Prosecution panel: Proving impeachment Articles III, VII now harder, but case vs Corona still strong

Spokesmen of the House of Representatives prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona admitted Friday that a new resolution of the Supreme Court (SC) will force them to get evidence “from elsewhere” but they said their case remains strong.   Invoking court rules on confidentiality and privileged information, as well as constitutional separation of powers, the SC denied the prosecutors’ attempt to examine copies of the “rollo” or proceedings of the justices’ meetings and records of several cases mentioned in the articles of impeachment against Corona.   Marikina Representative Romero "Miro" Quimbo and Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara said the prosecutors had hoped the high court would be cooperative.   They said proving Articles III and VII became more difficult given the SC resolution approved last Tuesday but revealed only on Thursday. Article III Article III involves the following cases:

• Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, et al, in GR no. 178083;
• Navarro v. Ermita, GR No. 180050 on the declaration of the Dinagat Islands as a separate province;
• League of Cities v. Comelec, GR Nos. 176951, 177499 and 178056, on the constitutionality of the laws creating 16 new cities; and
• The impeachment case of former Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez v. House of Representatives in GR No. 193459.

In its Feb. 14 resolution, the Court said it "cannot grant the requested examination of the FASAP v. PAL 38 rollo as this is still a pending case and the rollo contains privileged and confidential materials." "The Court, however, can issue certified true copies of the Decisions, Orders and Resolutions it issued in the case and which have been released to the parties, and certified copies of the parties’ pleadings and the letters of Atty. Estelito Mendoza," the resolution added. The majority also said that although the Dinagat and Merceditas Gutierrez cases are closed and terminated, the rollo cannot be opened for examination because it "contains confidential and privileged information." The majority resolution also applied to the League of Cities case the reason it cited for the FASAP v. PAL 38 case. Article VII Article VII pertains to the temporary restraining order (TRO)  the SC issued against a Department of Justice watch list order against former President Gloria Arroyo, who tried to leave the country last November ostensibly to seek medical treatment.  SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Maria Lourdes Sereno and Bienvenido Reyes issued dissenting opinions on the majority resolution that granted the TRO. In its Feb. 14, 2012 resolution, the high court said Clerk of Court, Atty. Enriqueta Vidal may testify again before the impeachment court and bring with her “non-confidential documents" on the TRO petitions of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo and her husband, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo. Remedies   In the news conference on Friday, Quimbo said the prosecutors are “still looking at what the  remedies are, including making an appeal with the impeachment court so that the impeachment court can insist on the subpoena that was previously issued.”   He also said the panel still wants to get the high court’s clerk of court to testify again. The prosecutors had also asked for the deputy clerk of court to be subpoenaed.   “Ang isang bagay din ho doon ay tila pagbabawal kahit sa clerk of court na magpakita o bilang maging testigo, pero hindi ho ganoon kalinaw pa sa amin kung pinagbabawalan ho ba siya entirely o pinagbabawalan lang siya para mag-testify on matters that they consider privilege,” Quimbo also said.   Aurora Representative Angara disputed the SC justices’ assertion that like the courts, the Congress also uses confidentiality rules.   “Nakakalungkot ho kasi sabi nila pati naman ho sa lehislatura ay ginagamit din po yung doktrina ng pribelehiyo o hindi dapat tingnan po yung naging talaan o record po ng proceedings. Pero hindi po totoo ‘yan,” Rep. Angara said.   ”Kung nais po nating makita ang batas, pwede. Kung nais po nating makita yung debate dun sa ilalim po ng batas o na nasa likod ng batas, pwede rin po. May record po, may journal, yan po ay public documents. So sana po maging transparent din po yung mga sangay ng ating gobyerno,” he added. Done by early April   Quimbo said the obstacle the high court now set before the prosecutors will not upset their timeline for presenting the evidence they need for conviction. He clarified that they also want to give the defense panel more than ample time to bring out the evidence for Corona.   “Natatandaan ko po parang sinabi po ni Justice Cuevas that it will not take them more than eight trial dates siguro sisiguraduhin namin na mas lagpas  pa po doon ang mabibigay namin sa kanila so that the Senate can make an intelligent decision before the Holy Week break,” the Marikina congressman said. Sereno revelations in dissenting opinion For details on how and why the SC voted on the TRO it granted to former President Arroyo last Nov. 15, the prosecution may have to rely, for now, on the accounts of Justice Sereno, who narrated in some detail, how the justices deliberated on the case. Sereno presented a "summative timeline" of how the court dealt with Arroyo's petition for a TRO. She said that in November and December last year, SC Court Administrator and spokesman, Atty. Midas Marquez, "has been continuing his misstatements on the TRO unabated, effectively making it appear that some of my statements in my 18 November 2011 Dissent were untrue." "When the accuracy and the content of the deliberations of the Court’s confidential session are being disputed, it is the constitutional duty of the Members of the Court, especially the minority, to speak up and put on record what actually took place," Sereno asserted. She disputed the accuracy of the SC resolution issued on Nov. 18, when the DOJ contested the Nov. 15 TRO granted to Mrs. Arroyo. Justice Sereno included this timeline in her dissenting opinion last December:  

