Analysis
Edsa—never again
By: Amando DoronilaPhilippine Daily Inquirer
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding judge of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, has firmly slammed the door to the idea of terminating the trial by declaring a mistrial based on allegations that certain senator-judges were showing bias against Corona by aiding prosecutors.
Enrile issued the warning after Corona, claiming on Monday that the impeachment trial has become an “inquisition” and has “lost the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” with Sen. Franklin Drilon and four other senators acting as partisan prosecutors, urged the Supreme Court to stop the trial.
Corona charged Senators Serge Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Alan Peter Cayetano and Teofisto Guingona III, together with Drilon, of the Liberal Party (President Aquino’s party), with violating his right to due process by helping the prosecutors. The denunciation of the alleged bias introduced a highly political element of conflict in the trial which, since it began on Jan. 16, has been seen as akin to a courtroom trial where lawyers on both sides try to prove their case through the rules of court, hewing close to the evidence.
Osmeña saw in the Corona camp’s move “a strategy to declare there is mistrial.” But Enrile rejected the idea of a mistrial, saying, “It’s farfetched.” Enrile said there was no basis to halt the proceeding, amid complaints of the defense panel against the five senators, perceived by the defense as allies of President Aquino.
In a petition filed hours after the impeachment tribunal voted 13-10 to respect a Supreme Court restraining order barring the opening of Corona’s dollar accounts with the Philippine Savings Bank, Corona claimed that the trial had become an “inquisition,” because “certain senators-judges have lost the cold neutrality of impartial judges, by acting as prosecutors.” He cited instances when “repeatedly, certain senator-judges have caused the production of documents and elicited testimonial admissions, greatly favoring the prosecution.”
It seems to me that Enrile, in his put-down on a mistrial declaration, was concerned over the dire prospects of the trial collapsing and the political consequences thereof. It appeared that Enrile is determined to finish the trial and would not allow a disruption that might lead to another People Power Revolution. This is the reason he declared: “There is no mistrial in an impeachment (trial). If you are guilty, it’s guilty. There’s no appeal. If you say not guilty, there’s also no appeal.”
Enrile underplayed the possibility of a walkout of defense lawyers, which might trigger another People Power uprising, as what took place during the 2001 impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada who was charged with corruption and abuse of power. The trial was disrupted after the prosecutors walked out, following the vote by the impeachment court not to open a second sealed envelope claimed to contain documentary evidence of Estrada’s bank accounts where he allegedly deposited jueteng payoffs.
On the possibility of a walkout of the defense lawyers over the mistrial issue, Enrile said: “I don’t think so. They are not irresponsible,” referring to the defense panel led by former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas.
Enrile was emphatic in saying that the trial would be completed, come hell or high water. He had previously said at the start of the trial that he would not allow a walkout to disrupt the trial. On Wednesday, he said, the trial would proceed all the way to conclusion even in the event of a walkout. “If this happens, we will still decide the case based on the evidence on record,” he said. Even if it’s the prosecutors who withdraw, we will still make a decision.”
The defense said it would not move for a declaration of a mistrial. “Our direction is not for a mistrial,” defense spokesperson Tranquil Salvador III said at a media briefing. “We are determined to prove that there is no evidence against the Chief Justice.”
He said the defense would like to present its evidence, and “[w]e’re just waiting for the right time. Let’s just wait and see how the impeachment court will decide the case.”
Nothing can be worse than an unfinished case and a failed trial. That is what Enrile and many others fear—another Edsa uprising. The collapse of the Estrada impeachment trial in 2001 haunts everybody.
Unlike Edsa 1 in February 1986, which was largely a civilian-based and bloodless mass movement that toppled the Marcos dictatorship, Edsa 2, which ousted the Estrada regime, was a military coup with a civilian façade.
The Estrada trial paralyzed his regime and led to the resignation of key members of his Cabinet during the trial itself. The fatal blow came when the military general staff withdrew support from the regime. The chief of staff then, Gen. Angelo Reyes, observed closely if a critical mass would gather in the streets in protest to the suppression of the envelope. It was only after he determined that there was indeed a critical mass that he decided to line up the general staff to abandon the Estrada regime. Then he led the major services commanders to Edsa to join the oath-taking of then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as president.
In the current crisis, people are watching whether the conflict being played out in the impeachment court would end up in the streets.
More from this Column:
Recent Stories:
Tags: corona impeachment , featured column , inquisition , mistrial , opinion , People Power
