How Facebook Could Ruin Your Case | Lawyers.com Blog

How Facebook Could Ruin Your Case | Lawyers.com Blog

Filipinos rank high in Faceboo and Twitter access and in SMS text messaging. It's worthwhile for them to read this article.

"x x x.

Like the perpetually feuding families the Hatfields and the Mccoys, attorney Mitch Jackson’s client and his neighbors were involved in an ongoing dispute since September 2007. The neighbors had dumped trash into the client’s yard on a number of occasions and verbally harassed them while crossing paths within the community.

The last straw was when the abusive neighbors injured the client’s dog, resulting in some hefty vet bills. Jackson’s clients decided to sue.

To win the case, Jackson, who is a senior partner at the Jackson and Wilson law firm in Orange County, would need to show the jury that the neighbors had a history of harassing his client with vulgar threats. But when the defendant took the stand, he testified that it was not in his character to use such crude and profane language. That’s when Jackson pulled up the defendant’s Facebook page.

“We had photocopied his Facebook wall, where he had posted general derogatory comments,” Jackson says. “When we did that, he tried to explain how that could not constitute the type of language we had attributed to him earlier.”

• Attorneys can mine your Facebook and Twitter accounts for evidence.
• Deleting your social media accounts during trial can result in penalties.
• Your lawyer should counsel you on how to use social media while your case is ongoing.

The jury ended up awarding Jackson’s plaintiff more than $430,000 in damages. Speaking to the jury after the trial, Jackson discovered the Facebook wall postings were a key factor in diminishing the defendant’s credibility.

Jackson’s case illustrates how social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are changing the legal landscape for defendants and plaintiffs alike. With so much personal information voluntarily being made public, it’s no surprise things like wall posts and Tweets are showing up as evidence in court. And Jackson says this is something that all lawyers and consumers need to be cognizant of.

Be Careful What You Post

Over the last few years, social media sites have blown up in a big way. According to Facebook, there are more than 800 million active users on the site’s network, with more than half of these users logging into the site each day. On average, more than 250 million photos are uploaded to the site each day, while the average user is connected to more than 80 community pages, groups and events. Meanwhile, Twitter sees more than 1 billion Tweets posted per week, with an average of about 140 million per day.

“Anytime you are trying a case, it is the trial attorney’s obligation and duty to accumulate as much information as he or she can to support the client’s case or defend against it,” Jackson says. “Many trial lawyers today are learning as much as they can about the parties and the witnesses through social media sites. And what people need to understand is that this information doesn’t simply evaporate into thin air after it leaves your screen. It can be mined, analyzed and reviewed in civil and criminal cases.”

Jackson sites an example where a high school varsity football playersuffered brain injuries during the course of a game. The player had alerted a coach to a malfunction with his helmet before taking the field, but the coach allegedly brushed off the problem and instructed the student to play. The case was complicated by the fact that by the time the player sued, he had gone to college where pictures of him fraternizing and partying were taken and posted to his Facebook page.

“These pictures gave the wrong impression as to the severity of his diagnosed brain injury,” Jackson says. “But I happened to know he was seeking extensive care for those injuries, which affected a number of things including his ability to concentrate in school.”

Jackson was careful not to instruct the student to take down his Facebook photos, a measure which could be construed as tampering with evidence. This kind of evidence tampering is referred to as spoliation in many states and can result in serious penalties. Instead, Jackson counseled his client to not post any new information on his Facebook page while the trial was ongoing.

For a related story, please read Anything You Say on Facebook Can & Will Be Used Against You in a Court Of Law

Making Social Media Work for You

This proliferation of evidence isn’t all bad, says Jackson. Plaintiffs and defendants can use social media sites to their advantage by using these networks to promote their side of the case.

“People can use social media sites to share their stories accurately and truthfully,” Jackson says. “As long as you have a message to share and it is honest, social media can actually have beneficial ramifications.”

Jackson encourages his lawyer colleagues to consider leveraging the power of social media sites to benefit their clients. As Internet access becomes more ubiquitous with the rise of smartphones, the public, and even jurors, are more likely to conduct their own research into a case. Jackson says you may as well put forth your side of the story.

