MANILA, Philippines - The head of an employees’ association in Philippine Airlines (PAL) testified yesterday on the alleged role played by Chief Justice Renato Corona in the flip-flopping of the Supreme Court on cases against the flag carrier.
The prosecution presented Roberto Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), as its first witness against Corona for Article 3 of the impeachment complaint. Under Article 3, Corona is being accused of making the high court reverse some of its rulings.
The impeachment court allowed the prosecution to start the presentation of witnesses for Article 3 even as the panel has not yet wrapped up Article 2 containing allegations that Corona had failed to declare some of his finances and properties in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
Officials of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) are expected to appear tomorrow at the Senate to shed light on alleged questionable accounts of Corona.
In his testimony, Anduiza accused Corona of meddling in the illegal retrenchment case filed by FASAP against PAL, which he said allegedly resulted in the SC’s recall of its ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas moved to strike out the witness’ statement, saying the latter’s testimony was touching on the merits of “live” cases pending with the SC. But Anduiza was allowed to continue his testimony.
Midway through the questioning of Anduiza by public prosecutor Rep. Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao, Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada asked if the impeachment court is bound by the sub judice rule.
“There is, if I may be allowed to,” Cuevas said. “There is a pending litigation before the Supreme Court so the rule on sub judice will apply.”
Bag-ao said the sub judice rule applies only if the prosecution touches on the merits of the case.
Anduiza noted that Corona had inhibited a number of times since 2008 until PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza apparently interfered. After Mendoza’s alleged interference, the SC reversed three earlier rulings on the reinstatement of 1,400 flight attendants and stewards of PAL, including the payment of some P2.5 billion in back wages.
The witness revealed that Mendoza sent letters to the SC through the SC clerk of court on four occasions – Sept. 13, 16, 20 and 22 last year. He said Corona was copy furnished with the first and third letters. Justices Arturo Brion, Jose Perez, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin also got copies of the letter.
In its original ruling in July 2008, the SC declared the retrenchment illegal.
In October 2009, the SC affirmed its decision when it junked PAL’s motion for reconsideration.
But in October 2011, the Supreme Court reopened the case and recalled its ruling. The high court had earlier insisted that Mendoza’s letters merely pointed out technicalities in the handling of the case.
Anduiza bewailed that the high court swiftly acted on Mendoza’s letters without giving FASAP an opportunity to comment on the matter. The defense panel is set to cross examine the witness today.
The prosecution under Article 3 of the impeachment complaint accuses Corona of committing “culpable violations of the Constitution” and of betrayal of public trust “by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards” required of a member of the judiciary.
‘Abundance of caution’
Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile said the impeachment court will take an “abundance of caution” in deciding whether to summon justices or open records of pending SC cases as part of the deliberation on Article 3.
“I will be frank with you as presiding officer, some of these requests for subpoena are going to tread on the principle of co-equalness, separation of the three departments of government,” Enrile said in response to a query from prosecutor Giorgidi Aggabao on why the impeachment court has not yet acted on the request for the issuance of subpoena on the justices and some PAL officials.
“We have to study this request very carefully in order that we will not impair the checks and balances in the entire system of democratic republican government in this country,” the Senate president said. “I will take abundante cautela or an abundance of caution in subpoenaing the members of a co-equal (body).”
Meanwhile, the prosecution will be allowed to ask PSBank and BPI officials directly regarding Corona’s bank accounts.
“They can ask the witnesses when they bring it (documents) here (because it contains) the running balance of every year,” Sen. Edgardo Angara said.
This developed as PSBank president Pascual Garcia III, in a statement, said “we shall appear in the hearing as directed by the Senate impeachment court.”
Sen. Sergio Osmeña III earlier said the court might not be able to get the complete picture of Corona’s bank transactions if the documents to be submitted would be limited to the balances as of Dec. 31 for the years 2005 to 2010.
Angara said the managers of the two banks should have with them information regarding the opening balances of the accounts for each year as well as the balances for the succeeding months.
What the Senate turned down was the issuance of subpoenas for the running balance for every month for the years involved, he said.
“If you subpoena the monthly balances, that would require a container van (to bring them here). They want the running balance for every month, that would be oppressive,” Angara said. “You can come to the same conclusion by asking the witness.”
He stressed that the impeachment court has the power to dig into Corona’s accounts, including his dollar accounts, despite restrictions contained in Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
“Is impeachment a good enough reason? Yes,” Angara said. “The rationale of the law is to protect foreign investors. The law is not a sanctuary or haven for grafters or local criminals.”
Sen. Miriam Santiago has filed a motion for reconsideration on the ruling of the impeachment court granting the petition of the prosecution panel for the issuance of subpoenas to BPI and PSBank.
Sen. Francis Escudero, for his part, said they have yet to decide if they can cite for contempt bank officials who snub the hearing.
“It was just discussed since the bank officials also have a strong legal ground on the issue of the foreign bank accounts,” Escudero said.
For Corona’s lawyers, the impeachment court should not admit as valid evidence his bank records obtained by House prosecutors from an anonymous source.
Defense spokesman lawyer Ramon Esguerra said they believe the document was illegally obtained and thus could be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
“The doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree applies here. If the source of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well,” Esguerra said in a statement.
“The bank records are not admissible per se in the light of the illegal and criminal nature of the source of documents attached by the prosecution to its request for subpoena – an anonymous ‘short lady’ – as formally claimed by Mindoro Congressman Rey Umali,” Esguerra explained. With Edu Punay, Ted Torres