Defense witnesses and dilatory tactics

The testimony of the defense panel’s first witness, Rep. Toby Tiangco of Navotas, in the Corona impeachment trial was a total waste of time and the people’s money, if it were not a dilatory tactic. The testimony tried to show that the impeachment complaint was done in a hurry and therefore defective and should be thrown out by the impeachment court.

This has been the tiresome refrain of the defense since the trial began. It had asked for a preliminary investigation. Denied. It had filed two separate petitions with the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Renato Corona’s home turf, to stop the trial. No decision as of this time as the impeachment court warned the tribunal not to meddle in the impeachment trial. The Constitution gave that exclusive right to the Senate. At the resumption of the trial last Monday, chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas began with a long argument to stop the trial, citing the very same reasons presented before. No dice.

Two or three other witnesses that the defense panel will present are more of the same (Representatives Hermilando Mandanas, Boying Remulla and one other guy who did not sign the impeachment complaint). What good will they do, if they are merely dilatory? An old saying in legal circles goes: “If you can’t win a case, delay it.” That’s what the Corona defense team is doing.

The trial is already halfway through and the defense still wants to stop it? The Constitution is very clear on this: As soon as the impeachment complaint is brought to the Senate, the latter should accept it and the trial should begin immediately and be conducted continuously until completed. But the defense still wants to stop it when the trial is already halfway through and the evidence is very bad for Corona.

Aha, maybe that’s the reason. The defense panel cannot see any way to get Corona out of the mess he himself made, and the only way out is to stop the trial on a technicality.

Cuevas cited every technicality he could grasp to block the presentation of evidence. From the very beginning the defense panel’s tactic was to prevent, to obfuscate, to confuse, to hide, etc.

Corona refused to disclose his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs). When these were finally surrendered by the Supreme Court, the senators found out that not only did Corona undervalue his assets, mostly condominium units, he also did not disclose many more. When the court found out that Corona had secret bank accounts, he refused to divulge them, citing the confidentiality of bank accounts. When it was found out that he had dollar accounts, Corona also refused to divulge them, hiding behind the Foreign Currency Bank Deposit Law.

When Corona was asked where he got the money to pay for all his expensive condo units, he said he borrowed from the corporation of his wife’s family, Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI). The Basas were surprised by this revelation because the family corporation has long been dormant, the two families have been estranged for quite some time, and they didn’t know anything about any loan to Corona.

When Ana Basa, a niece, revealed to the Inquirer how the Coronas “oppressed” the Basa family, and Sister Flory Basa, a 90-year-old nun, said she was willing to testify, the defense lost no time in trying to block her from testifying.

When it was demanded that Corona testify in his own behalf (after all, he is the best defense witness because he knows everything about his mess), the defense came back with “Yes, he will testify at the appropriate time.” They varied this with “in due course,” “in due time,” and “when necessary.” But they didn’t say when “in due time,” “in due course,” “at the appropriate time” and “when necessary” will be. It could be 10 years or 100 years from now, or “never.”

The people would like to know how he acquired all his assets and condo units, the money in his numerous bank accounts, and the dollars in his secret dollar accounts, why he did not declare them in his SALNs, or the loan he supposedly got from BGEI. Were they legitimate or ill-gotten? Since Corona refuses to say, the presumption is that it was “ill-gotten.” Only Corona can prove that it is not ill-gotten. But why doesn’t he speak out?

An impeachment trial is intended to find out the truth about the person impeached, but how can the impeachment court determine that when all the defense team is doing is to block the presentation of evidence by the prosecution? Another favorite legal saying: “If the evidence is bad for your client, prevent its presentation.” The Corona defense team is doing better than that: It is trying to stop a trial that is already on the homestretch.

But in the final analysis, the senator-judges will not decide on the evidence accepted by the impeachment court but on their own consciences. The decision will not be whether or not Corona is guilty according to the evidence, but whether or not Corona is still fit to be chief magistrate. After everything that has been revealed against him, will the people still trust him? Will they still obey the orders of the courts he supervises? What will happen to our justice system? It is bad enough as it is. Let us not make it worse.