IN SUM

Guilty as charged. The impeached official's high stature, being a chief justice, has worked against him. The defense of good faith was not credible. Simply stated, he should have known better. In sum, whether one is a court interpreter who was finally adjudged guilty more than a decade ago involving the SALN or a Chief Justice in 2012, also involving the SALN, the law applies to all.

Warning: Who's next?

SO WHAT NOW?

Everything having been said - but not really done quite well on both sides, we now await for the verdict, which we hope would be just as well as supported by law and evidence.

A closing argument is in a way the "coronation speech", proclaiming the correctness and strength of a party's theory. Though deemed to be self-serving, it will nonetheless aid the court to see a clearer picture of each side's position.

As the court makes known its verdict today, it is certain that the decision will in turn be "ratified" by the people when they troop to the polls during the mid-term elections on May 2013.

VERDICT IS A POINT OF NO RETURN

Whether one accepts the verdict or not, willingly or unwillingly, in the impeachment trial, it is actually final and a point where one could no longer return.

There are statements to the effect that in the event of a guilty verdict, the losing party or impeached official will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Whether that is possible, legal and constitutional, that is a different story.

What is certain at this point is the fact that the people has already an understanding of what really happened and whether the impeached official must be removed from office or not.

The judicial admissions of the impeached official has made the difference and the dialogue would be perceived in this manner -

Q - Do you have dollar deposits?

A - Yes.

Q - Did you declare that in your SALN?

A - No.

Q - Why not?

A - Because the law on dollar deposits says that it is confidential.

There is no question of fact involved. It is a question of whether the impeached official was correct in relying on the law governing foreign currency deposits.

Does the law, specifically on confidentiality, apply to Filipino citizens? Public officials or servants?

To whom does the obligation to keep the deposits confidential apply? To the banks? Does it extend to the depositors?

Granting the impeached official is correct, is it not an exception (public servants must declare the dollar deposits) to the general rule (on the benefit of confidentiality)?

Would such contention be a way of circumventing the obligation to disclose all assets and liabilties in the SALN?

You be the judge.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS? MORE OR LESS.

Both the prosecution and the defense have presented their respective testimonial and documentary evidence. It is expected that the closing arguments will mainly be focused on the following:

The prosecution will argue that it has proven its cases by presenting and offering evidence which will show that the impeached official failed to declare in his SALN his peso and dollar deposits, among others. It will also show in closing that it has been able to prove the alleged partiality and interest of the impeached official in those cases before the highest court in the land where he sits as Chief Justice. It will rely on documents issued by the government, and which shall be asked to be considered as they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the issuance thereof.

The defense on the other hand will disprove the accusations by emphasizing that the impeached official was in good faith and has relied on the language and intent of the laws specifically pertaining to the dollar deposits. It will show that the impeached official is under no obligation to declared any property or money which in the first place does not belong to him and thus, may not be deemed to be an asset or a liability.

What is the bottomline? What are the issues?

At the outset, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, such as the issuance of certifications or documents, cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence. Consequently, reliance on documents which have not been testified to by the issuer may be fatal to the party concerned. The best move would still be to summon the person responsible for the documents and allow him to testify on the same based on his personal knowledge. Failing in which will not support a “finding of fact”. Hence, this issue will confront the court as it pass upon the evidence presented by the Ombudsman. It may be noted that it came another source other than her office. The court may consider the same as evidence per se or disregard it as being hearsay.

For the impeached official, good faith has been offered as a defense and specifically on questions of law. He relied on the confidentiality of the dollar deposits and thus, he did not find it necessary to declare the same in his SALN.

The state of mind becomes relevant – that is the contention. But is it true when it comes to special laws? Meaning, when a special law has been enacted, what was the intent of the framers thereof? Is it their intention to give discretion to a person to interpret the special law his way? Or is it more the mandate of the law, to follow the same to the letter without any room for doubt or misinterpretation? The latter question is to be answered in the affirmative and those learned in law would not have it any other way – being very basic. 

Once again, the court is confronted with these questions and issues.

Again, what do you think?

PEOPLE AS THE JUDGE

An impeached official charged of an impeacheable offense shall be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise by substantial evidence, testimonial and documentary.

If found guilty, the official is removed from office and shall suffer perpetual disqualification to any elective or appointive position in government.

The worst effect of such conviction is that he will leave public office in disgrace with a shattered reputation. He may continue to defend himself in various private fora but he can no longer change the legal effects and social impact of the impeachment verdict upon him.

