Supreme Court Justice Lourdes Sereno. FILE PHOTO
The Senate on Monday refused to be drawn into a confrontation with the Supreme Court, rejecting a prosecution bid to subpoena Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno and force her to testify in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile instead advised Corona’s accusers to “invite” Sereno to take the witness stand.
“We are calibrating our moves so that there would be no blunders,” said the presiding officer of the impeachment trial, now on its 24th day.
“If the system of government is destroyed, it’s not us who would suffer. It’s the people who will suffer,” Enrile added.
An incensed Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago gave the House prosecutors yet another dressing down, saying that Representative Neri Colmenares, in particular, “wants to place this impeachment court in a direct collision course with the Supreme Court.”
“Do you recognize that you’re asking this nation to go in a direct collision between two separate branches of government? Have you fully thought out your position?” she told the Bayan Muna representative.
Enrile then told Colmenares in Filipino: “You know, Mr. Prosecutor, this court and its presiding officer are going slow on their moves in this impeachment case because we are trying to avoid something.”
He said prosecutors should have talked with their prospective witnesses “instead of using the compulsory process of this court.” And only if a witness refused to testify would the impeachment court consider producing a subpoena or invitation, he added.
Lecturing Colmenares, both Enrile and Santiago said that the three branches of government enjoyed confidentiality of closed-door deliberations and that if he wanted to go against the principle that the three divisions are coequal, he should seek the amendment of the Constitution.
In an earlier move to avoid a constitutional crisis, the Senate voted 13-10 vote to respect a Supreme Court order restraining the opening of Corona’s dollar deposits upon request of Philippine Savings Bank, which invoked a law on the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits, until the high tribunal has deliberated on the merits of the case.
Rule not absolute
Colmenares argued that the Supreme Court’s rule on the confidentiality of court proceedings was not “absolute.”
He insisted that Sereno, an appointee of President Benigno Aquino III, would testify on a “distortion” and “judicial misconduct” in relation to the issuance of the Nov. 15, 2011, temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to seek medical treatment abroad.
Prosecutors allege that Corona, through the issuance of the TRO, favored Arroyo, who had appointed him Chief Justice shortly before she stepped down in 2010.
“That distortion should not hide behind the cloak of confidentiality,” Colmenares said, referring to the court’s February14 resolution denying access to records regarded as “predecisional and deliberative.”
Enrile announced at the start of the trial that Senator Antonio Trillanes IV had withdrawn his motion that Sereno be sent written interrogatories instead of requiring her to appear before the Senate tribunal.
Trillanes in a statement later said he did so “so as not to prejudice” the prosecution’s plan to invite Sereno.
The Senate opted not to go against the high tribunal resolution in connection with the subpoena previously issued on two court personnel to testify on the serving of the November 15 TRO to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, which she ignored.
Enriqueta Vidal, the high tribunal’s clerk of court, earlier wrote the Senate asking that the two employees be excused to avoid having to testify on pending cases surrounding the TRO.
Consequences
Enrile instructed the impeachment court’s clerk of court to take up the matter with Vidal “so that we will not take any action that may affect the check and balance and separation of powers in the government.”
Colmenares said that the Senate had the power to cite people in contempt when asked if a subpoenaed employee of the judiciary refused to appear.
“If we (cite in) contempt the employees of the Supreme Court and they did not follow and we ordered their arrest by the sergeant at arms of the Senate, and still they didn’t follow, do we have the power to order the Armed Forces of the Philippines to arrest all of them?” Enrile replied.
“There is probably no need to resort to that…,” Colmenares replied, but was cut off by Enrile, who said: “That is the logical movement of the process if we don’t talk about this matter calmly.”
Colmenares said that the high court’s February 14 resolution “not only prohibits but in fact threatens members of the court from cooperating with the impeachment court.” Enrile reminded him that the House also has its internal rules related to the matter.
Not about supremacy
Santiago was not as diplomatic. She said Colmenares was not being “candid” and was not directly answering Enrile.
“Let’s think about this first because we are talking about the entire nation. This is not a question of who is supreme to the other … of which is more powerful between the Supreme Court and the impeachment court. As much as possible, we are trying to avoid a confrontation,” she said in Filipino.
Santiago also reminded prosecutors that even the Senate and the House have their respective rules on confidentiality similar to the Supreme Court’s. She cited executives sessions, the topics of which cannot be discussed outside.
“So, why are we now singling out one branch of government so that we can penetrate the rule of confidentiality?” she asked.
“Do you want also that the institution of deliberative process, not only for the judiciary but also for the legislature and executive branches of government, would also be made to come tumbling down over our heads?”
Santiago lambasted Colmenares for his tentative responses to Enrile’s questions about the consequences of a full-blown confrontation between the Senate and the Supreme Court.
Like Humpty Dumpty
“You’re asking this court to go all over the (February 14) resolution of the Supreme Court because you want us to overturn their resolution. What if we overturn them but they don’t follow us? What would happen?” she said.
“You keep telling us that you think they would follow? But what if they don’t? That would be a big shame for the impeachment court! What happens now? It’s like Humpty Dumpty all over again, it’s broken but you’ll try to put the pieces back together,” she added.
Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo later told reporters that the prosecution would discuss how it could invite Sereno but would not seek President Aquino’s help in getting her to testify against Corona.
“We don’t think it’s wise for us to seek the help of the executive,” said the prosecution spokesperson.
Responding to a prosecution charge that the defense was blocking Sereno’s testimony, Ramon Esguerra, a lawyer for Corona, said: “We don’t really see any harm with her testifying. We’re just (respecting) the jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Supreme Court on matters concerning judicial privilege.” With reports from Cynthia D. Balana and Marlon Ramos, PDI; and Maila Ager, INQUIRER.net
Originally posted: 6:58 pm | Monday, February 27th, 2012