applicable rules of court. But she said the Rules of Court do not apply totally to the impeachment proceedings.

After asking the House prosecutors how many witnesses and documents they intend to present during the entire proceedings, Santiago chided the panel for being unprepared and suggested that they come up with a trial brief to avoid waste of time. House lead prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. said they had intended to present seven witnesses Tuesday but could not yet tell how many would be presented during the entire trial, nor how many documents they would submit to the impeachment court.

The Corona defense panel said they will present a total of 15 witnesses and have already marked 23 documents so far. Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas said they would present no less than 25 documents during the entire trial.

Upon the suggestion of Santiago, the court ordered the prosecution and defense panels to each submit a list of their witnesses and documents to be presented until the end of the trial.

Standard of proof

Santiago raised the question on which standard of proof to use in deciding the Corona impeachment case: preponderance of evidence as used in civil cases, or proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal proceedings.

Santiago then suggested that the standard of substantial evidence as used in administrative cases be the standard of proof in deciding the impeachment case, to which the prosecution agreed.

But the defense panel pushed for proof beyond reasonable doubt instead, considering that the penalty for conviction is “almost a death sentence” if the impeached official gets barred from holding public office forever.

Upon motion of Santiago and without any objection from the senator-judges, the impeachment court decided to resolve the issue in caucus behind closed doors.

Defense says ‘ill-gotten wealth’ in Article II mere allegations

The Presiding Officer recalled that on day 4 of the trial, the prosecutors and the defense team were ordered to submit their respective memoranda on what either side considered as covered by Article II (non-disclosure of SALNs, ill-gotten wealth). Tupas asked that the House prosecutors be given more time to submit their memorandum.

But the defense team submitted its memorandum and Cuevas was allowed to expound on their arguments. Cuevas said allegations on ill-gotten wealth were “conjectural and speculative” and did not merit a denial.

Tupas, however, maintained that strict court rules on pleadings were not applicable in impeachment proceedings, adding that pleadings must be liberally construed and that the defense team filed no Motion to Dismiss in response to the ill-gotten wealth charge.

Cuevas argued, however, that pleadings can only be liberally construed when they are vague, and not when they are based on “suspicions” or “reports” as was the allegation of ill-gotten wealth.

Miriam: Admit evidence, avoid ‘2nd envelope’ scenario

Santiago said that whenever there is doubt, the Senate must admit the evidence presented by the panels. She proposed that the rules be liberally construed in admitting evidence to avoid suspicions by the public, recalling the recriminations heaped on senator-judges who voted against opening the “second envelope” in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada.

Santiago proposed that since “there was already sufficient notice” given to Corona that the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be called to testify in the trial, then the defense team should be given three days to answer the ill-gotten wealth charge.

Prosecution asks for ‘flexibility’ in presenting evidence

Tupas noted that the trial has been conducted similar to a criminal proceeding, and that the strict application of the technical rules had “unduly restricted” the prosecution panel’s presentation of evidence. In particular, he objected to the defense team raising objections 30 times and making the prosecutors revise their questions at least 20 times.

The Presiding Officer asked the House prosecutors “to what extent” they wanted the rules of the impeachment court to be relaxed. Tupas said the prosecution panel was just asking for “flexibility” to ask questions, but could not offer specific suggestions.

Senator-judges Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Pangilinan and Manny Villar stood up to convey their sentiments but in the end, they expressed support for the Presiding Officer’s handling of the trial.

The Presiding Officer reminded everyone that the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court was neither for anyone nor against anyone.

Adjournment

The Presiding Officer reminded the House prosecutors to first submit no later than 10 a.m. Wednesday their memorandum regarding the coverage of Article II, considering that the defense team had already complied with the Impeachment Court order for submission of memoranda.

- Marlon Anthony R. Tonson/YA, GMA News

Tags: coronaimpeachmenthighlights