Juan Ponce Enrile at 88

JPE at 88
JPE, at this stage of his life and career may now be thinking about the legacy he would leave behind for posterity after having been part of the nation’s history, sometimes as hero and sometimes as villain, but, in both cases, so clearly a conspicuous shine, either brightly or darkly in the political firmament of the country. In his youth he was outstandingly intelligent, a fact which his errantly fecund father could not help but recognize and took him in his aegis  and welcomed him into the respectability of his legitimate household. His academic record is par excellence having graduated with honours in the state university despite the fact he was a working student. His academic history is capped by having completed post graduate studies in Harvard.

In the impeachment trial it is disappointing to see him vacillate in his rulings, blowing hot and cold, favouring a technicality then going back to the search for truth modality expected of an impeachment court.  Perhaps he finds himself in a quandary in the desire to payback an old lawyer friend who was instrumental in exonerating him from rebellion charges in the dark distant past. This lawyer friend is none other than, Serafin Cuevas, the lead counsel for the defense of the impeached Corona. JPE has had moments forgetting his role as presiding officer of the impeachment court. The countervailing force may be his earnest desire to be seen in a heroic light, fair and truly the venerable statesman dispensing equitable justice towards all. After achieving power and pelf one aspires for honour, perhaps as an attempt to put an icing to cover the pragmatic and less noble ways one had employed to achieve wealth and influence.

Who would have thought that JPE would be such a wimp and allow his court to be overrun by the overbearing lady senator whose intractable behaviour remained unchecked throughout the whole impeachment proceedings. This weakness was carried over by his reluctance to fight for the integrity of his impeachment court by allowing the Supreme Court to defy the subpoena orders issued by his court. He reasoned out that he was avoiding a clash between the Supreme Court and the Senate which may lead to a constitutional crisis. He opted to play “chicken” in what was a confrontation between the wills of two powerful coequal branches of government citing the doctrine of “last to act” to avoid a collision. Both are governed by the same doctrine and the Supreme Court could have played “chicken” but was more unshakeable than the presiding officer of the impeachment court. What seemed apparent was his evasion of any conflict with the stalwarts of the defense either in admonishing the boorish loudness of Miriam, checking the loquacious but sagacious Cuevas both of whom have knowledge of the law in depths rivalling his own. There were times that one might suspect that he, not to be outdone, joined in the ego tripping of Cuevas and Miriam and lectured in a condescending fashion the members of the prosecution team.

What goes on in the mind of a political Titan in the twilight of his years: intimations of mortality, the life hereafter, divine justice, past glories, leaving a fine footprint in history and having a chance at greatness in the eyes of his countrymen? The other side of the coin is the infamy of being regarded as one of the dark lords during the reign of the dictator Marcos, as a lackey of the former dictator, an architect of the rapacious martial law regime and the gang leader of a coup attempt of the newly installed Cory government. He was a man disgraced but through the magnanimity and a non-rancorous Cory leadership and a nonindignant citzenry has allowed him to bounce back unfettered by his past sins and have risen to lofty enough aspirations, not as a president of the republic but as Senate President.

Is he his own man still or is he nothing more than just a befuddled old man torn between die-hard bad habits versus his concern about leaving a positive legacy for his name or even making peace with his maker before the curtains fall?

Worldly successful old men at their end of days often reflect on the biblical question; “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his soul?” If “...loss of his soul” means having distanced himself from the truth (...the way and the light) then it is equivalent to the perdition of losing one’s desired place  in history and being in hell. JPE is faced with the question of holding on to his hubris or renounce it by a last act of avoiding a collision with what is right. It should be an easy one for JPE to decide.

The Scream

Miriam’s Moments of Madness

(sources:  spot.ph and other newspaper anecdotal accounts)

As pointed out by several observers prior to the ugly confrontation between Miriam Santiago and Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre, the chief presiding officer of the impeachment court, JP Enrile seemed to have abdicated his role as moderator of the court and have allowed senator jurors, the lead defense counsel and even himself to debase and ridicule the prosecutors in the prosecution panel. The phrase “sober as a judge” has been given new meaning in the impeachment court when decorum and sobriety were thrown out of the window. The prosecution panel became daily fare for the sadistic penchant of some of the senator jurors, more specifically Miriam Santiago. She had taken fancy on Rep. Niel Tupaz who became her favourite target for her sarcastic and demeaning tirades, gave him a grade of 3 (conditional?) in case presentation with a few expletives thrown in. The portrayal of Niel Tupaz as a bumbling buffoon may have hurt his political reputation to the delight of his political foes, namely the Defensors of Iloilo to whom Miriam is closely related to.  The prosecution, an aggrupation of congressmen and a few private prosecutors might have been guilty of poorly crafting the impeachment papers and for ineptness on litigation procedures relative to legal lion like the lead defense counsel, but surely did not deserve the bamboozling that they got. It is to their credit that they have maintained their cool but not until Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre showed a quite passive protest gesture by cupping his ears. This was not allowed to be passed up by Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who made much of the gesture as an act of disrespect to the whole Senate impeachment court. Miriam made a motion to cite Atty. Aguirre in contempt which was followed forthwith by a seconding of the motion by Senator Pia Cayetano. The senators should have been more sober and judicious to just allow something so petty just pass and not make drama out of such a trivial matter, besides this was precipitated by Miriam’s scathing verbal abuse delivered in a paroxysm of rage for effect. While Senator Peter Cayetano concurred with the citing in contempt of Atty. Aguirre he couldn’t help himself but quip “having Atty Aguirre listen to Miriam for 24 hours would have been a fitting penalty”, wittingly or unwittingly agreeing that a voice like a screaming banshee is indeed intolerable.

