Dishonesty enough to convict Corona, says prosecution
Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara
The prosecution panel on Thursday said Chief Justice Renato Corona’s purported dishonesty in filing his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) would be sufficient to convict him of betrayal of public trust.
Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara, a deputy spokesperson of the panel, said the framers of the Constitution referred to betrayal of public trust as “a catch-all to cover all manner of offenses unbecoming a public official.”
“The idea of public trust is connected with the oath of office of the public official, and if he violates the oath of office, then he has betrayed that trust,” he said in a press briefing.
Angara also elaborated on the argument raised by the lead public prosecutor, Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr., before the Senate impeachment court—that while Corona’s lying under oath might not be considered a high crime, it fell under two other impeachable offenses.
During the trial, Tupas put on record that the charge against the Chief Justice was the untruthful entries in his SALNs, which would fall, not under high crime, but under betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Quezon Representative Erin Tañada, another deputy spokesperson of the prosecution, said the Supreme Court did not consider dishonesty a petty crime when it upheld the dismissal from office of a Bureau of Internal Revenue executive in a 2008 decision.
The executive was found to have accumulated properties and investments grossly disproportionate to her income and earning capacity as a government employee, and not disclosing these in her SALNs .
Tañada said the high court, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Peliño, ruled that “dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from service at the first instance.”
“So if someone of a lower level can be dismissed on the basis of dishonesty, what more the top magistrate of the Supreme Cour?” he pointed out.
Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo, the prosecution panel’s spokesperson, said it took only one major infraction as far as being liable for perjury was concerned to establish a case of betrayal of public trust.
“Is it not a violation of your oath if you were able to acquire a property which should have been for P24 million but you only acquired for P14.5 million? Is it not a violation of your oath when, despite having owned three condominiums as early as ’04, ’05 and ’09, you do not declare them under oath? Let’s not get lost,” Quimbo said.
He said betrayal of public trust was the latest addition to the grounds for impeachment in the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 2 of the article on the accountability of public officers.