DATE	EVENT
15 November 2011	Voting on the grant of the TRO takes place in the morning; conditions are imposed; all justices present, except JJ. Leonardo-De Castro and Del Castillo. The Resolution is issued in the afternoon together with the Dissent of J. Carpio. Both documents are immediately uploaded on the Supreme Court website. The TRO was subject to three conditions, namely: “(i) The petitioners shall post a cash bond of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) payable to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof. Failure to post the bond within the aforesaid period will result in the automatic lifting of the temporary restraining order; (ii) The petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence. The petitioners shall submit the name of the legal representative, also within five (5) days from notice hereof; and (iii) If there is a Philippine embassy or consulate in the place where they will be traveling, the petitioners shall inform said embassy or consulate by personal appearance or by phone of their whereabouts at all times.”
16 November 2011	J. Sereno submits her Dissenting Opinion the following day; it is immediately uploaded on the website.
17 November 2011	J. Reyes submits his Dissenting Opinion the following day; it is immediately uploaded on the website.
18 November 2011	Voting on the compliance with the conditions of the TRO takes place in the morning; 7-6 in favor of non-compliance (the first majority grouping); the earlier majority is defeated in the second 7-6 voting, which has swung in favor of keeping silent on the legal effect of non-compliance (the second majority grouping). Again, JJ. Leonardo-De Castro and Del Castillo are absent. While the Resolution has not yet even been written, Atty. Marquez tells the public that the TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, petitioners can travel out of the country immediately. Promulgated late in the afternoon and released to the parties, the Resolution together with the Dissenting Opinion of J. Sereno is immediately uploaded on the website.
22 November 2011	J. Carpio proposes, and the Court agrees, to clarify the 18 November 2011 Resolution. It also agrees to have JJ. Velasco and Carpio confer with each other on the language of the clarification.
23 November 2011	J. Velasco sends the Clerk of Court and J. Carpio his typewritten version of the clarificatory Resolution. J. Carpio sends J. Velasco and the Clerk of Court his modifications of J. Velasco’s version of the clarificatory Resolution by making, in his own handwriting, correction marks on the draft Resolution. The two justices agree that J. Velasco’s clarification of the first item, i.e., the non-compliance, is accurate. They disagree on the second item, however. J. Velasco maintains that, from the 18 November 2011 Resolution, he did not get the sense that the TRO is “suspended pending compliance,” contrary to J. Carpio’s clear understanding that it is so suspended pending compliance, but that the Resolution need not spell out this legal effect, considering that it is “common sense” – in the words of a member of the winning second majority grouping.  The Clerk of Court informs J. Carpio that CJ Corona sent in his own handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution from J. Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated. CJ Corona’s version is to the effect that petitioners have complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO, and that it is in full force and effect.  J. Carpio requests the Clerk of Court to hold the promulgation in abeyance while he formally writes his request to that effect.
24 November 2011	J. Carpio requests, in a formal letter (see above) addressed to the Chief Justice, that the promulgation of the version of the clarificatory Resolution sent by the Chief Justice to the Clerk of Court, be held in abeyance until the justices are able to meet on the matter. He states that the version sent by the Chief Justice compounds the error of the 18 November 2011 Resolution.
29 November 2011	The Court votes again on the 18 November Resolution regarding petitioners’ non-compliance with a condition of the TRO. While the voting on the non-compliance by petitioners with one of the conditions for the issuance of the TRO is maintained, 7-6 (the first majority grouping), the second majority grouping revises its winning vote on the 18 November 2011 Resolution to categorically state that the TRO is not suspended despite non-compliance with a condition. Early that same afternoon, while the Resolution has not yet even been written, the Acting Chief of the PIO restates his claim that the Court has always considered the TRO to have not been suspended, and that this ruling was clarified by a 9-4 vote. The Resolution comes out late in the afternoon, reflecting the fact that the voting to sustain the effectivity of the TRO was 7-6, not 9-4.
2 December 2011	J. Sereno submits her Dissenting Opinion at 4 p.m. It is not promulgated, neither is it uploaded on the SC website. The persons authorized to promulgate her opinion and upload it on the website is missing, and no satisfactory explanation is given.
5 December 2011	Clerk of Court admits to the staff of J. Sereno the real reason for the non-promulgation of the latter’s Dissent – the instruction of J. Velasco as affirmed by the Chief Justice. An officer from the Clerk of Court likewise admits that one of the diskettes was given to Atty. Jose Midas P. Marquez. A memo addressed to all the justices is circulated by Atty. Vidal to the effect that, upon the instruction of J. Velasco, the Dissenting Opinion of J. Sereno would be taken up in the following day’s En Banc session. (See above.)
6 December 2011	The Dissenting Opinion of J. Sereno is discussed in the En Banc session. She cites the existence of precedents as early as 1958 and as late as 2009 as justification for her disclosure of internal deliberations in her opinion and points out that the Court never took any action to prevent such disclosures. Some Justices manifested that they will answer J. Sereno’s Dissent in their own opinions. One Justice manifested he would write another Dissenting Opinion. In a letter, J. Sereno formally requests the Chief Justice to apprise her of the legal basis of his instruction to not promulgate her Dissenting Opinion on 2 December 2011, and says that she views this move as a prevention of her constitutional duty to explain the reason for her Dissent. (See above.) As of the rewriting of this Dissenting Opinion, no reply to the letter has been received by J. Sereno from the Chief Justice.
12 December 2011	J. Carpio circulates his Dissenting Opinion.
13 December 2011	Other than the separate Dissenting Opinions of J. Carpio and J. Sereno, and contrary to what was manifested in the En Banc session of 6 December 2011, no other opinion has been circulated. The justice who undertook to submit a Counter-Dissent, did not, and manifested that no such opinion would be forthcoming. Three other justices indicated that they would submit their counter-Dissents, presumably in the form of Concurring Opinions.

   — with Marlon Anthony Tonson/ELR, GMA News