SENATE President Juan Ponce Enrile is “willing to relinquish” his chair as presiding officer of the Impeachment Court if his fellow senator-judges as well as the prosecution and defense panels do not agree with the way he is handling the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“Ako ay walang kinikilala, kinikilingan sa kasong  ito. Wala akong pagsisilbihan kundi ang bayan o bansa. Ako’y ‘di magiging kasangkapan ninuman, ‘di gagawa ng pasya na ‘di makatarungan. Hindi ko papayagan ang hukuman na magkaroon tayo nang ‘di makatwiran na sistema. Kung sakali ‘di matanggap ang aking pamamalakad sa paglilitis open ako na ako’y ibigay ang upuan sa gusto na pumalit sa akin,” Enrile said addressing the Impeachment Court.

The Senate head made the remark when Rep.Niel Tupas Jr., the House prosecution lead counsel, complained about Enrile’s apparent strict application of the Rules of Evidence which the Iloilo congressman said prohibits the prosecution panel from proving Corona’s alleged unexplained wealth which was embodied in Article II of the impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice.

“Our feeling is that the Senate is acting like an ordinary court but to us the Senate is no ordinary court being the repository of the public’s trust.  We just feel that the strict application of the technical rules has unduly restricted the presentation of evidence by the prosecution,” Tupas told the Impeachment Court. He wanted the senator-judges to allow the prosecution some leeway in asking questions from their witnesses “so that truth can come out.”

This prompted Enrile to press Tupas to clarify his position.  “Are you suggesting that we should allow misleading questions? Are you suggesting we should allow hearsay evidence? Are you suggesting we should allow argumentative questions? Are you suggesting we allow hypothetical questions? Are you suggesting we just allow leading questions teaching the witness what to say?

Tupas answered in the negative to all the questions from Enrile. He said the prosecution just wanted some “flexibility” in presenting their evidence against Corona as well as in questioning their witnesses.  “It’s just a matter of flexibility to elicit the truth without sacrificing the due process accorded the defense,” Tupas said.

”The chair is open to suggestion. I must be candid that I assume that given the time from the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to this Court up to the time that we notified you to appear in this court on a day certain, on a time certain that there was enough time to marshal and assemble your evidence and that ‘s the basis of the preparation for the Articles of Impeachment,” Enrile told the prosecution panel.

“I conduct the proceedings to satisfy the right of the respondent for a speedy trial. So if you want me to relax the rules, then tell me and up to what extent,” Enrile said. To which Tupas replied: “We are for speedy trial. We respect the right of the accused to due process. What we are saying is that little flexibility to ask questions.”

Enrile added: “I’m willing to bend backward to show you this Court is not for or against anybody. I must conduct these proceedings in an orderly manner. The rules available for us is an ancient rule, tested by time , (conducted) in many trials around the world and that is the rule of evidence. The tradition of our profession is that we live by this rule if you live in the courtroom.”

Sen.Manuel Villar Jr.   expressed support for Enrile’s conduct of the impeachment procedure. “Hindi natin mapapaligaya lahat ng tao. Iyung prosecution gustong bilisan (ang paglilities). Ang defense (panel) aalagaan ang karapatan ni Chief justice na nililitis ngayon. Maganda ang handling natin. Kami ay may tiwala na inyo. Huwag tayo maghanap ng perpektong sistema. Mahirap itong ginagawa natin ngayon. Isang linggo pa lang ang nakakalipas. Masyadong mabilis magkaroon ng opinion one way or another.”

Sen.Francis Pangilinan said: “Let the defense and the prosecution raise questions and request the ruling from the chair if there is too strict interpretation of the issue before us. It is a case to case basis.”