The charges involve accusations of impropriety against Corona’s wife, misuse of judicial funds, and discussing with litigants cases pending with the Supreme Court (SC).

Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao said the prosecution would no longer present evidence on paragraphs 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of Article 3, which accuse Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust.

Paragraphs 3.4 to 3.4.8 accuse Corona of “excessive entanglement” with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after his wife Cristina accepted an appointment by Arroyo to the board of the John Hay Management Corp. on March 23, 2007. The JHMC is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Republic Act 7227.

Paragraphs 3.4.9 to 3.4.10 allege that Corona “dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses.”

Paragraphs 3.5 to 3.6.5 accuse him of discussing with litigants cases pending with the SC.

“In all these allegations of wrongful acts starting from paragraph 3.4 to 3.6.5, the prosecution respectfully manifest that we are no longer presenting evidence to these charges,” Aggabao told the court during Day 22 of the trial.

“The last witness we have is for paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the complaint or this so-called FASAP case,” he said.

“You want to maintain this allegation, to be the subject of proof?” Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding judge in the impeachment trial, asked Aggabao.

“Yes, your honor, we have proven that already,” Aggabao replied.

On Tuesday, Enrile stopped the presentation of Philippine Airlines (PAL) vice president for sales Enrique Javier as witness on the alleged travel perks given to Corona.

Enrile said Javier’s testimony would be beyond the scope of the impeachment complaint.

Article 3 accuses Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust for his role in the Supreme Court’s flip-flopping on cases, including the one between PAL and an organization of flight attendants and stewardesses.

Corona allegedly failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety when he discussed the Vizconde massacre case with Lauro Vizconde, one of the parties to the case.

Corona allegedly disclosed to Vizconde the strong lobbying of a fellow justice to acquit Hubert Webb, one of the accused in the massacre.

‘Talk as lawyers, not barbers’

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago supported Enrile’s ruling that the impeachment court cannot admit testimony or any evidence of an officer against any person concerning an allegation that is not included in the Articles of Impeachment.

“When I voted against opening the second envelop (during former President Joseph Estrada’s impeachment), unless the prosecution amended their information, my basis was due process of law, that is what is happening now,” Santiago stressed.

Enrile told prosecutors that the testimony of Javier had no bearing on allegations in the impeachment complaint.

The prosecution tried to ask for more leniency from Enrile and appealed to him not to embarrass them before the court.

“What parliamentary courtesy are they talking about. Define! They’re here as lawyers, they’re not here as non-lawyers. All of them are lawyers, they know the rules of the trade, of the profession. They’re not here as barberos or barbers,” Enrile remarked.

“They (House prosecutors) think they have their constituencies... we (senators) also have our constituencies. They can chastise me during election time, go ahead. I’m willing to take them on. I’m not even claiming that they are anything but lawyers. That’s why I want them to prove that they are lawyers,” he said.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. and party-list Rep. Sherwin Tugna received a mouthful from Enrile when they failed to justify why they were presenting the PAL official as witness.

Tupas and Tugna tried to explain the relevance of Javier’s testimony to Article 3.

“I respect them as lawyers but they must show me as presiding officer that they know what they are doing, they must not tax my patience because I have no time,” Enrile said.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto and Senators Edgardo Angara and Panfilo Lacson also shared Enrile’s concerns.

“I think they should define what parliamentary courtesy is. Would you accept anything that is outside of the rules? Is that parliamentary courtesy?” Sotto asked.

Sotto reminded his counterparts that inter-parliamentary courtesy applies only when they act as Senate and the House of Representatives.

But as an impeachment court, Sotto said the senators are acting as judges and are no longer part of Congress in the legislative sense.

“We (senators) are wearing a different hat and we are now not part of what is called the entire parliament,” Sotto added.

According to Sotto, the court has been flexible in recent weeks in the implementation of the rules of impeachment.

“We’ve bent backwards so many times, we’ve been very flexible which is probably the reason why they (prosecution) are abusing us. We get the feeling that the Senate President is also getting abused,” Sotto explained.

Angara, for his part, noted the public is expecting the highest standards of performance from the House prosecutors.

“This is impeachment court under the Constitution. We must do our respective roles properly and correctly. Senate President Enrile is correct. The people are expecting the highest standards of performance,” Angara said.

Lacson said House prosecutors should know what they are engaged in, which includes how they should prove their allegations in the Corona impeachment complaint.

“They came here as prosecutors. I suppose some of them volunteered, some of them were asked if they wanted to join. So they chose to be prosecutors, they should not invoke parliamentary courtesy because we have two personalities here – as congressmen and prosecutors,” Lacson said.

“If the presiding officer and some of the senator-judges saw that their presentation of evidence was proper, then they should not be admonished,” he added.

– Christina Mendez

MANILA, Philippines - The owner of Wynn Macau casino accused Japanese gambling tycoon Kazuo Okada on Tuesday of paying off Filipino casino regulators in his bid to build a rival gaming resort in Manila.

