Impeach trial ends; verdict awaited

MANILA, Philippines – The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona concluded on Monday with the final oral arguments by both the prosecution and the defense panels.

As expected, both sides centered on Article 2 of the impeachment case pertaining to Corona’s alleged failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) when there were two other charges contained in the impeachment case filed against Corona.

Sixteen votes, about two-thirds of the chamber, are required to unseat Corona. The senators, who include only four members of the President Benigno Aquino III’s party, have been tight-lipped about how they intended to vote.

The senator-judges were expected to announce their vote in individual speeches on Tuesday.

‘Lack of integrity’

The two other charges in the complaint were Corona’s alleged lack of “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence” and his alleged partiality in grating a temporary restraining order in favor of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal, and her husband.

The prosecution team headed by Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr said Corona should be convicted for lying about his SALN, which he described as “deception of the highest order” while the defense team headed by former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas insisted on Corona’s acquittal, saying that his failure to disclose to the public his SALN was not an impeachable offense.

“Does respondent Corona’s failure to completely, truthfully and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and net worth” constitute an impeachable offense? Our answer is yes because it is both a betrayal of public trust and a culpable violation of the Constitution,” said Tupas, who first spoke for the prosecution.”

“It is lying, it is dishonesty, it is deception of the highest order,” he said

SALN non-disclosure not an offense

But Cuevas said the prosecution has not presented any evidence that would support its argument that non-disclosure of the SALN could be a ground for impeachment.

Another defense lawyer, Eduardo de Los Angeles, supported this argument, saying that non-disclosure in the SALN “will not amount to an impeachable offense.”

De Los Angeles pointed out that under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, members of the Supreme Court, constitutional commissions and the Ombudsman may only be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

But Corona, he said, was not charged of any of the mentioned crimes.

De Los Angeles said the Chief Justice cannot be held liable for betrayal of public trust when he failed to fully disclose his SALN when he committed it in good faith.

While he admitted that he had $2.4 million in four banks and P80 million “co-mingled” funds in three peso accounts, Corona admitted that he did not declare them in his SALN.

Corona invoked the ‘confidentiality” provision of Republic Act 6426 on foreign currency deposits for his dollar account , while he said his peso deposits were “co-mingled” or combined savings of other family members, the reason why he did not declare it in his SALN.

“It is therefore respectfully submitted that the failure to disclose in the SALN his dollar accounts will not amount to an impeachable breach of trust,” de Los Angeles said.

If it was a violation of the SALN, the penalty, he said, should only be a fine of not exceeding P5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.

De Los Angeles also noted the “absolute lack” of any “damning evidence” against the Chief Justice.

Despite this, he said, Corona bravely faced his accusers and the Senate acting as an impeachment court and even issued a waiver to allow the opening of all his bank accounts.

“Indeed, the innocence of the Chief Justice arises not only from the abject of lack of evidence against him but from his conduct wholly consistent with a clear conscience,’ he added.

But Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas, a member of the prosecutor, has only one word to describe Corona’ defense: Palusot (Alibi).

“I can put it in one word. Pwede ko pong sabihin po sa isang salita, palusot, (I can say it in one word: alibi),” Fariñas said.

He said Corona could not use the foreign currency law as an excuse not to declare his dollar deposits in the SALN because the law took effect only on April 4, 1972 or almost 15 years before the 1987 Constitution mandated the filing of the SALNs,” he said.

“Mga Kagalang-galang na senador, huwag po tayong padadala sa mga palusot at maladramang pahayag ni Chief Justice Corona. Mas maliwanag po kaysa sikat ng araw na inaabuso at binabaluktot po niya ang mga batas para itago po niya ang kanyang mga pera na kung saan nanggaling ay kaduda-duda,” he said.

(Your Honors, please don’t be swayed by the alibis and dramatic acts of Chief Justice Corona. Clearly, he abused and bended the law to conceal his wealth that has been amassed from questionable sources.)

To keep a Chief Justice in office whose gross misconduct and dishonesty are well-established fact, Fariñas added, would only weaken the authority of the Judiciary and undermine the rule of law.

“For lying under oath before the Senate and the Filipino, Renato Corona should not only be given his wish to be excused as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines. He should be removed as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines.”