JP Enrile has been praised for some judicious rulings in the course of the impeachment proceedings but, by and large, had made the impeachment rules as if it was a work in progress, going as his mood and spirit moved him. This led to inconsistent rulings to the dismay of the prosecution panel. He has been timid to chastise the uncouth behaviour of senator judges and has allowed himself to be cowed to go against the manifestations of a slick and savvy lead prosecution counsel (in an interview by Karen Davila of ANC’s Headstart the lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas intimated that he once saved the chief presiding officer, JPEnrile from the case of rebellion filed by Cory’s government, also, Cuevas was the one swore in Arturo Tolentino as president as ploy so that Marcos can reclaim it when comes back from exile; now that explains a lot of things). The impeachment proceedings transformed itself into a three ring circus with feral felines clawing and roaring without a lion tamer is the fault of the presiding officer.

If it’s any consolation, the testy lady senator from Iloilo does not discriminate on the object of her affections or affectations. She has been on a ballistic spree and has been cutting down people on camera at every opportunity ever since god knows when.  

 Just a few examples:

GAGO

Miriam told the prosecution that they are all “gago” and that all that they have been doing are “kagaguhan”. This led to one of private prosecution lawyers, Vitaliano Aguirre, to be cited in contempt for cupping his ears to avoid the shrill screams of the enraged Miriam.

--Santiago reacting to state prosecutor’s cupping his ears while she was talking - From the Feb. 29 Impeachment proceedings

The fig leaf has to go

 Told UP students who conducted a survey (500 sample) to leave UP for displaying stupidity. The “Oblation” should take off his fig leaf, perhaps in reference to transparency when she asked them to reveal their backers. In the survey the results show that 75% voted to have Renato Corona resign from his post. 

--Santiago reacting to UP students’ survey on Renato Corona Feb. 29, 2012 Impeachment proceeding

Not the Look of Love

"May I request the Chief Justice to discipline. Or, at the very least, admonish and reprimand this group that sees itself so high above the law."

--Santiago to Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. in 2001, during the impeachment trial of then President Joseph "Erap" Estrada. Santiago was irked by a group of spectators in the Senate gallery whom she claimed looked at her "provocatively." The spectators were asked to leave the gallery.

Something Fishy

"If you can't find enough number of senators as a bloc, then bumili ka doon sa (buy some at the) House. Mas marami sila, di mas mura sila. Para silang mga talakitok (There are a lot of them, so they're cheaper. They're like fish)."

--Santiago in full-on sarcastic mode in 2007, when her anti-billboard bill just got swept under the rug.

The Smiling Women

"May I just say to those two girls there... Will you please stop smiling and looking at your cellphones. If you're not listening to my speech, please step out! Now! Nakaka-insulto ang ginagawa ninyo sa Senado ng Pilipinas (What you're doing is an insult to the Philippine Senate)."

--Santiago to two women in the Senate gallery during her 2009 privilege speech, which criticized government officials who appeared in infomercials. The two women were, of course, asked to leave the gallery.

God's Appointment Papers

"Who knows what God is? Who understands the mind of God? Who has a direct line to God so that he or she can ask God what is right or what is wrong. Pag sinabi mong Diyos at mali ang ginagawa ng iba ayon sa Diyos. Ikaw ang nagsasalita para sa Diyos. (You refer to God and you say there are other people doing things wrong according to God. Then you're the one speaking for God.) I would like to see the appointment papers of the Black and White people from God, signed by God, appointing them, giving them powers of attorney."

—Santiago to Dinky Soliman, on December 14, 2011, at what would have been the confirmation hearing of the latter as Department of Social Welfare and Development Secretary. Santiago had grilled Soliman and even asked her about her membership in the Black & White Movement, an organization of concerned citizens that was formed in 2005 primarily to call for the resignation of then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

 No Epal Allowed

"Therefore it behooves us to start with this principle: 'Justice delayed is justice denied.' Huwag na tayong magpa-epal dito dahil nawawalan ng gana ang nanonood. Tama na 'yun. Dumaan na tayo doon (Let's stop grandstanding because viewers are losing interest. Enough of that. We've been through that)."

-Santiago on Day 5 of Chief Justice Renato Corona's impeachment trial, on January 24, 2012, somewhat warning everyone not to waste time with rhetorics. Shortly after this, Santiago ended up berating Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. for not immediately knowing how many witnesses the prosecution team was going to present.

In Which Case She Goes Postal

"Tila hindi n'ya naintindihan and ginagawa n'ya, in which case incompetent s'ya. O alam n'ya pero pibapabayaan n'ya, in which case duwag s'ya (It seems that he doesn't understand what he's doing, in which case he's incompetent. Or maybe he knows what he's doing but he's just letting things slide, in which case he's a coward)."

--Santiago talking about Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno in 2009. She was incensed because she thought he couldn't control the so-called warlords in Maguindanao.

No Mercy

"What kind of public officials are Secretary Gary Teves and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez that they will not act on a cause of action that brings national embarrassment to the entire Philippine government in the international community? How dare they flout the order of the Philippine Senate?"

--Santiago talking about Department of Finance Secretary Margarito "Gary" Teves and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2009. She was enraged that they had snubbed a Senate hearing on the blacklisting of three Filipino contractors for alleged corruption.

I spit on your face

“I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots.”

--Santiago reacting to her being disqualified from the nomination of candidates for Chief Justice position 

Screaming Match

"Please don’t treat me as a mere observer. I am a judge in this proceeding! In any trial court, you should not speak, you should not take any behavior at all unless with the consent of the presiding judge. Don't drown me out by screaming in this courtroom! Only I can scream here and my fellow judges!"

