Enrile should have stopped Corona’s testimony
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the impeachment court’s presiding officer, and the prosecution panel should have objected and stopped Chief Justice Renato Corona from testifying on direct in a narrative form, the same being a flaw in procedure as it invites continuous recitations of an incident from beginning to end.
A witness on the stand, if allowed to testify in story form, is practically given the freedom to say almost anything even if not connected or relevant to an issue.
Usually, if given the chance to tell his observations freely, not limited by any specific and detailed questioning, the witness will find it convenient to include his own opinion and perception, matters which he is not allowed to express. As a result, the record will be cluttered with confusing and unnecessary testimony.
This is what practically happened when the impeachment court heard the testimony of the Chief Justice.
Thus, although it seemed to expedite the presentation of evidence, the “narrative testimony” of the Chief Justice placed the prosecution at the disadvantage and it was so unfair because it deprived the opposing counsels of an opportunity to make a timely objection to the introduction of inadmissible testimony.
While it is true that objectionable testimony can be stricken off the record, this procedure tends to prolong rather than facilitate the presentation of evidence.
—NORMAN M. VERZOSA,
