Analysis

Arrogance of rush to prejudgment

A+
A
A-

The prosecution is in a hurry to rest its case against Chief Justice Renato Corona as swiftly as it pushed the impeachment complaint to the Senate after collecting 188 signatures of congressmen in a record time of three hours in a single day.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor, stunned the Senate impeachment court when he announced on Feb. 28, the 25th day of the trial, that the House panel was done, confident it had presented “overwhelming evidence” to convict Corona on charges of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Tupas announced that the House leadership and the prosecution team had agreed to drop Articles 1,4, 5, 6 and 8 of the impeachment complaint.

Its case has now narrowed down to  Article 2 (Corona’s nondisclosure of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, or SALN); Article 3 (lack of probity, integrity and independence resulting in flip-flopping decisions); and Article 7 (irregular issuance of a temporary restraining order, or TRO, on the hold-departure order on former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo).

The decision was not an orderly retreat for the prosecution, whose case had increasingly been falling in disarray during the past two weeks.

Before adjourning Day 25, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding judge of the impeachment court, announced that the trial would resume on March 12, but not before he gave the prosecution until the weekend to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence and Corona’s lawyers five days to respond. The prosecution is pressing for a decision on the case by March 21.

But Enrile also warned prosecutors against claiming that they had presented overwhelming evidence to convict Corona.

Predicament

“You are putting this court in a very serious predicament because you already make pronouncements about the weight and the quantum of the evidence that you have presented for your side,” Enrile said.

“Please do not make sweeping statements outside that may befuddle or confuse the people or confuse them that you’ve won,” he added.

At the same time, Enrile signaled that he was opening the way for an early presentation of the defense, saying it would be in Corona’s best interest to take the witness and testify on Articles 2 and 7. “To me, he needs to explain only two things, Articles 2 and 7,” he said.

In Article 2, the prosecution has noted discrepancies between Corona’s entries in his SALN and the actual value of his properties and peso bank accounts.

Enrile explained that the reason behind the decision of the prosecution to drop five of its eight articles.

“If they pursued (the rest of the articles), they could not secure the required votes to remove the respondent using the five articles that they have removed … They didn’t want to  waste their effort on these anymore,” he said.

By the time Enrile announced the holiday break and the resumption of the trial on March 12, the prosecution panel was observed running short of breath and there were questions whether they would physically collapse from battle fatigue together with their case.

Out of ammunition

The prosecutors had run out of witnesses and evidence to feed into their contracted case, and there were times when Tupas appeared to be freezing the ball to buy time.

The prosecutors seemed to have expended their ammunition after they had dumped most of their explosives into the public arena in the campaign to pulverize Corona in an infernal trial by publicity outside the impeachment court.

The prosecutors are hoping that the Coventry incineration tactics would reduce Corona into cinders, or to use Rene Saguisag’s ill-suited metaphor “damaged goods,” in his own version of rush to judgment even before the House panel had even introduced a scintilla of evidence into the impeachment court.

Tupas has threatened to inundate the court with 100 witnesses early in the trial, but most of them are nowhere to be found.

On Feb. 29, he claimed, after he announced the prosecution had dropped five of its eight articles, his panel had presented only 17 witnesses and 166 documents for Article 2 (its centerpiece article); one witness and 16 documents for Article 3; and seven witnesses and 65 documents for Article 7.

Unethical behavior

The withdrawal by the prosecution of the five articles drove Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago into a rage, lambasting the prosecution for airing charges that they now refused to prove, saying that they had compromised Corona’s “moral position.”

“I am terribly concerned that this might constitute unethical behavior in this trial court,” Santiago said. She wondered whether the prosecutors “acted in good faith” when they told the impeachment court in a legal compliance submitted in January that they would present evidence and witnesses for eight articles.

“Now you turn around and say you don’t want to do that,” she said. “That’s what the law calls frivolous if when you say, ‘I don’t want to present evidence on eight.  I only want to present evidence on five.’”

She said her suspicion was bolstered  by the prosecution’s continuing habit of announcing that its evidence can already prove Corona’s guilt.

“I am very concerned that the prosecution has been acting in bad faith all along because you tell so many things to media when you can file an official manifestation to this court. You insist you are already winning the court battle because you have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Good grief, that is contempt of court,” Santiago said.

She repeated an earlier charge that the prosecution’s discussion in press conferences of charges they planned to prove was a case of trial by publicity and was a a clear prejudgment of Corona’s case.

Presumptuous

What is the complicity of the media in this trial by publicity? They are the natural conduit of information on the trial. But when the prosecution unloads to media information and conclusions on the case outside the  court, they are complicit  to trial by publicity based on material that might be considered by the Senate tribunal as in contempt of court and prejudging the case.

