MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona resumes Tuesday, with the prosecution panel set to present more witnesses, including Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares who is expected to present the chief magistrate’s income tax returns (ITRs) before the impeachment court.

But defense lawyers said they will oppose the presentation of Henares as witness for the prosecution.

Former Justice Undersecretary Ramon Esguerra, one of Corona’s spokesmen, said the presentation of Henares, who is expected to testify on the Chief Justice’s ITRs, would be another “fishing expedition” for the prosecution panel.

Esguerra pointed out that the Chief Justice has other sources of income such as allowances that enabled him to purchase several pieces of real estate properties.

“And these allowances are not generally reflected in the income tax returns, thus the presentation of the Chief Justice’s ITRs would again be an attempt to mislead and condition the minds of the public,” he said.

“And the Chief Justice’s acquisition of real estate properties has nothing to do with the second Article on Impeachment that deals solely on his alleged failure to file his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs),” Esguerra stressed.

“If he (Corona) has nothing to hide then he should allow the prosecution to present his tax records without delay and objection,” prosecution spokesman Rep. Romero “Miro” said.

Quimbo added that Henares’ testimony is important to establish the link of Corona’s SALN to his properties and whether he has the legal means to acquire these assets and properties.

“They (defense panel) completely know that its (ITR) revelation will destroy all their defenses and unmask what many have been saying: that the Chief Justice allegedly amassed wealth that cannot be supported by his legitimate income. It is a practical death blow to all of Chief Justice’s defenses,” Quimbo said.

Another prosecution spokesman, Deputy Speaker Erin Tañada, said the disclosure of the ITR and other tax records of Corona will be very damaging and is making Corona “very nervous.”

“The Chief Justice could be very nervous about what will happen once Commissioner Henares reveals his tax records and that of his immediate family members,” Tañada said.

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, the lead prosecutor for Article II concerning Corona’s alleged failure to disclose his SALN, said the chief magistrate and his camp should not fear the presentation of his ITRs if he has nothing to hide.

“They were saying that the Chief Justice has nothing to hide, why they are now opposing the presentation of ITR? We should let the truth prevails and their opposition is baseless,” he added.

But defense lawyers said the announced disclosure of the income tax returns of Corona to prove his alleged ill-gotten wealth “is a violation of the Chief Justice’s right to due process, particularly the right to be informed of the charges against him.”

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, one of Corona’s spokesmen, said the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Chief Justice is not one of the Articles of Impeachment filed before the Senate.

The defense panel also said several other constitutional rights of Corona have been violated during the impeachment proceedings before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court.

Lawyer Karen Jimeno, one of Corona’s spokespersons and member of the defense panel, said they have already adopted several measures to address the issue but refused to disclose them.

She said the defense team has adopted several measures to straighten out the violations of the Chief Justice’s constitutional rights when the impeachment proceedings resume Tuesday.

Aside from the right to due process – like the right to be informed of the charges against him – the defense panel said the Chief Justice’s right on the rules of pleadings was also violated by the prosecution team from the House of Representatives.

Jimeno said “the allegations in the complaint on mere suspicions violate the rules on pleadings which require allegations to be based on personal knowledge.”

“The allegations also violate Chief Justice’s right to due process, specifically his right to be informed of the specific charges against him,” she stressed.

Citing an example, Jimeno said the impeachment complaint filed against the Chief Justice did not specify the charges on the alleged ill-gotten wealth.

“If the House prosecutors really had strong evidence against the Chief Justice, they should have been able to make clear allegations with specific details,” she said.

“The prosecutors are engaged in a fishing expedition like the presentation of the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs),” she added.

Jimeno pointed out that while the SALNs were cited in the complaint against the Chief Justice it was only during the impeachment proceedings last week that the documents were made available to the prosecutors.

“This is the reason the prosecutors used the word ‘reported’ in their so-called verified complaint while the rules require that the charges should be based on personal knowledge,” she lamented.

Jimeno also said that the Chief Justice’s alleged ownership of 45 pieces of real estate properties was not included in the impeachment complaint but is now subject of the trial before the Senate.

She stressed that no less than Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile had made it clear that the rules of court apply suppletorily in the impeachment proceedings.

“Since the rules of court apply suppletorily, the right to due process must be safeguarded during the impeachment proceedings,” she said.

Earlier, lawyer Romulo Macalintal had said that the Senate should not allow the House prosecutors to present evidence on allegations that are not specified in the complaint.

“For the impeachment court to allow the prosecution to present evidence to prove something not alleged in the complaint or based on mere suspicion will surely violate the right to due process of Chief Justice Corona since he was not given notice or opportunity to be heard on these issues as the same were not alleged in the complaint,” Macalintal said.

He cited several Supreme Court decisions that “reminded the parties that complaints or charges based on mere suspicion or speculations cannot be given credence at all.”

But Tañada said the Senate has to be more liberal in applying the rules in the impeachment trial, particularly in admitting evidence pertaining to Corona’s ill-gotten wealth.

“The prosecution must not be prevented from presenting as much evidence as possible before the impeachment court, not only to convince the senator-judges of the truthfulness of the allegations against Mr. Corona but more importantly to satisfy the public’s thirst for truth and justice,” Tañada said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Franklin Drilon called the moves of Corona’s lawyers to call for his inhibition in the impeachment trial “baseless.”

Drilon, in a televised interview, said that as far as he is concerned his way of questioning the SC’s Clerk of Court who was called in by the prosecution panel as their witness was provided for in the rules of the impeachment court. (With reports from Ben R. Rosario and Hannah L. Torregoza)