Difference between Corona and Drilon
The defense team of Chief Justice Renato Corona wants senator-judge Franklin Drilon to inhibit himself from the impeachment trial. The defense feels that because his questioning of Enriqueta Vidal, clerk of court of the Supreme Court, revealed that she had brought with her Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and networth (SALNs), Drilon must be siding with the prosecution.
It is clear that the defense is using any and all tactics to win its case. However, I would caution the defense on any moves to disqualify or make Drilon inhibit himself. This is because unlike its client, who was only appointed to his present position—and a midnight appointee, at that—the senators were voted into office by the people.
Drilon represents millions of Filipinos who expect him to find the truth and weigh the fitness of Chief Justice Corona to hold his position. For him to inhibit or remove himself from the impeachment trial would be akin to silencing a substantial portion of the vox populi. From the Edsa 2 experience, the defense should be very wary of muzzling public sentiment. It is not true, contrary to the defense’s claim, that “people perceive him (Drilon) to be biased” and want him removed from the trial for being impartial.
More likely, it’s just the defense that wants him removed because he threw a monkey wrench into its plans to block the prompt introduction of the SALNs. Drilon’s revelation must have scuttled a week’s worth of legal technicalities the defense could have used to bog down the proceedings. Otherwise, why would it object to him finding the SALNs right there in Vidal’s possession?
—SOLIMAN DELARIARTE,