Santiago berating private prosecutor Arthur Lim, on January 25, 2012. Santiago was irritated that Lim once again brought up issues that had already been decided on by the court.

Cellphone Science

"What the heck is so important? Is it going to change the configuration of the astrophysical universe? This is the last warning. I will cite you for contempt!"

--Santiago to people whose cellphones kept ringing during a 2010 Senate session. Prior to the start of the session, Santiago had asked everyone to turn off their cellphones.

The OK Corral Situation

"I challenge the shadowy faces behind this corrupt media blitz. Come on you hypocrites, stop being sneaky. Be men, come out of the bushes, and reveal yourselves. Since you have chosen to engage in character assassination, let us have a showdown at the OK Corral in full view of the public."

--Santiago to her detractors at the height of the NBN/ZTE Broadband controversy in 2007.

The Corona Impeachment - 8th Week

The Prosecution Rests Its Case

 The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C Corona has been running for several weeks now and several revelations have come out as a result of the presentation of the evidences against the numerous allegations against the Chief Justice. Despite the wealth of information and the interesting developments that have evolved from the trial and the numerous fora in media I found myself reluctant to put down on paper my thoughts on the matter at this stage of the case. Prior to the impeachment hearing by the Senate and even at the early part of the impeachment proceedings I have poured out my thoughts, responded to other writers’ opinions through my blog, wrote letters to editors, commented on columns  and to those who were inclined to discuss it in e-mails, reactions to my blog and on discussions in person.

Perhaps it is the fact that so much has been aired in conventional media as well as in viral media that almost everything that can be said about the case has been thoroughly aired out from the chronicle of the events, rumours, opinions from every direction and the humorous sidelights that inevitably crop up in cause celebres.

 As an avid anti-Corona advocate I have shared the thoughts of the opinion leaders who personally indict and attack the Chief Justice at the instance of each new revelation of actuations that support the allegations of his betrayal of public trust and the culpable violation of the Constitution. I believe that at this point in time there is enough rope to hang the accused and that we should already stop the needless expense of time and money that the senators incur in the proceedings. It only takes one of the allegations to be proven to impeach the Chief Justice; as Ted Laguatan says the main question to be proven in all these is the fitness; the lack of it, of Renato C Corona to continue in office as chief magistrate, the answer to which is so patently obvious. From another perspective, there are those who say that we should stop the needless use of the citizens money spent in a “moro-moro” which they say will end up on an acquittal of the Chief Justice from any wrong doing evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I have mentioned before that I have doubts that the Chief Justice will be acquitted by the senate jurors considering that the votes needed for his exoneration is just 8 out of the 23 senators who will vote. From the outset there were already 6 who are avowedly pro-Corona while the rest is a motley group who on the surface are pro Pnoy but with quite a number of them can be easily enticed mostly out of self interest. Would any kind of proof of the chief justice’s culpability no matter how true (short of smoking gun) convince enough senator jurors to vote against him? In the course of a few weeks of proceedings there are closet pro-Corona senators now coming out of the woodwork who signal their leanings by the way they question the prosecution and sometimes join in the bullying frenzy brought about by the haughtiness of some “know it all” senate jurors and the grandstanding of the chief counsel of the defense who is quick to display his knowledge of court procedures in the presentation of witnesses, the proper unfolding of evidence in an admissible and correct form, the appropriate legalese and other court room conventions. Former Justice Cuevas truly displays good knowledge of the law but he uses this knowledge to obstruct the emergence of the truth by preventing the prosecution to develop their case through continuous objection to anything, filibustering even, that the prosecutors have to say to break the train of thought of the exposition of their case. In most cases the defense lead counsel is technically correct and his objections are upheld by the presiding officer. The presiding officer, JP Enrile, on occasion joins the defense counsel in admonishing the prosecution panel for their ineptness. With the lead defense counsel using sarcasm to demean the less experienced prosecution panel members; Senator Miriam Santiago complements him with her histrionics, threats to cite in contempt the prosecutors and ad hominems clothed in colourful but sometimes quaint verbiage. After her arrogant and uncouth behaviour she hies off leaving the rostrum with a plea of temporary intensity causing a hypertensive condition.  This bashing of the prosecution panel should not have happened at all if the presiding officer was consistent on asserting that the impeachment court is “sui generis”, of its own class, and is substantially not governed by conventional litigation rules but by the procedures that they have formulated particular to the impeachment which are deemed supreme against the other branches of government insofar as the impeachment issues are concerned. The defense panel’s composition are made up of high powered lawyers and headed by a known expert lawyer and was a former justice of the Supreme Court whose knowledge of the law and its undertakings sometimes hold in awe even the presiding officer who more often than not sustains the numerous objections that he protests forgetting at most moments that the court he presides in allows common sense over the technicalities of litigation practiced in regular courts hearing criminal, corporate and cases other than impeachment. The presiding officer blew hot and cold with his rulings in the impeachment court. He is too much of a lawyer to disregard the caution to exercise common sense, prudence, conventional notions of right and wrong of the unique court and on occasion lapses into allowing the technicalities applied in litigation as the lead defense takes advantage of.

Just this afternoon we were made to witness important events within the impeachment court from outside.

