By 
“Medyo masama po kasi ang pagkakagawa ng kaunti,” Rep. Rudy Farinas said, as he responded to Senator Jinggoy Estrada's inquiry on why he did not sign the impeachment complaint.
Farinas added that he is a slow reader and was not yet finished reading the complaint when the House of Representatives successfully collected enough number of signatures to impeach Corona.
Estrada was prompted to ask Farinas’ reason for not signing the complaint after the lawmaker defended the contents of the articles of impeachment that led to a heated debate with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.
The prosecution had requested to subpoena the financial records of the Supreme Court to prove that Corona used public funds for his personal gain.
Enrile, however, questioned the relevance of the financial records with Article III of the impeachment complaint which pertains to Corona’s failure to act with competence, integrity and independence as a member of judiciary.
“That is not what is article 3 is about. Bawat paratang ay isang artikulo ng impeachment lang. Competence at integrity ang pinaguusapan dito hindi fund use,” Enrile said.
Farinas pointed out that the allegation that the chief justice dipped into the judicial funds for personal use is included in the body of Article III.
Enrile answered, “Ang problema eh wala iyon sa grounds niyo. Hindi kami boboto sa paragraphs kundi sa articles of impeachment.”
The presiding officer added that the same thing happened to Article II wherein the accusation is not in the main charge but in the body. Enrile stressed that this should not be the case.
“Iba siguro ang pinag-aralan mong rules of court kaysa pinag-aralan ko,” Enrile told Farinas.
Farinas nevertheless said that it is the content and not the style that should matter in the impeachment complaint.
“Hindi naman pagandahan ng complaint ang labanan dito. Hindi naman ito literary writing contest. Ang importante ay yung nilalaman at naiintindihan ng isang partido ang alegasyon ng kabilang partido,” the congressman said.
Farinas also expressed his confidence on the prosecution’s case against Corona.
“Hindi ako complainant pero nandito ako. Iyon na ang best evidence na naniniwala ako na may laban kami,” he said.
Article III witness
Meanwhile, the president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) served as the prosecution’s first witness on Article III.
“Nandito po ako para tumestigo laban kay Corona dahil sa pangangailam niya sa aming kaso,” FASAP President Roberto Anduiza said before the impeachment court on Monday.
Anduiza refers to SC’s recall of its resolution on the case involving the alleged illegal retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants of flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL).
In an En Banc resolution last October 2011, the high court took cognizance of a letter from PAL legal counsel Estelito Mendoza questioning the composition of the SC 2nd Division which handed down the earlier resolution in September 2011 which ruled with finality that said retrenchment was illegal.
Mendoza's letter pointed out that it should have been the high court's 3rd Division, not the 2nd Division, which should have passed upon the case.
Anduiza revealed that since 1998, Corona “took no part” in SC’s decisions on the three FASAP cases which favored them. But when Corona stepped in due to Mendoza’s letter, the SC recalled their victory, he said.
“Sana ma-impeach si Chief Justice Corona para mabalik na ang tiwala namin sa Korte Suprema,” Anduiza added.
The defense team will cross examine Anduiza on Wednesday.
324 comments