Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago raised a critical and very valid point when she deplored the issuance by the impeachment court of a subpoena requested by the prosecution on the basis of questionable documents purportedly coming from the Philippine Savings Bank branch in Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City.

Santiago’s misgivings are grounded, among other reasons, on the admission of the prosecution panel that it could not vouch for the authenticity of these documents. They allegedly contain evidence of bank deposits that indicate illegal or unexplained wealth acquired by Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona which are not reflected in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.

Congressman Reynaldo Umali, a member of the House prosecution panel, claimed that the documents were handed to him by a “small lady” in the Senate. But in her testimony given under oath, PS Bank branch manager Annabelle Tiongson said the papers were fake.

With this development, it would seem that the prosecution in the Corona impeachment case has indeed been fishing for evidence in their quest to strip the respondent of his crown as Chief Magistrate, and banish him altogether from public office.

Worth repeating here is the stern warning given by Senate President and Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile concerning the prosecution panel’s inability to gather what should be incontrovertible evidence against the CJ.

“Ït is your responsibility. In fact, I tell you – and I’m sorry to say this frankly – your procedure, it seems to suggest to me as presiding officer, that you have no evidence,” Enrile told a private prosecutor.

“You are gathering evidence by requesting a subpoena from this honorable court. And I warn you that this is going to be a fatal error on your part,” added Enrile.

Following the testimony of PS Bank’s Tiongson that the papers did not come from her bank, Enrile told lead prosecutor, Congressman Niel Tupas, to explain within 24 hours how they acquired what appears to be bogus documents.

From the very start of the impeachment trial, the prosecution has been repeatedly admonished about the sloppy manner it has been adopting in executing its strategy.

How the introduction of spurious documents will affect the course of the trial and how it would influence the members of the impeachment court remain to be seen. But it does reinforce a growing public apprehension concerning what appears to be the cavalier attitude of the prosecution panel in pursuing their case.

So now, how will this help President Aquino in his avowed mission of cleaning up the bureaucracy?

And how does the House majority propose to protect the people from the supposed misdeeds of a public official whom it accuses of having betrayed the public trust? Of being corrupt, dishonest, and unfit to remain in his position as the highest magistrate of the land?