Senator-judges to focus on Corona’s `unexplained’ wealth
INQUIRER file photo
MANILA, Philippines–Senators will zero in on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s alleged ‘unexplained’ wealth when he testifies for the first time in his impeachment trial on Tuesday.
Day 40 of the impeachment trial will start at around 2:00 p.m. with the much awaited testimony of Corona himself.
“He must address what appears to be his unexplained wealth,” Senator Franklin Drilon, a known administration ally, said during a break in the morning session in the Senate.
“Dapat ipaliwanag niya kung bakit, unang-una, maraming mga accounts na hindi ni-report sa SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth). Pangalawa, dapat ipaliwanag niya sa taumbayan kung bakit mukhang mas malaki ang kanyang yaman kaysa sa kanyang kinita (first, he must explain why he did not include his bank accounts in his SALN. Second, he should explain why his wealth seemed more than what he should have earned from his salary),” Drilon said.
Senator Panfilo Lacson, in a separate interview, cited at least two “compelling” issues that he said the Chief Justice should address when he faces the Senate acting as an impeachment court.
“Para sa akin, dalawa ang compelling [issues] na dapat i-address niya – Ang Basa-Guidote issue at mga (bank) accounts,” Lacson said, referring to the Basa-Guidote Enterprise Inc owned by the family of Corona’s wife, Cristina.
Lacson said Corona’s best defense is to explain and present evidence that would contradict the alleged multi-million bank deposits that he allegedly owned based on the testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
Morales claimed that Corona had at least 12 million ‘fresh” deposits or accounts that ‘never moved’ in at least five banks.
“Kung ma-convince niya kami, sasabihin ng bank officials hindi totoo ang nilabas ng AMLC dahil ito ang aming records, napakagandang depensa noon,” he said.
AMLC stands for Anti-Money Laundering Council, which provided the Ombudsman a report of Corona’s alleged bank accounts.
Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimenel III said Corona should explain why there were properties or bank accounts that he allegedly failed to declare in his SALN.
“Why there were some properties omitted or forgotten from the SALN. He just has to explain it. Because bank accounts whether peso or dollar is a property,” Pimentel said.
Corona’s alleged failure to publicly disclose his SALN falls under Article 2 of the impeachment case filed against him.
The two other charges lodged against the Chief Justice were his alleged lack of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence that resulted to “flip-flopping” decisions by the Supreme Court and his alleged partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of former President and now Pampanga Representative Macapagal-Arroyo.
But Drilon acknowledged that they could not compel Corona if he invokes the Supreme Court decision and the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which prohibit any discussion pertaining to his alleged dollar accounts.
“We cannot compel him to testify if he invokes this SC decision and argues that the Foreign Currency Deposit Act would not allow him to testify,” he said.
Drilon said, however, that the Foreign Currency Deposit Act should not be used as a “haven for the corrupt.”
“That is never the intention of the law. So that, under the theory, you can steal money, that you can convert it into dollars, and put it in your foreign currency deposit and shield it under scrutiny. I don’t think that is the intention of the law,” he said.
The Senate, Drilon added, may not compel Corona when he invokes his right against self- incrimination.
“That is his privilege. We cannot compel him to reveal. But we must remind him of his promises that he will bare all, of the promises of Atty. Roy that they will confront these issues,” Drilon said, referring to Corona’s defense lawyer, Jose Roy III.
“Invoking his right against self-incrimination is not consistent with the commitment to confront these issues. So, he will be called to be asked, but if he cites this, we will respect his right to remain silent.”
