Getting Ombudsman as hostile witness ‘bad law,’ says lawyer
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. ALEX NUEVAESPAÑA/PRIB/SENATE POOL
MANILA, Philippines—A bad law.
That was how the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) described on Tuesday, the decision of the defense panel to summon Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to testify on the $10-million in bank accounts that Chief Justice Renato Corona supposedly owned.
Trixie Angeles, spokesperson of the IBP Impeachment Watch, noted that the allegations pertaining to Corona’s purported multiple dollar deposits were not covered by the verified impeachment complaint that the House of Representatives filed in the Senate.
“When we heard that the defense was going to address the matter of the $10 million, we had the position that it’s good theater, but bad law,” Angeles told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
“The (dollar accounts) had not been placed in issue. It does not appear in the charges of the prosecution and the prosecution admitted it,” she said.
“The question now is that if this was not put in issue, can you consider a person guilty over an (alleged offense) that has not been brought before the impeachment court, but was brought by the accused himself in the Senate?”
Angeles said it was a “calculated gamble” when the defense “chose to answer” clamor for the Chief Justice to appear in the witness stand.
“Taking the witness stand on the sole issue of (the dollar accounts) would have appeared to be safe except for the fact that there are other matters that they could not control,” she said.
In demanding Morales’ testimony, Angeles said the defense apparently failed to consider that “the public weighs in the opinion” of the senator-judges and that “the public makes judgment based on impressions.”
“In this case, even without validations of the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) report, people are already convinced about Corona’s guilt,” she said.
The IBP official noted that while the probative value of the AMLC documents that Morales presented was debatable, the Ombudsman’s revelations might have “persuasive value” among the senator-judges, majority of whom were not lawyers.
“The question is not whether or not evidence is relevant. The issue here is this was not among the charges enumerated by the prosecution. This is really not included (in the impeachment complaint),” Angeles said.
Angeles also underscored the importance of summoning AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino since Morales herself did not have “personal knowledge” of how the documents were prepared.
“AMLC officials should be present because only them could validate (the authenticity and contents of) the documents. It’s clear that the Ombudsman did not have personal knowledge. But now that the (senators) have heard Morales’ testimony, (I think) not all (of them) will appreciate that in that sense,” she said.
