YPS

As a layman, Im entitled to certain things. One my favorite things that Im entitled to is the ability assume that the law and the rules that govern the implementation of the law must be understood by laymen and not just by lawyers. Senator Biazon expressed this sentiment most adequately when he branded Senate legal discourse as “gobbledygook” when lawyers tried to steal the show during the ERAP impeachment trial.

It is with this same simple frame of mind that I view Senator Enrile’ ruling that Justice Corona and his family could not be called to the stand by the prosecution panel. Mind you it was not the act of taking the stand that was Senator Enrile’s concern, rather Enrile divined that upon taking the stand, Corona might be compelled to answer questions that would violate his right against self-incrimination.

Now, for an impartial judge, that strikes me as a curious position to take.

As the accused, Corona, is certainly allowed to take the stand. In fact, as the accused, Corona has the right to answer all accusations DIRECTLY. By the same token, the accusers, i.e. the prosecution, has the right to call on the accused and question him on matters that are relevant to the case (but not incriminatory) and within that context, the defense, should be quick to protect his client, Corona, by objecting should such question violate the right against self-incrimination. In my layman’s understanding, Judges are arbiters and not participants to the legal battle. From my understanding, the Judges role, in this case Enrile, is to DETERMINE whether or not the question DOES IN FACT violate Coronas rights and at that point of determination either prevent or compel the accused to/from answering the question

In effect, what Enrile has done is BAR COMPLETELY the right of the accused to take the stand, even in defense of himself. Because Enrile HAS ANTICIPATED questions that MAY ( not will) violate the accused rights, this, on its own, seems to violate the accused rights to greater degree.

Whats disturbing as well is that the prosecutors declined to address this issue and that the defense accepted the ruling with seeming glee. Perhaps it is in fear or deference to Enrile, who by virtue of age and experience, should be the king of gobbledygook. But It seems that despite all the gobbledygook present in that court room, there’s no room for a logical, layman-sense argument to be made.