Enrile: Senator-judges changed stance before, they can do it again

As Senate president, Juan Ponce Enrile (left) was the presiding officer of the impeachment court trying Chief Justice Renato Corona (right). —File photo by Lyn Rillon | Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines — Former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile prefers not to anticipate whether senators sitting as judges in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial will vote for her conviction or acquittal.

In an exclusive interview with INQUIRER.net on Tuesday, Enrile reasoned out that he was initially leaning towards voting to acquit former Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was impeached in December 2011 and was subjected to a Senate trial by the first half of 2012.

However, he changed his mind after hearing straight from Corona’s mouth that he actually had $2 million in his bank account that was not included in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) — and not just $600,000.

“I do not know whether there are no numbers to convict or acquit the vice president. But in an impeachment trial — I gave you myself as an example, I was going to vote for Corona, but I changed my mind when I heard the evidence coming from his own mouth. How do you know that those people who will hear the evidence will not change their minds?” Enrile, who was the presiding officer during the Corona trial, asked.

“Because if they’re going to act in a way where the public feels that they’re not performing their jobs, they are subject to punishment through an election. If they are not going to run again, maybe, but they are politicians, they cater to the desires and lack of trust of the voting population,” he added.

“I’m sure some people will remember what happened.”

Changing his mind on Corona

During the early part of the interview, Enrile recalled how the two impeachment trials that he was part of — Corona and former President Joseph Estrada — went on.

With the Corona trial, Enrile said that there were people close to the late former Supreme Court chief who came to him for help. Enrile said no less than Iglesia ni Cristo leaders and Corona’s lawyer Serafin Cuevas approached him, but the former Senate president said that even if he was the one who suggested to former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to appoint Corona to the Supreme Court, he was not sitting as a senator but as a juror.

Eventually, Enrile said he gave Cuevas some advice, but Corona’s speech before the Senate — wherein he admitted that he actually had over $2 million in his bank account that was not in his SALN — changed his mind.

READ: Senate votes 20-3 to convict Corona

“After that, I was also visited by the lawyer of Corona, Serafin Cuevas, who was my fraternity brother and my very good friend […] they met me in my office and they asked me if I could help them, I said, the question is he did not include in his SALN, $600,000. I said to them: ‘If this is the case, then reduce it into a trust, and present the trust as evidence, and that will be sufficient’,” Enrile said.

“But they did not follow my advice. Now, why was Corona convicted? You know personally I wanted to vote in his favor […] but the trouble with him was, I warned Serafin Cuevas not to allow the Chief Justice to appear and be subjected to cross-examination. But he appeared, he made a long speech about his case, and then all of a sudden he blurted out that he did not only have $600,000, but he had $2 million that was not included in the SALN,” he added.

That made it impossible for him, Enrile said, to acquit Corona.

“So I changed my position, because imagine, a person being judged by you, telling before you to your face that he really had much more than what he was charged of. So that’s why I changed my vote and the others also voted against him,” he added.

Concerns about impartiality

Even before Duterte’s trial can start, there have been concerns that some senators are already being partial towards or against the vice president. Several netizens and progressive groups have called out Senator Ronald dela Rosa — a known ally of the Dutertes — for issuing statements in support of the Vice President and for seeking the dismissal of the impeachment complaint.

READ: Dela Rosa moves for dismissal of impeachment case vs Sara Duterte

Also, several sectors feared that the impeachment court’s decision to remand the articles of impeachment to the House last June 10 was already a reflection of how senator-judges would vote in Duterte’s impeachment case.

A total of 18 senator-judges voted in favor of a motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano to send back the articles of impeachment back to the House, due to concerns that the complaints had constitutional infirmities.

READ: Impeachment court sends Sara Duterte case back to House

However, prosecution team member and Antipolo 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop said on Tuesday that he and the panel are not losing hope despite perceived odds against them, pointing to the Estrada impeachment proceedings as a reminder.

During the press briefing of the House of Representatives’ prosecution panel last June 11, Acop said that Estrada reportedly had the “numbers” or votes to acquit him from the articles of impeachment discussed at the Senate from December 2000 to January 2001.

However, Acop said the number of senator-judges who were expected to acquit Estrada dwindled once evidence was presented. Another prosecutor, Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, said last June 11 that it would be very hard to guess what the vote of senator-judges would be when they had not presented any evidence yet.

Duterte was impeached last February 5 after 215 House lawmakers filed and verified a fourth impeachment complaint hinged on issues like the alleged confidential fund (CF) misuse within the her offices, and her threats to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

The articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-third of all House members — in this case, just 102 out of 306 — have signed and endorsed the petition.

However, the formal trial has yet to start as the articles of impeachment were not forwarded to the Senate plenary before the session ended on February 5. On Tuesday, the Senate convened as an impeachment court, but the articles were sent back to the House. /atm