Skip to main contentdfsdf

Home/ stevenwarran's Library/ Notes/ January 12, 2001, Sun Star, Miriam bares 'fangs' at trial so does Nikki,

January 12, 2001, Sun Star, Miriam bares 'fangs' at trial so does Nikki,

from web site

January 12, 2001, Sun Star, Miriam bares 'fangs' at trial so does Nikki,

MANILA -- Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago withdrew her motion for reconsideration on the impeachment court's order banning three spectators from attending the trial proceedings.

Santiago, during the impeachment hearing aired live Tuesday on ABS News Channel, appeared annoyed by Rep. Ernesto Herrera's letter seeking reconsideration on the ban against Rosanna Fores, Bettina Araneta-Aboitiz and Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption chairman Dante Jimenez.

Citing the Rules of Court, Santiago said a motion for reconsideration-in the case where a summary punishment has been imposed on an offense for direct contempt of court-is not allowed.

She said the only remedy left for those banned from the impeachment proceedings is to file a certiorari.

In a separate incident, Senator-Judge Nikki Coseteng blew her top after she perceived that prosecutor Raul Gonzales was accusing her of lying.

Coseteng was asking, shortly after the second break, whether former Philippine Stock Exchange president Jose Luis Yulo was inside the courtroom while witness Ruben Almadro was testifying.

Gonzales denied this, saying Yulo was only present during the break. He later corrected himself and said Yulo may have been present just as Almadro's was finishing his direct examination, but denied that he actually saw Yulo.

Yulo is among the witnesses the prosecution is expected to call for Article 3 (betrayal of public trust), one of four charges President Estrada is facing before the impeachment court.

As for the three spectators, they were banned from attending the trial after Santiago accused them of violating the court's rules of proper decorum, for standing and looking at her in a "provocative way."

Reconciliation

Santiago said she made the motion for reconsideration "in the spirit of reconciliation" although she knew that the rules did not allow it. However, she said her gesture was met with "animosity and adversarial" attitude.

The three spectators, by saying that she has "been inaccurate" in her allegations, had labeled her a liar.

None of the senator-judges made any manifestation after Santiago reiterated she "will vehemently oppose" any motion for reconsideration of the ban.

Aside from Herrera, Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez also wrote the Senate, stating that Fores, Aboitiz and Jimenez did not breach court decorum.

The Senate also received letters from civic and religious groups, such as the Pastoral Council of San Antonio Parish, condemning the ban on the three.

Jimenez wrote a letter to the Senate denying the allegations of Santiago.

After Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. read the letters, Santiago marched to the nearest microphone and excused herself for delaying procedures, saying she is compelled and "sufficiently provoked" to comment on the manifestations.

Santiago said the court may issue a summary judgment citing in contempt any person who has committed disrespect towards the court, or by displaying an "offensive personality towards others."

In this case, considered as a direct contempt, she said a motion for reconsideration cannot be availed of.

She pointed out that while she made an act of reconciliation, by making a motion for reconsideration of the ban, this was met by "animosity."

She knew, having been a judge in Quezon city, that the contempt power "should not be exercised on a vindictive but rather on a preservative principle."

"I was not intent on avenging myself, I was preserving the dignity of this court," she said.

A furious Santiago cited Jimenez's statement that the senator-judge owes him an apology.

Santiago described this as the "height of arrogance…marked by the profundity of the ignorance of the legal system."

Citing the letters of Golez and Herrera, she invoked a provision in the Constitution, which states that "no senator, no member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice…or any quasi-judicial tribunal."

She said she will study if she will file a complaint against the two legislators who had filed the pleadings with the impeachment court.

Later in the trial, Coseteng, a non-lawyer, inquired from Chief Justice Davide, the presiding officer, whether a potential witness is allowed inside the courtroom, when he may be testifying on the same article of impeachment.

Davide explained that the rule barring a potential witness from entering the court is supposedly to prevent him or her from learning about the testimonies of other witnesses.

When Representative-Prosecutor Gonzales denied Yulo's presence, Coseteng stood up and said that Yulo's presence was actually caught on camera.

She was seconded by Sen. John Osmeña.

Coseteng warned the prosecutor that she was not willing to take any other argument after Gonzales continued to deny Yulo's presence during the testimony of former PSE official Ruben Almadro.

To settle the argument between the two, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Jr. suggested that Yulo be allowed to testify although it may mean that his credibility will be lessened.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.

stevenwarran

Saved by stevenwarran

on Dec 21, 12