My thoughts on ANC’s coverage of the Corona impeachment trial
In the TV series, "Law and Order," a dead body is discovered, the police sort out clues to find the murderer, the culprit is arrested and brought to court, a trial is held and a verdict is handed out by the jury—all in a span of one hour. After two days of Chief Justice Renato Corona's impeachment trial, the congressmen-prosecutors have yet to present witnesses and experts predict that it will take three months to arrive at a decision. That's reality.
Here are my observations so far on ANC's coverage of the historic event:
Atty. Victoria Avena of the UP College of Law stole the show from Karen Davila, Tony Velasquez, Atty. Adel Tamano and Lynda Jumilla. She managed to explain in terms that I, a non-lawyer could understand, the intricacies of the impeachment process. Atty. Avena was a commanding presence on the screen and I listened to every word she said. This is not to say that Karen et al did an awful job. They were okay.
Former chief justice Artemio Panganiban, one of ANC's resource persons, commented on an argument made by Cuevas. The defense lawyer had used Panganiban's opinion on a case before the Supreme Court to support his argument that Congress should have observed due process by conducting hearings to determine the culpability of Corona. However, Panganiban explained this was only true when the complaint was filed by a private citizen. Since there were 188 congressmen who signed the complaint, a hearing was no longer necessary.
On "Law and Order," the prosecutor and the defense attorney dominate the courtroom scenes as they question the witnesses and argue their case before the jury. So far, the presiding officer, senate president Juan Ponce-Enrile hogged the limelight with his opening statement and his rulings on the motions made by the prosecution and the defense. He was able to assert his leadership by not getting derailed by factors that tended to delay the proceedings. He immediately denied the petition of Corona's lawyers for a preliminary trial and a second motion to dismiss the case because the impeachment complaint was not verified, i.e. some of the congressmen who signed the complaint were not able to read the voluminous document.
Retired associate justice Serafin Cuevas, Corona's chief defense lawyer, who kept referring to the senate president as "your honeur," did not project well on the screen. First, when Enrile asked the lawyers to enter their appearance, Cuevas used the occasion for grandstanding as he proudly bragged that Corona was in the courtroom to prove to the senators and the entire world that he was innocent. Hey, Atty. Cuevas, this is not yet the time to argue your client's case. Secondly, he went beyond the five minutes allotted to him to present his case for a preliminary trial, then used up another three minutes to make the same arguments that he propounded at the start. Then, he has the gall to state that the defense is not out to delay the proceedings!
The senators were relatively quiet during the proceedings and rightly so, because there were still no witnesses that they could question. Also, they did not object to Enrile's rulings on different motions. So aside from the objections raised by Cuevas, the trial seemed to be proceeding smoothly as though it was scripted. In fact, majority floor leader Tito Sotto and Enrile were shown reading from what looked like a script.
I thought this was going to be a "de kahon" proceeding with no room for drama. However, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano objected when Enrile ruled that the prosecution could not subpoena Corona's wife, children and son-in-law and testify on the Chief Justice's properties. I thought his arguments were valid. The session was suspended as the senators went into a caucus. When the session resumed, Enrile called for a division of the house. His ruling was upheld, 14 to 6.
ANC used a multi-screen to show events that were happening simultaneously. They did this to show SC spokesman Midas Marquez at a press con and a shot of the Senate just before the proceedings started. ANC also used one of the screens to summarize what was happening on the floor.
The prosecution was about to start presenting its case by discussing the second article of impeachment when Enrile and the defense questioned why they were starting with the second rather than the first article. The defense objected saying they were not ready to cross examine a witness and Enrile was asking if the prosecution had witnesses that could verify the authenticity of the documents. So the hearing was postponed for another day. Oh, yes, this was going to take three months or more. More delays are forthcoming, you can count on that.
