Supreme Court: No double standard in trial witnesses

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) denied yesterday having a “double standard” in allowing chief judicial staff officer Araceli Bayuga to testify for the defense of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the impeachment trial after earlier preventing other officials to testify for the prosecution.

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said the court was not being selective simply because Bayuga’s testimony was not covered by its Feb. 14 resolution that barred its officials and employees from violating judicial privilege in the trial.

The SC earlier allowed its Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal and Deputy Clerk of Court Felipa Anama to appear before the trial and present the rollo (documents) of the case involving Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines (PAL), where the House prosecution panel alleged that the Chief Justice acted irregularly based on mere letter from PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza.

The SC also barred two process servers summoned by the Senate sitting as impeachment court to testify on the supposedly irregular action of the embattled Chief Justice in the issuance of temporary restraining order that would have allowed former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country pending a poll fraud case.

When Bayuga testified for the defense to explain the salary and allowances of Corona, the prosecution alleged there was double standard.

But Marquez explained in a statement yesterday: “I don’t think there’s double standard there. One will have to carefully read the resolutions of the court to appreciate the distinctions.”

“The task of the two court process servers was part of the decision processes of the court on a pending case, and therefore judicial privilege was not rightly waived. Mrs. Cely Bayuga’s functions and testimony on the other hand have nothing to do with the deliberative processes of the court and therefore are not covered by the prohibition in the Feb. 14 court resolution,” he stressed.

In a per curiam resolution released Feb. 14, the high court barred justices and court officials and employees from testifying about deliberations, court sessions and cases pending before the high tribunal and invoked its internal rules on confidentiality of pending cases and of privileged communications or documents during deliberation of justices.

The justices voted unanimously and held that the rollos cannot be released because they include minutes of the SC deliberations containing privileged information.

But last Tuesday, Bayuga took the witness stand for the defense.

While at the witness stand, Bayuga told the impeachment court that Corona had received over P21 million in salaries and benefits as a Supreme Court justice since 2002.

The defense panel presented Bayuga as its second witness to authenticate documents on the remuneration received by Corona during his tenure. Her testimony was related to Article II of the impeachment complaint, which accuses the chief magistrate of failure to disclose certain properties in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

But Bayuga’s testimony prompted Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan to ask if the high court was being “selective” in allowing its employees to testify.