Iglesia lawyers block ex-minister’s testimony

LAWYERS of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) managed to block the testimony of ex-minister Lowell Menorca II at yesterday’s hearing on the habeas corpus and amparo cases he had filed in the Court of Appeals.

On the witness stand, Menorca only got to state his name and address before INC counsel Rogelio Vinluan asked the justices of the Seventh Division to strike Menorca’s direct testimony, which he had provided in a judicial affidavit.

Vinluan told the court Menorca’s judicial affidavit was noncompliant with court rules, on top of being full of speculation and conclusions.

‘Ramble on’

The lawyer said Menorca was allowed to “ramble on” in the affidavit instead of following the usual “question-and-answer” format required by the judicial affidavit rule promulgated by the Supreme Court.

“In the entire lengthy 52-page affidavit, only one question was asked—‘What happened next?—which naturally allowed Mr. Menorca to ramble on. It doesn’t seem like a judicial affidavit. [It was] more like a scripted melodramatic soap opera,” Vinluan said.

The INC lead counsel, Patricia-Ann Prodigalidad, said they would be filing a motion raising 117 objections to portions of the affidavit, which they want stricken out for being full of speculation and conclusions.

‘No knowledge, competence’

One objection was Menorca’s claim his family was abducted on orders of the Sanggunian, the INC governing council. Prodigalidad said Menorca would have “no personal knowledge, much less competence” to attest to such a claim.

One of the justices, Magdangal de Leon, asked Prodigalidad to proceed with her cross-examination of Menorca and raise her objections along the way, so the proceedings would not be further delayed.

Another justice, Victoria Isabel Paredes, noted that it would take “till the end of time” if the court responded to each objection that would be raised by the INC lawyers.

For his part, Menorca’s lawyer, Ahmed Paglinawan, opposed the INC lawyers’ move, saying it was an attempt to censor his client’s statements.

“The objections should not be aired before, but after. [Respondents’ law-yer] should take the time to ask him (Menorca) about his testimony. This is just a matter of cross-examining the person they think is lying or has no competence. This proceeding is to find out the truth. Let’s ask him,” Paglinawan said.

RELATED VIDEOS