29-Jan-12, 10:04 AM | Lira Dalangin-Fernandez and Karl John C. Reyes, InterAksyon.com
The prosecution said Corona received special privileges from the management of the Philippine Airlines while cases against the country’s flag carrier were pending before the high court.MANILA, Philippines - (UPDATE: 5:33 PM) The prosecution and defense in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona traded accusations at the weekend, with the prosecution alleging he got privileges from PAL while the airline's case was pending, and the defense decrying the desperation of the prosecution in its bid to subpoena journalists and SC justices.
Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the head of the panel, said the prosecution is now looking at the travel records of Corona and his wife, and will present evidence and witnesses before the court.
Article III of the eight charges accuses Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for his “failure to meet and observe the stringent standards of the Constitution that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases,” among others.
Prosecutors have cited a Supreme Court resolution recalling its final decision on the illegal retrenchment case filed by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) against PAL by acting on a mere letter from the carrier’s lawyer Estelito Mendoza.
In connection with this case, five witnesses will be presented, including representatives from the Bureau of Immigration (BI), PAL, Supreme Court, Prestige Travel Agency, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The BI representative will produce and testify on the travel records of Corona and wife, Cristina, “to show that he accepted special privileges from PAL management while PAL cases are pending before the Supreme Court,” according to the prosecutors in a statement.
The PAL representative, they said, will testify on the travel dates of the Corona couple via PAL and the corresponding seats occupied.
They will also call to the witness stand an employee of the Supreme Court who handles the official travels of the magistrates to testify on the chief justice’s trips via PAL and the type of airline tickets he purchased.
Prosecutors noted that the Supreme Court often tapped the services of Prestige Travel Agency, which according to SEC records, is owned by the family of lawyer Estelito Mendoza.
Defense: why summon journalists, SC justices?
This developed as the defense panel of Chief Justice Renato Corona decried the prosecution plan to summon media workers as witnesses, saying that while the accused has lived with the “unfavorable” media coverage, summoning journalists to testify in the impeachment trial is another matter.
Defense lawyers also assailed the prosecution bid to have associate justices of the Supreme Court testify against Corona.
“Media has not always been for us but we are fine with that and we learn as we go along on how best we can bring our messages to the people so they can understand the Chief Justice,” Defense Spokesman Atty. Rico Quicho said in reaction to the prosecution’s request for the impeachment court to subpoena 100 witnesses.
The “media has a role to play in a democracy, no matter how the Defense feels about it and even if the Defense has been on the short end of it in getting favorable coverage.” But, he added, “we take exception to the proposed plan of the Prosecution [to make journalists testify].”
Media has three basic roles: to inform, educate and entertain and “even if some have gone further, they have a unique role,” said Defense panel spokesperson Atty. Karen Jimeno.
The “Prosecution has pierced the veil of confidentiality with the ITR, let us not drag the media and place it on the witness stand. The Media is not on trial here. Prove your case by doing your work in research and litigation,” Jimeno stressed.
The Defense also cautioned against the plan to subpoena Justices of the Supreme Court.
“Is the Prosecution saying they need the other Justices to rat against the Chief Justice and against each other on how they voted on a particular case?” asked Quicho.
Jimeno explained that such plan would again pierce the veil of the time-honored confidentiality of the Court in the disposition of cases.
The best proof is still the decision itself and that it why there are dissenting and concurring portions of any decision, she added.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento