GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
ADVERTISEMENT
Filtered By: Topstories
News
Day 13: Highlights of Corona impeachment trial at the Senate
+
Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.
Day 13: Highlights of Corona impeachment trial at the Senate Call to Order
- The trial resumed at 2:07 p.m.
- Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago was absent.
- Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III read a letter from Santiago, who appealed against the Senate resolution to subpoena bank managers and documents regarding the supposed accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona. She cited three grounds:
- The subpoena violates the court’s own ruling that evidence on ill-gotten wealth are not allowed;
- The subpoena violates Republic Act 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), which disallows the scrutiny of a foreign currency account, without the depositor's written permission;
- The cases that the prosecution cited to support its request for the subpoena “are all off-tangent.”
- Contrary to a previous Senate ruling, Santiago also added that “the motion [for reconsideration] can be filed even only by defense counsel, and does not need to be filed by a senator-judge.”
- Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson raised a concern about Santiago’s capacity to question the subpoena resolution, saying she was absent when it was deliberated on in caucus. But the presiding officer, Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile, said each senator-judge has the right to question the court’s rulings.
- Enrile said he would rule on Santiago’s motion the following day, after a caucus of all the senator-judges, including Santiago who said she would attend it.
- In response to Santiago’s letter, Senator-judge Franklin Drilon recalled that in Monday’s hearing, Senator-judge Francis Escudero “rightly” pointed out that the defense counsels cannot ask the Senate to reconsider its rulings, citing Rule VI of the Senate Resolution 39 on the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials.
- Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas asked what recourse a party has if they want to ask for a reconsideration of the impeachment court's ruling.
- Escudero said Rule VI only pertains to the ruling of the presiding officer, which is considered the ruling of the entire Senate unless a senator-judge objects and asks for the decision to be put to a vote.
- Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano added that Rule VI does not apply to a written resolution by the majority of the senator-judges, referring to Monday’s caucus.
- Senator-judge Joker Arroyo countered that Rule VI cannot be used in the Senate resolution for subpoenas because it seeks to tackle “questions of law” regarding bank secrecy. But Drilon stressed that “nowhere in the rules” are the prosecution and defense panels allowed to seek a motion for reconsideration, and neither are distinctions made between questions of fact or questions of law in the Senate’s rulings.
- Senator-judge Aquilino Pimentel III found it “unnatural” not to allow either the prosecution or the defense to ask for motions for reconsideration. He pointed out that the only time motions for reconsideration in impeachment are absolutely prohibited is at the end of trial, when senator-judges vote on the “final question” under Rule XXI to reach a verdict of conviction or acquittal.
- Cuevas said that if the defense cannot ask for a reconsideration, then they will be constrained to appeal in a “different venue” other than the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
- In response, Enrile said the parties are free to do what is allowed them under the law but he will “only take exception to” attempts to stop the trial.
- Arroyo expressed concern over the decision of the House of Representatives committee on justice to impeach another member of the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo. He warned the House prosecutors against making impeachment a “cottage industry.”
- Lead public prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. explained that unlike the case of Corona, the impeachment complaint against Del Castillo still has to be taken up in a plenary session.
- Arroyo asked Tupas to ensure that any article of impeachment the House might decide to file against Del Castillo would be “good” because the House prosecution has shown itself “handicapped” by the Corona Articles of Impeachment.
- House prosecutor Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao said they were ready to present the third Article of Impeachment, which accuses Corona of betrayal of public trust for his alleged lack of independence, competence, probity and integrity. He said Corona had allowed the Supreme Court (SC) to act on a private lawyer’s letters, which supposedly caused the “flip-flopping” of an otherwise final SC decision.
- Enrile noted that Aggabao's use of the word “allow” implies that Corona can also “prohibit” the high court's actions. Enrile asked the prosecutor if that meant the chief justice has the power to control the other justices of the SC, which is a collegial body.
- Aggabao replied that Corona has administrative control of the court, including the power to order the raffling of cases to SC divisions. Enrile ordered the House prosecution panel to submit a legal memorandum on the extent of the chief justice’s power of supervision and/or control over other SC justices.
- Aggabao inquired about the prosecution’s pending requests to subpoena officials of the SC and the Philippine Airlines (PAL). Enrile said the requests will be discussed in Wednesday's caucus because they touched on the separation of powers and the independence of co-equal branches of government.
- House prosecutor Rep. Neri Colmenares pleaded for the issuance of the subpoenas, stating that the impeachment court has “absolute powers” to do so. He said provisions in the Constitution regarding impeachment pertain specifically to public accountability. He pointed out that the Senate had already subpoenaed BIR commissioner Henares, a member of the Executive branch, and SC Clerk of Court Vidal from the judicial branch.
- Enrile maintained that the request will have to be studied carefully in the Senate caucus, but should some SC justices voluntarily testify in the impeachment court, “then that is their prerogative.”
- The first witness on Article III was the president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), Roberto Anduiza. The direct examination was conducted by House prosecutor Rep. Arlene Bag-ao.
- Anduiza said Corona had “meddled” in FASAP’s 13-year-old labor case against PAL, which stemmed from the retrenchment of around 1,400 flight attendants in 1998.
- The SC had originally declared the retrenchment as illegal. PAL filed a motion for reconsideration twice and the SC junked both motions. Anduiza said FASAP had “won three times.” But in October 2011, the SC reopened the case and recalled its ruling.
- Anduiza told the Senate that Corona “took no part” during the deliberations in the case of FASAP vs. PAL that the flight attendants won. However, the chief justice did take part in the SC resolution taking back the SC’s denial of PAL’s second motion for reconsideration.
- Anduiza insisted that in recalling the high court's decision, the SC had “acted” on a series of letters sent by PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza, and did not give FASAP an opportunity to be heard. Bag-ao presented four letters from Atty. Mendoza addressed to the Clerk of Court, and said Corona was furnished with copies of all the letters.
- Senator-judge Jinggoy Estrada noted that FASAP has a pending motion for reconsideration assailing the SC’s decision to re-open their case. He asked whether the impeachment court was bound by the sub judice rule, which prohibits the discussion of the merits of an ongoing case.
- Bag-ao said the House prosecution panel will not be discussing the pending case; rather, they will focus on the letters written by Atty. Mendoza which led to the reopening of the case.
- Cuevas countered that discussing the merits of the FASAP case cannot be avoided. But the presiding officer ruled that the impeachment trial is a public proceeding, and nothing should be hidden from the public.
- Enrile asked about the relevance of the financial records sought to be subpoenaed from the SC to the third Article of Impeachment. House deputy lead prosecutor Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas explained that Corona had used judiciary funds for private purposes.
- Estrada asked Fariñas if he was one of the 188 congressmen who endorsed the impeachment complaint. Fariñas replied that he did not sign it because he was a “slow reader” and the impeachment complaint was “poorly crafted.”
- At 5:22 p.m., the trial was adjourned.
- Trial will resume at 2 p.m. Wednesday.
- The Senators’ caucus is scheduled at 11 a.m. Wednesday.
More Videos
Most Popular
