AFTER week two of CJ Corona’s impeachment trial, we have heard much. Have we heard enough to say that Corona should go? Yes, say the ‘Negrenses for Corona Removal (N4CR).’ We agree. Even with the best possible defense, there is nothing that Corona can say now that will establish himself as the unblemished leader of the Judicial Branch. He is forever tarnished, does not enjoy public trust and confidence, and therefore should not retain his position as Chief Justice.
The reaction of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is more cautious. Felomino Tan, president of IBP’s Negros Occidental chapter, says ‘impeachment is not a political exercise, it must be based on facts and evidence. Justice must prevail, due process must be followed.’
Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.
The IBP has moved its goal posts. Originally it was saying ‘No to Impeachment’ which, means, in the case of Corona, ‘he is above the law.’ There is a problem about generic organizations making pronouncements because they purport to speak on behalf of their whole membership when not all members agree with the pronouncement. More specifically members did not join IBP with express purpose of defending Corona.
Atty Tan also stresses the need for the judicial independence of the Supreme Court (SC).
To me, SC judicial independence means that the Court should be free from outside control and not subject to anyone’s authority in relation to the Court’s judgments and its administration of justice.
I have news for Atty Tan. The mere existence of the impeachment trial demonstrates that the SC is not free from outside control and that its judgments and its administration of justice is subject to our authority, through our elected representatives.
No man is an island.
Judicial independence of the SC is suspended for the duration of the CJ’s impeachment trial. In its ‘independent’ monitoring of the trial, the IBP asserts that it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that Corona’s assets are disproportionately high compared to his income. The prosecution, says IBP, must also prove that Corona dues not have any ‘other lawful income’ and ‘income from legitimately acquired property.’ If the defense does not supply evidence of ‘other lawful income’ and ‘income from legitimately acquired property’, then the judges will reach a verdict on the basis of what they know.
The trial is a search for the truth. It is not a contest to see whether the prosecution or the defense has the better lawyers.
We understand that the IBP believes it is speaking on behalf of its members. We trust that the IBP understands that the quality, rigor and professionalism of its pronouncements is under scrutiny from the populace. The standing of IBP members in our community is affected by IBP’s pronouncements which, in relation to Corona’s impeachment, have been mediocre at best.
Another body that has spoken out is the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE). Some members may believe that Corona represents the ultimate in Judicial probity and that we are fortunate to have someone of his integrity as Chief Justice. But surely there are other members who believe that Corona has a case to answer and that his impeachment trial is a natural consequence of his apparently doubtful conduct.
As soon as PNoy expressed reservations about Corona at his 5 December 2011 speech to the 1st National Criminal Justice Summit, Corona has lobbied the support of his Judicial Branch subordinates. Once Corona has been impeached, which means that our elected representatives have serious doubts about the Chief Justice, it is no longer inappropriate for Judicial Branch employees to state their views and, if necessary, withdraw their support for Corona. After all, this is what the AFP did to President Estrada in January 2001.
We hope that Judicial Branch members, speaking either as individuals or as groups, are prepared to give their opinions publicly, for and against Corona. This will widen the national conversation which, in a democracy, is vital.
x x x."
