Tupas asked to explain flip-flop on Sereno
Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. Photo by INQUIRER.NET
The leaders of a party-list bloc in Congress on Friday deplored the prosecution’s decision to rest its case against Chief Justice Renato Corona without hearing the testimony of an associate justice, even as lead prosecutor Representative Niel Tupas Jr. rejected suggestions of a rift in their ranks.
Akbayan Representative Walden Bello said Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno should have been given the opportunity to testify in Corona’s impeachment trial at the Senate.
“The prosecution should not have assumed that Sereno would have followed the SC directive imposing confidentiality on internal SC discussions,” Bello said in a text message.
Bayan Muna president Satur Ocampo said the circumstances leading to Tupas’ “flip-flop” in pursuing Sereno as a witness were suspect considering that this had long been agreed on by the group.
Ocampo pointed out that Tupas originally had reserved the prosecution’s right to present Sereno’s testimony at a later date but dropped a bombshell in court when he declared the prosecution would no longer pursue five of the eight charges against Corona.
“He (Tupas) should have stuck to what the group had agreed on. He should now explain why he changed his mind,” Ocampo said.
Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casiño said what Tupas did appeared to be a judgment call on his part.
“We are awaiting a proper explanation from the prosecution,” he said, adding: “We feel it is our right to ask our prosecutors to still try to get Justice Sereno to testify.”
“It’s not too late,” Casiño said. “They can simply withdraw the manifestation on resting the presentation on Article 7 and ask for a reservation in case Sereno agrees or asks to be subpoenaed. I think it’s worth risking Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s ire.”
‘No such thing’
Ocampo said it was unacceptable for the prosecution team to give up on getting Sereno as a witness because her testimony was crucial in proving Corona had “maneuvered” to get the high court to grant a temporary restraining order allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) to leave the country despite pending charges against her. The TRO was not implemented.
“This is the only article left which directly links Corona to GMA. A conviction in this case will help tremendously in getting the conviction of GMA in other cases,” Ocampo said.
Tupas doused speculations of a rift in the prosecution team.
“No such thing,” Tupas said in a text message. “The House panel decides based on what is best for the case of the prosecution considering all the circumstances. We terminated our presentation of evidence with the reservation on the dollar accounts of (Corona). That is our decision.”
“When it was clear that there was no assurance that the lady justice would testify voluntarily, we had to make a decisive judgment to terminate the presentation of evidence with only one reservation, which is on the dollar accounts of the respondent CJ,” Tupas added.
“We decided to terminate the presentation of our evidence because we believed that we already presented a strong case for the removal of the CJ.”
‘I feel bad’
Tupas also said that after the prosecution had presented its evidence on Article 2—involving Corona’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth—“there was already a very strong sentiment among the prosecutors to rest the case.”
He said the decision to rest the case was based on a consensus among prosecution members.
Bayan Muna Representative Neri Colmenares also denied there was a rift in the prosecution team.
“There is no rift between me and Congressman Tupas. I just felt bad about losing this opportunity. The prosecution panel must now prepare for the defense presentation of witnesses next week,” Colmenares said.
Colmenares was vocal earlier about his objection to terminating the prosecution case.
Invitation to Sereno
Colmenares said on Thursday that the Bayan Muna constituence was “highly disappointed” with Tupas’ announcement that the prosecution was ending its presentation of evidence even before Sereno could reply to the invitation for her to testify.
Colmenares wrote Sereno last Monday asking her to testify despite a Supreme Court resolution barring justices and personnel from testifying.
In her February 29 reply, received by Colmenares on March 1, Sereno said: “I understand that the termination of the presentation of evidence by the prosecution panel yesterday and reiterated today before the impeachment court has superseded your invitation.”
Colmenares said Sereno was unclear about her intentions had the prosecution not rested its case.
No instruction from Aquino
House leaders were in a full-damage-control mode on Friday.
“There is no rift,” said Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara, a prosecution spokesperson.
“Justice Sereno’s dissent (to the TRO) is still part of the record and the impeachment court can take judicial notice of it even if she does not testify,” Angara added. “The decision to rest our case was based on the length of time which has elapsed and the amount of evidence already presented. There was no instruction from the President.”
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. shrugged off reports of a split in the prosecution team over Sereno’s possible testimony. “I don’t think she would have volunteered,” Belmonte said.
Formal offer
Also on Friday, the prosecution panel submitted a 169-page formal offer of evidence to the impeachment court. The Senate has to decide whether to accept or reject any of the prosecution evidence.
The House panel identified evidence marked exhibits “A” to “NNNNNNNNNN” culled from 25 trial days to prove three out of eight impeachment charges against Corona.
The three articles of impeachment retained by the prosecution were:
Corona’s failure to disclose his SALN as required by the Constitution (Article 2);
Failure to meet and observe the stringent standards under the Constitution that provided that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants cases pending in the Supreme Court (Article 3); and
Partiality in granting a TRO in favor of Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO (Article 7).
