SURPRISE OF SURPRISES ?

The blog prior to this was composed and supposed to have been posted the other day or February 27. When it was being written, the objective was actually to convey the point that we have already learned several things about the impeachment. Hence, an enumeration of those lessons as if it was all over, and we just need to await what would happen next.

By coincidence, the prosecution manifested that it is no longer presenting any further evidence. The decision on the part of the prosecution to make such an announcement did not come as a surprise. This being so because compulsory processes were already unavailing after the court warned the prosecution to produce its own evidence. Simply stated, the Senate as an institution has exercised "constitutional prudence" not to be on a heads-on collision with the judiciary. There were of course other reasons such as the issue on fishing for evidence and the relevance of the intended testimonies and documents to be presented.

So what does the prosecution have in its plate to be offered as evidence against the Chief Justice: 25 witnesses and over 400 documentary evidence in support of Articles 2, 3 and 7. The prosecution is abandoning Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 on the ground that the prosecution already has strong case and the evidence so far presented will suffice. However, the prosecution reserved its right to present evidence on the dollar accounts for article 2.

The question remains - why?

THIRTY DAYS ?

If the pronouncement is correct and accurate, that 6 more days will be needed before the prosecution rests its case, then we are looking at 30 days, as the total number of days within which the prosecution should have established its case and evidence against the Chief Justice.

We are actually looking at approximately 120 hours of the court's time just for the prosecution and so far, it has provided a presentation that can actually support one article only - Article 2. Even then, the admissibility of its evidence is in question. On another point, the prosecution has practically abandoned Article 3 due to problems with how it was crafted, while Article 7 is hounded by hearsay evidence.

Whatever maybe the verdict, the following lessons or reminders were learned:

1) Declare your true assets and liabilities, and networth;

2) Declare your true income and pay your correct taxes;

3) Be truthful in your dealings and transactions, and avoid simulated sales and conveyances of property;

4) Know the laws of this country especially those that may govern your actions and moves;

5) Remember, the one who asserts must be ready with proofs;

6) Talk less, work more, know better.

7) When truth has been established and it shows you made a mistake, its time to say sorry.

8) Trial is not a battle of intelligence or technicalities, it is quest for truth and for justice.

9) Objections must be used to protect the rights of a person. Never to conceal wrongdoings.

10) in any endeavor or mission, come prepared and argue well your case.

Let's move on and see what happens from hereon.

ARTICLE 3

In the eyes of the public, the failure to present a witness on account of irrelevancy could be the most embarrassing moment for the prosecution so far.

On the part of the court itself, its judicious firmness is a manifestation of brilliance, competence and impartiality. Thanks to our Honorable Manong Johnny.

But for the defense, they know that the fight is far from over. In fact, they had to make several manifestations, objections and avail of several other trial techniques for the purpose of insuring that in the end no evidence would be admissible when the time comes for their formal offer.

But come to think of it, what happened was actually favorable to the prosecution. Why?

It means that they may and at this time they should have re-examined their litigation strategy.

Article 3 is difficult to prove unless there are pieces of evidence which would directly show culpability or the commission of those acts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. Otherwise, the prosecution must rely on intentions, motives, circumstances etc that, collectively, will lead the evidence to prove an impeachable offense.

Unfortunately though, the court could not find in the proferred testimonial evidence any link to Article 3. Hence, the prosecution is in a tight situation since intentions, motives, among others, have been declared to be irrelevant. The question now is "how will the prosecution present these matters without amending the Articles of Impeachment?"

Sent from my BlackBerry®

Day 8 - 12 : Analysis

Treason, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust. These are the impeachable offenses.

Since the start of the Impeachment Trial, attention had been focused on Article 2 where the Chief Justice is being accused of having violated the 1987 Philippine Constitution and betrayed the public trust, specifically in connection with his alleged failure to disclose of his wealth or his non-disclosure of assets. Hence, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth or the so-called SALN have taken a vital place in the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. 

Obviously, what the prosecution was trying to show is that there is a discrepancy between what was indicated in the SALN and the actual property holdings of the Chief Justice. That discrepancy would necessarily refer to the wealth or the assets that have not been declared. If that is the case, then it does not really matter whether it consisted only of one or several properties, and what really must be taken into the light is the fact that the Chief Justice - by not disclosing or by his failure to disclose his wealth or assets - could have committed a violation of the Constitution or may have betrayed the public trust.

The alleged violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution could be simply stated - he took his oath to obey the laws! 

In this blog of Tuesday January 24, a brief primer was provided about SALN, and just to reiterate, "Republic Act No. 6713 (as amended) approved on February 20, 1989 provides that public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households."

Consequently, failure to disclose or the non-disclosure of wealth or assets would be a violation of the law, and thus a violation of one's oath, and it follows, it is a violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

However, an equally important ground for impeachment is "betrayal of public trust". This could easily be ascertained by answering the question "did you lie to me?" If the answer is yes, then there was betrayal of such trust. If the answer is no, then that is where the defense has to come in and explain how come there is a discrepancy. It is on this point that the Impeachment Court will now decide whether the Chief Justice is guilty or not of the alleged impeachable offense under Article 2.

So far, the prosecution seems to have presented practically all that is necessary to build up a case under Article 2. Enough is enough. Anything more than that may be misconstrued as trial by publicity and an intention to merely humiliate a person. That is why, the senators-judges have warned the prosecution not to go on a "fishing expedition" for evidence. But as to whether the evidence so far presented is admissible or not, and credible or not, so as to be given weight - those are the issues which the Impeachment Court would decide on and not for this blog or the public to speculate on.

The bottomline still would be, tt is now for the defense to present their case against Article 2 rather than going into any argument on technicalities and the right to the so-called "due process". Such due process is actually the right to be heard or the right to a hearing. This trial is part of such due process. Defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses presented so far. They may even waive such cross-examination altogether. The objective of the cross-examination is to elicit information which will be favorable to the accused, or to discredit the witness by exposing him or her as somebody who lied or who have testified to deliberately favor the prosecution and pin down the accused - thus, there was bias against the truth.

So let us move on to Article 3 in the coming days ahead.