Sunday, January 22, 2012
DRILON SHOULD PROVE HE'S NOT BIASED!
Before the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato
resumes tomorrow, Senator-Judge. Franklin Drilon should be first asked to explain observations by the defense, and the public, on his supposed bias in favor of the prosecution. Corona
Whether or not the defense moves for Drilon’s inhibition.
And if the defense does so, the Senate impeachment court should first vote on it before trial resumes.
Eliciting information from a witness in a trial is the job of the lawyer, not the judge. The judge only DECIDES on the information. A judge CANNOT BE A COUNSEL at the same time.
But on two occasions, Drilon threw queries at witnesses which were beneficial to the prosecution.
Under questioning by Drilon, Supreme Court clerk of court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal admitted that she had brought with her
’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs). Corona
Replying to Drilon’s questions, Randy Rutaquio, Taguig City register of deeds, testified that Corona had acted as an “attorney in fact” for his daughter in the sale of a property on Oct. 21, 2008.
Take note, these admissions WERE MADE TO DRILON, NOT to prosecutors.
In a media interview, Drilon said all she asked Vidal was whether she complied with the subpoena. But even a high school kid would readily understand that Vidal was being asked to REVEAL, and not CLARIFY, something!
And the answer being asked from her was beneficial to ONLY ONE SIDE, the prosecution.
I’m not saying that Drilon should indeed inhibit. My point is he should first give a CONVINCING explanation on why he shouldn’t be considered as BIASED in favor of the prosecution.
The impeachment court had better come up with a CLEAR-CUT definition on what is bias on the part of a senator-judge and limitations on questions that can be asked by a senator judge.
Otherwise, the prosecution and anti-Corona groups should not complain in any manner whatsoever if the defense relentless raises questions of partiality of Drilon or the other senator-judges who are Lberal partymates of Pnoy.
From the readers:
EXTREME MALICE OF
GINO PARADELA of
I find the process very anti-democratic. I argued with my PolSci professor on this matter, he now agrees with me. The country has become obsessed with chasing the previous administration. Noy-Noy seems to like that.
WHAT PROGRESS IS VALTE TALKING ABOUT?
JOE ALVARADO JR. of
Progress? Only them, perhaps, because their SALN keep on ballooning while we, the people, are suffering from increasing cost of living while income is depleting.
Whatever she said is full of propaganda bullshit.
Niloloko nila ang taumbayan!
Ito ang gobyerno na walang kayos-ayos. Hindi puwedeng umangal, hindi puwedeng kumontra, hindi puwedeng pangunahan. Makinig lang at sundin ang utos ng hari.
Sipsip to the max talaga si Valte kay Pnoy. Kung ano-anong kasinungalingan ang pinagsasabi. Ginagawa tayong tangang kagaya niya. Mga kasinungalingan ibig ipalunok sa mga Pilipino!
How can they honestly claim credit for a SUPREME COURT decision when they are openly attacking the Chief Justice and the SC.? It is beyond comprehension how desperate these people are! Since they have NO ACHIEVEMENTS to speak of, they keep grabbing recognition for anything and everything -- even things that they are against, like the SC decision to distribute land to the Hacienda Luisita farmers which Noynoy and his family are obviously against.
Lasing siguro ang bobang iyan nang magsalita, kaya nawala sa sarili.
JED DE JESUS
She does not deserve to be a spokesperson.
Kasamang Boyet, walang pinagiwan kay Ms Bautista Horn. Pareho silang pa-cute lang sa Malakanyang. They talk nonsense.30