Noy: Hearsay is valid evidence under political dimension

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino yesterday backed the testimony of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, saying hearsay could constitute valid evidence under a political dimension in an impeachment trial.

During the 23rd day of the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Senate, De Lima admitted that she had no personal knowledge of what transpired in the Supreme Court (SC) with regard to its temporary restraining order allowing former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo to leave the country.

Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago declared that the testimony was “hearsay” since it was based on the dissenting opinion of SC Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the impeachment court presiding officer, ruled that De Lima’s testimony should not be expunged from the records, on the basis that all of the senator-judges are intelligent enough to discern whether it is hearsay or not.

The Chief Executive, however, maintained a different view and defended his alter ego.

Aquino pointed out that since De Lima is not a member of the SC, she could only rely on documents that are made public, like the dissenting opinions of Sereno and Justice Antonio Carpio.

“If you have an opinion over legal rulings, I think that it is valid and can be considered under the political dimension of the impeachment process,” the President stressed in a mix of Filipino and English, noting that an impeachment trial is not strictly a criminal proceeding.

Aquino added that he is pleased that House prosecutors led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. are doing “very well” in the impeachment proceedings.

“I think the prosecutors have done really well. They have managed to unearth other alleged properties that are not part of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth,” he told Palace reporters in a chance interview last Friday at Trece Martires, Cavite.

The President cited what the prosecution panel unearthed, “which is significantly different from the statement records in the SALN (of Corona)” and confirmed by the testimony of several bank executives. 

“On that basis, given the difficulties (of their job) the presumption that they did not study the SALN would have been valid if it had been made public,” he said, repeating that this violation alone would qualify a conviction for Corona.

“Uulitin ko lang, sa Saligang Batas nakalagay kailangan mong i-declare public ang SALN (I would just like to stress that under the Constitution you must publicly declare your SALN.) I understand that a locked filing cabinet or a vault does not constitute a member of the public,” he noted.