Defense questions Trillanes’s motion for written interrogatory on Sereno

MANILA, Philippines—How will the written interrogatory be used by the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, in trying and deciding the case on Chief Justice Renato Corona?

This was the defense panel’s question in reaction to Senator-judge Antonio Trillanes IV’s motion for a written interrogatory to be served to Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Trillanes asked for the motion in order to gain more information on the Supreme Court’s en banc decision in granting a temporary restraining order on the hold-departure and watch-list orders issued by the Department of Justice on former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband.

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, a spokesman of the defense panel, explained to reporters after the trial that written interrogatories are requested by the parties which brought them to ask “what is the basis of the senator-judge to ask for it?” He was however quick to clarify “we are not afraid of a written interrogatory, we just want to know what their basis is.”
He added the written interrogatory, unlike a subpoena, requires the requesting party to list down all of its possible questions. “It will not be considered as evidence until it is offered, (information) is just being gathered for the future presentation of evidence.”

Although they were not insinuating that Trillanes was wrong to ask for a written interrogatory, Salvador said they wanted to understand the steps wherein the senator-judges would use it.

But Sereno’s dissenting opinion did not worry the defense panel, said lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho, who mentioned that they believed that it was not above the majority decision.

Salvador also pointed out Sereno’s dissenting opinion did not state that Corona “maneuvered” the high tribunal’s decision contrary to what the prosecution was saying.
Reacting to that, Quicho challenged the prosecution to sit as witnesses in the impeachment trial.

“So we may ask them. They can’t show proof that Chief Justice Corona influenced (the decision) and that he was partial. They have no witness to prove that he maneuvered (to get the decision), if they want it to be part of the record, then take the witness stand,” Quicho said.