Defense dismisses Secretary De Lima’s testimony as mere hearsay

MANILA, Philippines—The defense team on Wednesday said Justice Secretary Leila De Lima’s testimony during the proceedings was like hearsay.

Lawyer Karen Jimeno said De Lima was not personally present when justices of the Supreme Court (SC) discussed and voted on the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country.

“What [De Lima] testified to before the court was like hearsay because she does not know the circumstances when the decision was being discussed,” Jimeno said.

She added De Lima’s testimony “relied heavily on one dissenting opinion,” and that “it was not the court records showing how the justices really voted on the final decision that came out of the Supreme Court.”

“That is also why she cannot be a competent witness on the matter of the voting,” Jimeno said.

“It’s “difficult to draw conclusions from [De Lima’s testimony],” she added.

Lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho said De Lima’s claim was already stated before the trial even begun when the issue of the TRO was still hotly talked about in public.

“But there was no solid or clear evidence that she gave what Chief Justice Corona did wrong or did something to influence the other justices  when they voted to [issue the TRO],” Quicho said.

“There is also no evidence shown that they gave the TRO because they wanted to let the former president escape. We did not hear that from the testimony of the witness,” Quicho said.

Supreme Court decides collegially

The defense team said De Lima admitted that the Supreme Court decided as a collegial body and therefore, the Chief Justice should not be the only one held accountable for the issuance of the TRO.

Quicho said, “Why do you have to single out Chief Justice Corona when eight justices issued the TRO?”

De Lima had stated in the proceedings that there could have been a conspiracy between Corona and the justices to issue the TRO.

Jimeno however said that it was only De Lima’s opinion on whether there was a conspiracy. “It does not mean that it was proven that there was a conspiracy,” Jimeno said.

“If she thinks that there was [a conspiracy], then why is Chief Justice Corona the only one being blamed,” Jimeno said.

“She stated that conspiracy was not easy to prove. It must be proven that all the parties agreed to act together to commit a crime, and not merely decided together on something,” Jimeno said.