Palace respects JPE decision on Corona's PAL perks

MANILA, Philippines - It was unfortunate that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, stopped an executive of Philippine Airlines (PAL) from testifying on Corona’s alleged travel perks, Malacañang said yesterday.

However, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said they believe the evidence culled from Article 2 on the bank accounts and properties of Corona would be a strong basis for the senators to rule on the impeachment. 

“The public wanted to see if there was evidence to show that the Chief Justice did not have the integrity and so this was not shown (Tuesday),” he said.

“The public would have preferred that the evidence was presented, and it would be up to the judges again to determine at the formal offer of evidence whether they are going to be accepted for whatever purpose they serve. 

“That’s the purpose of the formal offer of evidence. That’s the time when the judges will determine (if) this can be allowed as evidence... But, apparently, this was not done...” 

Lacierda said President Aquino respected the decision of Enrile.

“There are ups and downs in the trial. I think everybody can see that. But insofar as the evidence that have been uncovered, we are satisfied with the accounts, for instance, the discrepancies in the SALN and the actual amounts that were uncovered in the testimonies of the various bank officials. 

“We are also satisfied that based on the SALN only certain properties were declared but when it came to actual testimony, we were able to uncover more than what was stated in the SALN and, yes, those were sufficient evidence for the senators to appreciate.” 

Lacierda said the only way the decision of Enrile can be reversed is through a motion for reconsideration from one of the senators.

“Apparently none of the senators have moved for a reconsideration,” he said. “So the prosecution is bound by the judgment of the Senate President and so we move on to Article 7.” 

Article 7 pertains to the alleged betrayal of public trust of Corona when the Supreme Court granted the request of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the watchlist order issued by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.

Lacierda said the evidence against Corona that came out so far, whether or not due to questioning of senator-judges, must be given merit.

“I think the questions of the senators form part of the records,” he said. “They are not considered inadmissible.” Lacierda said the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) had explained they did not examine and leak the accounts of Corona at Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and so the pieces of evidence on Corona’s accounts should be admissible.  

Lacierda said based on the testimony of PSBank president Pascual Garcia III, there were material differences but on the “substantive similarities, for instance, on the signatures as well as the account numbers –these account numbers were not culled from out of the blue.

“What we’re looking at is a question of form versus substance... Mr. Garcia did not deny the account numbers. The account numbers do exist in Philippine Savings Bank... Based on those numbers elicited by subpoena, Mr. Garcia disclosed the amounts of the accounts held by Mr. Corona.” 

Lacierda said it was unfortunate that lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas had to “take the brunt of the statements of the Senate President.”

“But that is his role as lead prosecutor. He takes success as well as the criticisms,” he added.    

 Fight continues

House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II said yesterday the prosecutors’ fight will continue despite the ruling of Enrile rejecting the testimony of Javier. Speaking to reporters, Gonzales said the rejection of Javier’s testimony was a very “painful experience” for the prosecution. Gonzales said should they lose, they will file another impeachment case against Corona using the evidence that they have on hand in Article 3. 

“We are learning from that and we will remember that. They are teaching us what to do,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales said it will not take a genius to say that no allegations of bribery are in Article 3 of the impeachment complaint. “But that is not the purpose of why the witness is being offered. He was offered to prove the allegations of the FASAP that the case has been reconsidered through a letter of Estelito Mendoza. And what are the other reasons? Is it really because of the letter or there are other reasons. 

“That is what we want to prove and perhaps consideration like the free trips which could have been the reason why the reconsideration of the case of FASAP has been fast. It is not for the purpose of establishing bribery because we know that it is not alleged in Article 3. But unfortunately, they jumped the gun yesterday (Tuesday).” Gonzales said the prosecution is not expanding Article 3.

“If the complaint is defective, they should have dismissed it outright,” he said. “If that is true, we are just conducting a moro-moro here. This is the first time that a full blown impeachment trial is conducted.” Gonzales said the Constitution is clear that a one-third vote of the total members of the House of Representatives would suffice to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. 

“If they believed that even with the one-third votes, we still need a subpoena and we will be dependent on it, what is the use of that?” he said. – With Jose Rodel Clapano, Paolo Romero