“This is something that lawyers need to look at for planting seeds for truthful information so that if somebody, for whatever reason, chooses to go online and research facts and issues concerning a case, you may be able to direct them toward accurate information,” he says.

Jackson says that although individuals need to be aware of the consequences of posting to social media sites, the obligation to remind them of these ramifications falls on the shoulders of their attorneys.

“Lawyers need to counsel their clients about social media and to instruct them to either stop posting or to update their accounts with honest information about their case,” Jackson says. “Also, people should not post anything that references their injury, accident or dispute without first talking to their attorneys.”

Keith Ecker is a news reporter for Lawyers.com.

x x x."

JURIST - Sidebar: Extraordinary Constitutional Interpretation in Corona's Impeachment

JURIST - Sidebar: Extraordinary Constitutional Interpretation in Corona's Impeachment

"x x x.

Extraordinary Constitutional Interpretation in Corona's Impeachment

JURIST Columnist Edsel Tupaz of Tupaz & Associates argues that extraordinary times in the Philippines might require extraordinary constitutional interpretation in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona now before the Philippines Senate...

---

Last Thursday, the presiding officer of the Philippine Senate sitting as the Impeachment Court, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, referred to the books of Professors Charles Black and Raoul Berger in open court. Both are considered experts on impeachment at least among US circles. Enrile was emphatic in saying that Black taught at Yale, and Berger at Harvard, to bolster the credibility and legitimacy of the sources he cited in his attempt to describe the nature of the impeachment tribunal. Enrile did this in response to lead defense counsel, former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas, when the latter moved to strike out the entire testimony of the incumbent Justice Secretary Leila De Lima. De Lima then was testifying on cross examination about the alleged irregularities, as averred in Article 7 of the Impeachment Complaint, surrounding the voting, approval, issuance and service of the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order against De Lima's "watch list order," which effectively prevented former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from leaving the country. Cuevas moved to strike De Lima's testimony on the ground that it was hearsay — she had been reading in open court the dissenting opinion of Justice Lourdes Sereno in the Supreme Court's Valentine Ruling.

Following references to Professors Black and Berger, Enrile stated his take, which so far has become the unchallenged collegial view of the Senate, that the impeachment proceeding at hand is "not a criminal trial" but only "akin to a criminal case," and that Black and Berger do say that the hearsay rule is "not strictly applicable" to impeachment cases. Enrile denied Cuevas's motion to strike in part, and granted it in part. Both the defense and the prosecution felt that each had won the day.

The more critical implication of Enrile's references to two reputable US law professors, both experts in impeachment, as "the" authorities, will pretty much open up all avenues for counsel, prosecution and defense alike, to draw directly from US authorities, if not the entire US experience in impeachment cases of judges. As a matter of fact, no less than the accused in this case, Chief Justice Renato Corona, cited my own title on impeachment in a 2003 separate opinion of Francisco v. House of Representatives, a leading case on impeachment law in the Philippines. Here Corona stated in footnote 2, "Impeachment under the Philippine Constitution, as a remedy for serious political offenses against the people, runs parallel to that of the U.S. Constitution."

Last Wednesday and Thursday, protest rallies were held before the Supreme Court, calling for Corona's resignation. Pleas from various social sectors have crept into the media asking for the Court en banc to allow Justice Sereno to testify about the alleged irregularities in the approval and issuance of the TRO, which irregularities and undue haste, as the prosecution argues, were all due to the close ties of the Chief Justice and former President Arroyo. But the so-called Valentine Resolution effectively bars any Justice of the Court from testifying against another Justice on the ground of "deliberative process privilege," an analogue to executive privilege under United States v. Nixon. The Valentine Resolution was the Court's per curiam reaction to the letters of prosecutor and congressman Joseph Emilio Abaya, the Impeachment Prosecution Panel Manager, as well as a Senate's subpoena which named key court officials, records and documents. The Senate, sitting as the Impeachment Court, again through Enrile, announced that it will be "respecting" the Court's interlocutory order.

