Will senators be influenced by Corona’s walkout?
The collapse of the Senate impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona was narrowly averted following his walkout from the witness stand on Tuesday without permission from the court at the conclusion of his testimony in his defense.
Chaos broke out in the court after Corona announced, “And now, the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to be excused,” and then strode out to the exit door. His opening statement took more than three hours to deliver.
Senate security authorities blocked his path after Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the tribunal, quickly issued orders to shut all exits in the Senate. These timely measures delayed Corona’s departure, preventing a quick getaway.
If Corona had reached his car a minute earlier at the Senate parking lot, the trial would have met the same ignominious fate of then President Joseph Estrada’s own impeachment trial, which triggered the second People Power coup in this country in the first month of the 21st century. This fiasco was not lost in the memory of Enrile, and must have influenced him in determining that he would not allow this event to happen again during his watch as presiding officer of the second impeachment trial in Philippine history.
That failed impeachment trial was sparked by the 11-10 vote of the senator-judges to suppress a second envelope thought to contain evidence of Estrada’s bank transactions. Enrile, then a senator-judge, voted to suppress. The vote provoked the prosecutors led by then Rep. Joker Arroyo to walk out, effectively killing the trial because it could no longer continue without the presence of the prosecutors.
The aborted walkout of Corona left in its wake a tempest of questions such as: (1) whether or not he had planned a walkout to avoid facing cross-examination by the prosecutors; (2) whether or not he was stricken by illness associated with diabetes; (3) whether or not he acted disrespectfully to the Senate; and (4) whether he became ill while delivering his opening statement, or after it.
The answers to these questions hold the key to the issue of disrespect to the impeachment court—an issue that affronted Enrile so much that he declared, with voice raised: “I have a high respect for the Chief Justice, for the institution that he represents. But I equally demand respect for the institution that I represent. I am not going to allow any slight, any abuse of authority, against this court for as long as I am presiding officer.”
It appeared that Enrile was offended that he was betrayed after he had leaned over backward to give Corona the utmost leniency in presenting his side. After Enrile noticed that Corona had left the stand, he told chief defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas: “We’ve not discharged the Chief Justice. With due respect to him … counsel for the defense, will you kindly advise your client to return to the witness stand. I respect him as Chief Justice but this court must be respected.”
Cuevas was as much taken by surprise as Enrile. All Cuevas could say was that “there was a misunderstanding,” and he asked for a one-minute suspension to have Corona called back. He also said Corona was taking medication and “attending to personal necessity.”
After a break of more than an hour, Corona was back in the court room—in a wheelchair. His reappearance came after Enrile warned Cuevas that if Corona failed to return, he would order his testimony stricken off the record and the case submitted for resolution. The court finally ruled to give Corona until Friday to appear to finish his testimony, which was interrupted by the walkout, after his doctors presented evidence that he had been stricken ill, which was the reason first given as Corona’s side for the walkout. Corona was taken to the Medical City in Pasig City on Tuesday evening after he was allowed to leave the Senate premises. He was put in the Intensive Care Unit for closer observation.
Corona’s lawyers have claimed that he was taken to hospital after he suffered what appeared to be a heart attack, which they said prompted his sudden departure from the Senate session hall. The tribunal allowed Corona to present his defense in the form of a “narrative,” with which he explained the context of the impeachment case filed against him. He started the statement with an emotional approach, accusing the Aquino administration of launching a “methodical” campaign of vilification to remove him from office in retaliation for the Supreme Court’s decision ordering the redistribution of the bulk of the Aquino-owned Hacienda Luisita to its peasant workers. Corona called President Aquino the “hacienderong pangulo” who hated him so much that he was “willing to break the laws of the land” to kick him out of office.
It was not until after 30 minutes of reading from his prepared statement that Corona started to address the core issues of the impeachment case—those pertaining to his controversial entries in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth and his bank accounts.
The walkout episode on Tuesday introduced a vexing issue—whether the senator-judges will render their verdict on the basis of evidence already submitted, or be influenced by Corona’s behavior.
