MANILA, Philippines – The prosecution team blocked an attempt by Chief Justice Renato Corona’s camp to present as a witness before the Senate the head of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), who came up with a list of 45 properties allegedly in the name of the Chief Justice.
In a seven-page opposition filed last Friday, the prosecutors asked the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to deny the request of the defense team to subpoena LRA administrator Eulalio C. Diaz III.
The prosecution said Diaz’s testimony sought by the defense team was “irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to any and all of the allegations in the impeachment complaint” filed against Corona.
“An examination of Article II of the verified complaint clearly shows that there was no categorical statement alleging that respondent Corona owned 45 properties,” said the opposition.
What was only clearly stated under Article II, the prosecutors said, were the respondent’s alleged failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) and his alleged failure to report some of his properties to his SALN.
And while it was Diaz, who provided the prosecution team of the list of 45 properties allegedly in the name of the Chief Justice, the opposition pointed out the prosecutors’ own admission that they established only 21 properties, and not 45.
“By reason of the clarification already made on the said issue as reflected on the records of this honorable impeachment court, the prosecution sees no further necessity to require the appearance of Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III before this honorable court,” said the opposition.
“Instead of wasting the time of this honorable court, respondent should present other relevant and material evidence to controvert the evidence already adduced by the prosecution.”
“The fact that the properties owned by respondent Corona are 21 and not 45 does not justify his non-inclusion or under declaration of values of these properties in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth,” it further said.
The request for issuance of subpoena to the LRA chief, the prosecution team, was “nothing but an attempt to adduce irrelevant and immaterial evidence with the end goal of delaying the instant proceedings and to derail the attention of the court, parties and the public from the actual merits of the case.”