Five impeachment articles withdrawn

MANILA, Philippines - The prosecution panel in the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona withdrew yesterday five of the eight Articles of Impeachment, effectively ending its presentation of evidence and witnesses on the seventh week of the trial.

Lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. made the formal manifestation yesterday before the end of the 25th day of the trial.

Tupas said the prosecution was terminating its presentation of evidence for Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and would rely solely on what they presented for Articles 2, 3 and 7 to secure a conviction of Corona.

“On Jan. 30, 2012, on day 8 of the impeachment trial, we manifested that the House panel will present its case within a reasonable time as we believe that this is the best for the nation. We do not wish to prolong the proceedings and impose upon the time of this honorable tribunal, the respondent and that of the public that we serve,” Tupas said.

“It is our humble submission that we have already presented a strong case and the evidence that we have laid down suffices for the removal from office of Chief Justice Renato Corona for betrayal of public trust with the presentation of Articles 3, 7 and especially Article 2,” he added.

Tupas said the prosecution has presented 17 witnesses for Article 2, one witness for Article 3 and seven witnesses for Article 7 for a total of 25 witnesses.

The prosecution has marked 166 documents for Article 2, another 16 for Article 3 and 65 for Article 7 for a total of 397.

Tupas said their presentation for Articles 3 and 7 already proved Corona was guilty of betrayal of public trust.

For Article 2, Tupas said they have shown the chief magistrate was guilty of both betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile directed Tupas to file a formal notice to the court that it is withdrawing and, in effect, canceling the five other articles contained in the Articles of Impeachment against the Chief Justice.

“You will stand and fall on your case against the respondent based on the three articles (you have presented),” Enrile said.

In making his manifestation, Tupas said the prosecution reserves its right to present additional evidence on the dollar accounts of Corona at the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) that are the subject of a case filed before the Supreme Court by the bank itself.

Malacañang, on the other hand, supported the decision of the House prosecution team to drop the other charges and rest its case against Corona.

“Sufficient evidence has been presented by the House prosecutors to support their case. We look forward to how the defense will answer questions on the discrepancies found between Chief Justice Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth and his unreported assets,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.

It was weak

The move of the prosecution to drop five of the eight Articles of Impeachment against Corona indicated the entire complaint is weak and constitutionally infirm from the very beginning, the defense camp said.

“This development only bolsters our belief since the beginning that the complaint is weak on its face,” Corona’s lawyer Ramon Esguerra said.

Defense lawyers Tranquil Salvador and Rico Paolo Quicho also welcomed the move, saying this would speed up proceedings.

“The defense is ready from Day One as shown by what CJ stated in his answer to the complaint. We have witnesses for all the three articles. We are likely to present evidence even on the other five articles,” Esguerra added.

Esguerra said the defense will present evidence that the impeachment complaint is “constitutionally flawed and fatally defective.”

“We will soon present our witnesses, too, on our affirmative defense that the complaint is constitutionally flawed and fatally defective for violation of due process and the requisite verification,” he said.

Esguerra said this will also allow the defense the earlier opportunity to present their evidence and controvert the prosecution.

“It (prosecution) was their call. But to be clear, they are terminating their presentation of evidence after only three out of eight. The (impeachment) court asked them to write this in a formal written submission. They will still ask time to make a formal offer of their almost 400 documentary exhibits. We will be given an opportunity to file our objections/comments to such exhibits,” Esguerra added.

According to Esguerra, the Senate will still have to decide which exhibits will be made admissible.

“A ruling on whether or not some or all those exhibits are admissible will be made by the Court. A period of about ten days may be needed for this aspect of the trial. Then the defense will start presenting its evidence,” he said.

Salvador added the prosecution’s decision to drop some of the charges also “strengthens our view that they actually have no evidence from the start which they started gathering only during the trial.”

Salvador said the prosecution was only able to present about 25 witnesses out of the 100 possible witnesses they listed in their memorandum to the impeachment court.

“The five articles were dropped. These will not be decided by the impeachment court and our senator-judges will just decide on the three articles,” he said.

Since the prosecution will not present anymore evidence on the five other Articles of Impeachment, Quicho said there is no need to for the defense to further present evidence or testimonies on the dropped articles.

Sen. Joker Arroyo, who served as a prosecutor during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, said it is the privilege of the prosecution panel to withdraw the other Articles of Impeachment.

“If they file the notice informing the Senate that they are no longer pursuing the five articles, so be it and that’s it,” Arroyo said.

Article 1 deals with the allegation that Corona showed his partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court until his supposedly midnight appointment as chief justice.

Article 4 alleges Corona violated the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches when the Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives regarding the impeachment of former Ombudsman Merceditas Guiterrez.

Article 5 alleges Corona showed wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities and the promotion of Dinagat Island to a province.

Article 6 deals with the investigation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo for plagiarism through a committee that he created for the alleged purpose of exculpating him.

