Article 7 of the Articles of Impeachment charges the Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona of betrayal of public trust on the ground of issuing the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Hold Departure Order (HDO) of the Department of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima issued to the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and others from leaving the country in the late last quarter of 2011.
Good lawyers may have gone so far in terms of the knowledge in every legal battle. Furthermore, good lawyers, lawyers with sufficient knowledge of their craft, think first of their craft’s illumination before they act on matters they are supposedly, significantly, or dutifully to act on whatever basis.
In all court trials, rules of admissibility of evidence are self-explanatory to be reminded of and be guided all throughout the case. Impeachment trial, though considered as sui generis, can not deviate, modify, or revolutionize the rules of evidence just to dig out the truth. The Constitution, the ultimate law of the land, DOES NOT EXPRESSLY provide such privilege to the impeachment court.
However, some senators keep on insisting in public that impeachment court has all the power to exercise in the name of truths to come out. Absolutely, they did not only revolutionize the sole power of the Senate to try and decide cases of impeachment, but also DEFY the very essence of the Constitution’s mandate and existence, when talking about abuse, absolute use of power that basically will lead to tyranny or despotism.
Back to secretary of Justice De Lima, what makes her a laughing stock in testifying as witness before the grand jury of the impeachment court? There are three things:
- First and foremost, Sec. De Lima was the former chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights during Arroyo administration.
Definitely, we are expecting Sec. De Lima to abide by the Bill of Rights and the International Declaration of Human Rights, especially on presumption of innocence, on probable cause, and the inviolability of the right to life, and her position should speak for it.
Unfortunately, it was unlikely, citing her position when De Lima issued the HDO against the former president and defied the TRO issued by the Supreme Court, which apparently violated the provisions of Bill of Rights; and this issue is pending in the Supreme Court on the matter of defying the latter’s issued TRO.
Relatively, we could suspect De Lima as “puppet”, “machinery” used by Aquino administration for political vendetta, which she denied when asked by Senator-judge Lacson during her appearance before the impeachment court.
- De Lima is a cabinet member of the Aquino administration.
Then, we all agree that she is bias on favor of the prosecution to convict the chief justice. Then, what will impeachment court expect from De Lima’s testimonies? It would be self-serving and self-explanatory.
- De Lima is merely relying on the dissenting opinion of either one or two of the justices of the Supreme Court.
Ergo, De Lima’s testimony is tantamount to a mere opinion. De Lima should have known it, being a lawyer at that; so she had not been wasting her time and the impeachment court’s, as well. However, what would make her to do that, given the facts beforehand that her testimony would be deemed MERE TESTIMONY after all? We would probably agree, again, that she made it because of interest – an interest we may do not know, yet, perhaps, we do.
Dissenting opinion is generally opinion – an expression of disappointment and strong opposition based either on facts, half-truth, observations, or simply fabrication. Everybody is entitled of it.
However, in the matter of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, though it is considered as part of judicial notice, it can not sufficiently weaken the effect of the collegial decision of the court. Ergo, a dissenting opinion is akin to regret, disappointment, and worst an attack to the majority to stir public review. Whichever of these may the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno fall, we do not know; so as Sec. De Lima has no personal knowledge about what has really transpired in the Supreme Court. Ergo, Sec De Lima, can be accused of desperately influencing the impeachment court with her seemed to be desperate, fanatic interpretation of a singular opinion clouded of interest to prosecute former President Arroyo and her said to be allies.
The point is, since the Supreme Court decides collegially, then to prove that the chief justice has influenced the majority, then there should be a CONSISTENT, SIMILAR EXPRESSION OF IRREGULARITIES FROM THE SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICES. BUT, THERE WAS NONE.
Then, who will laugh all the way out of the impeachment court? Certainly, Sec. De Lima will and willingly will try to laugh out of courtesy to the public.
- Testimonya ni de Lima, itinuring na ‘hearsay’ ng impeach court by abs-cbnnews.com
- De Lima, Sereno worked in tandem to thwart travel bid of Arroyos by Benjamin B. Pulta, tribuneonline.org
- De Lima Pins Down CJ… by Rolly T. Carandang, Genalyn D. Kabiling, and Hannah L. Torregoza, mb.com
- Impeachment court strikes out De Lima testimony
By Dennis Carcamo, philstar.com
- The DOJ and Its (Seems to Be) Ignorance of the LAW: Will It Excuse Sec. De Lima from the Dilemma of Justice Apprehension? by Regel Q. Javines, FACTS and VIEWS
- Aquino and DOJ’s Dillydallying over Arroyo’s Medical Travel Request: A BLATANT CONTEMPT for a Constitutional Right! by Regel Q. Javines, FACTS and VIEWS
- Impeachment Passed by Congress Is DISCRIMINATORY, LACK OF LEGAL FORTITUDE; Philippine Legal System May Now Be, DEAD? by Regel Q. Javines, FACTS and VIEWS
Filed under: Laws and Jurisprudence, Politics and Government Tagged: | betrayal of public trust, Chief Justice Renato Corona, Constitution, hearsay, Human rights, Impeachment, justice, Justice Cuevas, Justice Sereno, rules of evidence, Sec. Leila De Lima, Senate