Lawyer insists GMA, Davide must testify in Estrada’s trial

Insisting that the Supreme Court had erroneously ruled in favor of the Arroyo administration in 2001, a lawyer of jailed former President Joseph Estrada claimed yesterday the Sandiganbayan has no choice but to summon President Arroyo and Chief Justice Hilario Davide to testify in court.

Lawyer Alan Paguia argued that Estrada’s right to present witnesses and other evidence to support his legal claims is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, which he said the anti-graft court should uphold at all times.

"The right (to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf) is not subject to the discretion of the court," Paguia argued in a two-page rejoinder.

Paguia admitted that the statements of Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban in his book "Reforming the Judiciary" were not enough evidence, but claimed the testimony of persons mentioned in the book is needed to corroborate Panganiban’s statements.

"The presentation of witnesses to prove the truth or falsity of the statements contained (in the book) which is decisive of a material issue in these cases should therefore be allowed," Paguia argued, adding that Mrs. Arroyo, Davide and Panganiban and several others are the best witnesses to prove the alleged bias of the SC.

"Unless Estrada is allowed to prove the truth of Panganiban’s material statements cited in his book, it would appear that Estrada would be deprived of his right to take whatever action he would like to take which he thinks will effectively advance the cause of his defense," he said.

"To prove the truth of said statements, it would appear necessary to subpoena certain witnesses," Paguia added, referring to the President, Davide, Panganiban, Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Renato Corona, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel and Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes.

The lawyer cited newspaper reports indicating that Pimentel and Reyes are supposedly willing to testify should they be summoned by the anti-graft court.

Paguia also requested the seven prospective witnesses to bring with them whatever material supporting documents (directly or indirectly) they may have in relation to what Paguia described as the illegal swearing in of Mrs. Arroyo as president.

The sole issue, he noted, is the supposed "prejudgment" of the SC justices, led by Davide, who swore in Mrs. Arroyo as president on Jan. 20, 2001.

But chief special prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio dismissed Paguia’s argument and reiterated the exemption of an incumbent president and chief justice from court proceedings.

"We’re not going to dignify this because it will just be like saying it has basis at all. It’s a perfect script for a gag show like ‘Bubble Gang’ or ‘Wow Mali.’ Of course, they’re exempt from attending court processes. It’s a public policy," Villa Ignacio said.