Under Article 8, the prosecution alleged that Corona was guilty of graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund and the special allowance for the judiciary collections.

Tupas said the decision to withdraw the five other articles of impeachment came about after more than two weeks of continuous discussions among the members of the prosecution panel in consultation with Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II.

Tupas said that for the past two weeks, the prosecution panel had been meeting nightly on the issue and the final decision was reached only last Monday.

He said a majority of the prosecution panel members wanted to end its case as early as the completion of presentation of Article 2.

However, they had to consider the preparations made by the prosecutors for all Articles of Impeachment before making their decision.

Tupas said the decision to withdraw the five other articles was unanimous upon determining that they already had enough evidence to convict Corona.

“They were also ready to present (the other articles). We had to make a tough decision. The decision was unanimous. We have presented more than enough to remove the Chief Justice,” Tupas said.

Apart from their confidence on the evidence on the three articles, Tupas said that they also took into consideration other factors in coming up with the decision.

This includes the move of the Supreme Court to prevent Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and the other employees of the Court from appearing before the impeachment court without the consent of the full court.

The same condition applied to requests for court records and other documents.

Panel spokesman Marikina City Rep. Romero Quimbo admitted they are no longer hopeful that Sereno would appear before the impeachment court.

Tupas also cited the decision of the court to disallow Philippine Airlines vice president for sales Enrique Javier to testify as another factor considered in deciding to withdraw the other articles.

According to Tupas, the prosecution would most likely start its offer of evidence to the court today, including the information on the accounts of Corona in PSBank, a major part of their case in Article 2.

The camp of Corona has filed a motion to suppress because this was allegedly illegally acquired evidence.

Tupas said the prosecution panel would file an opposition to that motion because “this is clearly admissible as evidence.”

Further witnesses

On Day 25 of the impeachment trial, the prosecution presented witnesses to bolster their allegations in Article 7 which alleges partiality of Corona on the issuance of a temporary restraining order on the travel ban issued by the Justice department against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The prosecution presented Elenita Gatmonton, representing the Malacañang Records section; Danilo Piedad, cameraman of ABS-CBN; and Rochelle Mendez, head video librarian of the ABS-CBN network.

Private prosecutor Claro Mamaril questioned Gatmonton on Corona’s appointment papers dating back to when Arroyo was still vice president and Corona was her chief of staff and until he was appointed as chief justice on May 17, 2010.

Piedad was presented to “identify and authenticate the video clips” pertaining to the events that transpired on Nov. 15 last year when the former president and her husband tried but failed to leave the country.

At many times during the trial, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile aided the prosecution in laying down the premises of their presentation of witnesses in a bid to speed up the proceedings.

“The witness was presented here, who is the custodian of the electric evidence… one who received the flash cards,” Enrile said, in explaining further to the defense camp why Mendez was summoned to the witness stand.

“The compact discs exist and that the original of which are in her custody and that those presented in court are… faithful reproductions…so let the compact disc become part of the testimony of the witnesses… Evidence should be on those compact discs,” Enrile said.

Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas said he was “never disputing” much less controverting the ABS-CBN librarian’s function but as to the labeling of the video clips.

Enrile had earlier tried to explain the relevance of the witnesses’ testimonies in court.

“Are you denying the fact that this happened, and that it depicts an event? The only ting it says is an event happened on Nov. 15… and it involves the presence of former president at (the airport). For what purposes, we do not know why she was there. That’s all. Do you deny that?” Enrile asked defense counsel Joel Bodegon, who substituted for Cuevas early during the hearing.

The prosecution has presented as pieces of evidence at least six video clips which pertain to the coverage of the press briefing of SC spokesman Midas Marquez on the SC decision to issue a TRO on Nov. 15.

Another video of Arroyo lawyer Ferdinand Topacio was shown regarding the posting of bail by the Arroyos. Also shown were a video of the process payment; the videos pertaining to Arroyo’s attempt to flee the country; and the service of the warrants of arrests against the former president.

‘Kawawa’

Enrile also took the opportunity to advise the prosecution panel to stop playing “kawawa” (pitiful).

Enrile particularly advised Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares after he reiterated the difficulty in getting witnesses who are working in the SC following the declaration of the high tribunal that it is not allowing its members to appear before the impeachment court.

Colmenares said they intend to present the process server that would prove that Corona used his influence to facilitate the issuance of the TRO against the travel ban on Arroyo.

“You are making it appear that you are all kawawa (pitiful). You have all the means. You have all the power,” Enrile told Colmenares.

Enrile said the prosecution has the privilege to coordinate with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of the President and the House of Representatives, having initiated the impeachment process.

“Why don’t you just bring them (your witnesses) here like the way you bring the cameraman and staff of ABS-CBN?” Enrile told Colmenares. – With Aurea Calica, Christina Mendez, Jose Rodel Clapano