Catch 22 (Updated)
TO BE sure, the challenge for Chief Justice Renato Corona to appear at his impeachment trial had been raised often enough before, in court as well as in the media and other outside forums. But it didn’t prove as provocative as when Senator-Judge Jinggoy Estrada did it on Monday (May 7).
Spicing the proceedings upon their resumption after a long break and providing a rousing punctuation to a day of mostly irrelevant testimonies for Corona, Estrada said Corona’s appearance became more critical to his fate in the light of a new allegation. The allegation, made out of court but credible enough to the ombudsman for her to order an inquiry into it,cites him for secret accounts amounting to US$10-million (PhP430 million). And, replying expressly to it the next day, his camp promised to bring him to the court to once and for all face his accusers, as any accused might be expected to do for his own sake.
If Corona does appear, surely Estrada won’t mind taking the credit for it. But his challenge seems to me less pregnant with foreboding for Corona than the subtler one raised, on the same day he did his, by the president of the court himself, Juan Ponce Enrile. Speaking to the chief defense counsel, Serafin Cuevas, Enrile warned that if Cuevas, as he himself had said, didn’t think a prima facie case—that is, a credible if not solid one by the first impression—existed against his client, then, “you have a problem.”
Now, if that’s not telling the defense counsels and their client, I don’t know what is. At any rate, for all it’s worth, the promise has been made: Corona will take the stand.
But for what precise worth? To show himself less anomalously acquisitive and wealthy than accused to be? To show himself having fewer pieces of property and less money to his name than made to appear? To show himself less guilty?
As happens, guilt in an impeachment is determined in the end for if the public trust has been betrayed, which Corona appears to have doubtless done with all his shady secrets.However it’s measured in his case, regardless of degree, guilt is guilt—it gets him fired. It’s for him a catch 22: Damned whether he appeared or not. The only points he stands to earn if he came forward would be for boldness. And if Corona’s promised appearance has stirred any interest, it would seem more like curiosity than any credible hope of redemption.
Indeed, the promise itself is not worth taking with bated breath, coming as it does from Atty. Jose Roy III, memorable for his accusations,made yet with pr fanfare, that operatives of the Aquino administration had offered to bribe members of the impeachment court,only to admit he had been mistaken and apologize for in court the very next day. Also, why put the task of delivering so grave a promise on a blundering junior defense lawyer and not on the chief counsel himself? The situation itself tends to lend credence to reports of serious differences within Corona’s camp.
Moreover, with the Corona’s daughter seizing the occasion to point out the condition of her father’s heart, already once repaired with a bypass, the signal is sent: Easy on him.
But how can truth be extracted out of an unyielding heart other than surgically—with a knife? Are we seeing here a play for acquittal by sympathy?
bias obviously. so when not a single accusation can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and over and again the procecs keep fumblin -you resort to bias blogging? ombudsman’s $12M statement is credible, seriously? she barely knows the math about it making her look stupid. And what happenned to the 45 properties? let’s see, you don’t have one single truth against the cj in this blog, but you’re sure he’s guilty. it looks to me you’re in tantrums but come on, this cj is good or what?
um…