The way around the prohibition against compulsory process, to the prosecution, was to manifest and move before the Senate for an issuance of an "invitation" as well as a set of interrogatories for Justice Sereno, which prosecutors Raul Daza and Neri Colmenares did minutes before the Senate adjourned last Thursday. Earlier a number of Senator-jurors also suggested, in open court, to take a more voluntary route for the appearances of witnesses from the Court. But if Justice Sereno, one of the prime movers of the dissent, does go to the Senate on her own accord, could the Court en banc sanction her for violating the Valentine Resolution? Will her own dissenting opinion, consistently joined by four other justices, be sufficiently colorable authority for her to escape or at least mitigate a possible en banc administrative sanction against her? How should the "invitation" and interrogatories, if the Senate does choose to issue them, be phrased as to avoid too direct a confrontation with the Court majority? After all, Justice Sereno, along with Justice Carpio, another consistently strong dissenter, are considered impeachable officers under the Philippine Constitution and thus could only be removed through impeachment and conviction by the same Senate whose members today seem to be inclined to hear their story.

Public pulse as of the hour is of the view, more or less, that the majority of the Philippine Supreme Court — a consistent vote of eight against five — are doing all they can to save their Chief Justice from public scrutiny regardless of doctrinal considerations. As protest rallies before the halls of the Court continue, it ought to be noted too that the Philippines is facing extraordinary times which, rightly or wrongly, may call for extraordinary constitutional interpretation. Conversely, public pulse appears to be in favor of the legitimacy of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, with recent polls showing as much as 86 percent of respondents stating that the public at large will abide by the Senate's ruling.

The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona certainly implicates the clear tension between "judicial privilege" and the public's right to information on matters of public concern pursuant to Section 7 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution. Should "deliberative privilege" trump the right to information and discovery? It ought to be recalled that Section 7 was entrenched as a constitutional right in response to then President Ferdinand Marcos's secrecy about his health in the days leading up to the 1986 snap elections, whose perceived failure then triggered the 1986 EDSA Revolution which ousted him and his family, Imelda Marcos included. While many catalogues of rights found in contemporary constitutions still couch individual liberties and other entrenched rights in absolutist prohibitions ("No law shall be passed abridging..."), there is no question that constitutional courts today increasingly engage in more sophisticated proportionality analysis and multi-tiered constitutional methodology in their attempt at balancing competing interests. In building legitimacy, the Senate may be off to a good start by turning to Yale and Harvard law professors when it provided an initial sally about the nature of impeachment trials, but it does remain to be seen how well, and to what extent, the same Senate — increasingly behaving like a real court of justice — can well engage in a proportionality analysis when faced with constitutional polarities.

Edsel Tupaz is a public interest lawyer and law professor whose expertise lies in comparative constitutional law and policy, teaching at law schools in the US and the Philippines. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Ateneo Law School. Tupaz is currently assisting the House prosecution in the impeachment trial of Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Suggested citation: Edsel Tupaz, Extraordinary Constitutional Interpretation in Corona's Impeachment, JURIST - Sidebar, Feb. 25, 2012, http://jurist.org/sidebar/2012/02/edsel-tupaz-impeachment-iv.php.

x x x."

It’s all about character | Manila Standard Today

It’s all about character | Manila Standard Today

"x x x.

The impeachment case is not about law, it is about human decency. It is about correct behavior. It is about the fundamental decency of a person, his adherence to Christian beliefs and the mores of society.

Mr. Corona failed these fundamentals the day he accepted a clearly unacceptable “midnight appointment“. It doesn’t matter if it was constitutional or not, it matters only that it was a wrong thing to do. You obviously don’t accept an appointment by someone leaving office. You must have the decency to wait for the incoming leader to make appointments. You particularly do so if you are to assume the highest position of honesty, morality, and probity in the nation.

The eight articles of impeachment are purely supplemental to this. And already Corona has failed this test. It’s not about how much money he maybe has, and certainly not about how that information was acquired. It’s about honesty. The bank documents may be found to have been illegally obtained and hence not acceptable in a court of law, but this is not a court of law, it’s a court of public opinion. That opinion based on these documents is that he’s guilty of, at the very least, perjury. He did not declare those accounts in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and those bank accounts undeniably do exist, it’s that simple. There is also no question that he has more assets than were declared in his SALN. It doesn’t matter if it was 45 or 25 or even five apartments. They weren’t listed in his SALN. He also has dollar accounts, that’s confirmed. How much is in them is irrelevant. The existence of these was not mentioned in his SALN. An honest mistake is not acceptable as shown by previous decisions on public servants dismissed for far less than is being accused now. I hope the defense lawyers can recognize that. Whether Corona is legally guilty of something can be brought up separately in a court of law. And more rigorous standards can be imposed there.

