The Defense is moving for the inhibition of Senator Franklin Drilon as judge in the ongoing impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. They cited Drilon’s bias against Corona when Drilon forced Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal to surrender the SALN of the Chief Justice.
***
People who saw the action on television would know that Drilon was merely asking the witness if she will follow the subpoena of the impeachment court. That the witness, Clerk of Court Vidal admitted that she will obey the court process and surrender the SALN was her own volition, realizing the gravity of the responsibility on her shoulders. Vidal, after all, did not forget that she is a lawyer and she knows the consequence of not following court orders.
***
Senator Drilon was only exercising his rights as Senator Judge. Brilliant lawyers from the defense like Cuevas and company know this that a Judge can asked clarificatory questions against a witness. Cuevas and company are just smarting from their defeat. Now they wanted Drilon to inhibit. Ano sila? Sineswerte?
***
To accuse Drilon of aiding the Prosecution is unfair and baseless. The Defense claim that Drilon was asking a question which the Prosecution failed to ask on the witness. Wrong! The transcripts would show that private prosecutor Mario Bautista asked Vidal if she brought with her the SALN of the Chief Justice. She said no.
She lied.
***
This information is published in a PDI article “Prosecution member in Corona trial accuses defense of ‘delaying tactics’” where Prosecutor Neri Colmenares revealed that indeed Vidal was asked with that question.
A study of the transcripts will show that the clerk (of court) previously answered no to Attorney (Mario) Bautista’s question if she brought the SALN with her. In fact she (Vidal) can be charged with perjury for lying at the impeachment proceedings,” Colmenares said.
