Defense, prosecution told to trim witnesses
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. LYN RILLON
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Monday suggested that the two sides in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona trim the number of testimonial and documentary evidence after some senators expressed fears a prosecution plan to call more than 100 witnesses would unduly prolong the proceedings.
At the outset of Monday’s proceedings, Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. added his voice to apprehensions of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago that with the prosecution pronouncement the trial could drag on for months.
Saying that the Senate was digressing from its legislative work, Revilla pointed out that in the past seven hearings, the rate of presentation of witnesses was one a day.
“If we continue with this pace, the trial could last for a year,” he said. “I do not wish to trample on the rights of the prosecution to present evidence and on the defense panel to establish the best defense. But maybe both panels can look back at their lists of witnesses and evidence? Do we really need to hear all of them?”
The prospective list of 100 witnesses the prosecution announced on Friday included Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, and the doctors of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Arroyo and journalists. The defense said it was calling 15 witnesses.
The prosecution has been complaining that the defense had been delaying the proceedings with its repeated technical objections.
But Enrile had also castigated the prosecutors for slowing down the trial by being unprepared.
On Wednesday, Santiago was infuriated when Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr., head of the House prosecution team, failed to reply when she asked him how many witnesses he planned to present in the course of the trial.
Santiago demanded that both panels submit their lists of witnesses that time.
“Because of the volume of the announced number of witnesses and documents to be presented… I would suggest that the two panels sit down and see what they can agree upon,” Enrile told reporters during a break in Monday’s hearing.
He said that in “adversarial proceedings,” the two parties could agree on the witnesses to be presented.
Enrile said he would suggest that the meeting between the two sides be done openly, “so it would be transparent and there would be no secrets.”
Pretrial conference
At the start of the trial, Enrile had overruled a defense motion for a pretrial conference to discuss the presentation of evidence.
“I feared it would be misunderstood by the public, that there would be suspicions of lutong Macau. That’s why I did not agree with it,” he explained Monday.
“But now, after that announcement that there would be so many witnesses and that there would be thousands, or rather, hundreds of documents, that would take a lot of time. That’s why, as much as possible, the two panels should iron this out,” he said. “I will not force them. This is just a suggestion.”
Aristotle Batuhan, a volunteer lawyer assisting the prosecution, told reporters earlier that he did not think the trial would not go beyond three months.
“The prosecution will not need to present all of them,” Batuhan said.
Midas Marquez, the Supreme Court spokesperson, said he could not say if the high tribunal would discuss en banc a request from the prosecution for the Senate to summon justices to appear as witnesses in the Corona trial.
“I understand it’s just a list submitted by the prosecution so there are no subpoenas yet. So let’s see if the court can act on it as a whole or the justices individually,” Marquez said. “As far as I am concerned, if I receive a subpoena I will have to comply with the subpoena.”
Pending cases
The Supreme Court is expected to resume Tuesday its deliberation on consolidated petitions questioning the validity of House of Representatives’ adoption of the articles of impeachment against Corona, and the jurisdiction and the proceedings at the Senate.
Marquez said there was also a possibility that the high court might issue a temporary restraining order after receiving the comments and replies of the party-litigants.
“It’s up to the en banc to decide on what to do after it receives a comment of the respondents—it can just [note the submission] or require a reply,” he said.
Asked by reporters if the issue of separation of powers could crop up if the Senate called the justices to testify, Marquez replied, “There can be. Maybe it should be looked into, or maybe it should be discussed what will be the possible questions that will be asked of the justices. Again, I don’t want to preempt the justices of the court so let’s wait for the resolution or decision of the court en banc on this matter.”
He noted that the plan to summon justices to the impeachment trial would be a first.
“If there would be guidelines after this, if, for example, there would be a resolution because of this, then that would serve as precedent already,” Marquez said. With reports from Jennette I. Andrade and Jerome Aning
