Chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas
Despite claiming Chief Justice Renato Corona was not given due process, the lead defense counsel, Serafin Cuevas, on Monday failed to convince the Senate tribunal to nullify his ongoing impeachment trial.
On the first day of the defense presentation, Cuevas asserted that Corona’s right to due process was violated when the Senate denied his motion to a preliminary hearing in the initial stage of the proceedings.
Cuevas recalled that after gathering the signatures of 188 congressmen, or more than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, the articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted on December 13 last year to the Senate, which immediately proceeded with the trial.
“There was no determination of probable cause. No evidence or allegations that would prove existence of probable cause. (Corona) was immediately impeached and there was no due process,” complained Cuevas, a former justice of the Supreme Court.
Cuevas recalled that after Corona’s lawyers submitted their reply to the articles of impeachment, they also filed a motion for preliminary hearing that was denied on January 18.
“Due process is condition sine qua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding,” he stressed.
Cuevas referred to the Supreme Court decision on Francisco et al v. the House of Representatives on another impeachment case that doubts the constitutionality of the procedure “may be raised in the House and also in the Senate during the trial of the case.”
“If the Senate rules either way, the remedy is with the Supreme Court. That was the dictum laid down by the case,” he said.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile noted that the Francisco case had not even reached the Senate and therefore could not be used as a precedent by the ongoing trial against Corona.
“But it is guidance,” Cuevas countered. “When there is a problem and there is no definite provision under the rules, so where do we go?”
Davide impeachment
Cuevas also mentioned that in the impeachment case against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, former Senate President Jovito Salonga and former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez denounced the effort as violative of due process since the complaint was completed “by virtue merely of endorsement by more than one-third of the House.”
Cuevas said an associate justice who concurred with the decision of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban at that time noted that the complaint against Davide “suffers from another serious flaw” as it was signed by one-third of the House “without due process.”
Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano said the Constitution provided that collecting the signatures of one-third of all House members was a formal endorsement of the complaint and “would automatically constitute the articles of impeachment.”
If Cuevas insisted on a preliminary hearing, “we will be in effect amending the Constitution by insisting that the paragraph allowing a complaint signed by one-third of the members is wrong,” Cayetano warned.
Cuevas cautioned that if congressmen “continue to follow the one-third dictum, there can never be a time when officers can be immune from any impeachment complaint filed by any individual.”
“There will be no more investigation, no more probable cause! That will lead to disastrous circumstances! Security of tenure will be laid to rest and not be invoked by any…” he trailed off.
“It’s not easy to get one-third,” Cayetano observed. “If we make it any more difficult, there might not be a remedy available to the people. Where else can they go to correct abuses.”
Senate has own rules
Cuevas also charged that Corona was not served notice of proceedings against him.
“The Supreme Court says no rule is better established than that requiring the opportunity to be heard before any person can be lawfully deprived of his right,” he said. “Any act committed in violation of due process can be declared null and void.”
Enrile said the Senate did not have provisions governing preliminary hearing on defenses in impeachment cases.
“We are authorized by the Constitution to devise our own rules of impeachment,” he said.
He asked Cuevas whether the determination of probable cause should be done by the House or by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
Cuevas replied that the House should have determined probable cause but added that the issue could also be raised before the impeachment court “if the opportunity arises.”
At this point, Enrile asserted that the impeachment court did not entertain appeals and therefore could not correct “reversible errors.”
“Once a verdict is announced, the government cannot appeal an acquittal. The defendant cannot appeal a conviction. That is reason why in an impeachment trial, there is no motion to dismiss or a preliminary hearing,” he said.
Enrile also noted that under the Constitution, once the House transmitted the verified complaint to the Senate as articles of impeachment, “the trial shall forthwith proceed meaning, ‘go ahead and try it all the way to judgment.’ Except that there is a need to respect the rights of private parties involved.”
Defense move denied
The Senate President also asserted that the impeachment court would not relinquish its authority to try and decide impeachment cases to the Supreme Court should Cuevas decide to go to the high tribunal.
“What this court wishes to avoid is a clash between the Senate and the Supreme Court,” Enrile said. “With most regret and with due respect to the Supreme Court, we will deny any interference in this impeachment court.”
Enrile explained that when the Senate received the impeachment complaint, it issued the “proper processes to notify and inform” Corona of the existence of the charges against him. He recalled that Corona was ordered to file his answer 10 days after its receipt.
“So that at least this court has followed the principle of due process demanded in a case like this … As much as we want to accommodate the desires of the defense, the presiding officer regrets to deny (them),” Enrile said and banged the gavel.
Also on Monday, senator-judges unanimously voted to deny a defense motion to suppress “illegally obtained evidence” for lack of merit in connection with photocopies of Corona’s bank records that prosecutors presented despite doubts on its authenticity and manner of acquisition.
The court also disallowed the inclusion of prosecution evidence on alleged special privileges that Corona enjoyed as platinum cardholder of Philippine Airlines. During their caucus before the trial, the senators agreed that the bribery accusation against Corona purportedly under the third impeachment article in relation to a PAL labor issue was not indicated in the charge.