Senate likely to hold pre-trial By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated January 04, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (89) MANILA, Philippines - The senator-judges in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona are considering a pre-trial conference so they can have an idea of the evidence as well as the number of witnesses to be presented. “We want a pre-trial so we can speed up the process and determine the evidence they will present,” Senate impeachment court spokesperson Maria Valentina Cruz said. She said the impeachment court would also have to decide on Corona’s request for a preliminary hearing ahead of the actual trial on Jan. 16. Cruz said the impeachment trial will start at 2 p.m. to allow the senator-judges to do legislative work in the morning. She also said only select TV networks will be allowed to set up cameras inside the plenary hall where the trial will be held. “There are some restrictions. The media cannot interview in the hallways and the plenary hall. Ambush interviews are not allowed. There will be two rooms in the Senate where media can conduct interviews,” she said. The Corona camp is seeking a preliminary hearing on its argument that the impeachment complaint is constitutionally infirm and defective because the 188 congressmen who signed it were unable to verify their signatures or prove that they had read and understand the articles of impeachment. The Chief Justice’s lawyers argued that verification is a constitutional requirement. But for members of the House prosecution panel, Corona was hiding behind a technicality in his pleading to avoid or delay his trial. “After all, there were boasts of his powerhouse legal team, that he is ready and willing to face trial in the Senate and welcomes the opportunity to prove his innocence,” the panel said in its 38-page reply to Corona’s answer to the Senate summons. The panel said it was Corona himself - in a speech delivered Dec. 14 at the SC - who declared his desire to face an impeachment court as soon as possible. “Apparently, now that the time has come for him to face the impeachment charges, he is not as bold after all,” the panel added. The panel also reminded Corona that the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment and that the Senate has summoned him to face trial. “With these developments, it cannot be denied that the impeachment complaint is sufficient to proceed to trial. Any technical objections on the impeachment complaint are now barred and should no longer be entertained,” the reply read. The panel added that there is always a presumption of regularity in an impeachment complaint, including in the verification. “This presumption is not overcome by hearsay news reports that some congressmen supposedly failed to read the complaint, particularly in the absence of evidence that congressmen supposedly failed to read the impeachment complaint,” the prosecutors added. “Accountability is so crucial to democracy such that the Constitution has devoted an entire article to ‘Accountability of Public Offices’ (Article XI), and has devised the impeachment mechanism as a way to hold high officers accountable to the sovereign people,” it added. The House prosecutors also castigated Corona for declaring that the move to oust him is an attack on the entire judiciary. “For all this self-serving, grandiose, and arrogant claims, his impeachment is not an attack on the independence of the judiciary or the rule of law, or the system of checks and balances,” the reply read. The panel said the filing of the impeachment complaint was “purely a response to the people’s clamor to hold him accountable for his sins and offenses, and purge the Highest Court of a morally unfit officer who has betrayed their trust.” More legal challenge 1 Meanwhile, two more lawyers have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the impeachment proceedings against Corona unconstitutional. Former assemblyman and Misamis Oriental Gov. Homobono Adaza and former President Joseph Estrada’s lawyer Alan Paguia jointly filed a 23-page petition to stop the impeachment proceedings amid calls for the SC not to intervene in the case. It was the fifth petition contesting the legality of the impeachment proceedings. Lawyer Vladimir Cabigao, tax informer Danilo Lihaylihay, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Vicente Millora and Marcos loyalist Oliver Lozano filed the previous petitions. Just like the previous petitioners, Adaza and Paguia argued that the impeachment complaint “has not been verified by the overwhelming majority of the complainants.” “Not having been verified, the so-called ‘verified complaint’ is a mere scrap of paper with no legal effect,” the petition of Adaza and Paguia read. They said the House violated due process and the equal protection clause under the Constitution when it swiftly adopted the eight Articles of Impeachment signed by 188 congressmen. The Senate, for its part, abused its discretion when it accepted the Articles of Impeachment despite the lack of verification, the two lawyers said. “In reality, the Senate has no legal basis for convening themselves into an impeachment jury. And to avoid making the issue moot and academic, we are asking the SC to stop or issue a TRO against the Senate from proceeding with the trial of the impeachment articles,” Paguia told reporters yesterday. In a related development, Millora also filed yesterday a motion asking the SC to deliberate on their request for a TRO on the impeachment proceedings. He said the SC should act swiftly lest the issue becomes moot once the Senate proceeds with the impeachment trial. The SC is set to discuss the petitions for TRO in full-court session on Jan. 17 or a day after the start of the impeachment trial at the Senate. As the impeachment trial nears, Corona’s supporters said they have high hopes of seeing him acquitted. “We are hoping the Chief Justice will be acquitted. His lawyers already submitted an answer where it was shown that not only the impeachment complaint was weak but also the process of filing the complaint,” SC spokesman Midas Marquez said in a press conference. Marquez said Corona’s lawyers led by retired SC justice Serafin Cuevas would also respond to the reply filed by the House prosecutors last Monday. “I think the Chief Justice is carefully studying the reply and he would answer it if required by the impeachment court,” he added. Marquez declined to provide details on the defense’s strategy, saying a “communications group” being organized would discuss the issue with the media. “It’s still being finalized. I understand the defense team and the prospective members of the communications group are meeting so it will be revealed as soon as it is finalized,” Marquez said. “A lot of issues will have to be explained while the impeachment process will take its normal course. The media will be asking so many questions, especially on the side of the Chief Justice, and that will be the main function of the communications group,” he added. - With Edu Punay Cases questioning constitutionality of Corona impeachment dismissible By Romulo Macalintal 3:05 am | Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 4share23 18 (Editor’s Note: Romulo Macalintal served as an election lawyer of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is detained on charges of electoral sabotage in connection with the 2007 senatorial polls in Maguindanao.) Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO There will be no constitutional crisis or military takeover when the Supreme Court takes cognizance of the petitions filed by some lawyers questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona. For sure, the Supreme Court will not stop the Senate from acting as an impeachment court to try and decide the Corona impeachment case. 2 As a matter of fact, the high court may eventually dismiss these petitions for lack of jurisdiction and/or lack of legal standing of the lawyers in filing the cases. The issues raised in the petitions, such as defective verification and lack of proper grounds to impeach, are the very same defenses raised by Corona in his answer to the articles of impeachment the House of Representatives transmitted to the Senate last month. The Chief Justice asked the Senate “for the outright dismissal of the impeachment complaint or to enter a judgment of acquittal for all the articles of impeachment.” The 2003 impeachment case against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in which the high court took cognizance and granted the petitions of some lawyers assailing the constitutionality of the impeachment case, cannot be applied to Corona’s case. In the Davide case, the impeachment complaint had not yet been received by the Senate when the petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. In Corona’s case, the articles of impeachment had already been received by the Senate and Corona had already filed his answer, thereby submitting himself to or recognizing the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. The Supreme Court may likewise dismiss the petitions for lack of legal standing of the petitioners because they have not suffered any form of direct or personal injury as a result of the filing of the impeachment complaint against Corona. Furthermore, the grounds relied upon by the House in impeaching Corona are political questions which the Supreme Court cannot review or overturn. Finally, the tribunal does not usually touch on the issue of the constitutionality of an act of Congress if there are some other grounds upon which the court may rest its judgment. As stated, the Senate had already received the articles of impeachment against Corona and convened as an impeachment court, and Corona had already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Senate.