The lead defense counsel, Justice Cuevas was doing the cross examination of the witnesses from media (ABS CBN) to authenticate the evidences (cd’s of events surrounding the TRO case).  It was a plain and simple process of identifying and authenticating the evidences presented but the lead defense counsel was looking for ways to discredit the witnesses to make it appear that their testimonies are hearsay and not from their own firsthand experience to render their evidences inadmissible. The ludicrousness of the cross examination reached its height when he grilled the cameraman about the workings of a TRO with his characteristic leer waiting to pounce on the hapless cameraman as soon as he makes an erroneous response. Clearly it’s a case of a slick lawyer trying a legal legerdemain which seemed to be the hallmark of the lead defense counsel’s litigation style.

There was a break on the proceedings and the coverage segued into a press briefing with Atty Midas Marquez making announcements at the Supreme Court. The first announcement had to do with the results of the recent bar exams. He was pleased to announce that the recent bar exams had a high rate success, achieving more than 31%. Personally, I feel that the last thing this country needs is another lawyer to join the burgeoning legal profession and the political field. Even before the impeachment case of Renato Corona I have always held most of them suspect of using the law to disadvantage other people and to protect the rights of robber barons, unscrupulous businessmen and institutions, warlords, and drug syndicates. The impeachment case has made this unfortunate feeling even more entrenched in my consciousness. What has crept out from the dark pits into the light of day are crimes brazenly committed because they have the protection of the very arbiters of justice in our land.

Atty Midas Marquez also announced that the Supreme Court, en banc, ruled that TRO to subpoena personnel of the high court is upheld and the administrative employees earlier subpoenaed and heeded the summons on an earlier date were instructed by the Supreme Court not to obey the summons.

Talk about creating a chilling effect which was oft used in defending the Supreme Court in earlier arguments; there could not be a more chilling effect than this to us the citizens where you have a Supreme Court who can just curl up like an armadillo whenever questioned for its actuations and decisions. How can an erring member of the Supreme Court be removed from office if they have the right to stonewall against ferreting evidence from any of their members in an impeachment court? The presiding officer said that their hands are tied because they have to respect the internal rules of the Judiciary the last one of which seemed to be a patched up job to ensure the further impregnability of the dark castle of justice. Despite the explanation made by the presiding officer it leaves the message that the impeachment court seems helpless to secure evidence from them even if subpoenaed. The presiding officer said that they cannot go against the internal rules of any of the branches of government but has the power to decide on the ultimate judgment of the fate Renato C Corona through the votes of two thirds majority of the senate assemblage.

The most surprising event of the afternoon is the pronouncement made by the prosecution to rest their case just on the bases of evidences presented from less than half of the items of listed in the original impeachment complaint. They feel that, thus far, they have presented enough evidence to convict the chief justice. It seems to be a pity that the other items of impeachment were abandoned even if they seem to be reasonable albeit badly crafted. One gets the feeling that the ploy of the other side to humiliate and demean their characters and professional stature through daily diatribes by the lady senator from Iloilo, the lead defense counsel, proCorona senator jurors and at times by the presiding officer himself.

Perhaps it is also the discernment of the prosecution that all the efforts, the money spent and the hours devoted pleading their case may not amount to anything but failure.

I have expressed even before that the impeachment case will not be judged by the merits of the case, political affiliations or love for the Filipino but on the consciences of the senate jurors. If this is so, the Filipino ends up being more wretched than before. Votes will be governed by selfish interests and the senators being what they are; rich, influential, powerful and enjoying the fruits of the current system need to preserve the status quo. The status quo is the goose that lays the golden eggs and very few senators of the land, from my knowledge, past and present, will be willing to bring down the axe on the neck of proverbial goose.

Corona's Speech at the Inauguration of Justicia Room

On the occasion of the blessing of the Justicia Room at the Ateneo Law School, Rockwell Center, Makati City, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was given the privilege to deliver a speech in front of his contemporaries, former professors and the members of his defense panel in the impeachment case; quite a few, including the head of the defense panel, former justice Cuevas, were alumni of the Ateneo Law school. His speech touched on his academic experience in law school, early career and his topping of the bar examinations. He thanked his mentors for inspiring him to excel in his studies and for the school for moulding and inspiring him to rise to greater heights.

The Chief Justice is now the subject of an impeachment case which if found guilty of the accusations of graft and corruption; betrayal of trust and abuse of authority would have him removed from office, barred from assuming any governmental position as well as from private practice of the legal profession. As he said, “I have nothing to gain and everything to lose”.

The case, to say the least, is a celebrated one and is marred with controversy because of the issues that arose outside of the items in the impeachment case. What started out as a legal tussle involving former president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the head of the Department of Justice, Leila de Lima on the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the Supreme Court putting in abeyance the hold order barring the former president’s bid to travel for medical treatment outside the country is now a constitutional issue from whence, as suggested by the Corona advocates, a constitutional crisis can ensue.

What the Corona advocates are protesting about, among other things, is that the case has got to do with the question of supremacy among equal branches of government. Their contention is that the Executive branch with the help of the Legislature is imposing on the Supreme Court their authority, inclusive of the interpretation of the law which they insist is the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court. On the other hand the Senate avers that an Impeachment Court has the right to put to practice the rules of such a court as they see fit to allow the ferreting out of the truth unimpeded by the technicalities of regular court proceedings. The Senate Impeachment court is a lawful assemblage which is guaranteed by the constitution as an instrument to oust erring high officials of government. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a respected constitutionalist and legal expert says that not one of the branches of government has supremacy over the other, only the constitution is supreme over them.

