When trial resumes, it will be the very first time in history that an impeachment has gone as far as the defense’s presentation of evidence. How the public will react is anybody’s guess. Remember that deposed President Joseph Estrada’s impeachment trial was cut short midway through the prosecution’s presentation of evidence. All other impeachments were aborted: Chief Justice Hilario Davide’s, after the Supreme Court blocked the House; Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s, by her resignation; and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s, each time Oliver Lozano filed his yearly bogus complaint to trigger off the one-year bar.
The prosecution’s move can be a show of braggadocio, the cockiness of being sure of having 16 votes tucked under the arm. Or it can be a concession that, if indeed impeachment is truly a political process, then it’s best to quit before the sovereign people gets bored.
So far, this is the substance of what happened the past week. The prosecution in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona announced that it had already made its case on three articles of impeachment and won’t pursue the remaining five other articles. When the trial resumes after a weeklong rest, the defense will begin presenting its own case and may be done by the Easter break.
This was the drama. The battle over subpoenas continued to rage, as the Supreme Court dug in and barred court personnel from testifying. The senators debated the legal nature of the “dropping” of the remaining charges. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago lashed out in fury at a private prosecutor who covered his ears while she was delivering a harangue against the prosecution.
The removal of Chief Justice Corona now hinges on three charges. One, the nonfiling and misdeclaration of assets and liabilities. Two, breaching judicial ethics by “flip-flopping” on settled cases, compromising his independence when his wife was given a post by the then President Arroyo, and meeting privately with litigants with pending cases before the SC. Three, leading the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order that would allow the Arroyos to escape punishment.
Disprove dropped raps?
Five charges have been dropped. The first is his midnight appointment. The next four all pertain to the work of the Supreme Court: when the high court initially blocked the impeachment of Ombudsman Gutierrez, well-known Arroyo protector; flip-flopping in yet another set of cases; the cover-up on the plagiarism in the comfort women case; and failure to account fully for the special funds of the judiciary.
Everyone debated what it was exactly that the prosecution had done. Were they dropping the charges altogether? Wouldn’t that amount to amending the articles of impeachment? Then they should go back to the House to start afresh. Or maybe they’re retaining the charges and just not support them with evidence? Unsupported, these would just be thrown out! But what if the zealous defense counsel wants to disprove the charges still? Shouldn’t they be free to do so?
Strong on Article 2
The prosecution has completed its evidence only on Article 2 on the SALNs, and even that is short of the information on the dollar accounts (the prosecution reserved that option should the Supreme Court lift its TRO).
Its evidence on Article 3 on judicial ethics is grossly incomplete. The prosecution had earlier dropped Article 3.2 on Mrs. Cristina Corona’s GMA links and Article 3.3 on CJ Corona’s tête-à-tête with the bereaved Vizconde père. The prosecution’s evidence was limited to Article 3.1 on the flip-flopping on the Philippine Airlines labor dispute, and even that was left unfinished when the Senate blocked the PAL vice president from talking about Corona’s VIP perks. All they have is the testimony of the union official.
‘Bitin’ on Article 7
Article 7 charges Corona for allegedly leading the high court to issue a TRO allowing the Arroyos to fly out of Manila and overriding the justice department’s watch-list order. Corona supposedly manipulated things to make it appear that the TRO was already in effect even if its preconditions had not yet been met.
It was asked how Corona can be punished for rulings made by majority vote of the high court. This issue would bedevil the prosecution here, and would rankle even for the remaining 5 charges had they not been dropped.
The prosecution rested its case after presenting witnesses on the high drama at the airport last November: Arroyo’s attending physician and two ABS-CBN cameramen who took the relevant videos.
However, they couldn’t prove Corona’s alleged manipulation. It all happened behind closed doors, with the justices the only ones privy to it. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s testimony relied on the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno which narrated the allegedly sly moves, but the Senate struck it out as hearsay evidence. Only Sereno could testify on it, but even then hers was just one version in a 15-person court. And even then, the defense warned they would grill her on her own incomplete SALNs.
The Senate rejected the prosecution’s plea that Sereno be subpoenaed, citing respect for a coequal branch of government. The Senate asked: Since Sereno already made the accusation against Corona, why doesn’t she testify voluntarily? No subpoena is needed. Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez then announced that it was Sereno’s call alone whether to testify. By week’s end, however, the prosecution rested its case and this was all overtaken by events.
Contempt of court
Senator Defensor-Santiago berated the prosecution many times in no uncertain terms. Some points were vintage Miriam, flaws only the true connoisseur can detect. For instance, Article 2 says Corona had “excessive entanglement” with GMA. Miriam says: Hey, that’s a term of art specific to only one area of law, as in “excessive entanglement between church and state.” It can’t be used in sentences like, there’s excessive entanglement between my computer’s power cord and my earphones. It bespeaks a lack of discipline in the craft of legal draftsmanship.
But the temper was vintage Miriam as well. When a private prosecutor covered his ears while she spoke and, asked to explain, had the gumption to tell her she sounded shrill, the Senate as a body declared him in contempt of court.