MANILA, Philippines - The camp of Chief Justice Renato Corona formally asked the Senate impeachment court yesterday to have Sen. Franklin Drilon removed as judge for his being “openly partial and biased” for the prosecution.
In seeking Drilon’s disqualification as senator-judge, the defense camp noted that he has lost the “cold neutrality” of a judge, thus undermining due process. This, defense lawyers said, should prompt the court to order the “recusal, inhibition, or disqualification” of Drilon.
The senator called the accusations baseless.
Defense lawyers have accused Drilon of helping the prosecution team led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas persuade Supreme Court (SC) clerk of court Enriqueta Vidal to release to the Senate court the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of Corona.
“It is beyond the cavil that this turn of events has put in question the integrity of proceedings and members of the impeachment court. Every measure must be taken to guard against the erosion of public confidence in the impeachment trial of CJ Corona, lest the proceedings be rendered legally vulnerable,” the defense team, led by retired SC justice Serafin Cuevas, said.
Defense lawyers disputed Drilon’s claim that his actions were “neutral and motivated by the desire for truth.”
“The ‘search for truth’ poses no excuse to relieve a judge from his duty to observe the perception of impartiality,” the defense motion read. Corona’s lawyers said Drilon’s conduct has cast doubt on the integrity of the impeachment trial.
They added that “even the appearance of partiality” should be avoided by a judge.
“Unquestionably, the introduction of the SALN has been a crucial issue for CJ Corona, inasmuch as the prosecution has no evidence whatsoever to support the essential allegations in their complaint,” the defense said.
“For the defense, the subpoena for the clerk of court of the Supreme Court was part of a fishing expedition of the prosecution,” the defense team noted in its motion.
Defense lawyers added that many of the questions tossed to Vidal “bordered on the power of the impeachment to issue a subpoena and command compliance therewith.”
While the defense noted Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s ruling that the defense counsel cannot object to any questions propounded by a senator-judge, Corona’s lawyers argued that Drilon’s questions “sought to elicit the very same responses as the private prosecutor attempted to obtain during his conduct of the direct testimony.”
They said Drilon’s questioning of Vidal resulted in the presentation of Corona’s SALN which “the prosecution was unable to accomplish on its own.”
“In sum, it was Senator-Judge Drilon who carried the cudgels for the prosecution and accomplished what they failed to do,” the motion read.
The defense told the court that the actions of Drilon have “sparked controversy even among members of the viewing public.”
They cited a verbal spat between former senator Francisco Tatad and Drilon on day four of the trial over Tatad’s confronting him over his perceived bias for the prosecution.
Drilon was even quoted as challenging Tatad to have him disqualified.
“It cannot be doubted that many persons perceive the conduct of Senator-Judge Drilon very disconcerting because of the obviously partisan character he exhibited,” the motion added.
According to the defense, Drilon also exhibited his partiality by directly causing the introduction of evidence from a document intended to cast doubt on the role of Corona on the acquisition of property by his daughter.
“As it turns out, CJ Corona acted as the attorney-in-fact in the transaction,” the defense noted.
“Senator-judge Drilon made sure to highlight this fact, as if to suggest that CJ Corona was the beneficial owner of the property. This was cleverly done while suppressing the fact that CJ Corona had to act as an attorney-in-fact because his daughter, Charina, is based abroad and cannot personally complete the purchase herself,” the defense added.
“To save the day (for) the prosecution, Drilon took the floor and propounded questions to highlight the role of CJ Corona in the sale, but without balancing the information with the fact that Charina is based abroad and can only act through an attorney-in-fact,” the motion added.
The defense cited Rule 17 of the impeachment rules, which delves on the right of a senator to question a prosecutor or counsel or a witness.
“It is, however, incorrect to assume that a senator-judge would be justified to propound questions that amount to prosecuting the case or the witness, such in a case like this where the questions of Senator-judge Drilon were clearly intended to accomplish what the prosecution failed to do,” the motion added.
In an interview with The STAR, defense counsel Jose Roy III said that a judge must avoid creating even an impression of partiality.
“Actually, whether or not Sen. Drilon had good motives to do what he did, that is not even the point, the point is the appearance of partiality is gone, and that constitutes the violation,” Roy said.
Roy said the defense is still hopeful that the impeachment body will act positively on its motion.
“On whether the public perception about what happened in the court room constitutes a ground to find that the impartiality is gone, if the appearance of partiality is gone, then there is a violation,” Roy said.
Unperturbed
Drilon, for his part, downplayed the move of the defense, saying inhibiting from court proceedings is a personal choice of the person being asked to inhibit.
On the allegation that he had lost “cold neutrality,” Drilon regarded it as mere impression by the defense camp.
“That’s what they say, that’s a conclusion on their part,” Drilon said. “The inhibition is addressed to me personally. The inhibition is addressed to the person of the senator, and he will not inhibit,” Drilon, a lawyer and former justice secretary, said.
“They can address it to the court, but the first one who has the discretion is the senator,” he added.
Enrile, for his part, has cautioned both the prosecution and defense counsel in the impeachment trial about discussing evidence outside of court.
