Drilon to stay on despite motion to inhibit

Thursday, January 26, 2012

SENATOR Franklin Drilon will continue to participate in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona despite a motion from defense lawyers asking for his "recusal, inhibition, or disqualification" as a judge in the proceedings for alleged partiality.

Drilon told reporters after the trial adjourned Thursday that inhibition from proceedings is a decision left up to individual senators, and that he will not do that. He said there is no basis to ask him to stay away.

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

The Senate rules on impeachment trials direct senators to "observe political neutrality during the course of the impeachment trial." That charges them with hearing the case "without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference."

Drilon is the senior member of the administration Liberal Party at the Senate, being the party's vice chairman. He has taken an active role in proceedings and has asked witnesses for the prosecution questions that have earned him comments that he may be trying to help prosecutors from the House of Representatives.

Last week, Drilon and former senator Francisco Tatad exchanged words after Tatad said the senator seemed to be acting like a prosecutor.

But the rules allow Drilon, and all other senators, to ask witnesses, as well as lawyers for both panels, questions. He has said that he asks questions as part of the impeachment court and not to help the prosecution.

Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo Umali, a member of the prosecution team, said had Drilon inhibited, it would be to their detriment.

The prosecution needs votes from two-thirds of 23 sitting senators to secure a conviction and losing Drilon would mean one less potential vote.

"There is no room for any inhibition because the Constitution requires them, all 23, to vote," Umali said.

On Wednesday afternoon, the defense filed a motion for Drilon to inhibit, saying he has "(cast) doubt on the integrity (of) the impeachment trial process and even the impartiality of the judges themselves."

The motion, signed by Serafin Cuevas, Jose Roy III, and Dennis Manalo, cited Drilon asking Supreme Court clerk Enriqueta Vidal on January 17 to produce and hand over Corona's Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth to the impeachment court.

The prosecution already examined her as a witness, and the defense had waived its right to cross-examine. There had been no mention of producing the SALNs until then.

"It appears, however, that the prosecution found an ally in Senator-judge Drilon, who proceeded to 'cross-examine' and badger Attorney Vidal in the guise of 'clarificatory questions," the defense said.

The panel also said Drilon "displayed his partiality" when he asked Vidal details about property bought by Corona's daughter Charina.

Under questioning, Vidal said Corona had acted as attorney-in-fact in the transaction. They said Drilon "made sure to highlight this fact as if to suggest that (Corona) was the beneficial owner of the property."

Cuevas has said there is nothing wrong with that, and said in the motion that Charina was abroad at the time "and could only act through an attorney-in-fact."

An attorney-in-fact is a person authorized to enter into transactions on behalf of someone else.

On Thursday afternoon, defense lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho, after being asked on whether Drilon would be asked to inhibit, said a motion had already been filed.

"It's with the secretariat already," he said.

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III declined to give details, however, on the motion, saying it is still pending with the court.

Quicho hinted it could be said that it was the media that suggested the motion to inhibit.

After being told Drilon had no plans to inhibit, Roy said "what matters is that we filed the motion." (Jonathan de Santos/Kathrina Alvarez/Sunnex)