Enrile willing to put ruling to vote if a senator objects

MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile is standing by his ruling against inclusion of ill-gotten wealth allegation in the impeachment complaint of Chief Justice Renato Corona but is willing to put it in to a vote if a member of the Senate objects to it.

Enrile issued the statement on Monday amid rumors that some senators, who sit as judges in the impeachment trial, were trying to insert amendments in a written resolution that Corona’s defense team had requested the Senate impeachment court to issue.

“I don’t know of anyone (opposing my ruling), I’m the one writing the resolution of the Senate,” he told reporters.

“I already made the ruling and the defense simply requested that the ruling be put in writing and that’s what I did,” he said.

But if there’s a senator who will object to his resolution, Enrile said, “I will submit it to the body.”

Senator Gringo Honasan doubts, however, whether Enrile’s ruling could still be reversed.

“If there are questions or objections, it will be resolved by the majority pero (but) normally we don’t reverse our decisions and ruling,” Honasan said in aphone interview.

Senator Franklin Drilon, a known-ally of the Aquino administration, denied that he was opposing Enrile’s ruling on paragraph 2.4 of the impeachment complaint pertaining an allegation that Corona had amassed ill-gotten wealth.

“It’s not true. The record of the Senate on January 25 belies that,” Drilon said in a text message.

In the January 25 transcript sent to INQUIRER.net by Drilon’s office, it showed that the senator made a clarification when Enrile ruled that introduction of evidence in relation to paragraph 2.4 of the complaint will not be allowed.

“When the Court ruled, indeed, that the Court will allow introduction of evidence on 2.2 and 2.3 which would allow evidence to prove that [evidence can be introduced, that] a property, whether real or personal, is not included in the SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth,). However, under Article 2.4 which asserts that such properties could be ill-gotten, the Court did not rule on that and we will rely on the presumption of evidence—on the presumption of law, particularly the Anti-Graft Law, Mr. President,’ the transcript quoted Drilon.

“That is correct,” Enrile answered.

In the succeeding paragraphs of the transcript, Drilon further clarified that “In so far as ill-gotten wealth is concerned, the ruling of the Court is that, we will not rule on that as to whether evidence can be introduced on that point. But we will just let the documents be introduced and the conclusion is a matter of law and we will rule on that at a much later date…”

To this, Enrile responded: “Anyway, the Chair rules that the witness may testify only on the authentication. I would allow the witness to take the witness stand…” referring then to Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares, who was allowed to testify despite the defense team’s opposition.