The general public seems to be opposed to the Corona cause which the Corona advocates dismiss as a result of propaganda that the Aquino government has successfully launched. The Corona group argue on the basis of legal tenets which seem to be appreciated only by the legal community—but even then, there are law practitioners who are as intensely opposed. Within the Ateneo alumni there are those who strongly oppose Corona; seeing the ousting of the Chief Justice as linchpin to the government’s effort to eradicate graft and corruption in government as it is intertwined with the wrong doings of the former administration; and there are those, legally inclined, who see it as a threat to the rule of law, unconstitutional and anarchy bound. For many officials and politicians, past and present, see it a threat to the status quo. The success of the eradication of graft and corruption is synonymous to the end of the cornucopia of plenty which they have enjoyed. 

The invitation to speak on the inauguration of the Justicia Room in the Ateneo Law School, needless to say, is a gesture reserved for those, who without a doubt, are honourable and with unimpeachable moral qualities all of which are still to be proved in the case of Corona. If by chance Corona gets impeached it would be a smear to the reputation of the Justicia Room whose inauguration was graced by his presence and oration. It would, also, be an embarrassment to the school to have granted such an honour to someone who might be proven to be an antithesis of what we uphold as the law.

Funny that Corona cites Dean Pompeyo Diaz who was spot on when he made the astute observation that among the many evil people in this world the most dangerous is the one who knows the law but has no conscience. It is a conclusion one can make upon seeing the proliferation of mercenary lawyers who make a living (a lucrative one) taking on hopeless cases which seem indefensible from the very start. What makes it deplorable is that these lawyers are among the most brilliant ones, bar topnotchers from the best of schools who know the law in depth; know them enough to twist it in favour of their clients through skilful manipulation of the technical aspects of the law. We’ve been through this discussion before, with the pro Corona advocates insisting on the literal application of the law without regard to the moral precepts that they are based on; without regard to recognizing what is patently evil and conventionally wrong—judging on the letter of the law and using procedures that ensure “due process” to free the obviously guilty Big Man of wealth and power but seldom protects Juan of humble circumstances and simple perspectives

.

The tact that the defense panel has taken is the suppression of evidences and testimonies through the knowledge of the intricacies of forensics, evidence presentation, admissibility of testimonies, correctness of form, legalese and just about anything that they can cite to bedevil the prosecutors who are generally inexperienced and ill trained in this art.  

   

Corona protests that he is being demonized by being depicted as abominable and unworthy. He said it didn’t matter because he alone knows the truth--but sharing the truth of his dollar accounts would have cleared him of the suspicions and the accusations; he has chosen to keep the truth to himself, thereby, strengthening the perception that he really has something to hide.

The impeachment court is sui generis, a unique assemblage of senator jurors who have been tasked to ferret out the truth without being hampered by the technicalities of a regular court—a proceeding that could easily be understood by most of the constituents; relying on what is commonly accepted as fair and judicious assessments of the facts presented; a people’s court, for the lack of a better term.. The judgment would rely on what are perceived as conventionally correct and truthful minus the legal gobbledegook. A court where Juan would have a chance of getting redress.

Corona wanted to make heroic his act by saying that he was willing to lose everything for something he believes in. He should realize that this is his comeuppance; he had it coming to him. The prospect of losing everything stares him in the face but it is not because of defending what he believes in but due to dishonesty, abuse of position and total loss of integrity as Chief Justice.

P.S.

An e-mail from DJ de Jesus (grupo58) explained that Corona was not the keynote speaker but volunteered to speak when guests were invited to do so.

from DJ de Jesus:

"The event at which he spoke was the rededication of the Justicia Room, which is adorned by portraits of the Justices of the Supreme Court who are also alumni of the law school, from Teehankee to Corona.  Other justices present were invited to speak, but no one (except Corona) came forward to take the floor.  Perhaps, the organizers should have anticipated that Corona would use the event to bolster his side on the impeachment case.  His presence alone should have raised the alarm.  Wnen Fr. Bernie criticized Corona in his PDI column for accepting the "midnight appointment,"Corona reportedly declared that he would never step into the Ateneo again, while Fr. Bernie remained there.

 

In any event, the impression created in the media that the Ateneo invited Corona to deliver the keynote address at the event, in order to give him a platform to argue his case, I have it on good authority, is mistaken."

Reprint of The issue is Corona’s guilt, not the prosecutors’ competence By Ted Laguatan