Enrile’s comments were made about two hours after a press conference held by representatives of the prosecution team. In that briefing, copies of information related to Corona’s assets and income history were circulated to the media. Prosecution spokesman Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo alleged that the large discrepancy between Corona’s income and property holdings implied he was acquiring funds from an unrecorded source.
Several other senator-judges also offered their thoughts.
Sen. Teofisto Guingona III said the rules should be more liberally applied because the trial was public. He said if the documents were not made public, it defeated the purpose of having a public trial.
Sen. Pia Cayetano said that depending on how documents were discussed outside of court, there is danger the public could be deceived about their weight.
“There’s a big difference between documents marked and offered,” she said.
She added that these are fine distinctions known to lawyers and the senator-judges but can easily confuse ordinary people.
Sen. Joker Arroyo agreed, adding that evidence only becomes a public document when it is admitted, not when it is marked. While the trial was public, he said, order must be maintained.
Enrile said ultimately both counsels, when speaking outside of court, should be “very careful” about the distinction between marked and admitted evidence.
‘Multiplicity’ of charges
The Senate impeachment court also vowed yesterday to thresh out concerns raised by the defense and some senator-judges over the “multiplicity” of charges in Article 2 of the eight Articles of Impeachment against Corona.
Enrile said he will discuss the issue in a caucus next week to put the issue to rest once and for all.
The debates have been eating up much of the impeachment body’s time and had interrupted the offer of evidence and presentation of witnesses by the prosecution.
Enrile cited a decision penned by former justice and now Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in the case of the impeachment of resigned Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez that stipulated that each accusation should be contained in one article.
Roy told The STAR that the debates on the floor have evolved into an issue of an “inherently defective” complaint that should be tossed back to the House of Representatives.
“Most people seem to think that this is a continuation of yesterday’s, but this is actually... the next evolution of the discussion. Now, we are talking about the amendment of Article 2, which in effect, that Article 2 is fatally flawed,” Roy said.
“Again, let me say not a tactic of the defense, this is a matter that the Court is starting to see, and that brings me back to the first question we raised: Was the verified complaint valid? That’s where the problem begins,” said Roy, adding that the defense is awaiting the final ruling from the body regarding the matter.
“That means that the complaint is defective, wala na yun. That means itatapon na yun (it should be thrown away). That’s why you need to amend it,” Roy said.
During the hearing, Enrile directed both the prosecution and the defense to submit their respective memoranda on the issue of multiplicity of the charges in Article 2.
“Sufficed it states that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge, I hope you will listen to this, with each charge representing an article of impeachment assembled in one set known as articles of impeachment, it follows that an impeachment not alleged only one impeachment as a whole but each charge must be represented by an article of impeachment,” he said, paraphrasing Morales’ decision.
“That is the quandary where this court was in when we held the caucus, because Article 2 now was expanded to each specification and allegation when the grounds of impeachment were actually narrated,” he said.
Sen. Francis Escudero emphasized that in the United States, each impeachable act is placed in one article of impeachment.
“We are impeaching Chief Justice Corona as chief justice, I presume, not as an associate justice, not as an adviser to the office of the vice president, not as presidential legal counsel,” Escudero said.
“My point is this, I heard many evidence pertaining to the tax returns in 2002, 2003… are we talking here about acts of the Chief Justice as chief justice, not prior acts? Can we impeach the Chief Justice before he became chief justice?” Escudero asked.
While an associate justice can also be impeached, Escudero asked if Corona’s actions prior to his appointment as Chief Justice on May 17, 2010 can be covered by his impeachment.
“Are we limited on what he did or did not do while he was Chief Justice? Or are his acts when he was associate justice also included in this impeachment?” Escudero asked.
Escudero, however, said the prosecution might be trying to present a pattern or practice of Corona prior to his appointment as SC chief.
“But that was not part of the offer of the prosecution when they presented this and previous witnesses,” Escudero said.
Enrile said he needs to consult with other members of the court before the body can “make a definitive ruling as to the acts done by the respondent as an associate justice all the way to his acts when he was appointed as chief justice.”
“Whether the acts that he did prior to that, we have to study it whether it can be covered. Offhand, I would say probably it is relevant, because he is both an associate justice and the chief justice. I am not saying that is a definitive position because that is an offhand reaction,” the presiding officer said.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan argued that Article II Section 2 on the “accountability of public officers” stressed that the president, vice president and the members of the Supreme Court, the members of Constitutional commission… may be removed from office on impeachment.
“It does not say the chief justice, it just says the members of the Supreme Court and since the chief justice has been a member of the Supreme Court since 2002, then I’d like to think, he falls square in terms of the jurisdiction of this court,” Pangilinan added.
Enrile made the decision after Cuevas noted that there were multiple allegations in Article 2.
The legal debates heated up on Day 7 of the trial following the body’s ruling last Wednesday that the prosecution can only offer evidence pertaining to paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of Article 2, and not on the issue of illegal wealth under paragraph 2.4
In the verified complaint, paragraph 2.2 provides that respondent failed to disclose to the public his SALN as required by the Constitution.
Paragraph 2.3 says that “it is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.”
Meanwhile, paragraph 2.4, shows that “respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits.” - By Christina Mendez (Philstar News Service, www.philstar.com)
9 comments