MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Edgardo Angara yesterday rejected a motion from the defense panel that he inhibit from the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, saying the call was malicious and intended to destroy the credibility of the court.
The defense team, led by former justice Serafin Cuevas, wanted the senator to inhibit from the case because his son, Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, is a prosecution spokesman.
“The worst thing about the motion is the insinuation or the suspicion that I will be unbiased and prejudiced because of that relationship and the malicious insinuation that political favors have been extended to my province of Aurora, in effect insinuating that my vote has already been bought,” Angara said.
He stressed he had nothing to do with the designation of his son as spokesman for the prosecution. He called the defense argument for pushing for his inhibition irrelevant.
“My son will not benefit from any decision either way. The only one who will benefit or suffer is the Chief Justice,” Angara said.
The defense also cited recent developments that supposedly “strengthen the perception of partiality in favor of the Liberal Party and President Benigno Aquino.”
The defense panel cited the National Economic and Development Authority’s approval of three infrastructure projects in Aurora province, which “appear more as political favors or inducements rather than honest-to-goodness responses to development concerns.”
But Angara said only one of the three projects cited by the defense was in Aurora and that such project would be funded wholly by the South Korean government.
“The petitioners had the gall and the audacity to suggest that these are political favors. So I reject that as an unthinking and illogical conclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and – I don’t want to say it – it may be a diversionary tactic because you scolded them yesterday for their unpreparedness,” Angara told Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile. The Senate President berated the defense team on Monday for presenting what he said were witnesses whose testimonies were irrelevant to the case.
Angara recalled that the defense had also questioned the impartiality of several senators including Franklin Drilon, Teofisto Guingona III, Francis Pangilinan and Ralph Recto, who are all members of the ruling Liberal Party.
“There is no other interpretation that I can read about the actuations of the defense except to destroy the credibility of the impeachment court,” Angara said.
“I’ve never seen legal logic like this. Therefore I take umbrage at this malicious paper,” he added.
Cuevas explained that the motion was filed on behalf of the Chief Justice, who felt that Angara would not be able to demonstrate cold neutrality as a judge.
“We never stated that everything stated thereon is indubitably true. But we wanted to express, to give importance, to the feeling of the Chief Justice in order if a decision is made one way or the other, there is no doubt as to the impartiality and lack of bias on the part of the deciding member of the Senate,” Cuevas said.
Desperation
Prosecutors said the defense panel showed its desperation in calling for Angara’s inhibition.
“It’s an act of desperation by the defense to tarnish the judgment of the Senate. They are conditioning the mind of the public to reject the Senate’s future judgment,” prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said.
He said the timing of the motion “is highly suspicious,” considering that it was filed only a few weeks before the impeachment court decides on Corona’s case.
Quimbo said the defense motion was “an afterthought and should have been filed early on if they were sincere.”
“Why only now? The House of Representatives appointed Rep. Sonny Angara to our panel of spokesmen in December after impeaching the Chief Justice,” he said.
For his part, Rep. Angara said Corona’s lawyers want to obtain votes of acquittal for their client by moving to inhibit some senator-judges deemed unsympathetic to the Chief Justice.
“They know for a fact that if a senator-judge inhibits, that’s equivalent to a vote of acquittal. Under the Constitution, we need two-thirds vote (16 votes) to convict the Chief Justice. So if a member of the impeachment court inhibits, it translates to a vote for acquittal,” he said.
He recalled that the defense had unsuccessfully tried such tactic with Drilon and Guingona.
Rep. Angara said if he were in his father’s shoes, “I would not allow myself to be manipulated for the flimsiest of reasons.”
“Senators are not ordinary judges and an impeachment is not an ordinary case, so the rules cited by the defense are clearly inapplicable to impeachment. No one else but a senator can sit as a judge in the impeachment court,” he said.
“If we look at history, our record as public officials, no one can claim that we did not perform our duty with the public interest as our primary concern,” he said.
Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada said the defense was just trying “to impute certain malicious thoughts in people’s minds that Sen. Angara and Rep. Angara don’t have the independent mind needed to make certain decisions.”
Besides, he said Rep. Angara is not directly involved in Corona’s trial since he is just a spokesman and not a prosecutor.
Sen. Angara has not been as active as Drilon and Guingona in the grilling of witnesses in Corona’s impeachment trial.
He heads the party he founded, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, and was an ally of former President Arroyo.
Impartiality assured
Enrile, meanwhile, emphasized his and the Senate impeachment court’s impartiality, despite his having scolded the defense team for reportedly presenting witnesses with irrelevant testimonies.
“I’m not sympathetic to either prosecution or defense. In case they don’t know, a judge should have no bias. If we show our bias, then we’re not judges – we’re partisan,” Enrile said.
He was reacting to Cuevas’ lament that the impeachment court was becoming less sympathetic.
“Being human, some are suspecting something went wrong during the break. We only judge by the events taking place later,” Cuevas was quoted as saying.
“Why would they feel hurt? We’re listening to them, but they have to justify their bringing of witnesses not relevant to the case,” Enrile said.
He also scoffed at the defense team’s asking some senators to inhibit. “They might as well ask me to inhibit. I will not inhibit myself, I stand by what I am doing,” he said.
“Why should he (Angara) inhibit himself? His son is an adult. He is not dependent of Sen. Angara. Why should there be conflict? They should, instead of raising this technical issues, attend to the defense of their client,” Enrile said.
At Malacañang, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said senators have always exercised independence in tacking issues, including Corona’s impeachment trial.
“In the case of Sen. (Miriam) Santiago, who was appointed by the president to the ICC (International Criminal Court), she continues to demonstrate her independence as seen by her questions to the prosecution,” she pointed out.
“At the heart of the defense’s question is the assumption that Sen. Angara cannot be impartial simply because his son has chosen to ally himself with the prosecution. We disagree with that assumption,” she said.
“This is not the first time that the defense has questioned the impartiality of the senator-judges. We don’t believe that is a good strategy,” Valte added, apparently referring to Drilon and Guingona.
“The President has spoken out publicly about his stand on this particular impeachment; he has always been forthright in saying that the one being impeached is not fit to hold the post for several reasons,” she said.
“We have always been very frank, very straight about it. And impeachment is really, at the end of the day, about accountability, nothing more,” Valte reiterated. – With Jess Diaz, Delon Porcalla, Christina Mendez, Alexis Romero