No Limitation

The issue is Corona’s guilt, not the prosecutors’ competence

By Ted Laguatan
INQUIRER.net

11:31 pm | Saturday, February 4th, 2012

  share  

Like many who follow the Corona impeachment trial, I am often frustrated by the obvious lack of competence shown by the prosecution team. Repeatedly, they fail to do what needs to be done. They are often unprepared, show sophomoric exposure to rules of evidence, lack tactical skills and fail to anticipate that their own witness might turn hostile against them.
But from something bad, something good can sometimes happens.
Let’s take the last point. They brought in the Megaworld witnesses to support their argument that Corona did not declare the correct value in his SALN and to obliquely attack him by showing that he was given an extraordinary 40% discount — subliminally suggesting that this was a bribe.
They should have anticipated that the Megaworld witnesses could easily turn hostile. Certainly, Megaworld would look bad and could be subjected to criminal penalties if they gave the impression that the 40% discount was a bribe.
Predictably the witnesses justified the discount: They claimed the unit was water damaged due to a typhoon and that the economy was bad that year forcing them to sell at a whopping 40% reduction.
But as fate would have it, the error of the prosecution may result in some pay dirt. Senator Sergio Osmena intuitively has requested for detailed records of the purported typhoon damage and possible insurance compensation to Megaworld if any.
The financial records of Megaworld also indicate huge profits for the year 2008, the year the unit was sold.  Moreover, the other comparable units were sold for the market price of around P10 million or more. The Megaworld witnesses also indicated that this was the last unit    available unwittingly indicating the brisk sale of units.
If Megaworld is not able to persuade the public that the reasons they expressed for the price reduction are true – that would make this transaction very suspicious.
On another point, the issue of unjust enrichment or unexplained wealth  would have been a logical and very relevant issue against Corona. That alone, if proven, would mean that he is morally unfit to continue being Chief Justice.
Why the prosecution gave up so easily in allowing the defense’s request to exclude this allegation and supportive evidence indicates poor thinking and technical incompetence. They could have scored heavily if they were allowed to delve into the issue of Corona’s alleged ill gotten wealth.
Nevertheless, evidence consisting of ownership of various properties in Corona’s name and his children’s names which could not be justified by his reported income nor by his     relatives’ incomes — are quite damaging.
These real property ownerships and income reports were presented as evidence by the   prosecution to show that Corona devaluated his assets or omitted important information  in his annual SALN (Statement of liability and Net Worth).
Even if presented not for the purpose of proving ill gotten wealth — inevitably, by implication, like it or not, these series of evidence do suggest that Corona was purchasing various properties in his name and in his children’s name utilizing unexplained money sources. Of course, his lawyers will be given a chance to explain these irregularities.
These eye opening revelations should open the gates for serious consideration by the Ombudsman’s office and the Department of Justice to determine if enough probable cause exists to file various separate criminal charges against Corona and other Justices and  judges with similar indications of probable corruption. Again, they will be afforded due process rights to prove their innocence.
If President Aquino and all of us really and seriously want to clean up corruption for the good of all — we must support all legitimate and legal means to carry out this sacred goal. Clean government will lead to a better life for all.
The prosecution is not exactly a dream team but I have no doubt that they sincerely want to do their best – warts and all. Unlike the defense lawyers whose daily bread comes from doing trials, the prosecutors are limited in trial experience.
A common error which amateur lawyers make: They do not carefully double check the accuracy of their data.
To show the public that they have a strong case, prior to the trial, based on incomplete data — in their enthusiasm — the prosecutors negligently rushed to announce on TV and other media that Corona had some 45 properties.  It turned out later that only some 24 properties were involved.
While those numbers by themselves should be more than enough to place Corona in a bad light, still to be fair, the prosecutors deserve to be rebuked for this negligent presentation.
The majority of the viewing public who want the truth to come out cheer when Senators take up the slack to elicit vital information from witnesses that the prosecutors fail to do.
Unavoidably, the Senator-Judges reveal their positions when they speak. The defense accuses Senator Frank Drilon of being biased on the side of the prosecution and wants him to recuse himself from the trial. On the other hand, the prosecution could say the same thing about Senator Joker Arroyo. Senator-Judges on one side or another have to reveal their cards sooner or later. This is the nature of this impeachment beast.
Another Senator, Gringo Honasan, wants to keep the public from trying the case by muzzling each side’s spokespersons — a clear violation of Constitutional free speech rights. Let the people get as much truth as possible even if mixed with some bovine dung now and then. Adults should be able to decide for themselves who’s telling the truth.
The issue in this impeachment trial is not the competence or incompetence of the prosecution or the defense. The real issue is whether or not Corona should be impeached for repeatedly protecting the interests of the Arroyos above that of the people.
The main focus of this impeachment trial should be on the interest of the people. Specifically, this means having a judicial system with honest fair judges  who provide true justice to the people.
The personal interests of President Aquino, Corona, the Senator-Judges, the Congressperson-prosecutors, the defense lawyers and whoever else – are only relevant here  in so far as they help to promote the people’s interest.
We are a nation in continuous mourning. One third of our people go to bed hungry at night. Mothers and fathers quietly sob watching their sick children waste and eventually die because they cannot afford to buy medicines. Many innocent people are in jail because they cannot afford lawyers. Young people become victims of human traffickers. So many leave their loved ones to work in far hot and cold countries with strange cultures – braving terrible loneliness and all kinds of dangers and risks.
It does not have to be like this. If we have a clean honest efficient government, we can change the Philippines.
Note: Atty. Ted Laguatan is based in the San Francisco area. He is honored by the California State Bar as one of only 29 lawyers officially certified as Expert-Specialists continuously for more than twenty years. He also does human rights and complex litigation cases involving accident injuries and wrongful death. Email laguatanlaw@gmail.com Tel             650 991-1154     

The Corona Impeachment Thus Far

There are just too many technically “innocent” evil men in our society all because of the ability of seasoned lawyers to find loopholes in our legal system and apply them to exonerate persons who obviously are guilty but by some legal sleight of hand are allowed to get away scot-free. As if this is not enough the influence of well placed politicians and high government officials are used to overturn honestly arrived at decisions of the lower courts.

The impeachment court trying the Chief Justice Corona is made up of senator jurors who want to let the truth come out. At the least this is how the impeachment court is defined and at this stage the presiding officer, JP Enrile, seems to be conducting a fairly liberal procedures of the impeachment court. How this will be applied as we get into the crunch point of the proceedings remains to be seen.

Legal luminaries like former justice Cuevas, Dindo de los Angeles and a battery of lawyers who are deemed experts at litigations are pitted against a prosecution panel of congressmen made up of lawyers and non lawyers who hardly have had court experience. Even the outside help from practicing lawyers are not the best that money can buy compared to the powerhouse team of the defense panel. Former Chief Justice Cuevas knows this full well and is having a grand time bamboozling the lightweight opposition to submission. In his frequent objections he makes fun of the lawyers of the other side most of whom were his former students. He facetiously chastises them for being absent in class or for not being attentive during his lectures and the objection almost always turns into a lecture or a remedial review of legal academic subjects. The impeachment court recognizes this and has set up their own rules which may not be constrained by legal protocols, narrow and stretched jurisprudence and other legal technicalities. In some cases the truth is caged by the restrictions of the procedures that are supposed to guard against the curtailment of the rights of the individual often at the expense of abusing of the rights of the larger public or the rest of society. What is inherently evil and what is patently incorrect are sometimes protected by the very laws that are supposed to ensure the reign of civility and morality in our society. How often do we find lawyers and opinion leaders leaning towards the literal applications of the law without regard to the moral precepts which served as bases for such laws?  