So the prosecution is weak and the defense strong. So what, this is not about the ability of lawyers, it’s about inherent honesty of a man, of the nation’s Chief Justice.

It doesn’t matter if the information is admissible or not. This is not a court of law determining legal guilt, it is a questioning of a man’s fitness to hold a high office that demands the highest levels of honesty and integrity. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary, the preponderance of evidence is more than enough. We are talking about the character of a man who, more than anyone else, must meet the highest standards of decency. There’s more than enough evidence to say he’s failed to meet the high standards required of a Chief Justice. This is a court to determine the truth of the character of a man. The senators have a responsibility to the Filipino people, to the Philippine nation. This transcends adherence to strict legal niceties.

Incidentally, I completely fail to understand why if you find unexplained wealth you can’t look into it because it wasn’t in the articles of impeachment, that it was a “fishing expedition”. How else do you catch big fish except by going fishing. If it’s uncovered during the proceedings of the trial, as this was, of course you look into it.

This is only the second impeachment trial ever, it is unique in itself and cannot be treated as court cases normally would be. The banks have acknowledged he has more money than he reported. That’s a fact. That’s sufficient reason to declare him guilty. His SALN was false. The defense counsels are first and foremost Filipinos, only secondarily lawyers. They should be concerned about what’s the best for the welfare of their country. A man of now questioned ethics should not be Chief Justice, the doubts alone are sufficient. And 70 percent of a group I surveyed agree.

A chief justice is next to a bishop in the depth of character he must have ― far greater than us mere mortals. Corona does not meet the high standards demanded of the position.

He should do the decent thing and resign.

But if the trial continues to its end whatever the outcome, I can’t imagine how he can remain as chief justice. It would certainly put the Supreme Court in a continually questionable position.

***

x x x."

Is Corona morally fit to remain in office? | Inquirer Global Nation

Is Corona morally fit to remain in office? | Inquirer Global Nation

"x x x.

As Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment trial proceeds — various arguments, witness statements, items of evidence and tons of trial related data crisscross our minds. To get back on track, we need to repeatedly ask ourselves this critical question of fact. It embodies the core issue in this impeachment trial.
The honest answer to this question is the sum and substance of what this case is all about.

We all want a better Philippines where one third of our people do not have to go to bed hungry at night; where hungry little Filipino children do not have to dig into stinking garbage cans for scraps of rotting food — condemned to a life without a decent future.

So much of this mass human suffering is directly caused by endemic institutionalized corruption present in all branches of government.

Billions of pesos of taxes collected by government from the people should be returned to them in the form of various infrastructures like roads, bridges and railways; and services promoting health, education, peace and order, etc. Instead, hundreds of millions go to the pockets of corrupt officials and their co-conspirators.

Items such as milk which should feed hungry babies, books for poor students, medicines for indigent patients, housing for the homeless, remain undelivered because of corruption.

At the end of the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA), the government was practically bankrupt. Money in the treasury was emptied due to rushed government expenditures allegedly transacted to fill already loaded pockets with more corruption money.

We cannot — should not — allow massive stealing from the people by government officials to continue. If they remain unpunished, there will be more Marcoses, Estradas and GMAs in the future doing more of the same, causing more suffering to our people.
Based on the facts, charging GMA with plunder and other serious crimes is proper and in line with punishing and stopping public corruption. But the Aquino Administration must carry on a more aggressive widespread scorch earth campaign against other corrupt officials as well if it is to make a significant difference in changing Philippine society for the better.

But eradicating or minimizing government corruption will not happen unless corrupt officials are successfully prosecuted in court. But what if court officials are themselves corrupt? Of all government officials, justices and judges are the least subject to scrutiny and prosecution. They are hardly subjected to lifestyle checks. As such unchecked corrupt justices and judges seriously hinder the campaign against corruption.

This is what Corona’s impeachment trial is all about. It is in line with the goal to clean government. Unseating the head of the Judicial Branch does much good, assuming he is guilty as charged. But that alone does not clean up the entire rotten court system. Other corrupt Justices and judges should also be removed and bold effective reforms instituted.

