wideawake, here is a document by Avery Dulles on the rights of accused priests: http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/Rights_of_Accused_Priests.doc
Some of the things the document mentions as abuses may have since been obviated, because this document is a copy of an article published in 2004, but the part of it dealing with the canon law rights of accused priests has not changed.
If someone is actually formally accused by the ordinary of a grave crime, then the accused definitely has a right to a canonical proceeding. But mere suspension and investigation are not an accusation. Corapi has not been formally accused of anything, to our knowledge.
His ordinary is entitled to suspend him while an investigation proceeds.
Spunkets talks of such a suspension as being the moral equivalent of "bearing false witness", which is extremely tendentious. An ordinary exercising prudence in a very serious investigation - a situation where he has to weigh the good of all the faithful entrusted to his care and not just the lucrative touring schedule of one priest - is hardly bearing "false witness" when he pursues a policy of "better safe than sorry."
RitaOK makes a very important point: what is the alternative policy to a zero tolarance policy? Should the standard be that the more popular a priest is, the more leeway should be accorded to him during an investigation? As they say, "the streets are watching" - the appearance of partiality toward individuals is, first of all, procedurally unsustainable and further, it reeks of "old boys' club" double standards and business-as-usual attitudes.