It is worse if the media oversteps its responsibility to disseminate news when media commentators write judgments on the merits of the case, preempting the court’s decisions.

We have not been commissioned or appointed official media-jurors.  To act as one would be arrogantly presumptuous. We don’t have such a mandate.

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • Mang Teban

    Whose mandate is Truth to come out?
    Mr. Amando Doronila expresses the disgust that Sen. Miriam Santiago expressed in frustration that her daily forays at the rostrum to make her “valedictory speeches” and “trash talk verbal abuse” have suddenly halted.
    I cannot understand why the pro-Corona crowd are adamant with the hasty resting of the case by the prosecution. Should they be glad and rejoicing over the perceived “lack of evidence” and “running out of witnesses”? With the apparent dismal performance by the prosecutors, the defense should have its easy time to shoot down all of the 3 articles of the impeachment complaint with slingshot.

    But, on the contrary, one can almost feel the tremors and palpitations of the sweating defense panel on what to present to rebut the prosecution. This early the defense had already preempted the Senate impeachment jury that the respondent need not appear on the witness stand. Now, now, who is displaying arrogance to the court?

    Mr. Doronila talks about prejudging similar to the warning that presiding chair Enrile told the prosecutors. It is called human instinct. It is human to feel that, finally, the prosecution has rested its case and the appearance of Justice Sereno could have either improved or worsened the stand of the prosecutors. It is human to express elation that the balance of the prosecution’s performance is receiving greater approval and satisfaction from the people who are, by the way, the aggrieved party in this case. It is human to be happy that the defense is unprepared to ask for more time to study the presented evidence by the prosecution contrary to their claims in media interviews that the prosecutors bungled the case. Oh, really?

    Good luck, defense panel..no hard feelings, okay? Your client’s fate gingerly hangs on your performance to defend him..The mandate for Truth comes from the people and they are awaiting the final verdict. The senator-judges must know this reality that their own political future gingerly hangs on the perceptions of the electorate whether they voted dispassionately and without bias or simply voted out of political favors or to kill the imminent danger of a precedent where bank accounts can be opened during an impeachment case.

  • https://profiles.google.com/114012717524843308287 lolita marquez

    the media as it has been before contributed gratly to the character assasination or character glorification. in this case, the CJ has become sort of damaged goods where if not for his tenacity of bravely fighting it out firstly in the impeachment court, secondly against the benign hatred of the chief in the palace and worst of all, the public trial. during the early days of this tele-court drama many would want him to resign. and many say there is honor in resignation. what if he acquiesced with this early clamor, would they ever stop maligning him?

    it does not augur well for he prosecution to have dropped the other 5 charges especially when it continually trumpets that the evidences in three articles of complaints, 2,3, and 7 are enough to find the CJ guilty as if it is the gospel truth. many are affronted for it meant that the public is not wise or discerning enough to weigh in a valid decision. sen.pres. and head juror, wise for his words had forewarned the prosecution about this. similarly, it has received severe tongue lashingfrom the maverick senadora about the true intent of the prosecution, that is to vilify to the bone the CJ to drive him into resignation. this will definitely result into a monkey wrench conclusion.

    the public is entertained by seeing, hearing and speaking e$vils from the prosecution side of the panel. IT IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT COURT THAT WE HVE BEEN ENGAGED TO BUT A PUBLICITY TRIAL.

  • https://profiles.google.com/111787937624903100222 Simoun Alajero

    ….the passing of Mr. Isagani Yambot…coincides with the death of free discussion in this online forum…After deciding to delist ….DISQUS… as the ID provider for article comments….the list of participants drop precipitously…a big blow to the new found freedom of speech…in this country…
    …a long drift away from it’s traditional role….as the fearless forum….
    …this newspaper…is slowly drifting to the darkside…as the sole mouthpiece and propaganda tool of the current palace tenant…
    …so long to our friends…who will find this change cynical …. and understandably…will rather keep their silence…instead of suffer under Mr. Aquino’s strong handed vindictiveness…
    …we will miss your…VOICES…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284226792 Jojo Labayen

    How do we interpret the reduction of charges from 8 to 3? Or is it even fair? After going to town accusing a person of 8 crimes, you stop and say 3 is enough.

    What happens to the other 5? Is it saying the accused is not guilty of those charges? Or have they gone tired of fishing for evidence after being called out numerous times?

    • https://profiles.google.com/111787937624903100222 Simoun Alajero

      ….i guess…they realized …the whole act is so embarrassing…even to their neighbors…families….and even drinking buddies….
      ….i’ll be ashamed also…

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

December 22, 2014

‘Art of coexistence’

advertisement
advertisement