Coronarroyo advocates from the senate juror ranks who were shy at the onset are slowly coming out of the woodwork to show their leanings and have joined the bamboozling frenzy of the relatively ill equipped lawyers of the prosecution. Thus far I have already counted seven senator jurors who would be on the side of the Chief Justice needing only one more to swing it in favour of the defense. The feisty now turned testy Miriam Santiago has joined the fray and with her usual bully tactics has irritated, sometimes intimidated the prosecution panel and most of the audiences with her mindless and bombastic tirades. 

I hate to say it but the Senate is not exactly the institution where one finds the most upright of persons. A swing vote is all that is needed and I fear that the price for that will be a tantalizing one when dangled.  All the more Justice Cuevas will be emboldened by this show of support and we can be assured of continuous pedantic filibustering from the head of the defense panel. 

Of late, Cuevas has leaked the information (now denied) that he has been offered a deal by Malacanan which involved his resignation as head of the defense panel in exchange for the dropping of the extortion case against NBI Director Gatdula who happen to be a co-Iglesia member. As Ted Laguatan said, this is nothing but ego tripping for Cuevas and using dirty tricks that puts Malacanan in a bad light. Cuevas has been irresponsible in this recent ploy of his and the INC higher ups are concerned that they have been dragged in an inadvertent light into the controversy.

In the latest impeachment proceedings, Megaworld head of Marketing Noli Hernandez testifies that the 40% reduction/discount is a justified one because of the expediencies surrounding it. It should not have surprised anyone that the prosecution witness would turn “hostile” because anything that they say which proves that they have given special treatment to the Coronas in the purchase of their property will be inimical to them. Being a seasoned Marketing executive he was quite glib and adroit in his testimony, a fact which did not escape the attention of Senator Osmena. His story of how the 40 % (P10 million) reduction/discount was arrived at seemed stretched and contrived at certain points. The cost reduction from the list price of P24 million of the Bellagio top penthouse to P19 million, a P5million reduction, was due to the fact that it was a water damaged unit (typhoon inflicted). The second, which was purported as a  discount of 15% (a little less than P3 million) was for cash discount. The rest has been explained away as pressure coming from the softness of the market after the global financial crisis which sent the financial giants like Lehman Bros., Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, et al in dire straits. The testimony of Noli Hernandez gave rise to several questions such as the insuring of the unit at construction stage and the insurance claims, the selling of a damaged unit involving liabilities, the cost of rehabilitating the water damaged unit, the strength of the typhoon (as insinuated by Jinggoy Estrada), the existence of an engineering department’s report. Senator Manny Villar, an expert in the real estate and condominium industry cited that 40% discounts are not exactly unheard of because SMDC (Henry Sy) granted a 40% discount to anyone interested in buying SMDC condos. It of course does not bolster the case of the 40% reduction/discount given to Corona because Megaworld had the offer only to a specific individual and not to all. SMDC must have overestimated what the market can bear with their initial price offers and corrected it by granting the substantial discounts to everyone. Hernandez also offered the reason of market softness due to the financial debacle, however, the annual financial statement belies his claim because the company experienced a very profitable year and there was really no need to bring down prices for their units on sale and the specific penthouse unit sold to Corona. The executives of Megaworld Messrs. Ng and Hernandez were understandably cagey and a bit evasive in their statements. Their allegation that they were separately not aware of information with regard to pricing and financial deals is pure fiction. Anyone who has worked with organizations the size of Megaworld would know that executive committee or management committee members would share an awareness of vital information. If you were to ask Mr. Ng about the prices of their units he would easily rattle them off from the top of his head and Mr Hernandez would surely consult the head of finance for deals involving these amounts, just to cite examples of sharing of information at the top.

I have always said that it is almost a certainty that a man of humble resources and simple perspectives will not be served justice while somebody who has a strong support base of money to afford the best lawyers and media mercenaries; and extensive influence is expected to have the odds in his favour for exoneration.

So where lies the truth? So where’s justice?

De Quiros said in an article that the common Juan finds it difficult to find justice because the system favours the elite and that they are left with no other recourse but to seek justice elsewhere by taking the law into their own hands, later as a fugitive of justice vengefully wreaking havoc to society or as an insurgent joining the NPAs.

Of Supreme Court, Impeachment and the Constitution

We live within a flawed practice of a popular and copied ideology. Democracy is a system of government that is based on the belief that its sovereignty resides in the people and the authority of the elected government emanates from this. People participate in the system by asserting their sovereignty through the ratification of the constitution through a plebiscite. The irony is that majority of the people do not understand the complex issues involved and are indifferent, mostly unaware, of what is being debated about. Even within our legislature there are lawmakers who might not have even read the Constitution and may have little appreciation of it. The other involvement that the citizens have in our democratic system is the voting of candidates into public office. This is an exercise of a sovereign right that needs neither explanation nor prodding because it simply asks of them to put in office personalities of their choice but perhaps with little understanding of the meaning and significance of the choices that are made available to them except that of the immediate benefit the vote rewards (vote buying) them with and the instant gratification of a fan supporting a favourite idol brings. Having actors governing our lives is something that we have to live with.