President Simeon Benigno Aquino who continues to have tremendous support from the people is in a rare position to do all these. He must not waste this golden opportunity. He must be more aggressive in accomplishing real observable results. He has only four years left. If he fails, he will have only himself to blame. He has all the powers and influence to achieve much.
The “midnight appointee” Chief Justice and other Arroyo appointed Justices represent the majority in the Supreme Court. As their apparently biased decisions have repeatedly favored GMA, they are widely perceived as placing the Arroyos’ interests over that of the people.

When a Corona-led Cabal of Arroyo Justices issued an ex parte TRO against the government’s travel ban on GMA without a hearing, the camel’s back broke. The House of Representatives subjected him to this impeachment trial with backing from Aquino. Nothing wrong with that. This is what most Filipinos want and he has their support. We are all tired of unpunished corruption.

The prospect of GMA and her husband being exonerated even if found guilty in the lower courts — because they own the Supreme Court — may be horridly unthinkable but is a very real possibility.
An Impeachment Court composed of members of the Senate has been convened and the Chief Justice of the Philippines accused of certain crimes which if found guilty subjects him to removal.

The House of Representatives prosecution panel accuses him of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, among other things. Had they known the enormity of his peso and dollar cash assets in various bank accounts prior to formal discovery, arguably, they might also have charged him with bribery. Unless he secretly won the lottery, how else could he explain the source of his extraordinary wealth?
The Constitution provided for the establishment of an Impeachment Court by the Senate so that at certain times when it becomes necessary, it can determine whether or not an important official seriously erred and if so, be removed from office.

Questions pertaining to the admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence and other legal issues which permeate the proceedings are simply collateral questions of law. Mingled with these are the unending criticisms by the Presiding Officer of the prosecution’s competence supplemented by the irritating condescending lecturing of a seemingly know it all senator. Interlocutory and procedural matters also come to play now and then.
Aside from all these, the defense and prosecution spokespersons add supplementary presentations to the public on TV and other media sometimes coupling these with spin yarns that are either interesting or best ignored. Nothing wrong with all these. Both sides provide valuable service to the public with their contrasting viewpoints.

Corona himself has turned his predicament into a political affair holding rallies in front of the Supreme Court giving tear-filled speeches and staging the impression that he has mass support.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer and other media reported that the estimated 7,000 attendees in his most recent rally were mainly Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) members. Corona’s chief lawyer Serafin Cuevas is known to be a high ranking official of the INC.

At times, all these happenings in court and out of court may tend to distract, misdirect and derail Senator-Judges and the people from the directions this Impeachment Court should take. If so, they can always return to the main highway by repeatedly asking:
“Is the accuse Renato Corona morally fit to remain in office.”

In a trial, evidence comes in many forms including paper evidence, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, witnesses’ statements or whatever.

The strategy of Corona’s defense team from the very start is obvious: keep any kind of evidence involving his financials or other matters touching on his moral character from being revealed. Cuevas has practically cited all the grounds for excluding evidence with his serial objections. One could play a betting game with others at the start of every hearing to see which one is closest to guessing how many times he would blurt out “Objection, your honor!”.

This is followed by claims of: “Immaterial”, “irrelevant”, “argumentative”, “misleading”, “hearsay”, etc.

While either he or the Presiding Judge has prevented a lot of serious evidence from being admitted which would have been very damaging to Corona, ironically, the prevention of critical evidence from being admitted is arguably equally damaging to Corona or maybe even more so in so far as the public perception is concerned.

Shielding the exact amounts of his dollar deposits in five accounts in just one bank suggests a lot about his culpability and begs the following question to be asked:

“The prosecution claims that one account alone contains 700 thousand dollars. If this is not true and if he is innocent and has nothing to hide, why therefore is he blanketing the amounts involved in his dollar accounts?

This is only the second impeachment trial in the Philippines. The first one involved the impeachment of former President Joseph Estrada which was not even completed.

It was truncated in the middle of the deliberations because a majority of eleven blatantly pro-Estrada loyalists voted not to open an envelope believed to contain damning important bank records. As a consequence, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel resigned followed by a walk out of the prosecutors. One declared: “It is clear to us that the judgement of the Impeachment Court will not be reached on truth that the people seek.”

