Two remarkable things about Corona impeachment trial (2)

By Tony Lopez (Vera-toons)

Re alleged non-accounting of judiciary funds and non-filing and disclosure of SALN, de los Angeles asserted “the documentary evidence will prove the contrary.” He added, “with respect to his SALN, the defense will establish that in accordance with law, the Chief Justice annually files his SALN with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, who has legal custody of such documents. We shall show that the Clerk of Court is restricted from disclosing the SALNs by resolutions first issued during the term of Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan way back in 1989.”

As to the Supreme Court decisions, de los Angeles disputes Corona’s alleged bias. He explained:

“First, it is not fair to handpick decisions that supposedly favor the Arroyo administration; all the decisions of the Supreme Court must be considered. Second, there are several decisions against the former President and her administration. For example, in Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines v.
Office of the Executive Secretary, the Chief Justice himself penned the decision declaring former President Arroyo’s Executive Order No. 46 null and void. Third, in any decision, the Supreme Court always bases its judgment on sound legal grounds.”

As for the Truth Commission, de los Angeles assured “the defense will establish that the Supreme Court was not biased towards the Arroyo administration.” “We will show that the Supreme Court decision was right,” the defense lawyer said. Executive Order No. 1 (which created the Truth Commission) violated the Equal Protection Clause because the prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo was its sole purpose.”

Moreover, de los Angeles said, “The Supreme Court even suggested a cure for the defect by not limiting the probe to the Arroyo administration. But the Executive Department stubbornly refused to adopt such simple amendment.”

As to the TRO enjoining Secretary Leila de Lima from enforcing her Watchlist Order, “the Supreme Court acted in accordance with the Constitution and jurisprudence,” de los Angeles explained.

“Only a court can issue a hold order after a case has been filed,” the lawyer pointed out, in Pilipino.

At the time of the hold order, “there was no criminal case yet against Mrs. Arroyo although long before that hold order, the Akbayan party list had long ago filed a complaint for plunder (against Arroyo).

“Isn’t it clear that it was the Executive Department that was at fault in the case of Mrs. Arroyo?” de los Angeles asked.

The former law dean draw a parallel between the anti-corruption drive of then Justice Secretary Jose W. Diokno (against businessman Harry Stonehill) and the anti-corruption drive of President Aquino.

Delos Angeles recalled: “In both, there are crusading officials who want to eliminate corruption. In both, the public overwhelmingly support these officials. In both, the officials unfortunately transgressed the Constitution. And in both, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued adverse and unpopular decisions because its task is to always uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

As to the complaint that Corona betrayed the public trust when the Supreme Court decided on the cityhood of 16 municipalities, the creation of a new district in Camarines Sur, and the conversion of the Dinagat Island into a province, de los Angeles reminded the congressman-prosecutors that it was Congress itself that enacted those laws and yet, it is Congress that is now mad with the Supreme Court for upholding the enacted laws.

“What kind of foolishness is this?” de los Angeles snorted.

He also reminded the prosecution that all Supreme Court decisions are “rendered by the Supreme Court, never by the Chief Justice alone.”

“The chief justice is only one vote. Each Justice votes according to his own opinion. Contrary to the claim of Congressman Tupas, there is no bloc voting bloc in the Supreme Court.”

Delos Angeles concluded:

“This impeachment sends a chilling threat to the Supreme Court to withhold the exercise of its judicial power and just let the President have his way.

“Unfortunately, his obsessive pursuit of his goal has, at times, resulted in the infringement of the law. It has also brought the branches of government into collision, and now it divides the nation.”