If found not guilty, he cannot be complacent enought as to disregard the possibility of another impeachment complaint being filed after the lapse of one year from the time the previous one was filed.

Either way, the official concerned will be confronting criminal charges in another fora, such as the Ombudsman and eventually the Sandiganbayan, in connection with evidence presented and gathered during the impeachment trial. Of course, it is expected that the jurisdiction of these institutions will be questioned.

Nonetheless, life for the impeached official will never be the same again, and that was since Day One when the entire process was commenced with the filing of the complaints.

The battlefield is truly messy. Its never fun.

But definitely, a lot of lessons were learned from the trial. The nation is witness to the maturity (or immaturity) of politicians (as well as lawyers) in the Philippines. The powerplay and battle of the minds may be entertaining but the bottomline is that they may also be scary and ruthless.

In the end, those watching will be the judge.

NICE TO BE BACK ONLINE

It makes sense now to follow the trial once again. Hence, it is nice to be back again! Obviously.

As we watch the Impeachment Trial with so much awe and genuine admiration for the Senator-Judges, the exact opposite seems to be the general public perception insofar as the prosecution and particularly the defense is concerned. Each party outdoing and outsmarting each other, and all appearing to be preventing evidence from being presented. The latter situation or scenario is understandable for non-lawyers considering that most of the objections could not be understood or may just be too vague as to be comprehended by a layman. More so when later on the objection is overruled and the witness is allowed to answer. The safest move for a party is to object, and when a question propounded is allowed to be answered, or to have such objection noted to be a continuous one, during cross-examination, the witness could be questioned further on the matter, particularly so if the answer is a bit damaging. The witness’ credibility has to be destroyed by making it appear to the court that he or she is lying.

We have witnessed during the past weeks a very different presentation of testimonial evidence. Why? It is highly unusual and too dangerous to present a witness which you know would not be testifying in a manner that will support the theory of your case or defense. Here, we have seen a witnesses declared as hostile, not necessarily in a sense combatively an enemy, which will enable the examining party to ask leading questions as if the witness is on cross-examination, although he or she was being presented on direct-examination.

The case of the Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales is a good example where you have an intelligent and learned in the law witness being declared a hostile witness. True enough, she presented documents which have yet to be appreciated by the court – meaning – whether such supposedly documentary evidence could be considered as such evidence and serve as a basis in arriving at a decision. On the face of the testimony and the documents presented, they may look damaging enough against the other party. But both evidence have to be analyzed and examined carefully, and a careful study of the laws involved must be made to ascertain whether the same are applicable or not. This part of the decision-making is admittedly crucial. What is the point in presenting her? The defense has in mind to dispel the alleged news or rumor that the Chief Justice has dollar accounts containing 10 to 12 million dollars in deposit. By presenting the Ombudsman, whose testimony would be based on records culled from other sources anyway and therefore – technically she has no personal knowledge as to the truthfulness of the contents thereof, the defense is laying down the predicate, or the premise upon which the next witness can testify on. Others contend that the Ombudsman has in her possession public documents, or official government communications which enjoy a presumption of regularity and a certain degree of truth. It is the position of the defense that this may be allowed as long as the manner by which they were obtained and thereafter disclosed would not violate existing laws or any order of the court. This is among the issues which the court is confronted with when it decides the case.

On another point, we have also seen a situation where a witness has made an opening statement, which in this jurisdiction – the Philippines – such privilege is not part of the rules of court except when a court allows the party to present oral arguments which are usually done by the lawyers or counsels. In this case, it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines who has been given such opportunity to make a lengthy statement, and under such circumstances, the other party was actually not allowed to make any objection or even a reaction. Yes, there were manifestations or objections, but all those were merely noted.

The question now is – are we seeing things or merely dreaming – where such privilege is given just because he is a Chief Justice, and had it been an ordinary person, it would be a different story?

We have before us a presiding senator-judge who is competent, intelligent, learned and obviously impartial. With his long of experience as a very successful lawyer and a legislator, he would certainly not do anything which will tarnish and destroy lifetime accomplishments and reputation. This is his moment, his crowning glory, so to state. Therefore, he allowed the Chief Justice to make such statement under certain conditions – that the other party will be allowed to cross-examine him on any matter which the Chief Justice has stated. 


Fair enough indeed.

But of course, what happened next is truly a different kind of story. This means that we may never see the day where the Chief Justice is being grilled on cross-examination by an equally competent and learned lawyer of the prosecution. That was the first impression, and so today, let us see what will happen since the defense has promised that the Chief Justice will testify despite his condition.