The last witness: Prelude to mistrial?

This article presents a summary of the extralegal interventions impinging on the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona as it winds down on May 30. It does not address legal issues stemming from the trial, an examination of which is better left to lawyers in both the prosecution and defense panels. It is more about the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the climactic phase of the trial.

Corona will have his day in court on Tuesday. He will appear for the first time to confront his accusers as the last witness for the defense.

As he prepares to take the witness stand, he runs into a deluge of damning evidence dumped by prosecutors, backed by the resources of the entire machinery of the administration of President Aquino, into the impeachment tribunal, as well as into the mass media, in the all-out trial by publicity of a total annihilation campaign to remove Corona from the high court.

Corona’s turn to defend himself comes after four months of no-holds-barred vilification of the Chief Justice in the impeachment court and in the public media in what is clearly an unequal combat between the head of the weakest branch of the government, in a supposedly democratic political system, and the President of the Republic, the most powerful official of the land, backed by the police powers of the state and the patronage resources at the disposal of the Chief Executive.

Clearly, the defense panel faces an uphill battle to save Corona from dismissal, and has no illusion about the huge odds stacked against it and its chances of winning his acquittal.

The purpose of this article is to assess the balance of the deployment of forces on the scales of this epic trial, so the public won’t have false and unrealistic expectations of its outcome, despite the often brilliant on-court performance of the  talented defense panel, led by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas.

At the same time, this article serves to emphasize the point that since the start of the trial on Jan. 16, I have argued that I had no quarrel with the administration’s actions to prosecute officials of the previous administration to hold them accountable, including the impeachment of Corona, who is accused of betrayal of public trust for offenses spelled out in the articles of impeachment on the condition that Corona is given a fair trial under the regime of the rule of law and due process within the framework of the rules of impeachment outlined by the presiding judge, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, in his opening policy statement.

Up to this stage of the trial, this concern for fairness has remained the position of this space and the reason why it has refrained from comment on evidence sub judice, introduced in the media outside the jurisdiction of the impeachment court.

Integrity of trial

I believe that this view of allowing the tribunal to reach a fair and impartial decision without undue interference from outside forces, including the Aquino administration, is shared by many in the public as an important means to ensure a fair trial.  Consequently, it is erroneous and unfair to accuse anyone of taking this position as being pro-Corona.

The outcome—either conviction or acquittal—is less important than the integrity of the trial. Recent opinion surveys showed that most Filipinos would accept either a guilty or not guilty decision provided the trial process is seen as fair.

The trial has arrived at a  juncture where every instance of outside interventions in the functions of the senator-judges in an effort to influence their vote is closely watched by the public. At this point, questions have been raised that such undue interference could compromise the integrity of the trial.

Such event could also lead to the political disaster of a colossal mistrial that could trigger the collapse of  the impeachment process with worse consequences than the breakdown of the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada following the suppression of evidence on his bank transactions. The suppression halted the trial and triggered people power demonstrations that forced him out of office.

Prosecutors in Palace

On the eve of Corona’s appearance, three prosecutors—Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, lawyer Mario Bautista and Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya—were sighted by Inquirer photographers in Malacañang, raising questions on what they were doing there or whether they were seeking instructions from the Palace.

Palace officials admitted that the prosecutors had met with Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda told reporters that he didn’t know what the prosecutors discussed with Ochoa.

On the side of the defense, emissaries associated with Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were reported by the Inquirer, quoting an unidentified legislative source, to have been lobbying senator-judges to try and sway them to acquit Corona. The reports said the emissaries sought meetings with some senator-judges, but they rejected the request ostensibly in the effort to remain independent in their decisions on the case.

In February, the religious sect held a large rally at Rizal Park in Manila, attended by an estimated half a million members, in a show of force and political clout to manifest its support for Corona. Cuevas is an INC member.

Since January, the President has been overtly interfering with the independence of the impeachment trial by declaring Corona guilty in public statements even before the defense had presented its case to the tribunal.

The trial by publicity was the administration’s strategy of bringing its case directly to public opinion, undermining the impeachment process in the effort, apparently intended to put pressure on the senator-judges to vote “on the side of the voice of the people” or “on the right side of history.”

This was a pitch for building up the rule of the lynch mob instead of the rule of law based on evidence. The impeachment tribunal has no place in this dangerous scheme.