Steve Wynn, 70, accused Okada, 69, of making improper payments and gifts totaling about $110,000 to Filipino casino regulators, as the latter’s Universal Entertainment Corp. broke ground at the 12-hectare Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) Entertainment City in Manila Bay on Jan. 26.

Entertainment City is dubbed as Manila’s equivalent of the Las Vegas strip.

Okada said it was aiming to attract the same VIP Chinese gamblers Wynn has targeted at his five-year-old Macau casino. 

He promised more than 2,000 guest rooms in three hotels, with the planned opening in the first half of 2014. 

Las Vegas-based Wynn Resorts said in a lawsuit that Okada, Japan’s pachinko king and a director of Wynn, went behind the company’s back to build a stake in Asian gaming for his own Universal Entertainment group. 

Wynn also accused Okada of spending more than $110,000 to curry favor with Philippine officials in apparent violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, jeopardizing Wynn’s own reputation in the process. 

The suit, filed Tuesday in Las Vegas district court, said that Okada had sought a gaming license in the Philippines and made the payments despite Wynn’s telling him not to do so. 

“Mr. Okada, his associates and companies appear to have engaged in a longstanding practice of making payments and gifts to his two chief gaming regulators at Pagcor,” the lawsuit said. 

It named former Pagcor chairman Efraim Genuino and current chairman Cristino Naguiat, and their respective families, as the main recipients of the payoffs and gifts.

Okada paid for Genuino’s trip to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Wynn said. 

“Okada’s conduct poses a direct assault upon, and a threat to, Wynn Resorts’ reputation for probity, which is central to maintaining its stature in the gaming industry as well as its current and future licensing,” it added. 

The suit was a strong blast against a potentially powerful competitor to Wynn in the high-stakes battle for the lucrative Asian gambling market. 

Okada owns a 19.7 percent stake in Wynn Resorts.

The suit also accused Okada of paying for trips of South Korean officials to Wynn properties to boost his effort to build a gambling resort at the Incheon Free Economic Zone. 

The suit came after the Wynn board voted Sunday to expel Okada and to redeem his 24 million shares in Wynn, held through Aruze USA Inc., a Universal subsidiary. 

The board said it would redeem the shares at a 30 percent discount to the market price, issuing a 10-year, $1.9-billion promissory note for them. 

Wynn filed the lawsuit after conducting a lengthy internal investigation led by former US Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Robert Freeh, hired to conduct the probe. 

Wynn said the probe found that Okada had used Wynn’s name to advance his own interests in the Philippines. 

It also said the Okada insisted that it was “customary” to give gifts to officials in Asia via intermediaries. 

Wynn cited 36 separate instances “where Okada or his associates/affiliates made payments exceeding $110,000 that directly benefited senior Pagcor officials.”

The investigation report attached to the suit cited mostly free stays and dinners at Wynn resorts in Las Vegas and Macau for the officials, their families, and the husband of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  

Okada will take legal action

In a Feb. 15 interview with Freeh’s investigation, however, Okada denied knowledge of much of the money spent on the officials, and said that Naguiat’s 2010 stay in the Wynn Macao resort was to allow him “to better understand the casino business.”

In a statement Sunday, Universal branded the board’s action “outrageous,” saying the investigation had been “rushed.” 

“We have not even been provided with the opportunity to review the Freeh report,” it said. 

“Universal Entertainment will take all legal actions necessary to protect its investment and prevent a forced redemption of its shares.” 

Universal, through Aruze USA, was one of four winners of provisional gaming licenses awarded by Arroyo’s government in 2008.  

Palace standing by Naguiat

Malacañang yesterday defended Naguiat on accusations he received perks and privileges from Okada, insisting he never received cash gifts.

“Insofar as chairman Naguiat is concerned, there was no cash gift granted,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said in a briefing, noting that only hotel accommodations had been granted to the Pagcor chief.

He reiterated that offers like what Okada made are commonplace in the gaming industry, describing them as “industry practice.”

He said such practices are allowed and pose no problem with President Aquino since it would cut the cost of the government, especially because attending international conventions in New York, Japan or London would definitely be expensive.

“We (who are) outside of the gaming industry would view this as some sort of unique but again, this is something that’s common in the gaming industry,” Lacierda stressed.

He also confirmed that there were negotiations for a meeting between Aquino and Wynn.

“Most likely, if business people would come over, it would be to express to the President their investment commitments. That’s normally when business people would come, pay a courtesy call and to inform the President this is what we intend to do,” he said, adding that the meeting never pushed through.  

Genuino: What perks? Meanwhile, Genuino’s lawyer Ramon Esguerra denied that his client received perks and privileges from Okada in 2008 until the latter part of the Arroyo administration.

“Look at the dates. He has not gone out of the country since 2008. The travel documents of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) will bear him out. There is nothing wrong. I don’t know if that has reference even to the buying of the Chanel bag or whatever,” Esguerra said, referring to an expensive bag supposedly given as a gift.

He said the alleged gifts were nothing, and that some perks could be part of the reciprocal arrangements, echoing the statement of Malacañang on the issue.

- Christina Mendez