The walkout triggered the EDSA 2 people power leading to the forced removal of Estrada.

Side note. Four of the eleven pro Estrada Senators are also involved in this Corona trial: Enrile, Defensor-Santiago, Sotto and Honasan.

Is this impeachment process Philippine style a good system to remove an erring high official?

For lack of original thinking, the Philippines simply adopted the American system. In theory, it looks okay. In practice, even in the U.S. where partisan politics can also sometimes play havoc on achieving worthy goals, it’s not always a good system. But in general, it works there because of firmly entrenched democratic institutions and more Senators are involved – 100 as compared to the present 23 in the Philippines. More thinking goes into the process.

For example; the Republicans attempted to mis-use or abuse the impeachment process to remove the very popular President Clinton from office – claiming that Monica Lewinsky doing some lip service on Bill and him lying about it – amounted to an impeachable offense. The Senators correctly acquitted him citing that the interaction between the two was a private matter which did not affect public interests nor his official performance as President.
However, in third world Philippines, democratic institutions are not as deeply rooted and the application of legal principals is often unpredictable. Politics mixes with endemic corruption and cultural traits involving: debts of gratitude (utang na loob), partisan positioning, personal and group loyalties. Also, 16 votes are needed to convict and only eight are needed to acquit Corona.)

And even if Corona’s wrongdoing, if proven, clearly affects the country’s best interests, some Senator-Judges nevertheless will not vote according to what is right and just, but according to personal agendas – as shown in the Estrada impeachment trial. It is also obvious to the public that certain Senator-Judges identified with GMA or those with some personal motives – do their best to exclude telling evidence that could reveal much about Corona’s character.
All these combine to make this present system of impeachment in the Philippines a terribly unreliable system in removing erring high officials.

Based on the country’s experience in the Estrada impeachment trial, this impeachment system as it currently stands does not work and will not accomplish its purpose in removing erring officials. It did not work in the Estrada trial which forced the people to go to the streets. It likely will not work now.

For it to have a decent chance to work, the Senator-Judges and the people must be constantly aware of the fundamental purpose for which the Impeachment Court exists. It exists primarily to determine whether or not an accused key official is morally fit to retain his or her position. The issue of technical competence is not an issue. Moral character is the main issue.

As such, any evidence that touches on the moral character of the accused should be material and relevant. Evidence relating to his honesty and integrity should definitely be allowed such as: Unexplained enormous wealth; lying in one’s SALN; false income declarations; accepting expensive gifts of free first class international flights and huge real property discounts from litigants (which are clearly unethical and just another form of bribery).
The Senator-Judges and the people should be provided with all the evidence and information that can help them answer the critical question of fact:

“Is the accuse Renato Corona morally fit to remain in office?”

With no disrespect intended to the Presiding Senator and the Senator-Judges, prior to the February 23, 2012 Thursday hearing, this impeachment trial had not been proceeding along lines consistent with the Impeachment Court’s reason for being. So much evidence relating to the accused’s moral character were being excluded.

The trial was being conducted like a criminal proceeding where the standard of proof in proving guilt appeared to be the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard – which is not the way an impeachment court should proceed.

Under these parameters, removing Corona as Chief Justice is about as probable as Manny Pacquiao becoming pope. The nation suffers heavy consequences if it is unable to remove a high ranking official even if it is obvious that he has engaged in wrongful conduct – if the reason is because the mechanism for removal is practically inutile.

It will be an unpalatably ugly situation if practically everyone knows the accused is guilty as hell but cannot be removed from office. Terribly bad for the country. Not only will our citizens seethe with anger and frustration, we lose credibility in the global community because of our screwed up justice system.

But after I watched last Thursday’s trial, there is some glimmer of hope that at least Presiding Judge-Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, a strong personality with a controversial sometime villain-sometime hero image who wields tremendous influence – now has a clearer understanding of which direction the Impeachment Court should go – in so far as standard of proof and admissibility of evidence is concerned.

It shows good faith on Enrile’s part in announcing that he had read a book on impeachment trials written by Charles Black, a highly respected genius and Yale professor on Constitutional Law. And as such, he now correctly concludes and announced for the first time – that the standard for proof in this impeachment trial should not be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” but the lower standard of “clear and convincing evidence”.

