Defense ready to be cited for contempt on P100M Malacañang bribe offer
MANILA, Philippines—The defense panel of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona said that they are ready should the impeachment court decide to cite them in contempt for their disclosure that certain senator-judges were being offered P100 million by Malacanang.
Lawyer Tranquil Salvador, spokesman for the defense, said that they have thoroughly discussed and studied all possible outcomes that may arise from the disclosure of the information they had received.
“We discussed and talked about [the possible consequences]; now that we’re here, let’s see what we have to face,” Salvador said.
The defense panel held a press conference Sunday night to disclose an alleged plan by President Aquino, through executive secretary Paquito Ochoa, to pay P100 million to certain senator-judges in exchange for them to vote against the Supreme Court’s TRO on Corona’s dollar accounts.
Salvador said that their disclosure does not mean that they disrespect the senators. He said they heard news that some senators became angry at the allegations.
Lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho said that they felt it was their duty to inform the public of the move of President Aquino, through executive secretary Paquito Ochoa, to influence the senators.
Article continues after this advertisement“We never said that senators have received bribes. What we are saying is that there is an attempt to bribe them,” Quicho said. “We decided to come out with this information to prevent that from happening.”
Article continues after this advertisementSalvador said that they will stand by their “credible source” who gave them the information on Saturday. He also maintained that they could not divulge the identity of their source.
Lawyer Karen Jimeno said that what they were trying to say with their disclosure was that “the executive should not meddle with the impeachment process and the impartiality of the impeachment court.”
Salvador said “we still respect the senate. We hope and believe in their (senators’) impartiality because even after they were approached, they did not give in.”
