Defense keeps open its option of seeking Supreme Court relief

Lead defense legal counsel Cerafin Cuevas. INQUIRER file photo

Will Chief Justice Renato Corona seek the intervention of his colleagues on the Supreme Court if the Senate convicts him Tuesday?

His lawyers differ sharply on this strategy.

Serafin Cuevas, leader of Corona’s defense team, said on Sunday that his group would use all legal options available—including bringing a petition for certiorari (review) to the Supreme Court—if the Senate impeachment court found the Chief Justice guilty of violating the Constitution.

On Monday, however, Cuevas declined to explain his statement after Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile told him at the start of the proceedings that the Senate was the only body authorized by the Constitution to try impeachment cases.

“Let’s just wait for the decision. Are you sure he would be convicted?” Cuevas told reporters.

“I’m only a lawyer and the respondent is Chief Justice Corona. So we have to be in consultation with him,” he added.

Asked by the Philippine Daily Inquirer if the defense was still considering going to the Supreme Court if Corona was convicted, Cuevas said: “Don’t ask me that. I won’t answer your questions anymore.”

In an interview with reporters last week, Cuevas said the defense might ask the Supreme Court to void the “ingredients” of the impeachment trial “if probably we can successfully make a case of grave abuse of discretion.”

Cuevas said: “The Supreme Court may be sympathetic with us to nullify the proceedings if it is the product of grave abuse of discretion. If there are elements that came in really showing grave abuse of discretion, what’s the use of the Supreme Court?”

Told that Enrile already announced that the Senate’s verdict was nonappealable, he said: “That’s what they say. But is there any jurisprudence to that affect?”

“We’re not saying (that we would want to) nullify the decision, but nullify the proceedings that attended to the decision of the case,” Cuevas said.

Respect Senate decision

But Eduardo de los Angeles, a senior member of Corona’s legal team, disagreed with Cuevas, saying it would be better for the Chief Justice to respect the Senate’s ruling “for the good of the country.”

“It’s his own view. That was never discussed with any of us,” De los Angeles said.

Asked if the defense would run to the Supreme Court if the Senate handed down a decision against Corona, De los Angeles replied, “I don’t think so.”

“Unless there are very compelling reasons, I think we should accept the decision,” Delos Angeles said. “As of now, my position is, ‘Let’s accept the decision of the Senate.’ It’s also not good for the country.”

As to authority of the Supreme Court to review the Senate’s decision, De los Angeles said that under the Constitution, the Senate was the “sole judge” of any impeachment proceedings.

“What’s stated (in the Constitution) is ‘sole judge.’ Obviously, the intention of the Constitution is the Senate should decide (impeachment cases),” he said.

De los Angeles, a former dean of Ateneo de Manila University’s law school, admitted that the defense discussed the possibility of running to the Supreme Court in the early part of the trial.

“Whatever happens, I think we all should stop,” he said. “The (government) should just do what we’re supposed to do to improve and develop the country. Nothing is happening. We’re in a standstill.”

“For me,” he added, “I’m practical enough to realize that the impeachment proceedings is also a political act. So anything can happen.”

No decision

Ramon Esguerra, another defense lawyer, said Corona’s legal team had yet to decide the Supreme Court option.

“We haven’t seen the basis of the vote of each individual senator,” Esguerra said. “(Regarding) any remedy that we may avail [ourselves] of, we have not discussed it as a group.”

He also noted that the Constitution as well the Senate rules for the impeachment proceedings do not say that the decision should be final and executory.

“Maybe the judgment of the Senate should state (if the ruling is final and executory),” he said.

For Corona’s lawyer Jose Roy III, there was no reason for the defense to think about the Chief Justice’s legal remedy because “I’m confident that the decision would be an acquittal.”

“But I’m always fearful about the criticisms that this is not a court of law,” Roy said. “In my own humble opinion, had this been a court of law, there is no question about the acquittal (of the Chief Justice),” Roy said.

No SC resolution

Impeachment watcher Romulo Macalintal, a lawyer, said Monday that there was no danger the Supreme Court would stop the Senate from deciding Corona’s case Tuesday.

“The moment the (impeachment court) renders its decision, the petition assailing the (impeachment court) jurisdiction will become moot and academic and the verdict, whether acquittal or conviction, will be implemented accordingly,” Macalintal said.

Corona brought a petition to the Supreme Court questioning his impeachment and the Senate’s jurisdiction at the start of the trial. The Supreme Court ordered the Senate and the House of Representatives to comment on Corona’s petition, but had since taken no further action.

