Defense: No need to declare dollars in SALN
CUEVAS: Is mere inaccuracy in SALN an impeachable offense? SENATE POOL
Defense lawyers on Monday contended that Chief Justice Renato Corona was under no legal obligation to declare his dollar deposits and even if he was called upon by law to do so and did not comply, this was not an impeachable offense.
Lawyer Eduardo de los Angeles said that Corona could not be held liable for not declaring his bank deposit of $2.4 million in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) “because he believes in all good faith in the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.”
“The defense has shown that the Chief Justice relied on sound legal basis for his position—and in all instances, guided by good faith and without malice,” said De los Angeles, former dean of the Ateneo law school, in the final oral arguments of the defense before the Senate impeachment tribunal renders a verdict Tuesday.
He said that the confidentiality provision in the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (Republic Act No. 6426) was “absolute.”
A “specific law,” RA 6426, remained in effect despite the requirement for public officials to file a SALN, De los Angeles argued, citing a 2008 Supreme Court ruling (Republic vs Eugenio) where doubts between confidentiality of bank deposits and the right to inquire into them was resolved in favor of the respondent.
De los Angeles cited the absence of any Supreme Court ruling that “squarely applies” to the absolute confidentiality provision of RA 6426 on the filing of SALN.
The defense lawyer dismissed the prosecution’s position that Corona’s interpretation of the law would encourage corrupt public officials to convert their stash into dollars and hide behind the confidentiality of RA 6426.
“Let us not mistake the Chief Justice’s use of this interpretation for the possibility of its abuse,” De los Angeles said. “In this case, there is no showing that the noninclusion of certain bank accounts was tainted with any malice or fault.”
“What we have here is a situation where the Chief Justice, consistent with his practice for the last two decades, assumed that his reliance on the letter of law could not be wrong,” he added, pointing to an apparent “gap” in the law.
No breach of trust
De los Angeles said Corona “acted consistently, unwavering in his conviction and belief that RA 6426 affords him full and absolute confidentiality.”
But assuming that Corona’s noninclusion of his dollar deposits in his SALN was not “justified,” his defense counsel argued that the omission did not “amount to an impeachable breach of trust.”
De los Angeles said the omission could be corrected under the law and was not on the level of impeachable offenses spelled out in the Constitution such as treason, bribery and graft and corruption.
In contrast, a violation in SALN disclosure is penalized only with a “fine not exceeding P5,000 or imprisonment of not exceeding five years or both.”
“Per force of logic, there is no violation of law where the law itself provides a corrective measure,” De los Angeles said. “All the needs to be done is to call the attention of the public officer. This is the remedy of first resort, not to punish him, much less remove him from office.”
In his closing remarks, former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas, Corona’s chief counsel, continued the line taken by De los Angeles.
No ground for ouster
“May we ask the prosecution if there is jurisprudence (saying) that a mere deficiency, a mere inaccuracy made by the filer of the SALN is constitutive of a ground for impeachment which they claim now? If it is not an impeachable offense, then why are we building up matters after matters to the prejudice, not only to the life, honor and reputation of the Chief Justice but (also of) his entire family?”
Cuevas said the damage “may no longer be erased or obliterated because it already sank into the minds of the common people being the subject of what we call conferences even outside of this court.”
The defense lawyers shrugged off the prosecution contention that RA 6426, a 1974 law, had been overtaken by the SALN provision in the 1987 Constitution.
Corona’s lawyers pointed out that the SALN law also stated that this should be enforced “in the manner provided by law,” ostensibly referring to RA 6426.
The defense said the remedy was to amend RA 6426 and averred that such a move would have a prospective, not a retroactive effect.
Blitzkrieg
Beyond the legal issues, De los Angeles recalled what he described as the “blitzkrieg endorsement” of the impeachment complaint led by party mates of President Benigno Aquino IIII in the House of Representatives last Dec. 12.
“Regrettably, we have witnessed the unusual rubber-stamping by the majority of the House of Representatives who never even read the articles of impeachment,” he said, noting that Mr. Aquino “repeatedly declared that he wanted the Chief Justice removed.”
“In support, the executive branch then lent its full and awesome powers to interfere in the impeachment proceedings to oust the Chief Justice and to intimidate the Supreme Court,” he said.
De los Angeles said the “undue interference” by Malacañang was “clearly intended to weaken and then control the (Supreme Court) to do away with effective checks and balances under the tripartite government system.”
“Under the pretext that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are impediments to the reforms sought by him, the President aims to remove the Chief Justice and make the Supreme Court subservient to his whims,” he said.
“It is our fervent hope that the Senate will not lend its assistance to this plot. Let not this institution allow the guillotine to fall on judicial independence.”
