Important lessons

The on-going Corona impeachment trial is certainly imparting many important lessons not only to lawyers but to the public in general. It shows us why our fight against graft and corruption seems to be going nowhere. It demonstrates quite vividly why any administration has so far never succeeded in catching and duly punishing any “big fish” despite its seemingly sincere and firm determination to do so.

The most important lesson is obviously not to shoot first and then just ask questions later. In other words, before filing a case or going to court, a thorough, quiet and deliberate preparation and investigation must be made first. The complainant must determine beforehand all the ultimate facts of the case, gather all the competent evidence supporting these facts, and fastidiously study the pertinent laws applicable to the contemplated action.

Immediately coming to mind regarding this lack of preparation is the P51 billion damage suit filed way back on July 23, 1987 before the Sandiganbayan against the Marcoses and some officials   who allegedly conspired with private individuals for “misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation’s wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust, and brazen abuse of power, at the expense and to the grave and irreparable damage of the plaintiff and the Filipino people”. This is one of the hottest cases after the Edsa People Power Revolution which was the “silent” talk of the town during the Marcos regime that has acquired notoriety as “Binondo Central Bank” operations.

But after almost 25 years of trial and five administrations later including that of the incumbent president’s mother, Cory Aquino which initiated the case, the Sandiganbayan just junked it for insufficiency of allegation in the complaint and for insufficient evidence. According to the court, the plaintiff Republic “failed to present evidence to prove its claims”. It ruled that “a mere allegation is not enough. It must be supported by proof otherwise it will just remain a story”. Such findings indeed graphically describe the lack of preparation in the case on the part of the Cory administration and a serious indictment on those who filed and handled the case particularly the PCGG and the OSG.

And right now, we are once more witnessing live on TV another vivid example of lack of preparation in a case. The blitzkrieg manner of the filing in the Senate the Articles of Impeachment against Corona by 188 members of the Lower House of Congress is already a clear sign that it was haphazardly prepared. And this is confirmed by Article 2 of the charge referring to the failure to disclose the SALN. Under this article, the prosecution tried to present and mark evidences about Corona’s alleged ill gotten wealth based on sub-paragraph 2.4 thereof which does not contain statements of ultimate facts but mere “reports” heard and “suspicions” formed couched in the form of rhetorical questions than straightforward allegations. Thus the impeachment court has to scrap this paragraph and prevent the prosecution from further presenting evidence on the alleged ill gotten wealth.

Another clear sign of lack of preparation is the open admission by some Congressmen members of the prosecution panel that they were still gathering their testimonial and documentary evidence after the impeachment complaint has already been filed. Thus they cannot even present a list of their witnesses to prove their case when Senator Miriam Santiago asked them to. And when the impeachment court required them to submit such list, they came up with a 39 page list of 100 “possible” witnesses and documents but reserved the “right to present additional documents and witnesses or to dispense with them as the need arises during the course of the trial”. Obviously the list is just tentative, another sign of unpreparedness.

Actually the proof of a particular fact does not depend on the number of witnesses presented. Even a sole witness is enough as long as the testimony is believable and the one testifying is   credible. The same is true with respect to documentary evidence. Additional evidence to corroborate the evidence to be presented is necessary only if they are of questionable credibility which usually happens when there is lack of preparation. Presenting 100 witnesses to prove eight charges constituting culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust is really an “overkill” thus eliciting the “oh my God” reaction from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding juror of the impeachment court.

But the more important lesson to be learned in the Corona impeachment trial is that the fight against graft and corruption and in reforming the government must not be politically motivated. Obviously, in this Corona impeachment case, politics play a big role. The action seems to be more for “show” to gain popularity and public approval than for a real, honest to goodness attempt to control or eradicate graft in government. As proven by past experiences, when politics rears its ugly head, reason and fairness disappear eventually resulting in a denial of due process of law.

Thus as it is now turning out, this administration has single mindedly concentrated in prosecuting known political enemies who have incurred the people’s ire especially the past president and those closely identified with her like the present CJ who are now bearing the brunt of blitzkrieg moves because their cases have bigger political impact. Other graft cases which have been thoroughly and lengthily investigated and found to be based on stronger evidence like the Joc Joc Bolante fertilizer fund scam have been gathering dusts in the archives because they have lesser political impact.

Furthermore, the case is becoming a long drawn “no holds barred, knockout fight” giving rise to other issues without any relevance. Indeed even the SALN of PNoy where his assets and net worth shot up 250% in 2010 when he assumed the presidency is now being brought up. All these distractions will just derail the government in pursuing more worthy goals for the good of the nation. They have likewise apparently covered up other incidences of graft and corruption by incumbent government officials which apparently remain unabated up to now.

These are indeed important lessons. But when will we ever learn them?