GET REAL POST
We beg to differ.


De Lima and the Dilemma

February 26, 2012
by Arche

Recent events have forced the prosecution to use their next trump card; the riskiest trump card yet. And it’s all thanks to a certain someone’s “testimony.”

What have I done?

The Senate witnessed last Thursday, February 23, 2012, the major screw-up of Secretary Leila de Lima as she grasped at straws trying to defend her view of Corona’s alleged bias in his judicial decisions favouring former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The Senate eventually deemed her testimony as “hearsay,” since she was deriving her statements not from personal experience of knowledge, but from the dissenting opinion of one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, Maria Lourdes Sereno. Simply put, hearsay evidence can’t hold water if one’s aim is to impeach the respondent, Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Prosecutor Raul Daza tried to justify de Lima’s questionable testimony by raising the exceptions to the hearsay rule, only to be over-argued by Miriam Defensor Santiago.

“Why are we splitting hairs? It’s very, very clear. A witness can only testify to what he perceived himself,” she said angrily. “In effect, what we’ve been hearing is a series of opinions extrapolated or made to us by the witness.”

Santiago added: “She was not present when these so-called irregularities or discrepancies were taking place so how could she be a witness on all this instance?”

(Source: Link)

Unsurprisingly, President Noynoy (PNoy) Aquino, who claims to fully trust the impeachment process, simply cannot help but rush to his lackey’s aid, asserting that the secretary’s testimony is not hearsay.

President Benigno Aquino on Friday said the impeachment court should consider as valid evidence de Lima’s narration of the contents of Sereno’s dissenting opinion.

Sereno’s opinion supposedly showed alleged irregularities in the circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court’s issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the watch list order against former President Arroyo.

Sereno said the TRO on the DOJ’s travel ban on Arroyo should not have been deemed in full force and effect because several conditions had not been met.

Aquino said de Lima’s testimony is a “reasonable expectation” from a witness, considering that justices cannot be summoned to testify on what they knew, leaving the dissenting opinion as the only basis of what transpired in the high court’s deliberations.

He added that the impeachment process is “largely political,” and that the rules on evidence is suppletory to the hearing.

(Source: Link)

Unfortunately for the vindictive Aquino administration, it is the Senate who will decide, and have decided on the validity of de Lima’s testimony. Still, to recognize the sui generis nature of impeachment trials, the Senate President, Juan Ponce Enrile, ruled that de Lima’s testimony be added to the record for future use.

With de Lima’s hearsay testimony dimming the prospects of victory under Article 7, the prosecution has made a leap of faith and made a stunning decision; they will have Justice Sereno herself testify to the impeachment trial.

The prosecution has expressed its desire to have the SC justice testify to substantiate de Lima’s assertions regarding the respondent’s alleged offenses. Needless to say, de Lima’s blunder inadvertently put the prosecution in a dangerous position, as they are now forced to support her testimony by making its source, a person from a judicial body, appear in court.

The gravity of the prosecution’s request prompted the defense, led by veteran lawyer Serafin Cuevas, to discuss the implications and complexities surrounding this controversial event in Corona’s trial.

Being an SC Justice, Sereno’s personage is governed by the confidentiality in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, as well as the judicial privileges. The constitutional provisions state that the knowledge of Justices regarding the activities in the Court is to remain, well, confidential. This provision, coupled with the fact that the Supreme Court is a separate body of power (which means the Senate and the prosecution has to get the SC’s consent for Sereno to testify), presents a daunting stumbling block to the progress of the trial under Article 7.

In fact, even the Senate itself is cautious in pursuing such a herculean task.

The Senate impeachment court has to seriously weigh the pros and cons of inviting Supreme Court Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno lest it be accused of engaging in a “fishing expedition,” Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said Saturday.

“Is it a legal thing to do? Second, is it proper? If she volunteers, why do we need to send an invitation? What worries me is that we might be contributing to criticism that we are on a fishing expedition,” Sotto said in an interview.

Besides, the Senate also doesn’t want to end up “getting embarrassed if we decide to issue the invitation and the Supreme Court en banc rejects the invitation,” he added.

That’s why, the prosecution’s request to invite Sereno to appear at the trial for Article 7, and Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s motion to send written “interrogatories” to the justice would be tackled in Monday’s Senate caucus, Sotto said.

(Source: Link)

Either way, any decision that will come up will give the prosecution a hard time. If Sereno is allowed to testify without a hitch (which is quite unlikely), the prosecution will nevertheless observe strict limitations to what the witness can divulge to the trial, in accordance to the confidentiality in deliberations and judicial privileges. If only “interrogatories” can be sent to the controversial witness, the prosecution won’t be able to milk anything worth a strong case. Finally, if the Supreme Court rejects the invitation, then there isn’t much hope for Article 7.

