On Monday, when the impeachment trial resumed after a six-week Lenten break, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was visibly irked when chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas raised the issue for the nth time that Chief Justice Renato Corona had so far been deprived of due process.
He told Cuevas that if he did not think that the prosecution has a solid case then “you have a problem.”
Finally agreeing to present the Chief Justice could be the defense panel’s last card, as the Inquirer learned that senators’ verdict would hinge on his testimony.
Several senator-judges, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, told the Inquirer that even their colleagues who were sympathetic to the Chief Justice’s plight were disappointed with the defense panel’s strategy to present just about any witness it could get its hands on.
“What we want to hear is the Chief Justice himself,” said one senator-judge, adding: “Calling to the stand officials dealing with collection of fees, the sheriff … does not look good on their part.”
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said that he thought the defense had “come to realize that to ignore the public clamor as well as the clamor of senator-judges for the Chief Justice to appear and explain his side as he had earlier promised would be detrimental to their case.”
“The senator-judges have time and again said that there are many questions that continue to remain unanswered, particularly on the issue of his dollar accounts that only the Chief Justice can and ought to explain.”
Dramatic turn
The defense bombshell that Corona would appear in his impeachment trial was a dramatic 180-degree turn, according to the prosecution.
“They’ve finally realized what we and the rest of the country have long known: the prosecution has prepared substantial evidence and that if the Chief Justice has any chance of acquittal, he must show up,” said Rep. Romero Quimbo, a prosecution spokesperson.
“We can only surmise that the defense change of heart … was prompted by the public clamor for him to come clean and testify, coupled with the pronouncements of senators echoing such clamor. We are hoping that defense offer for the Chief Justice to testify is unconditional and without any limitations,” said Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, another prosecution spokesperson.
Said defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador, “It’s really facing the legal and propaganda issues at the same time. I think that is [Corona’s] sentiment.”
Salvador denied that the defense panel’s move was prompted by criticism from Enrile and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada that the witnesses they had called on Monday testified on “collateral, irrelevant and immaterial” issues which only tended to “clutter” and “prolong” the trial.
“To us what happened on Monday was a reflection that what is circulated out of court is as relevant as what was happening in the impeachment court,” Salvador explained.
Public arena
Salvador, in effect, observed that the media blitz carried out by the Chief Justice himself in the early days of the trial to bring his case directly to the people had not achieved its desired results.
“We also felt that any denial—even [on] non-issues in the case (raised in the public arena)—can be considered unless made before the impeachment court,” he said.
Cuevas had told Enrile that he did not agree with him that the testimonies of the witnesses they had called on Monday were irrelevant, pointing out that they were simply refuting allegations of the prosecution that had to be countered with detailed evidence.
He decried that Corona had so far been deprived of due process and indicated that by Enrile’s directive to put in writing or submit documentation stipulations of fact they were not being given a chance to ventilate the issues brought before the court by the prosecutors and the public by their spokespersons.
To which Enrile responded, apparently stung, that he had in fact nixed a prosecution move to stop a defense move to put back on the witness stand Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.
At every opportunity during the trial, Cuevas had been raising the issue of the noncompliance to constitutional strictures by the allies of President Aquino in the House of Representatives, who hastily impeached Corona.
He has said that the articles of impeachment—later reduced from eight to three— were defective.
The main case against Corona now was that he fudged entries in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
From 45 properties the prosecution had accused Corona earlier of amassing, the number is now down to five or six.
Truth will come out
Said presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda: “The truth will come out one way or the other. We have always maintained that the only person who can testify to the truthfulness of the SALN, to the truthfulness of all his assets would be the Chief Justice.”
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo yesterday said “it was good” that Corona would testify. “People can now hear his side of the story.”
“That is a very good development so that he can explain his ill-gotten wealth and can be cross-examined,” Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes told reporters yesterday.
“It’s the right of the accused to be heard,” said Marbel Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez.
“Personally, I welcome that decision … we will watch what will come up [from his testimony],” said Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez. With reports from Joceyln R. Uy, Norman Bordadora and Gil Cabacungan