Don't associate CJ with GMA - defense
Lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona yesterday called on the prosecution to stop associating him with former President Gloria Macapagal-arroyo to hype up their allegations before the impeachment court.
Defense lawyers Tranquil Salvador III and Rico Paolo Quicho also bashed the prosecution, particularly Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo and Rep. Neri Colmenares, who last Thursday said Arroyo could have evaded criminal charges had she been allowed to flee the country last November.
Quimbo and Colmenares said the defiance of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima of the Supreme Court (SC)’S temporary restraining order (TRO) had prevented Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo from leaving the country.
The prosecution cited the supposed close association between Arroyo and the Chief Justice after the Senate labeled as hearsay De Lima’s testimony on Corona’s alleged maneuvering of the SC sessions that resulted in the
issuance of the TRO on Nov. 15.
They said Arroyo would have not been arraigned Thursday on election sabotage charges had she and her husband been allowed to leave.
Salvador lamented Corona is being labeled as pro-arroyo just because he was appointed by the former president to the top SC post, ergo, the Chief Justice should also take the same punishment which the present administration wants for Arroyo.
They surmised this strategy is an attempt to fan the fire of anti-arroyo public sentiment and transfer it to Corona.
Corona’s lawyers lashed out at the prosecution for always associating Corona with Arroyo in what is perceived as a proxy war launched by the administration against the former president and the Chief Justice.
“We need to improve as a people. It should not be that ‘if you are not with me, you are against me.’ It should not be like this,” Salvador said. “This is a time for us to grow as a people... we could disagree on issues, we could disagree on opinions but we should not take it personally.”
Quicho stressed Corona earned the right to become chief justice.
“I think we should have a different perspective and understanding because we can see from the Chief Justice’s record, he rose from the ranks just like any employee in the government,” he stressed.
“Let us not judge him because he was appointed by the former president, and as such he should suffer the same consequences as the former president is now experiencing,” he added.
Quicho also challenged Corona’s critics.
“Are we saying in this argument that all other appointees of former President Arroyo should also be prosecuted?” Quicho said.
Quicho urged Corona’s “persecutors” to look at themselves in the mirror and take a look at the recent past if they have also benefited from the past administration.
As far as the defense camp is concerned, the prosecution has not proved anything against Corona in relation to the first three Articles of Impeachment already discussed during the trial.
As regards De Lima’s testimony, the defense also deemed the Justice secretary’s statements as weak and that the prosecution failed to bolster their accusations that the Chief Justice exercised partiality and maneuvered the SC when it issued the TRO.
“It’s not really about the public opinion now titling towards the defense. We think that we are showing to the people that while the trial is ongoing, the fatal defects, the infirmities in the verified impeachment complained filed by 188 members are slowly showing,” Quicho said.
“In that manner, we are now seeing that the prosecutors of the House of Representatives are finding it difficult to support with clear and convincing evidence all the allegations contained in their complaint,” he added.
Prosecution failed
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said the House prosecution panel in the impeachment trial seemed to have failed in proving their case in Article 3 of their complaint.
The IBP cited as proof the bid of the prosecutors to present Philippine Airlines vice president for sales Enrique Javier as witness in their allegation in Article 3, which accused the Chief Justice of culpable violation of the Constitution and/ or betrayal of public trust for his role in the SC’S flip-flopping on cases.
“The prosecution failed to prove that CJ Corona personally acted upon PAL counsel’s letter or there was a flip-flop. The prosecution’s efforts to show motive for an unproven act is uncalled for and only tends to demonize the CJ,” said IBP spokesman Dennis Habawel.
With this, the IBP said the decision of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile last Tuesday to reject Javier’s testimony on Corona’s alleged travel perks was correct.
“Due process requires evidence to be relevant. As Article 3 did not charge CJ of bribery, evidence tending to show bribery is irrelevant.
The argument that the evidence will show CJ’S motive in allowing the court to flip-flop because of a mere letter of PAL’S counsel is misleading as it assumes that the CJ allowed such a flip-flop,” the IBP stressed.
“Notably no senator questioned the ruling to reject because it is correct. But one senator admitted to being affected by the perks information read into the records,” it added without naming names.
The IBP then called on the public to “view the prosecution’s antic with discernment.”
Judicial privilege
Corona’s lawyers also cited judicial privilege cited by the SC in their Feb. 14 resolution that prevents justices and any employee of the judicial branch from testifying on the decisions of the SC.
They also cited Rule 10, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, which provides that all matters discussed during their deliberations are considered confidential in nature.
On the alleged irregularity that Corona had handwritten notes in the draft resolution on the TRO, Quicho pointed to internal rules of the SC that the Chief Justice is tasked to take the minutes of a meeting.
“So he will have notes in an en banc session, and if it is a division, then the most senior chairperson is tasked to take down notes,” Quicho explained.
Quicho and Salvador said it is wrong to put malice on the supposed handwritten notes of the Chief Justice in the draft of the SC meetings prior to the issuance of the TRO last year.
“This does not mean that he was influencing or trying to preempt the decision of the other magistrates. If he may have notes, it could be what was discussed during the deliberations,” Quicho explained.
He said this was a normal procedure during SC deliberations. “Nothing is wrong, nothing is illegal.”
While the Chief Justice is considered first among equals, the deci- sions of the SC are always collegial in nature.
Following the recent developments, Salvador said Corona remained strong amid the biggest storm he has experienced in his life.
“The Chief Justice has been strong and manifested to his defense team that he would like to see the process through,” he said.
“He ( Corona) would like the process to continue. He is happy that he is given the chance to be heard, and that the people want to hear his side,” Salvador said.