This is an imperfect system that has a host of problems accompanying it but thanks to our perseverance and patience we are able to live with it for generations. During the present times the frequency and the level of impunity by which the system has been buffeted may have reached critical mass that allowing it go on further would result into the country’s spiralling down into the category of a chronically failed state (at present we already belong to the lower batch of countries monitored by the internationally conducted Failed State Index).  

The current controversy which has Pnoy and the Supreme Court embroiled in raises fears that as a result of the attacks against the judicial institution could result in the weakening of the law and the fragmentation of their implementation despite the uprightness of the government’s contentions. I don’t think that what the government is doing cuts up the laws into bits of ineffectual non cohesive parts. What cuts them down is the travesty committed in law’s name. Reforming the justice system is not cutting it to pieces but mending and resplicing the gaps that constant abuse made mince meat of it.

Pnoy, despite the severity of his attacks on Corona, does not want a capitulation of the justice system. . I don’t think Pnoy inspires trembling in the justices boots. All he wants is for justices find it in themselves to reform and regain their integrity and dignity. They should throw off the shackles of being beholden to the evil hand that led to their falling into the ignominious pit they are in. It’s about time they regain their self esteem and be independent of judgment and fair in their evaluation of and ferreting of truths in the cases before them. They should cease to be the grovelling dogs under the banquet table of the Arroyos and to seek the return of their honour, coming out of the shadows with heads held high, respected as their positions warrant.

There have been talks bruited about in legal circles and in the legislative halls for the impeachment of the Chief Justice. Constitutional experts give caution that impeachment is a double edged sword which can be used as legal resort for reforms but may also be misused as a vindictive act carried out by blinded followers. Thinking that this is going to be a signal to the “rabble” for the persecution of the Chief Justice is a tad paranoid. Regardless of the rigorous process it will undergo, impeachment is the constitutionally prescribed antidote to the contagion that has attached itself to the highest court in the land. It will be a test of its ability as a constitutional instrument to cleanse government institutions of undesirable elements. I don’t think the object of the whole exercise is to scuttle all 15 Arroyo appointed justices via impeachment, to think so would be wishful thinking. Even the defenders of Chief Justice Corona say that this would be a monumental task and therefore something similar to people power or the Occupy Wall Street movement would be resorted to by Pnoy et al. Perhaps what is doable is the impeachment of Corona and being the head of the cabal once removed would be sufficient enough to move the other Arroyo justices through moral suasion.

It is hoped that “people power” actions is not resorted to. This has been    twice successful in the not too long ago past. People power as a resort reflects the desperation of the people’s will to rid itself of the unmitigated oppression very possible under martial rule and against a regime that is patently corrupt but thrives indefinitely because of the due processes that have to be adhered to. It takes little time for plunder to inflict severe damage to the country. There is not enough threat or imminent danger as the EDSA I or EDSA II posed to warrant a rallying of the people.  

I have always been wary of lawyers and their practice. It seems that most of the successful lawyers (monetarily) are those that are experts at loopholes, delaying tactics, technicalities, manipulation of evidences, coercion and/or coaching of witnesses, misinterpretation of jurisprudence and other wily strategies to make mockery of the spirit of the law. As I once said they make the guilty innocent and innocent ludicrous. Current examples of injustices are the content of newspapers every day. Arguing about the constitutionality of issues even takes a different and more complicated tact. As experts assert, “we should realize that there often are two or more possible sides to a constitutional argument. And the outcome of a constitutional debate often depends upon the modality of constitutional interpretation a justice might use.” Others have said that a debate on constitutional issues would sometimes make use of circuitous forensics, legal legerdemain which doesn’t inspire trust and provide us much comfort. The issues in the debate of the constitution and the Supreme Court are vital to us because it touches on our lives, our liberties and our happiness. What seem to be out of the picture are the discerned morality and the inherent correctness of things, the spirit of which should override all arguments. The Supreme Court, by the exercise of judicial review, wields tremendous political power. This tremendous political power that the Supreme Court yields is terrifying if it is controlled by the wrong hands.

What most people fail to realize is that the contrarian stance of the Arroyo installed justices who feel obliged to reciprocate to her and probably aided by ongoing and new incentives, stems from Gloria’s motive of having a Supreme Court that is friendly towards her so that she will be protected once out of her presidential protective mantle. It is no longer a chief executive protecting herself from being OUSTED, it is a case of creating a shield of protection from prosecution for misdeeds when she was in authority. Gloria chose some of her justices with the motive of protecting herself from the law which she anticipated will go after her hammer and tongs. It was never based on a violation of basic governance philosophies, political, personal and ideological considerations. She is being pursued for CRIMES committed. Proof of this is the indecent haste and surreptitiousness of appointments of personalities into government positions which will help her achieve her dastardly purpose; that of being exonerated from all the misdeeds that she foresaw will be charged against her.

In our system the appointment of justices is the prerogative of the president. Gloria had served an extended ten years as head of state and in the process the make-up of the judicial bench in the high court are predominantly her appointees. It would be reasonable to expect that some of them are qualified in terms uprightness and capability for judicious dispensing of the law. The justices seated at the benches of the Supreme Court, on the whole, would not be devoid of integrity, dignity, honour and self esteem. Their tragic flaw is that they are overly grateful for the one who installed them in their positions. If only they would show impartiality on cases regarding Gloria whom they have favoured consistently to the chagrin of the present administration. They are capable of being honourable except for the cases involving Gloria for reasons we speculate on and they find hard to divulge.