Basically, the prosecution has hinged its fate under Article 7 on the hands of the Supreme Court. Kudos to Secretary de Lima!

However, the issue concerning the impeachment trial does not end in de Lima. The chain of misfortunes the prosecution currently faces concerns not only her ineptitude, but the very grounds upon which the prosecution tries to impeach the respondent to pave way for PNoy’s kingdom.

The seventh article in the impeachment asserts that the respondent betrayed public trust by being biased in granting a temporary restraining order on the travel ban imposed on former president Arroyo. It asserts that Corona, driven by his personal motives aided Arroyo in frustrating the ends of justice by conniving with her and her husband, rendering him impeachable under such grounds. However, here comes the problem.

The most noticeable problem in the allegations of the impeachment is that even if the respondent is the Chief Justice, he is only as influential as his colleagues in the Supreme Court in their rulings. His vote is as powerful as any other Justice’s vote. Taken strictly at face value, the fact that the Chief Justice voted in favor of the former President more often than the others cannot serve as a ground to impeach him. This is not conclusive proof of one’s bias. How could one objectively define Corona’s partiality relative to the other Justices, which, according to them, betrays public trust and is an impeachable offense?

Of course, to override this dilemma is to allege to the respondent’s under-the-table transactions with the concerned parties regarding this matter. Article 7 is rich with conspiracy theories regarding the respondent’s relationship with the former President, asserting that they are in cahoots, trying their best to have Arroyo escape the grasp of justice. Article 7 also asserted that Corona intended SC spokesperson Midas Marquez to spread public misinformation regarding the efficacy of the TRO, simply because he didn’t “correct” the spokesperson. Given the gravity of the accusations specified under Article 7, the obvious thing to consider next is proof. This is where the crux of the problem takes place.

The accusations imposed on the respondent solely concern the activities of the Supreme Court regarding the granting of the TRO. In fact, much of the article’s arguments are derived from the dissenter in the TRO issue, Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. However, such information is governed by the confidentiality of deliberations and judicial privileges. Needless to say, to substantiate the claims purported by Article 7, the prosecution will be at odds with the constitutional provisions in the Supreme Court. Help from private individuals is out of the question, since SC deliberations are supposed to be secret in the first place. Evidence from a private individual will instigate a small-lady-esque conundrum; either the evidence is fake, or that that individual, together with the prosecution, is in very serious trouble.

To sum it all up, the prosecution, in writing the seventh article of impeachment, sealed their fate of having to challenge the barriers of the Supreme Court just to make a case. In writing Article 7, they would have inevitably led the Senate to be at odds with the Supreme Court. Given the nature of the accusations of the article, it was only a matter of time. And by an amusingly cruel twist of fate, it just had to be Secretary de Lima to have things fall into place. The Aquino administration just had to stab itself just to fulfil the consequences of Article 7.

This is a clear example of how the prosecution gives itself a very hard time. Evidences backfiring at them, repeatedly getting scolded by the Senate like stubborn schoolboys, and now, bringing upon themselves some major trouble by writing Article 7, it seems the prosecution might just be highly incompetent, or highly masochistic. Or both.

Arche

I'm just throwing ideas around. I also love coffee.

More Posts - Twitter

19 Comments

  • jay says:

    the prosecution is in a mess and p-noy is in a panic.
    only 11 votes guaranteed and all manner of bribery, blackmail and dirty tricks being used to get the final 5, whilst needing to finish the trial before march 23.
    another failure and more tantrums to come.
    it will be fun to watch as he implodes and binay takes over

  • Lord Chimera says:

    In military terms the situation is like this:option 1 is like attacking a fortress with little or no equipment for a siege, there’s a slim chance that they may take breach the wall, there’s a very speck of chance that they take the fortress itself. Problem is the attacker has weakened itself that a counterattack from the defenders and incoming reinforcements from outside will force them to abandon the fortress or be steamrolled if they stand their ground. If they take option 2 it is more or less a retreat and it’s a humiliating one that speaks volumes of the capabilities of said attackers.

    It is said that dictatorships are inefficient in everything, they only thing excel in is maintaining “security” (you all know what means) and prosecuting real or perceived enemies of the state and yet somehow the Yellow cabal is ineffiecient in everyhting

  • Der Fuhrer says:

    Injustice Secretary Delima is just like her master the dictator BS Aquino. They have this thing about defying, reviewing and interpreting the decisions of the Supreme Court. Since when can the executive branch review or interpret the law? That Aquino puppy dog justice is trying to say that her dissenting opinion is above the majority decision. Insanity and madness for absolute power must be contagious in this new order.