“If ever a resolution or decision is rendered on [the] petition, [it] will only serve for future guidance of the lawyers and the courts, as well as by the Congress of the Philippines to guide our lawmakers in handling future impeachment cases,” Macalintal said.

He said an intervention from the Supreme Court at this stage was “very unlikely or farfetched” considering that the tribunal is on recess and will only resume its regular session on June 19.

“Hence, by the time the (Supreme Court) resumes its regular session, the impeachment case of Corona is already settled and the verdict executed accordingly,” Macalintal said.

“What is disturbing is the pronouncement of one or two senators that they have already made up their minds on how they will decide on the articles of impeachment. [That] declaration is tantamount to making a prejudgment of the case even before the parties have been heard in full,” he added.

Only one hour

Deciding Corona’s case will take only an hour—and the decision will be final as far as the Senate is concerned.

After a 43-day trial, Senate President Enrile and his 22 colleagues will each take 60 minutes, or even less, to vote this afternoon to decide whether or not to remove Corona from office.

The senators will be called alphabetically to vote, except for Enrile, and, if they wish, may explain their votes for not more than two minutes, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III told reporters Monday.

“It will be over in an hour,” Sotto said. He added that he may skip his explanation if it would take longer than the required time.

Far-reaching repercussions

Most of the senators are aware that the vote will be one of their most crucial decisions in the 15th Congress, with far-reaching repercussions on the the Aquino administration’s campaign for reforms and its relations with the Supreme Court.

“Things like an impeachment have a life of its own apart from the legislative function of the Senate,” Sotto said. “That’s why, the vote will be crucial.”

The vote itself will be historic in the sense that the first impeachment case tried by the Senate from late 2000 to early 2001—involving then President Joseph Estrada—did not reach this stage.

A majority vote against the introduction of evidence believed to be damaging to Estrada led to mammoth street protests, later backed by the military and the police, that forced him to quit the presidency.

Five years later, he was convicted of plunder but was pardoned by his successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Judgment final

The verdict on Corona, once handed down, will be final. Enrile made that clear to Cuevas in their exchanges about the defense’s option of going to the Supreme Court.

Sotto agreed, saying the Constitution is explicit about the power of the Senate to hear and decide impeachment cases. “It is explicit in the power of the Senate; it is explicit in the Constitution,” he said.

Section 21 of the Senate impeachment rules states: “A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.”

After Enrile opens the trial at around 2 p.m., all the 23 senators will be called alphabetically to state their vote, with the option to explain it within the required time, Sotto said.

“It will be over in an hour because not everyone will consume the two minutes. For the others, it may be only five seconds. For myself, it may take 20 seconds,” he said.

Procedure

By tradition, the Senate president votes last, Sotto said. A senator could abstain from voting.

“The procedure that we will follow was the same procedure we used when we voted for GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement), the US bases,” Sotto said, referring to nominal voting.

The senators will vote first on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint (Corona’s nondeclaration of assets in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth), then Article 3 (Corona’s participation in Supreme Court rulings favoring Philippine Airlines), and Article 7 (Corona’s role in Supreme Court ruling allowing former President Arroyo to travel abroad).

“If in Article 2, there is an acquittal, we proceed to Article 3. If there is an acquittal we will proceed to Article 7. If in Article 2 there is conviction we will no longer proceed to Article 3,” Sotto said.

16 votes to convict

As spelled out in the Constitution, two-thirds of all members of the Senate, or 16 votes, are required to convict Corona.  The penalty for conviction consists of removal from office and disqualification to hold any office.

Under the rules, in case of conviction, the Senate would deposit a copy of the judgment with the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.

“After the voting tomorrow (Tuesday), whatever the result will be, most probably the Senate will come out with a resolution, citing the result of the trial,” Sotto said.

In case of a judgment of conviction, how soon would the Chief Justice leave his office?

Sotto said: “We have not reached that part.”

Censure?

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, speaking on a point of order at Monday’s proceedings, said punishment in case of conviction would not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification from public office, based on Section 7, Article XI, of the Constitution.

She, however, did not mention the second part of Section 7, which stated that “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”

Santiago said Section 7 would allow a lesser penalty for an impeached official, although this was not explicitly mentioned in that section.

Following that reading, the Senate can impose a lesser penalty on Corona like censure, reprimand, fines, suspension from office, Santiago said. With reports from Philip C. Tubeza, TJ Burgonio and Michael Lim Ubac