Espinoza: Political maturity

Thursday, January 26, 2012

THE ongoing impeachment trial of Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona in the Senate is now a household thing even if at times the proceedings turn funny and zany. This, despite the seriousness of the charges being tackled.

Former Supreme Court associate justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel of Corona, is so enamored with his incessant objections to the prosecution’s presentation of evidence that he overlooks its possible dire consequences.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Cuevas objected to the prosecution’s move to offer in evidence the documents on the properties of Corona that were not reported in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). His move to block the presentation of these documents could backfire.

It is Cuevas’s solemn obligation to defend his client to the fullest. But if he succeeds in blocking the presentation of the documents on Corona’s properties, this could mislead the people to believe that Corona has ill-gotten wealth.

The defense counsel should not block the testimony of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Henares. That is, if they have nothing to hide from the public. Are we to believe that Corona bought those properties beyond his means?

Senator-judge Peter Alan Cayetano pointed out that there shall be no cover up so that the people would not think otherwise. It happened to the impeachment trial of former president Erap Estrada when an envelope was not opened in the trial.

On the other hand, Corona’s defense team is exploiting the alleged bias of Sen. Franklin Drilon by calling on him to inhibit from the proceedings as judge.

As a senator-judge, Drilon has the prerogative to ask clarificatory and even leading questions. Just because Drilon asked questions and elicited answers from a witness (a Supreme Court employee) where the prosecution failed, it doesn’t follow that he is biased.

The defense lawyers knew very well that in regular courts, the judges ask questions to clarify issues that, in a way, tend to assist the prosecution or the defense in the presentation of its evidence.

There is not much difference in the impeachment proceeding in the Senate and the proceedings in regular courts since both refer to the Rules on Evidence for the orderly conduct of the presentation of evidence.

It is not only some senator-judges who were annoyed by the “I object” line of Cuevas but also those who watch and listen to the proceedings. The objections are sometimes odd and do not bode well for Corona’s defense.

All that we hope is for the impeachment trial to be completed and concluded, whatever the result will be, so that at the end of the day we can say that our country has already attained political maturity.
***
It is not too late for the Cebu City Government to strictly implement its parking ordinance. There are so many buildings that do not provide parking spaces in violation of the code of the Office of the Building Official (OBO).

I still recall that during the time of the late councilor Jingjing Osmeña, when he was the chairman and I was a member of the Citom Board, a resolution was passed requiring building owners to provide a “nose in, nose out” parking.

There was also a resolution requiring that, before a building permit is issued to the applicant, this should pass through Citom for the latter to check whether the parking provision conforms to the city’s “nose in, nose out” policy.

If the city starts implementing this ordinance, the enforcers will face some problems, as some police stations do not have appropriate parking spaces and cars owned by police officers are the first violators.

(elespinoza53@yahoo.com)