Your honors, if you please, we seek permission to submit this as supplemental memorandum to our formal offer of evidence.
The reason for this submission, your honors, is to dispel any perception that the side of the prosecution has broken up into quarreling factions. We will try to get everyone’s signature on this document — if that is still possible.
Allow us to begin by saying we are effectively dropping not five but seven of the eight articles of impeachment.
On Article 3, you will note, we only have the mad ranting of that guy from FASAP, presented to the court by a private prosecutor who turned out to be a lawyer from PALEA, the sister-union. Our witness confirmed that the Chief Justice participated in only the last of several deliberations on this case and thus the use of the word “flip-flopping” was probably, we admit, a poor choice.
At any rate, we do recognize that “flip-flopping” is not a crime, much less an impeachable offense. We are, after all, lawyers in good standing too, despite the low opinion held of us by some of the senator-judges.
You will recall, your honors, the presiding judge rejected testimony on the “platinum card” on the grounds it intends to prove something not charged. We are happy, in the end, that the witness was discharged. “Platinum cards” allow more generous baggage allowances, access to the airline lounge and not much else. Hundreds of frequent flyers hold this type of card.
We apologize to the court for even attempting to bring in testimony on this matter. Be assured it was not motivated by malice on our part, just ignorance.
In sum, your honors, Article 3 is basically dead in the water. We will not consume any more of the court’s time trying to raise it from the grave.
On Article 7, your honors, we likewise only have one real testimony, the one made by the Justice Secretary. Ignore all those television people we dragged to the witness stand.
Unfortunately, as was discussed in open court, that testimony is plain hearsay — even as the President of the Republic says it is not. Sadly, the President’s opinion has no legal standing, not to mention legal basis, in these proceedings.
We all know, your honors, the President of the Republic is not a lawyer. He is prone to saying things without the benefit of hard thinking. We beg the court not to take his utterances as a point against the prosecution.
The Chief Prosecutor, in a confused state, declared before the court that our panel will no longer present Justice Lourdes Sereno. That declaration was the subject of some noisy disagreement among members of the prosecution team.
On hindsight, however, we are now in consensus that the declaration of the Chief Prosecutor was a truly brilliant move. Recall that when the Justice Secretary was asked about why she seemed to have foreknowledge of the deliberations in the Supreme Court and about who she was discussing with in arriving at the bold decision to ignore the Court’s TRO, the witness sought refuge in executive privilege.
By hiding behind executive privilege, the Justice Secretary forestalled any more curiosity about Palace moles in the High Court, real time reporting to the Chief Executive on deliberations still underway and all such things that might make it appear the principle of separation of powers is ignored under the present dispensation.
Never mind the fact that the House of Representatives appears slavish to the executive branch. That is traditional.
By putting Justice Sereno on the stand, the prosecution might open a Pandora’s Box. It is bad enough that Atty. Cuevas might ask revealing questions of a justice under oath. We can try to object to that. Imagine what Sen. Miriam Santiago might ask — against which we do not have the recourse of objecting.
The Chief Prosecutor, therefore, allowed prudence to take the better part of valor. Despite appearances to the contrary, he is really a competent lawyer.
We did make reservations about the dollar account our fairies informed us about. This, however, depends on the Supreme Court allowing us to break the law. We have lost hope on this.
Therefore, your honors, all our eggs are really only in Article 2. Here, we will admit, the prosecution labors under design problems.
Article 2 alleges the Chief Justice did not submit his SALN and that, if he did, no disclosure was done. Early on, Senator Drilon enticed the clerk of court to produce the said documents despite a 1992 Supreme Court ruling keeping them confidential. That should have been that.
Then our fairies came to our rescue, enabling us to ask for subpoenas to produce bank documents. How these relate to non-filing and non-disclosure might be a good question to ask. At any rate, the hint of discrepancy between what was in the SALN and what was not in it was good for our propaganda effort.
Sadly, your honors, the defense panel moved to exclude the bank documents on some strange argument about the “fruit of the poisoned tree.” We are not farmers, your honors, and we do not really understand this claim.
If the impeachment court decides to accede to the defense motion and strike out the bank documents that have turned out to be seriously entertaining to the public, then our case will stand stark naked. We know perjury, which is the probable misdemeanor here, is not alleged. We did not know any better at the time we rushed to sign the impeachment.
Please, your honors, spare us any more humiliation than we have already endured.