ATTACKING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

The question remains to be - "is this still the appropriate time to attack the Articles?"

Technically, the defense believes so, since it would strike at their very contention that the Chief Justice was not given due process and that the Articles have no legal or factual basis.

On the part of the prosecution it feels that the issue on the validity of the Articles is already moot, now that they have rested their case.

Frankly, whatever may have happened in Congress when the Articles were being signed is their affair. Its what they call as "towing the party line" in a system to which one has pledged allegiance to. In other words, it is political and thus, it is a numbers game. If one feels aggrieved, then the system offers a remedy. If such remedy is not availed of in due time, then forever keep your silence and speak no more lest you be suspected of sour graping.

That's how it works. Sorry. Even the so-called people power is no longer a remedy.

Anyway.

For the general public, it seems that based on random and on the spot conversations, what is important now is for the Chief Justice to testify and tell the truth about the wealth in his name or those of his family which were so far disclosed by the prosecution.

Of course, it is clear that we are not dealing here with ill gotten wealth.

The nation will perhaps - primarily and merely asking "why is it that there were money (whether peso or dollar) and property which were not indicated, included, declared or published in his SALN?"

This question became all the more significant and must be answered when the Chief Justice assured the public that he will disclose and explain everything in due time.

As the late Sen. Ninoy would usually end his speech -

SO BE IT.


Sent from my BlackBerry®

THE LEAD PROSECUTOR

If one were to watch him preside over a committee hearing, there is no doubt that he has control, and he is able to propel the committee towards its intended objective, whatever it may be. His colleagues may differ in this kind of impression but he has accomplished for his committee what appears to be difficult and challenging.

His ability to be cool and smile even under attack or pressure is an asset that makes him suited for the position, or at least, an honorable gentleman, It is too early to judge his performance at the impeachment trial. But he has fairly conducted himself despite the criticisms and funny stories about him.

It was obvious that he is not making a decision all alone by himself. There is a panel of prosecutors, which like a collegial body, decisions are reached either by concensus or perhaps by a vote of each member.

As lead prosecutor however, he makes decisions when the circumstances warrant it in the course of the trial. He may not have the luxury of time to consult his co-prosecutors. That is why, if in any event during the trial, that there is a need to make a judgment call, the decision of such panel could be overturned or in effect "vetoed" by the lead prosecutor.

There may have been a collective decision made, such as terminating the presentation of evidence with a reservation. But in the course of the proceedings, the court may be of the view that such position cannot be possible - that is, if one terminates, thats the end of it. No ifs and no buts. No reservations allowed. At that point, the judment call is to conform to the main objective, terminate the presentation without the reservation.

It was a correct decision since the prosecution was already convinced that they have presented their case supported by what they feel as sufficient evidence. Thus, such reservation, whether made or not should not be an issue.

Nonetheless, should there be a need to present further evidence, that could still be sought and done but with prior leave from the court. Besides, the prosecution have yet to actually and formally offer its evidence and officially rest its case.

Words may be floating that there may have been a betrayal.

Objectively, a scrutiny of his demeanor and manifestations, the lead prosecutor was guided by his knowledge of the law and experience in procedures.

Again, let us see what happens next.

"YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION RESTS"

A litigant, after he formally offers his documentary evidence, would manifest that he rests his case - meaning, he is convinced that he has presented the evidence necessary to support his case.

Only then that the litigant may be deemed to have officially terminated the presentation of his evidence. At that point, the court begins to consider the admissibility of the evidence thus offered.

No judgment is rendered yet for the other party must be given the opportunity to present his evidence in support of his defense.

Once the defense has rested its case and made a formal offer of his evidence, the court will rule on the admissibility of the evidence.

If no further proceedings are sought or allowed, the case is deemed submitted for resolution and on the basis of the evidence presented by both parties, the court renders a decision or judgment.

I rest my case.

CONTEMPT

What transpired yesterday at the Impeachment trial was certainly unprecedented in the history of our democratic system. Why? First, it happened on a national television and later on the proceedings were, as expected uploaded on the internet. Second, a member of the Philippine Bar was cited in contempt for exercising his right to express himself (when he admitted that what he did - act of covering his ears - was intentional). Third, the senator-judges may differ in many ways but they are firmly united if their dignity as a court is threatened. Fourth, the contending parties were the court and the prosecution while the defense which should be the adverse party merely watches the proceedings - probably with a certain degree of disbelief and excitement. Fifth, the entire nation had been tuned in and today, whereever people would come and go, the topic has been yesterday's incident.

In ordinary court proceedings, there have been many times when lawyers are subjected to many kinds and forms of humiliation and tongue-lashing episodes. Seldom, yes, very seldom, can we witness a similar incident where a lawyer would make gestures which may be deemed or otherwise, misconstrued as a sign of disrespect for the court. But with the admission of the lawyer, who was honest enough to be extremely candid with what he feels at that moment, he was necessarily cited in contempt for that.

One may or may not understand why the private prosecutor has done it - the act of covering his ears, and one must know the person to understand why he did it. Unfortunately, how many among those watching, listening and being shared with about what happened would have the privilege of knowing the person. The person was honest enough to have made admissions, and he owns the act without any excuse or alibi. He took responsibility for his actions.

But of course, the court cannot tolerate such act. For the court, the act ridicules the institution and thus should not go unnoticed. It is not the person which is at issue but the respect due to the court itself. Those in the legal profession would understand the position of the court and were not surprised when the private prosecutor was cited in contempt. The verdict as to the penalty will be resolved and thus awaited next week.