Corona kin won't be summoned

MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, sitting as presiding judge, denied yesterday the motion of the prosecution panel to summon Chief Justice Renato Corona and members of his family to testify before the impeachment trial.

Prior to this, Enrile denied the motion of Corona’s camp to disallow the use of private prosecutors by the House ?of Representative’s ?prosecution panel.

The Senate President’s ruling to deny the prosecution’s motion to compel the appearance of the chief magistrate and his family to testify on their assets was challenged by Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano.

“The question... is may they claim this qualification of privilege not to testify against the respondent in an impeachment trial? It really depends on the purpose and the author of the evidence. But we are not yet there... In any event, the time to invoke this is when they are called to testify,” he said.

Following Cayetano’s motion to “divide the house,” the senator-judges voted 14-6 to uphold Enrile’s ruling.

In ruling on the motion, Enrile said “to compel Corona to appear and testify against himself by virtue of a subpoena directed to him by the court upon the request of the prosecution would violate the Chief Justice’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.”

“It should be stressed that, if convicted, respondent Chief Justice would suffer the penalty of (a) removal from his position as chief justice before the expiration of his term and (b) suffer perpetual disqualification from holding any government position,” he said.

Enrile also pointed out that the rules on impeachment do not require the person impeached to attend the proceedings.

The Senate President also denied the motion to summon Mrs. Corona, following the provision of the Rules of Court on spousal privilege.

“It is an admitted fact that Mrs. Cristina Corona is the wife of respondent Chief Justice and that she is sought to testify during the existence of her marriage with the respondent Chief Justice.

“Secondly, the request is for her to testify in favor of the prosecution.

“Thirdly, the impeachment case is definitely not a case of spouses Corona against each other,” Enrile said.

In the case of Corona’s children, Enrile also cited the Rules of Court on parental and filial privilege, where no person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct ascendants.

“The disqualification is intended to preserve family solidarity and to prevent a common child to be used by a parent against the other on criminal litigations between them,” he said in denying the motion of the prosecution.

The Senate President also denied the motion to summon Corona’s son-in-law Constantino Castillo III, citing the doctrine of necessary implication.

“This court believes that, by necessary implication, children-in-law are covered by the prohibition to testify on account of parental and filial privilege,” he said.

Lawyer Jose Roy III, one of the legal counsels for Corona, argued in the motion that the request of the prosecution for a subpoena against Corona and his family to compel his attendance at the trial and to submit a number of documents failed to state any specific purpose for the required testimony and production of documents.

“Inasmuch as Chief Justice Corona is being tried before the impeachment court, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum against him amounts to a compulsion to provide evidence which will be used against him in the impeachment trial proceedings,” Roy said.

A subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum refers to the submission of documents accompanied by a testimony by the bearer.

The prosecution, in a motion it filed last Jan. 12, asked the Senate to summon Corona and his family and for them to bring along documents related to the acquisition, disposition, ownership, possession or enjoyment of various properties under their names and that of other individuals.

Corona camp ‘elated’

Defense lawyers were elated with their initial victory, which was dampened by Enrile’s earlier ruling that their request to disallow the private prosecutors “was not in order because the rules of the House allow presence of private prosecutors to assist the panel of prosecutors designated by the House of Representatives.”

“We understand that the arguments we have raised against the violation of the constitutional rights of the Chief Justice and his family have been upheld by the Senate by a clear majority vote ruling of the floor… (and) was clearly explained by the presiding officer,” said defense counsel Dennis Manolo yesterday.

Another Corona lawyer, Tranquil Salvador, said the impeachment body recognized “marital privilege” where a spouse should not be called to testify against his or her spouse.

“They also recognized filial privilege wherein the children should not be allowed to testify against their parents. They also recognized that the Chief Justice, being the respondent, should not be called to the witness stand to testify against himself,” Salvador said.

Another Corona counsel, Karen Jimeno, said that the defense team does not see the latest developments as an indication that the body is favoring Corona.

