Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles: My interview with Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles: Isn’t the IBP being pro-Corona?

My friend, Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles was interviewed by Karen Davila on ANC. But La Reyna should not be left behind! And so off we went to interview my favorite lawyer.

Here is how it went.



“So, Atty. Trixie, I saw your interview on ANC (Videos at the end of this article) and sa tutoo lang noh? Karen forgot to ask you a few questions that I would like to know, that is, aside from where did you get those fantastic boots! Hahaha!”

“So, Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles, I know you head the IBP Impeachment Watch. And I know you were also appointed Public Information Officer — which is a national position in the IBP. But we heard a lot of things about what side it is taking, could you tell us, is the IBP taking sides? How did this Impeachment Watch get started?”

To impress her, La Reyna said:

When the House of Representatives, voted to impeach Chief Justice Renato Corona, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, after consulting with its officers and deans of law schools, issued a statement that expressed concern about the “breakneck speed” in which the proceedings were conducted in Congress. They cited three (3) reasons:

1.) There was no actual reading and appreciation of the contents of the impeachment documents.

2.) Because of number 1, they failed to make a determination of its sufficiency in form and substance and the existence of probable cause.

3.) Because of the blitzkrieg nature of the impeachment complaint, it does not bear the certificate of acknowledgement as proof of his faithful compliance with the verification process.

These procedural flaws of the articles of impeachment pointed out by the IBP is attributable to the surprising speed in which the House proceedings were conducted. It was also pointed out that many of the signatories do not appear to have read the complaint.

Subsequent events have revealed this to be true. Not only has prosecutor-Congressman Rodolfo Farinas admitted to the “bad” draftsmanship, but the subsequent withdrawal of five of the articles of impeachment is implicit admission that the prosecution does not have evidence to substantiate the allegations therein.

Furthermore, the pronouncements of Senate Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile that the prosecution appears to be using the coercive processes of the Impeachment Court to fish for evidence, gives truth to the observation of the IBP that not only was the complaint rushed, it is unsubstantiated — meaning there was not evidence presented in the House that would support a finding of probable cause. In short, minadali masyado wala palang ebidensya, despite the assertions of 188 congressmen that they knew the allegations therein are true.

Am I correct in my understanding?

And syempre waz na say si Atty. Trixie, who could only nod her head in agreement.

So, having warmed up, I said: “We know that the prosecution dropped Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8.”


ARTICLE I

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND UNTIL HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE TO THE PRESENT.

ARTICLE IV

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN HE BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUO ANTE” ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.

ARTICLE V

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE.

ARTICLE VI

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY ARROGATING UNTO HIMSELF, AND TO A COMMITTEE HE CREATED, THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO IMPROPERLY INVESTIGATE A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCULPATING HIM. SUCH AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION IS PROPERLY REPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VIA IMPEACHMENT.

ARTICLE VIII
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

(Source: Impeachment Complaint Against Chief Justice Renato Corona)

Tama ba?!

And of course, again, Atty. Trixie could only nod.

At nung nakahalata na ang lola niyo na siya lang ang nagsasalita, I asked:

“These articles talks about judicial decisions. Could you explain why the IBP would find it problematic?”

Atty. Trixie explained,




“The IBP took the stand that by bringing up cases still pending before the court, such as the FASAP case or cases already decided by the SC, the legislature is encroaching on the constitutionally mandated division of powers between the three branches of government.

“The issue is that the by making particular cases grounds for impeachment, it is as though, the impeachment court was being set up to review cases that had gone through the judicial processes and making the Senate– a legislative body — the arbiter of these cases.

“The bar association also pointed out to the fact that one person was being called to answer for a collegial decision of the court, an act which violates the equal protection of the laws.

“The Constitution says that the power to interpret the law lies with the Supreme Court.

“The power to make laws lies with the Legislature. Yet in using impeachment to in effect review cases, the Senate would inadvertently exercise what is essential the sole prerogative of the SC to interpret the law and to determine whether or not such laws conform with constitutional requisites.”



Naku! Hindi papatalo ang La Reyna. Kaya in full Karen Davila/Pia Hontiveros mode, naka-pamewang na ako, I flipped my hair, with dramatic pause and wide eyes, I asked,

But, in saying that, isn’t the IBP being pro-Corona?!

“And also, isn’t the IBP actually TAKING SIDES???”

Atty. Trixie laughed and said,


“Lets tackle that issue of taking sides first.

“When Erap was put on trial, the IBP joined in the proceedings and assisted in the prosecution. When the House began proceedings against Mercy Gutierrez, the IBP also assisted in the prosecution. When it was Hilario Davide, then Chief Justice being impeached in the House, the IBP sided with and defended him.

“So in its history, the IBP has indeed taken sides. And in all instances where the impeachment concerns a member of the judiciary, (there have been others aside from Davide) the IBP takes the traditional stand of defending the judiciary and its members to protect the separation of powers. “

“So the IBP does NOT need to be neutral. It HAS taken sides before. “

“In the same statement, however the IBP has said that we cannot stay in the sidelines while the constitutionally protected separation of powers is under attack and it called on the public to pay the price of vigilance. In so doing, the Impeachment Watch was created to monitor the proceedings for adherence to law and rules, to explain to the public just exactly what is going on and to interpret the legalese.”

“So, if the question is: is the IBP pro-Corona, the answer is No. But we are pro-due process. We asked that the Constitution be respected and the rules obeyed. And we are here to help explain what those rules are, what the Constitution says, what jurisprudence there is.”

“Despite being pro-judiciary, the IBP has taken the un-precedented stand of neutrality in these impeachment proceedings, opting instead to insist that all parties obey the rule of law. And yes, that means even the tough ones to follow such as the laws on exclusionary evidence, hearsay, Bank Secrecy, etc.”



I saw the boots, listened to her talk.

I can’t get my mind off the boots, but she kills when she talks! Grrr!

Now you know why we’re friends.

P.S. Even ang heels nya!

(Source : reynaelena.com)