Corona’s crown at stake

MANILA
In an ironic twist in the checkered history of the Philippine justice system, the nation’s Chief Justice has found himself on the dock for impeachable offenses.
Chief Justice Renato Corona has been impeached by the House of Representative and is currently being tried in the Senate as called for by the Philippine Constitution. The broad charges are “betrayal of public trust, violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption.”
At this writing, the trial has just finished a few days of hearings. Obviously, its early days and it’s tough to call which way the trial court’s decision will go. One thing is for sure, it will be contentious, and probably long.
Justice Corona is on the dock primarily because he is seen by President Benigno Aquino III as an obstacle to his declared mission to rid government of corrupt officials and practices. Corona is perceived by the President and many observers as the ultimate guardian of former President Gloria Arroyo as she battles charges of wrongdoing during her term as President.
Arroyo appointed Corona chief justice during a period in which presidential appointments are banned by the Constitution, which is during an election period and two months before the outgoing President steps down. This “midnight” appointment of Corona was seen as Mrs. Arroyo’s intended block against legal charges against her. And, it’s the spark that ignited Mr. Aquino’s simmering frustration and anger toward Corona.
Thus, Corona’s impeachment. President Aquino called for the impeachment, duly carried out by his allies in the House of Representatives. Under the Philippine Constitution, the House impeaches and the Senate tries the impeached official.
And so, the battle is joined.
The prosecution is the turf of members of the impeaching body, the House, and the prosecution team consists of congressmen. In this case, the chairman of the House committee on justice, the young Niel Tupas (congressman from Iloilo province), is the lead prosecutor. The other members are mostly young, inexperienced (in trial law) congressmen whose wetness behind their ears may or may not be critical in winning their case.
The defence team is led by Serafin Cuevas, an experienced barrister who’s a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, law professor and trial lawyer. His colleagues on the team are topnotch trial practitioners who are all courtroom-savvy.
Who will carry the day when the dust settles? The neophytes or the veterans?
As I’ve said, it’s a tough call. In any case, if it’s easy to predict, there wouldn’t be a need for a trial, would there? Why not just toss a coin?
The early going has been tedious, laughable and frustrating. Not only to the random observer, but to the senators, who are acting as judges in the impeachment court. It’s the senator-judges who will decide the conviction or acquittal of Justice Corona.
The initial performance of the congressmen-prosecutors has been slipshod, amateurish and bumbling. They attribute this to their inexperience in trial work, which they haven’t done in a long time, if at all.
Thus, the defence, with Justice Cuevas at the helm, has been running circles around the greenhorn prosecutors. Cuevas knows the rules of court like the palm of his hand. He has thrown objection after objection at the prosecutors’ flailing attempts, frustrating the latter and, at the same time, making them look like tyros, which they are actually.
It seems there’s nothing the prosecutors have said that hasn’t been objected to by defence counsel Cuevas. He knows the law, indeed.
But this assiduousness by Cuevas in objecting and “lecturing” (as the young prosecutors have bewailed) could boomerang on him and the defence. The public, and more critically, the senator-judges, may find Cuevas’ procedural nitpicking as too annoying and, worse, be seen as delaying tactics, or even being pasikat (a braggart, which Filipinos hate)) which could spell doom for the ultimate fate of Justice Corona. Cuevas will have to tread carefully and balance his courtroom theatrics lest he rubs the senator-judges the wrong way.
Or the public, which is a big factor here. The country’s experience with People Power always looms overhead and, if the public decides at the end that the wrong verdict had been handed down, then they may go out into the streets again as they have done before, and decide the case not in the Impeachment Court but in the court of last resort, the People’s Court.
The high-flying defence panel must take care not to make the young prosecutors look like decisive underdogs, making the fight a David and Goliath contest. It must remember that Filipinos love underdogs and will always root for them.
But, as I’ve said, it’s early days.
So far at this writing, the prosecution has begun to present documents on the alleged real properties owned by Corona in an attempt to show that he has been able to purchase condominiums and houses that are too expensive and beyond his financial capability. Too, the prosecutors will tell the court that Corona has enriched himself in office. In the coming days, attempts will also be made to show that Corona, in his decisions and court votes, has been consistently biased in favor of his perceived patroness, Gloria Arroyo. His acceptance of the “midnight” promotion to chief justice, will also be thrown at him as an illegal act.
It is worth noting that the impeachment trial is not a purely legal exercise, but mainly a political one. Therefore, it will be tried and decided not just on legal evidence and strengths but also on political (and pragmatic) grounds.
What does this mean? The senator-judges may decide the case on the basis of Corona’s continued ability and credibility, or lack of it, to head the Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch of government in the event that he’s acquitted. Is Corona “damaged goods” whatever the outcome may turn out to be?
The senator-judges may consider public opinion, too, would their verdict be acceptable to the people? That could be a consideration also.
So, this isn’t just a normal court case. It’s fraught with complex political equations. The 23 senator-judges will have at least 23 bases for their verdict, and surely, more than just 23 reasons. Their political future (2013 is an election year) will also figure in their contemplation of their final vote to convict or acquit. There are so many factors involved, even personal ones like, does a particular senator-judge like Justice Corona? Or, has a senator-judge had an unpleasant or losing experience in Corona’s court? The possibilities and considerations are limitless and mind-boggling. But in the end, the senator-judges will have to wrestle with their own consciences and hand down a decision that they can live with for the rest of their lives.
As Filipino comic or television series say at each episode’s cliff-hanger-ending: “Abangan!” which means roughly, “Watch out for the next episode!”
***