MANILA, Philippines - The camp of Chief Justice Renato Corona is not worried about the plan of the prosecution panel to present more than 100 witnesses, as long as they can establish the relevance of their testimonies to the case.
Tranquil Salvador III, one of the spokespersons of the defense panel, said it is the prosecution panel’s own lookout if they proceed with their plan of presenting all the witnesses they listed and revealed during a press conference last Friday.
The list of witnesses include justices of the Supreme Court (SC) and journalists.
According to Salvador, there are many complications that could arise once they start asking for subpoenas for these people.
“Our concern is that those witnesses may not be competent to testify. Do they have relevant information or direct connections to the case?” Salvador said.
He said some of the witnesses may not have personal knowledge of the matters they would testify on, which would mean that they would be testifying based on hearsay.
Salvador said he expects some of the witnesses to oppose the subpoenas that will be issued against them, including journalists who are bound by the rules on privileged communication.
“Remember that they may not be voluntary witnesses. There are a lot of complications. This is not as simple as a
numbers game. What is important is the substance and quality of the witnesses,” Salvador said.
He said many on the prosecution’s list would not go to the court voluntarily and would be represented by their respective lawyers who could move to quash the subpoenas to be issued against them.
Complications seen
One of the complications that would arise is on the justification for summoning justices of the SC.
Salvador said the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the executive and legislative and as such, the justices may raise objections about being compelled to serve as witnesses against one of their own.
“If they voluntarily appear then that would be a different story and even if they appear voluntarily, it may create some strain because there are some rules covering justices. What they are presenting is not simple,” Salvador said.
The list of witnesses prepared by the prosecution panel was prompted by the directive issued by Senator-judge Miriam Defensor Santiago last Tuesday for both the defense and prosecution to submit their respective lists, which would serve as the court’s guide as far as this issue is concerned.
Retired associate justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel, told the court that they would be presenting around 25 witnesses.
Salvador said the defense panel has yet to formally submit its list of witnesses.
He said the trial would not be a competition on the number of witnesses presented but on the substance of the testimonies that would be offered by these witnesses.
According to Salvador, what the prosecution panel may be trying to achieve with its disclosure of its list of witnesses last Friday is to sway public opinion, just like what they have been doing since the start of the trial.
“They are playing up to the public. They probably want to tell the public ‘look at how many witnesses we have, support our cause now.’ But with all modesty, we are not worried about the numbers,” Salvador said.
Slow trial
Salvador said the trial would drag on for months if all of the witnesses listed by the prosecution would be presented.
In the first two weeks of the trial, Salvador said the prosecution has been able to present an average of two witnesses a day.
The trial at the Senate is held from Monday to Thursday, starting at 2 p.m. and usually ending at 6 or 7 p.m.
“Based on experience, it would be very lucky to have three a day. It’s highly impossible to have five,” Salvador said.
Apart from answering questions raised by the prosecution, the witnesses could also be subjected to cross-examination by the defense panel, something Salvador said they cannot be deprived of.
“There may be delays. They have been shouting about a swift trial. If they want to present all those witnesses, it is their right under the law. But they will have to establish if their testimonies will be relevant to the case,” Salvador said.
‘Wrecking the high court’
Former House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman opposed yesterday the plan of prosecutors to have the Senate impeachment court summon SC justices to testify in the trial of Corona.
He said summoning Corona’s colleagues “will inordinately wreck the high court.”
Sought for comment on Lagman’s statement, prosecution panel spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said calling justices to testify on Corona’s alleged sins would not destroy but strengthen the SC.
Lagman said putting justices on the witness stand “will make them testify not only for or against the Chief Justice but also against each other.”
It would also violate the confidentiality of SC deliberations in the disposition of cases, he said.
“Moreover, the collective decisions of the Supreme Court will be shredded to pieces as the fishing expedition navigates into the high seas of the Supreme Court. The best evidence of the adjudication and voting of the justices are the decisions themselves and the dissents, if any, wherein individual justices voted for or against the collective ruling of the majority,” he said.
“Now, truly, it is not only the Chief Justice who is on trial but the entire Supreme Court even as the testimonies of the justices can be used against them in the threatened impeachment cases involving other justices,” he added.
Public accountability
Quimbo said the rule on the confidentiality of deliberations in the tribunal “must be subordinated to a higher principle of public accountability and transparency.”
“Even the law on the secrecy of bank deposits is cast aside in an impeachment trial because of the higher public interest involved,” he said.
The testimonies of at least three justices are particularly needed to prove Article VII of the impeachment complaint, which charges Corona of alleged partiality for former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed him associate justice and later chief justice.
The prosecution wants the testimonies of Justices Antonio Carpio, Lourdes Sereno and Presbiterio Velasco on alleged irregularities in the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the travel watchlist order of the Department of Justice on Arroyo and her husband.
The SC issued the TRO with three conditions on Nov. 15. Shortly after the TRO’s issuance, the Arroyo couple tried to board planes for Singapore and Hong Kong but immigration officers barred them from leaving.
The prosecution argued that Corona made it appear that the TRO was immediately effective to allow the Arroyos to leave the country even if the three conditions imposed by the SC had not all been complied with.
In his answer to the impeachment complaint, the Chief Justice insisted that the conditions “were resolutory, and not suspensive,” in other words, the TRO would remain executory, but if the conditions were not fulfilled within five days, the TRO would be lifted.
The prosecution said it is clear that Corona wanted Arroyo and her husband to immediately flee the country on Nov. 15 “even though the conditions for the TRO were not met.”
“If the conditions were still not met after five days, the TRO would be lifted, but by that time, GMA and FG would have already fled the country, beyond the reach of the Philippine justice system. The nation would be left holding an empty bag,” prosecutors said.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares is the prosecutor in charge of Article VII. His colleague Teddy Casiño has asked allies of Arroyo to desist from meddling with Corona’s impeachment since they are not among the 188 House members who signed the complaint against the Chief Justice.
‘100 witnesses needed’
For his part, lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of Iloilo said the prosecution panel needs the more than 100 witnesses it intends to call to prove its case against Corona.
“The list of witnesses and documents contained in our compliance filed with the Senate should be taken without manifestation that we will present a very strong, solid case against the Chief Justice within a reasonable period of time,” he said.
Quimbo said they had to include all possible witnesses and documents since they might encounter objections from Corona’s lawyers if they subsequently make additions.
He said they would determine as the trial progresses if the testimonies of some witnesses could be dispensed with. - With Jess Diaz - By Marvin Sy (Philstar News Service, www.philstar.com)
285 comments