“What we are following here is our Constitution and the rules of court, so the majority voted in favor of the chair’s ruling because we have a basis in the rules of court, and the precedents,” she said.

Jimeno also noted Sen. Alan Cayetano’s legal position, which he had presented before the body.

House can use private prosecutors

In ruling on the appearance of the private prosecutors, Enrile said they are allowed as a matter of procedure.

In a motion filed at the Senate last Monday, Roy asked the Senate to disallow the appearance of the private prosecutors because there was “no compelling justification” for this.

Roy said the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings promulgated by the House of Representatives prohibits the employment of a private prosecutor.

Corona’s camp cited Section 15 of the House’s rules regarding the impeachment prosecutor, which states that, “The House of Representatives shall act as sole prosecutor at the trial in the Senate through a committee of eleven members thereof to be elected by a majority vote.”

It argued that the complainant in the impeachment of the chief justice was no other than the House of Representatives itself and as such, its own Rule 15 must apply in this case.

“The appearance of a private prosecutor is not a matter of right but premised on the grant of authority to appear, subject to the existence of specified conditions. The mandatory language of the House Rules does not permit any such authority for a private prosecutor,” the motion stated.

Corona’s lawyers argued that the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, where private prosecutors were allowed to assist the prosecution panel, could not be used as a useful precedent for the trial of Corona because that trial was never concluded.

Prosecution: Just a temporary setback

Unperturbed by Enrile’s ruling, House prosecutors vowed to prove that Corona has amassed “ill-gotten wealth.”

“The decision of the impeachment court on our motion is just a temporary setback. We have other means to prove that the Chief Justice has accumulated wealth beyond his means and that many of these are not declared in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth,” prosecution panel spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said.

Quimbo said what was prohibited under Enrile’s ruling on their request for subpoenas for the Corona family was the obtaining of evidence from the respondent himself, his wife, his son, his two daughters, and his son-in-law.

He said the prosecution could obtain documents and testimonies from other knowledgeable persons and sources such as government agencies like the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

Another prosecution spokesman, Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, said Enrile has in fact already granted their request for subpoenas to the heads of the Registers of Deeds of Taguig City, Quezon City, Marikina City, Parañaque City, and Pasay City.

He said these officials would be asked to testify on the condominium units, houses and lots that the Coronas own.

Angara said they could also request for the production of the income tax returns of the Coronas from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

He pointed out that they would have wanted the impeachment court to summon the Coronas and let them invoke their right against self-incrimination in open court.

“That was the point that Sen. (Alan) Cayetano tried to drive home,” Angara added.

Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada, on the other hand, said the non-appearance of the Coronas in the Senate proceedings on their properties would make people more suspicious of how they acquired their assets.

“Those who keep secrets are the only ones who fear the truth. We in the House prosecution team are ready to bring to light the evidence proving Mr. Corona’s ill-gotten wealth. We have witnesses who will testify that he, in fact, owns not just five properties, as he claims, but more,” he said.

Earlier, the prosecution came out with a list from the LRA of 45 properties that the Coronas allegedly own.

How they voted

Those who voted against Senate Presi- dent Juan Ponce Enrile’s ruling denying the petition of the prosecutors to sum- mon the Chief Justice and his family were Nacionalista Party (NP) Senators Manuel Villar Jr., Alan Peter and his sister Pia Cayetano, independent Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Aquilino Pimentel III and Lib- eral Party member Teofisto Guingona III.

Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was the only member of the NP that did not vote against Enrile’s ruling.

Aside from Marcos, those who voted to uphold the ruling were Senators Lito Lapid, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Hona- san, Jinggoy Estrada, Serge Osmeña III, Joker Arroyo, Edgardo Angara, Vicente Sotto III, Francis Pangilinan, Ramon Revilla Jr., Franklin Drilon, Panfilo Lacson and Ralph Recto.

Enrile, as presiding officer, did not cast a vote.

A total of 21 senators were present during yesterday’s session, including the Senate President. Senators Loren Legarda and Miriam Defensor-Santiago were absent from the proceedings. – Jess Diaz, Christina Mendez