Prosecution begins presentation of witnesses under Article 3

By Jelly F. Musico

Pending the final ruling of the Senate Impeachment Court on whether or not to subpoena the bank records of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the court allowed the House of Representatives prosecutors to start the presentation of witnesses in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint against the chief magistrate.

House prosecutor Rep. Arlene Bag-ao presented Roberto Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), as the first witness under Article 3 and 14th witness overall since the trial started January 16.

Before examining Anduiza, Bag-ao tried to use a powerpoint presentation for her opening remark but Senate President and Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile disallowed the prosecutor.

”We want to hear from the mouth of the witness his testimony,” Enrile stressed.

Earlier, prosecution member Rep. Giogidi Aggabao read the content of the Article 3 where they claimed Corona has administrative power that led to the flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases.

With this, Enrile directed Aggabao to submit legal memorandum on the alleged authority of the Chief Justice to influence the ruling of the SC.

Another member of the prosecution, Rep. Neri Colmenares, also manifested the prosecution’s desire to subpoena the SC justices which he claimed “are very important components of the Article 2 and other articles of the impeachment complaint.”

”That is why we are really, really expressing our manifestation that the Senate will allow the issuance of subpoenaes to these justices because it’s not the Senate, but the Senate, acting as impeachment court, that will issue subpoena,” Colmenares said.

Colmenares added that the motion to subpoena SC justices will not violate co-equality of the three branches of government which are the executive, judiciary and legislative.

Enrile said, “I will submit it to the wise judgment of the members of the Impeachment Court.”

The prosecution has already presented a total of 13 witnesses, all in the Article 2 and is hoping that the court would allow two more witnesses who will testify on the bank records of Corona.

Last Monday, the impeachment court ruled to grant the request of the prosecution to subpoena the bank officials of both the Philippine Savings Bank and Bank of the Philippine Islands and bring with them the bank records of the chief magistrate.

However, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a motion for reconsideration for three reasons, namely:

* It appears that the subpoena would violate this Court’s own ruling that evidence shall NOT be allowed on ill-gotten wealth. (Complaint, Art. 2, para. 2.4.) Since 2.4 is the only paragraph that specifically mentions “bank deposits,” any requests for subpoena concerning any bank deposits should be rejected.

* It appears that the Court’s resolution allowing subpoena even for foreign currency deposits appears to be a direct violation of R.A. No. 6426. The Supreme Court ruled in Intengan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128996 (2002), that this law is violated if a foreign currency deposit is examined, except only when the depositor gives written permission. This is the only exception, and it is not present in this case.

* Prosecution cited the 1997 case of Salvacion, 2000 case of China Banking Corp., and 2006 case of Ejercito. It appears that all three cases are off-tangent.

Enrile decided to tackle the motion for reconsideration in a caucus on Wednesday.

Under Article 3, Corona has been accused of failure to meet and observe the stringent standards of a member of judiciary by allowing the Supreme Court to come out with flip-flopping decision in final and executory cases.

The prosecution also accused the Chief Justice of creating “an excessive entanglement with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through her appointment of his wife, Cristina, to government firms like the Camp John Hay Development Corporation.

Corona is also accused of discussing with litigants cases pending in the Supreme Court.

In the Article 2, the prosecution is hoping to convince the Impeachment Court that Corona has violated betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution when he failed to disclose with "truthfulness" his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. (PNA/PIA9-ZBST)