CJ to block evidence from Ombudsman

Carmela Fonbuena

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Defense lawyer Judd Roy III insists the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice and that she needs to be put in her place

Defense lawyer Judd Roy III says the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Chief Justice Renato Corona said on Monday, May 7, that it would block any attempt to present an Ombudsman investigation as evidence against him in the impeachment court.

“Of course, we are going to stop it. Why should we allow it to come in? Remember there is a TRO (temporary restraining order) on all kinds of dollar accounts and information regarding foreign currency deposits,” defense counsel Judd Roy III said in an interview hours before the resumption of the Corona trial.

“We want to put the Office of the Ombudsman in its proper place. Why should we allow the Chief Justice to submit to the Ombudsman? Why? There is no jurisdiction there. It is not a question of avoiding it. That is simply silly and ill-conceived. The purpose for blocking the Ombudsman is to put the Ombudsman in her proper place. She has no jurisdiction here. Why shoud we let [her] get away with anything,” he added.

Game changer?

In an April 20, 2012 letter, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered Corona to explain assets that are purportedly disproportional to his income. The Philippine Daily Inquirer obtained a copy of the order, which cited among other alleged agreggate dollar deposits of at least US$10-million.

Analysts have said that this could be the game-changer in the Corona trial.

Carpio-Morales, a former Supreme Court Associate Justice, maintained that she has jurisdiction over Corona. She explained in the order that her office can pursue an investigation for the purposes of filing an impeachment complaint.

Defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra said the Ombudsman investigation is irrelevant to the impeachment court.

“Number one, if it is a question of ill-gotten, there is a standing ruling of the Senate on article 2.4. They cannot produce evidence (on ill-gotten wealth). Number 2, this is new. They have to amend the complaint [if they want to present it as evidence]. I don’t think they will go to that extent of amending the complaint,” he said.

The Chief Justice denied that he has US$10-M.

The prosecution panel said it will wait for the final recommendation of the Ombudsman before they decide on what action to take.  

-Rappler.com 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!