SUMMARY
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
Carlo Joaquin Narvasa, better known as Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense attorney “CJ,” is neither the first to hold that moniker — nor the title of “Atty.”
His father is Gregorio II, a founding partner of the Fortun, Narvasa, and Salazar law firm, and the son of late former chief justice Andres.
He may come from a bloodline of lawyers and is a descendant of a former chief magistrate, but he is known as one of the 16 defense lawyers of Vice President Sara Duterte for her impeachment trial.
“Good afternoon, your honors. Carlo Joaquin T. Narvasa for the Vice President,” Narvasa said when he entered his appearance before the impeachment court on July 6. He was the fifth to do so, just after his father and three other counsels.
Narvasa was dressed in white long sleeves, partnered with skinny black pants and black shoes.
He was at the sidelines during the trial’s opening on Monday. It was not his time yet to take the floor as it was the task of lead counsel Sheila Sison to set the tone for the defense through their opening statement.
A day later, on July 7, the defense brought out Narvasa as its first legal counsel for the prosecution’s direct examination of their National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) witness. Still in his lawyer outfit, Narvasa observed from the opposite podium.
His first objection was to strike out House prosecutor Lorenz Defensor’s statement, who discussed the fourth article of impeachment — grave threats — against Duterte by reiterating the importance of punishing those who commit crimes.
Presiding officer Chiz Escudero overruled his objection. Narvasa objected again and moved for the removal of NBI officer John Mark Calilung — the expert who authenticated the video where Duterte made the alleged threats. Again, he was overruled by the impeachment president.
These were just the beginning of Narvasa’s string of objections that day. By Rappler’s tally, he made at least 25 objections during prosecutor Armando Ligutan’s direct examination. (READ: Narvasa vs. Ligutan: Sara’s defense objections, Day 2 tally)
“What particular statements of the Vice President on that day did you investigate?” Ligutan asked Calilung.
“Objection, your Honor,” Narvasa said, claiming that Ligutan’s question was vague. The private prosecutor frustratedly responded with “Ooh,” but kept his composure.
To be fair, it’s not unusual for a defense lawyer to object during the opposing lawyer’s examination. As long as there are objectionable statements — argumentative, compound, or vague — a counsel may raise an objection.
“It’s normal to have those objections. And of course, we want to put on record our objections, specifically on the documents that they’re presenting,” defense spokesperson Michael Poa told reporters in a mix of Filipino and English.
Time for cross
When it was time for Narvasa to cross-examine Calilung on July 8, he chose to do it near the witness. He may do it, and it’s normal for counsels to approach a witness during cross-examination.
Poa said Narvasa was prepared that day, and added that the defense were expecting a good cross from the young lawyer.
But the tables turned that day. Although it was not as many as Narvasa’s, Ligutan also raised objections during the cross. But Escudero overturned most of them.
For over two hours, the young Narvasa attempted to impeach Calilung by casting doubt over his credentials, the extent of the NBI investigation, and the alleged inconsistencies in the bureau’s investigative files.
At one point, Narvasa asked Calilung if the NBI conducted an investigation, but immediately withdrew it. Some saw it as a way for Narvasa to intimidate the witness.
“Did you really investigate this case,” said the young lawyer while pointing to Calilung. “Withdrawn, your honor, withdrawn,” he immediately said.
Narvasa went out of the plenary session for a while after his examination, but did not grant media interviews.
For the defense, the young Narvasa’s cross-examination was 10/10. He was able to meet the defense’s target, according to Poa.
“Para sa akin 10 out of 10 din. Score internally, ah? Meaning, we’re very happy that we hit our targets. But as to ‘yung scoring on nanalo ba kami today or yesterday…I really don’t want to do that,” said the defense spokesperson.
(For me, we’re 10 out of 10 too. Score internally, to clarify. Meaning, we’re very happy that we hit our targets. But as to whether we won today or yesterday…I really don’t want to do that.)
From the line of CJ Narvasa
It’s not the first time that the Narvasas are defending a public official facing an impeachment court. Former chief magistrate Narvasa, after his retirement, joined the legal team that defended former president Joseph Estrada during his impeachment trial.
Although the trial was cut short, Estrada was eventually ousted through the second EDSA People Power Revolution.
The former chief justice served as the top magistrate from December 1991 to November 1998. Prior to that, he also served as the general counsel for the Agrava fact-finding commission that probed into the death of the late former senator Benigno Aquino Jr. He passed away in 2013.
Gregorio II or Ogie, meanwhile, followed in his father’s footsteps as a lawyer and passed the Bar in 1985. But before this, he played collegiate basketball, was a member of Ateneo’s basketball varsity team, and clinched the Most Valuable Player award during the National Collegiate Athletic Association 1975-1976 season.
He later served as Philippine Basketball League commissioner from 1992 to 1994, and then as Metroball Basketball Association commissioner from 2000 to 2001.
As for CJ, the youngest Narvasa, he is a self-proclaimed beach guy who loves enjoying his weekends away from work. He was born in 1989.
The young Narvasa is an Atenean through and through. He attended Ateneo de Manila Grade School, then Ateneo de Manila High School later on.
CJ was a popular kid in school. Hair gel, accessories, newest Nokia models — he had all of them.
“The words I could think of to describe him and his group of friends was that they were abrasive, the type of high schoolers you really wouldn’t want near you unless you had business with them,” one of Narvasa’s schoolmates recalled.
In college, he took Bachelor of Arts in English Literature. A few years later, he finished his juris doctor from Ateneo Law School and was admitted to the Bar in 2016. His Bar Roll No. is 65977.
CJ is currently a senior associate at the Fortun, Narvasa, and Salazar law firm. He specializes in the following fields:
- Arbitration
- Corporate and Commercial Practice, and Corporate Rehabilitation
- Litigation and Dispute Resolution
- Projects, Mining, and Natural Resources
As a lawyer, CJ was involved in the case of the Yanson siblings, the family involved in a family dispute for control of Vallacar Transit Inc.
At a very young age, CJ, through his parents, was also involved in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran as one of the petitioners.
The class suit was directed at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to enjoin them “from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances.”
Timber license, when granted, is a “privilege granted by the State to a person to utilize forest resources within a forestland with the right of possession and occupation thereof.”
“Taking on waves in litigation practice, CJ is truly meant for first-chair. To stand firm with tenacity amid hounding argumentation is his talent. This assures his client that he will be protected,” the lawyer said in his firm’s profile. – Rappler.com
How does this make you feel?