  • Trosp says:

    Actualy, the way I look at de Lima, for people who has a dirty mind (like me), talagang pormang bastusin. This “compliment” is oftentimes imputed to women who are always “ready” for action. Isang kalbit pa lang “go” agad, all the way pa.

    But come to think of it, binastos na sya ni Penoy doon sa findings nya sa Rizal Park hostage taking fiasco. Hindi pa rin nag-resign.

    Kapal talaga…

    • Der Fuhrer says:

      I am glad there was no untoward incident during the EDSA anniversary celebration. It looks like the usual leftists mixed with the unimpressive crowd .Perhaps the dictator blinked and held back temporarily from his Plan B. The occupy Supreme Court by force is still a great threat to our freedom and democracy. I just hope Mr. Aquino does not listen to his Rasputins in doing a similar plot against the Senate.

  • Der Fuhrer says:

    Ano ang Taya Mo Para sa Pilipinas Natin?

    1. Please resign Mr. BS Aquino and bring Injustice secretary Leila de Lima with you.

    2. Investigate the P60 million mansion of Paquito Ochoa, the P50 million mansion of Neil Tupas and the other expensive mansions of the bow well movement 188.

    3. Investigate the P860,000 LEDAC meals(2), the CCT ghost beneficiaries, Peace Bond Scandal, PAGCOR bribery scandal and other anomalies involving the KKK cronies.

    Name Your Own Taya…

    • Parallax says:

      yes, all you yellow loyalists out there, Include Your Own Taya, okay? :P

    • Phil Manila says:

      “Name Your Own Taya…”

      Puwede ba, bakas na lang? Tabla-talo sa llamado-dehado, as in PNoy-Corona, or vice versa.

      It’s really a difficult and die-hard decision. The unintended consequences could be bad.

      2012 could be a year of Living Dangerously for all of us. :(

  • Der Fuhrer says:

    Breaking famous quotes from The Philippine Star Headlines section…

    “NOY:HEARSAY IS VALID EVIDENCE UNDER POLITICAL DIMENSION”

    “President Aquino yesterday backed the testimony of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima saying hearsay could constitute valid evidence under a political dimension.”

    Analysis:
    1. The P-rex completely lost it and is living in his own little fantasy world.

    2. The P-rex is living in another dimension.

    3. The P-rex is a hidden constitutional and legal genius in coming up with the mentioned conclusion.

    Please add your comments and views on this.

    • jay says:

      he is starting to believe his own spin ” intelligent”, “walking encyclopedia”
      the state of self-delusion has gone beyond amusing to pathetic.
      he should look up ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘ decorum’
      he could win gold in bulls#itting

    • brokenphantom says:

      About penoy:
      “Hindi na abugado, wala pang alam sa law”

    • tessie mora says:

      “hearsay is valid evidence under political dimension” such a colossal phrase for someone who does not understand the rule of law. what is “political dimension?” it is a world full of lies, blame, arrogance, fake documents and vindictiveness in which civil society has no part. we are governed still by rules and laws that should be heeded and obeyed, so this dimension exists only in his troubled mind…it is troubling,yes and that is why the prosecution is in trouble-but please do not bring the entire nation with you! we live in a humane and down-to-earth dimension, so do not drag us into your “political dimension”-wherever and whatever that is.

    • Parallax says:

      makes you wonder what pnoy is smokin’ huh?

      oh hey, is tofranil hallucinogenic?

    • jeanne says:

      In my opinion, the only thing that hearsay is good is when gossiping about someone. What political dimension? If it is so, why bother presenting her annd this as a witness on oath. It is elemenatry that hearsay is not acceptable in court. What is this testimony – a way of broadcasting something like a black propaganda? I thought he’s in good graces with the media? They will certainly air those becuase they love specualtion.

  • Der Fuhrer says:

    Looking back at the past… Leila de Lima’s master is nothing but a smiling dog.

    antipinoy.com/noynoy-majormajor-booboo/

  • Hyden Toro says:

    The impeachment trial of Corona is a waste of time and resources of our country. However, there are some good that came out of it…It awakened people, to know more of how their government works…
    The prosecution committed a lot of mistakes…they thought that the impeachment of Corona, will have the same smooth sailing as it was, when they bought Congressmen in Congress. They were mistaken…now they’re in trouble…

  • tofi says:

    I’ve read Justice Abad concurring opinion and he said it was Justice Serrano’s fault that her dissenting opinion was not included in the publication, and further said that it was a violation of the internal rules of the Supreme Court to divulge anything that has happened during their deliberation..

    De Lima is misleading the public by simply telling one side of the story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

149 queries in 0.560 seconds.