MANILA, Philippines – A number of senators have voiced apprehension that the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona could drag on for months after the prosecution submitted a list of more than 100 witnesses it plans to put on the stand.
“I wonder who’s delaying the impeachment trial now,” Majority LeaderVicente Sotto III said in a phone interview. “That’s up to them. We’re ready for anything.”
Senator Francis Pangilinan said the long list of witnesses drawn up by the prosecution was “cause for concern,” given that it has so far presented six witnesses in seven days of trial.
“If they are serious about presenting all these witnesses then we face the prospects of a prolonged trial. We have had six witnesses in the last two weeks. If we maintain this pace, 100 witnesses will require 10 months of trial. This doesn’t include the witnesses for the defense,” he said by text message.
Senator Sergio Osmeña III agreed 100 witness would take much time. “The prosecutors should confer with the Senate President to discuss how to compress the proceedings.”
Senator Joker Arroyo said in a separate interview: “The cat is out of the bag. Does the prosecution need 100 witnesses to be able to remove the chief justice from office? At the rate the trial is proceeding, it can’t be finished before the end of 2012.”
The prosecution last Friday submitted the list of witnesses and documentary evidence it plans to present to the Senate impeachment court in compliance with Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s demand that both panels identify their lineups.
The prosecution witnesses include Supreme Court justices, court spokesperson Midas Marquez, Inquirer reporters and other journalists, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, and the doctors of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Corona is being tried for betrayal of public trust, culpable violations of the Constitution and graft, arising from his alleged bias for Arroyo, his non-disclosure of his statements of assets and liabilities, lack of competence, disrespect of the principle of the separation of powers, disregard of the principle of res judicata, among others.
Arroyo said that as things stand, the impeachment trial was already an imposition on the Senate.
“Already, the Senate devotes 25 percent of its plenary time on legislation, its principal duty, and 75 percent in the impeachment, an incidental function. That is too much of an imposition on the Senate, and derogation of its principal constitutional function, and that is to legislate and make policy,” he said.
“The trial is hampered not because the House prosecutors are not good, because they are, but because of the articles of impeachment transmitted to the Senate, which were wantonly prepared, and the root cause of all the arguments. This impeachment case will be like the never-ending ‘Ampatuan trial’,” he added.
Pangilinan said the prospect of a drawn-out trial doesn’t bode well for governance, hence the need for the court to find a balance between the “demands of trial” and the national interest.
“Going by this lengthy route is pushing to the limit our ability to effectively govern the nation. While we should give both the defense and prosecution enough leeway to present their case, it is the duty of the impeachment court to strike a healthy balance between the demands of the trial and that of the national interest,” he said.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile had said he would not impose limitations on the presentation of testimonial or documentary evidence, but would apply the rules to prevent any delay.
Senator Panfilo Lacson, as well as Pangilinan and Osmeña said they wouldn’t mind forgoing their break just to complete the trial, as suggested by the prosecutors.
“As long as the witnesses will be relevant and material to any of the eight articles of impeachment, I am willing to support it [suggestion] for the sake of truth and fairness especially if it can help the senator-judges make a good conscientious decision,” he said by text.
“This trial is far more important than our session break. It doesn’t matter to me if I have to work beyond our calendared session period,” he added.
“Yes, if need be,” said Pangilinan, who pointed out that while the legislative calendar provides for a recess, the impeachment court is not bound by the legislative calendar “as we are not exercising legislative powers as a court.”
Osmeña said: “Personally, I’m willing to work through the break. There are too many legislative matters left hanging. But I cannot speak for my colleagues.”
Sotto, however, said he was not open to the idea of skipping the congressional break in favor of the trial.
Prosecution spokesperson, Aurora Representative Edgardo Angara, said the panel was confident it could wrap up its presentation before March 23 when Congress goes on break for the Holy Week.
But to speed up trial, Quezon Representative Lorenzo Tañada proposed that the senators consider working during the congressional break.
“We’re willing to work. If the Senate says we will work, we will work. It’s their call,” he said.