Prosecution slammed

Lawyer Dennis Manalo, another defense counsel for Corona and the second speaker for the final arguments in the impeachment trial, slammed the House prosecution team for not conducting cross examination.

Manalo asked why the prosecution decided to not conduct cross examination after Corona offered to sign an unconditional waiver on his bank accounts.

“Our rules are clear, when you waive the cross, the testimony is unimpeached,” said the defense lawyer, maintaining that Corona was “entitled to an acquittal.”

He also lambasted the attention given to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ testimony which bared the chief magistrate’s bank accounts, saying that the AMLC investigation was invalid.

He said that the Ombudsman could not have made the Anti-Money Laundering Council explain its report on Corona’s accounts because the said agency “refused to testify because there was no court order allowing that inspection.”

AMLC was given “authority to inquire into bank deposits… (and) may inquire into or examine any deposits with any banking institution upon order of a competent court.”

He hit at Morales, saying that she did not investigate whether AMLC had a court order to warrant the examination of Corona’s bank accounts. “Did the Ombudsman ask AMLC where is your court order? She did not. She said that she never investigated AMLC.”

Manalo further defended the chief magistrate’s interpretation of the foreign currency deposit law, saying no one came forward when Corona made a challenge for unconditional waivers on bank accounts. “Chief Justice showed that his interpretation of law was followed by the most hardworking people in judiciary.”

He also asked the Senate whether it would move to declare the said law as unconstitutional when “the Constitution is clear, cases involving constitutionality of laws shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc.”

“Even assuming that there is a tinge of unconstitutionality, decisions like this have prospective application.”

The defense lawyer also slammed Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas’ statement that Corona “peddled his position for material gains” as an “absolute lie.” He maintained that members of the Supreme Court acted not as individuals but as a collegial body when it makes a decision.

Cuevas cites technicalities

Cuevas said the evidence presented to the Senate by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales which purportedly showed that Corona had at least $12 million in 82 bank accounts were not authenticated and therefore should not be admitted as evidence.

“They are mere scrapped of papers, the attestation required by law is not present and therefore they are not admissible as evidence. If they are not admissible as evidence , what probative value does it have here?” he asked.

“I hope the court pardon me by saying it’s totally useless. It’s totally irrelevant to the matters brought by her (Carpio-Morales),” Cuevas said.

He also questioned the decision of the prosecution to waive its right to cross-examine the Chief Justice when the latter testified before the Senate.

“If they doubted the credibility of Chief Justice Corona, they should have taken advantage of the opportunity to cross examine him,” he said.

“But it’s on record your honor that there was no such cross examination. In fact, it was categorically and positively waived by the lead counsel of the prosecution,” Cuevas said.

Belmonte: Convict Corona

Speaker Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte , who spoke last for the prosecution, said the Senate should convict Corona, whom he accused of allegedly misusing the laws to hide his crime.

“Isn’t it disturbing, your Honors, that the Judiciary’s highest official, the last bastion of justice for uniform application of laws all over the land is himself the very culprit who is bending justice and misusing the laws to hide his crime? Our people will not allow that, your Honors,” Belmonte said.

“Your Honors, I ask that you see through the character of Renato Corona, and reflect whether this is the man that we want as our Chief Justice, the head of the entire judicial system, for the next six years.”

“And I ask that you vote according to conscience, and the evidence. Convict Chief Justice Renato Corona,” Belmonte said.

Bishop worried

Whatever the verdict on Tuesday, a Catholic bishop warned Monday that it “would result in major trouble both in the government or the Supreme Court.”

In a report on CBCP news, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo was quoted as saying that if Corona would be acquitted, it means that President Benigno Aquino III is weak for failing to unseat its opponent despite its resources and power.

“If Corona would be acquitted, it will show that Aquino is lame because he already used all the forces of his administration but still he failed,” Pabillo said.

Pabillo took note that the entire exercise has brought into question the true separation of the powers of state.

“The approval of the impeachment complaint in the Lower House was done according to political lines, not according to truth,” he said.

“Not only that, the Lower House and other government agencies were used to fish evidence against Corona,” the bishop added.

If the Chief Justice would be convicted, he said it would also indicate that independence of the judicial department is under threat.

“If that happens, that is a blow to the judiciary because Malacañang wants to control the Supreme Court,” he said.

View comments

TAGS: corruption, Senate