Enrile rebuffs Palace on rule of law
Disturbing developments in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona have prompted Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to warn that it should at all times uphold the rule of law and not break it.
In a speech to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Friday, Enrile, the presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court, defined and amplified its limits. He went beyond the ambit of the policy on the impeachment court’s mandate that he laid down in his opening statement at the start of the trial on Jan. 16.
This time, he highlighted the importance of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution:
“[The impeachment court] cannot transgress any of the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights. It must be guided by the presumption of innocence before the pronouncement of guilt. It must at all times observe the principle of procedural and substantial due process.
“It cannot use its power to issue compulsory processes to compel any witness to appear and testify and, in testifying, [be] forced to testify against himself. It cannot arbitrarily declare a person guilty of contempt and deprive that person of his or her liberty. It cannot violate the laws passed by Congress of which it is an integral part.”
Referring to the use of questionable documents by House prosecutors in their petition to subpoena Corona’s bank accounts, Enrile said: “Lawmakers must not be the lawbreakers.”
Enrile directed the admonition not only to the prosecutors but also to the senator-judges, as well as to President Aquino, who has been delivering speeches pronouncing Corona’s guilt and addressing the merits of the case despite the fact that the impeachment court is not yet even halfway through in assessing the evidence submitted by the prosecution.
The speech appeared to be Enrile’s response to the President’s interventions, which have been criticized as blatant and crude attempts to influence the impeachment court’s decision on the guilt or innocence of Corona, who is being tried on charges of betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption.
Enrile pointedly delivered the speech to the IBP a day after the President spoke at La Consolacion College before hundreds of students, where he preempted the Senate trial and pronounced Corona guilty. He said: “The question in this trial is rather simple: Can we still trust Mr. Corona? We can answer that with the truth coming out during the trial. Would Juan de la Cruz allow himself to be left out of this process? Are we going to allow only a few to decide for all of us?”
This passage was quickly noted in legal circles as a slur on the impeachment court and appeared to have provoked Enrile to make a strong reply. More galling was that the President responded that he would not stop attacking Corona despite pleas that he desist from making public comments on the merits of the case and respect the court’s independence and allow it to do its job properly without pressure from outside sources.
In his opening policy statement of Jan. 16, Enrile said: “I would like to remind the opposing sides, my colleagues, as well as the public and the media, that this trial will be governed by the rules we have adopted. I therefore urge everyone to fully cooperate in the orderly conduct of these proceedings, to demonstrate civility, to observe the decorum that is required for us to carry out our respective duties with dispatch, with honor and with dignity.”
Apparently, these appeals have fallen on deaf ears, specially in the executive branch of government, which seems to be considering itself above the rules of fairness and injunctions not to make judgments before the impeachment court completes its work. Five weeks into the trial, Enrile was feeling the weight of the infractions of these norms that are intended to ensure not only a fair and just trial but also a credible decision.
Thus, Enrile has been forced to issue the reminder that while an impeachment trial “is political in nature,” it is not an excuse or a license for the senators to ignore their “solemn and higher obligation” as a body of jurors to see to it that the Bill of Rights is observed and justice served.
“Needless to say, the impeachment process is a very powerful tool that can be used under the system of checks and balances in a democratic society like ours, just like any other instrument,” Enrile said. “However, it can also be subject to abuse and misuse, and this is something that I will not allow while I carry out my duty as presiding officer of the impeachment court.”
The task was taking a toll on Enrile amid reports last week of attempts to remove him as presiding officer of the impeachment court, following his rigorous efforts to control the proceedings in accordance with the exacting norms he laid out in his opening statement.
Enrile himself has admitted that being presiding officer has become taxing: “As the trial slowly progresses, I have realized that [my] position … is one that I do not exactly relish.
“Not only do I have to carefully study the legalities of all the issues and concerns being raised both by the prosecution and defense, but I also have to consider and balance the diverging and, most of the time, opposing views of my colleagues, my fellow senator-judges.
“It seems that not only Chief Justice Corona is being tried here, but also my patience. Having to preside over the trial is simply very trying.”
