Senators to tackle contempt issue, Supreme Court records in caucus
THE SENATOR-JUDGES First row from left: Panfilo Lacson, Antonio Trillanes IV, Franklin Drilon, Bong Revilla Jr., Teofisto Guingona III, Aquilino Pimentel III, Lito Lapid and Francis Pangilinan. Second row from left: Loren Legarda, Alan Peter Cayetano, Tito Sotto, Sergio Osmeña III, Jinggoy Estrada, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Ralph Recto, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Joker Arroyo, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Manuel Villar Jr., Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan II and Pia Cayetano. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: RAFFY LERMA/JERITO DELA CRUZ
The plate of the senator-judges will be full on Day 20 of the impeachment trial as they tackle three crucial issues, including the possibility of citing Chief Justice Renato Corona’s lawyers for contempt for claiming that Malacañang was trying to bribe senators.
The matter will be the subject of their caucus at 11 a.m. Monday after defense counsels submitted a 12-page explanation wherein they also “humbly apologize … for any misunderstanding or lack of clarity in their intentions and words.”
At the resumption of the trial at 2 p.m., the senators will grill Quezon City Representative Jorge “Bolet” Banal for approaching a bank manager on January 31 to verify apparently leaked documents of Corona’s deposits in his possession.
“We cannot discuss the matter in caucus because we don’t know anything about it,” Senate Majority Leader Tito Sotto told the Philippine Daily Inquirer. “Banal will instead be asked in open court.”
At Thursday’s trial, manager Annabelle Tiongson of Philippine Savings Bank’s Katipunan branch said Banal had sought her assistance on the leaked documents, a request she said she rejected.
Banal later briefly explained in court that he got the documents after someone allegedly left them at his gate in his St. Ignatius residence. The trial was adjourned afterward, with senators asking Banal to appear again this afternoon.
Supreme Court resolution
The caucus, according to Sotto, would take up the Supreme Court’s February 14 resolution allowing only limited access to certain court records the prosecution wanted scrutinized in the impeachment trial.
Defense counsel Ramon Esguerra on Saturday night criticized the “fishing expedition” in the past few trial days. During this period, the court tackled details of Corona’s bank accounts, with senator-judges and not prosecutors making bank officials admit to their existence.
‘Fake documents’
“Given all the realities in the trial, we know they’re wearing our patience thin, wearing us out,” Esguerra said by phone, referring to prosecutors.
“It’s been haywire, a fishing expedition the last three days. Since we cannot object to senator-judges asking questions of the witness, what else can we do? We are really at a disadvantage,” he said.
Tranquil Salvador III, also a member of the defense team, on Sunday said “all evidence (by the prosecution) will fall” in case it turned out that the Senate had subpoenaed Corona’s bank records based on fake documents provided by prosecutors.
“But assuming that they (evidence) stand, we have a good explanation,” he told the Inquirer, referring to discrepancies between money declared in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, and those deposited in his accounts.
Leniency
Salvador said the defense panel did not want to tackle the merits of the case in public and would instead wait for its turn to present its evidence. “We have the proper explanation at the proper time,” he said.
In the 12-page explanation, Corona’s lawyers asked for “leniency” from the impeachment court.
They were asked to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for holding the February 12 press conference where they accused President Benigno Aquino III, through Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., of offering senators P100 million in “soft projects.”
The revelation came the night before the Senate was to decide on the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order keeping the impeachment court from looking into Corona’s dollar deposits.
“(We) observe that in the past the prosecutors had been merely warned for their conduct outside the proceedings and this honorable court did not take a dig at them or put them to task,” Corona’s lawyers said in the explanation signed by nine of them, including the lead counsel, Serafin Cuevas.
“(We) beseech this honorable court to extend the same leniency especially in light of the peculiarity of the gravity of the circumstances that impelled them to act.”
‘Urgency to squeal’
The lawyers said there was “urgency” to squeal on the alleged Palace effort since they were “tipped off in the strictest of confidence that the executive secretary was personally contacting members of the honorable court to pressure them to defy the TRO issued by the Supreme Court.”
“Confirmation of this information was sought from other sources that appeared to jibe with the report,” they told the court.
“Knowing that any delay in acting might cause paramount personal, judicial and constitutional repercussions, [we], in utmost good faith, called the press conference … [We] felt that [we] needed to protect [our] client, the body of jurors and the institution itself.”
“To be sure, [we] did not say that the senator-judges have been bribed or that their votes can be bought or that they can be influenced at all. Far from it. On the contrary, the intention was to ensure they are shielded from and remain impermeable to the viciousness of those who dare assault their integrity and competency,” they added.
