MANILA, Philippines – The name of President Benigno Aquino III has several times been dragged into the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, but with an ally taking to the witness stand, he may yet be in for the roasting.

The testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales is also mostly awaited, other than that of Corona himself. Analysts also see an “open season” of questioning when she takes the witness stand as a “hostile witness.”

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) spokesperson and Northern Luzon chapter governor Dennis Habawel told ABS-CBNnews.com that it would be a fair question if the defense would pose one or two to Carpio Morales.

Aquino, since day one, has mouthed his reverence for Carpio Morales. He broke traditions when he chose her for the oath-taking. He would later choose Carpio Morales from three other aspirants for the Ombudsman post, a choice that everyone saw coming.

“Based on the answers of the Chief Justice (to the verified complaint), he mentioned the reasons why he was impeached, so that’s material. It’s a fair question and it’s up to Ombudsman if she will say yes or no,” Habawel said.

In his answer filed back in December, Corona said the filing of the impeachment complaint was the handiwork of the Liberal Party, led by Aquino himself. He said the complaint was borne out of the “the “bias against [Corona] and the predisposition to destroy him by associating him with the unpopular former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and by misinterpreting his concurrence to certain Supreme Court decisions as protecting former President Arroyo.”

Corona pounced on this in subsequent incidents, even connecting his trial to Aquino’s dismay over the Supreme Court’s decision to distribute Hacienda Luisita owned by the President's relatives.

Aquino and his allies were also not wanting on this matter. The trial has taken a personality outside the Senate court until Aquino’s communication group decided to impose a self-gag rule.

The trial took a different turn last week when the Senate dismissed one after the other the witnesses provided by the defense

.

Finally, on Tuesday, the defense shocked everyone by having the Ombudsman and four others subpoenaed on an issue they earlier said they would rather ignore.

Defense lawyer Judd Roy said Corona would also appear before the court to rebut the allegations that he has $10 million, as earlier indicated by the Ombudsman in an order. Roy said that if the issue on $10 million is raised before the court, Corona will be “compelled to confront directly the accusations.”

“The way I understand it, there were allegations made outside of court, such as the $10 million…which has entered into the consciousness even of the senator-judges. So papaano mo nga naman masasagot if the prosecution brought the allegations outside the court,” Habawel said.

He said it is just a “fair strategy” that the defense brought the issue of the $10 million inside the court’s jurisdiction.

For former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, the character of a hostile witness “may cause problems for the prosecution kung alam ng defense i-exploit ang kanyang pag-witness.”

Section 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court dictates that the examining party can pose leading and misleading questions from a hostile witness. Leading questions, of course, suggests to a witness that a statement is true.

Habawel explained that getting a hostile witness is a right afforded to the defendant, in a way that his or her credibility is destroyed “so that whatever she says can’t be used by the prosecution.”

In the impeachment trial of Corona, Carpio Morales will have to prove that her allegations of $10 million are true.

“If the Ombudsman fails to support her allegations, these become incredible,” he added.

University of Sto. Tomas Faculty of Civil Law Dean Nilo Divina also said the summoning of Carpio Morales is also meant to “destroy the credibility of the prosecution.”

He said the game plan of the defense could be one of “public sympathy.”

Divina also said the Ombudsman can always deny any leading statements made by the defense, but she has to substantiate her answer in some way.

Like all the others, he said the Ombudsman also has the right against self-incrimination.

Asked if she can keep secret some of the goings-on at the Office of the Ombudsman vis-à-vis the probe against Corona, Pimentel, for his part, said: “I doubt it. She can be compelled to reveal everything unless covered by privilege communication.”

Habawel agreed, noting that the subpoena can be a telling piece of communication. The subpoena orders them to bring the original and certified true copies of the complaints against Corona, and of the documents where they based the allegation that Corona keeps $10 million in different bank accounts.

He also said Carpio Morales can have her own counsels to back her up. He added senator-judges can also jump in when the going gets tough.

“But she should have assured herself before she issued the order,” Habawel noted.

Some of the petitioners in the complaint filed before the Ombudsman earlier admitted they did not allege the $10 million. The petitioners, including Aquino ally and former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, were also called as hostile witnesses.

Asked for the basis of her order, Carpio Morales had said: “We just walked through all the reports gathered from the media and we thought the impeachment is already going on, it was the best time to initiate investigation when we received the complaints.”

She said her office is mandated under the law to evaluate the complaints “and if there are enough leads and there’s a reasonable ground – there is the word reasonable and I again emphasize it – to believe that investigation is warranted, then the Ombudsman is mandated to request or direct the impeachable official to answer within 72 hours. It’s in the law. It’s not my choice.”