He also states that hearsay evidence can be submitted for a qualified purpose. This is in line with providing the Impeachment Court with as much information as possible about the accused’s moral character – in order to come up with the right decision. Hallelujah.
The book Enrile was referring to is “Impeachment, A Handbook”, by Charles Black, Yale University Press, published May 10, 1999.

Based on Enrile’s recent pronouncements and rulings re admissibility of evidence and standard of proof, it appears that his viewpoint regarding these issues has been dramaticallly influenced or altered by Black’s book. Every Senator-Judge acting in good faith and who wants to make an honest decision should read this book.

The Estrada impeachment experience and happenings in the current Corona trial indicate that certain Senator-Judges are incapable of taking the high road. Many of the Senators are admirable highly principled men and women – but because the impeachment system requires only eight Senators to vote against impeachment for Corona to walk – there is a strong possibility that he will.

Corruption darkens the intellect and some Senator-Judges will not be able to give an honest answer to this simple question which the ordinary well-meaning citizen can easily answer.

“Is the accuse Renato Corona morally fit to remain in office?”

They will avoid this question when they vote for acquittal like politician Pontius Pilate

asking: “What is truth?” – meaning: “There’s no such thing as truth.” Poor souls.

Note: Atty. Ted Laguatan is based in the San Francisco area. He is honored by the California State Bar as one of only 29 lawyers officially certified as Expert-Specialists in Immigration Law continuously for more than twenty years. He also does human rights and complex litigation cases involving accident injuries and wrongful death. Email laguatanlaw@gmail.com Tel 650 991-1154

x x x."

Row over testimony of Supreme Court justice looms | Inquirer News

Row over testimony of Supreme Court justice looms | Inquirer News

SC has ruled its justices couldn't be ordered to testify in impeached midnight CJ Corona's impeachment trial, citing judicial privilege/deliberative process privilege (akin to executive privilege).

Senate impeachment court has honored the SC ruling.

Does the search for truth end there? No.

Prosecution plans to file a motion w/ the Senate to "invite" (not subpoena) lady Justice Sereno, who, in her dissent, has exposed the attempts of CJ Corona to manipulate the issuance and declaration of finality of the questioned TRO in favor of GMA.

Most probably, the "obedient" Senate, under the fickle-minded Enrile, would deny Prosecution's request.

If Sereno opts to voluntarily appear before the impeachment court to expose the whole truth, in fine, "waiving" her personal right to judicial privilege, what are the possible consequences for and against her?

She'll be a hero among the people, assuming the impeachment court, by majority vote, would allow her to testify despite vehement objection from pro-Corona senators and from defense lawyers.

SC would perhaps administratively sanction her, e.g. fine, suspension, upon motion of CJ Corona's loyal justices.

If she is a principled jurist, she would embrace the sanctions as a modest sacrifice for the good of the country and its justice system.

CJ Corona's lawyers would file an impeachment complaint against her in the Lower House (which would probably be dismissed, anyway, because of the majority control of the pro-Aquino coalition there).

This issue is interesting to monitor. It can be dramatic and explosive, if not bloody, figuratively, that is.

There are many possible evolving scenarios.

The situation would become more interesting and enlightening if Justice Carpio would likewise voluntarily waive his personal right to judicial privilege and would freely testify before the impeachment court simultaneously with Justice Sereno to preserve the future of the much-maligned Philippine justice system.

CJ Corona's supporters argue that the honor of the SC must be safeguarded. Its dirty linens must not be washed in public.

I say: Let the cleansing and purifying power of the light of the sun enter the dark and secretive halls of the SC and transform, reform and rectify it.

Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.

Isn't it the first basic moral lesson that is inculcated in the minds of first-year law students in our law schools?



- Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.

Jose W. Diokno: Fleshing out a legend | Inquirer News

Jose W. Diokno: Fleshing out a legend | Inquirer News

Sen. J. W. Diokno on the law profession:

"x x x.

“A lawyer lives in and by law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will—worse, by the will of one man.

“A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.

“A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear, and criticism silenced by force.

“A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.

“Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied—it is perverted.

“And what need do our people have for men and women who could practice perversion?

“Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers.”

x x x."