Defense to present Corona as last witness on own assets statement

MANILA, Philippines—Defense lawyers are gearing up for a crucial phase in the proceedings, putting what one of them called the “finishing touches” on a key witness who would “lay the groundwork” for Chief Justice Renato Corona’s likely appearance in the “climax” of the impeachment trial.

Describing Article 2 as the real “battleground,” defense counsel Ramon Esguerra said the witness—a lawyer and a certified public accountant—would discuss in detail that “there is every justification for the entries” in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

Esguerra said the Chief Justice would then explain the sources of money declared in the SALNs, including those used to purchase assets mentioned in the same documents. Trial will resume on March 12, more than a week after the prosecution rested its case.

“He said it before and the way some members of the defense panel see it, the emerging consensus is he will take the stand,” Esguerra told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in an interview shortly after Corona met with his 12 lawyers for around three hours in Makati City last Friday afternoon.

Asked how soon the Chief Justice would testify, the counsel said: “I think logically, he should be the last to take the (witness) stand because it would be anti-climactic if he would come first.”

Article 2 alleges that Corona failed to publicly disclose his SALNs and, thus, committed a culpable violation of the Constitution.

Esguerra (no relation to this reporter) said Corona made it clear to his lawyers that he had “no problem” testifying in his own impeachment trial. “It cannot be foreclosed,” he said.

In the defense’s list of witnesses and documents submitted to the impeachment court on January 31, the CPA-lawyer was described as an “expert witness” who would “testify that CJ Corona did not violate the Constitution and pertinent laws on the SALN, and that (his) assets came from legitimate sources and the values he used thereon have legal basis.”

The testimony will be backed by documentary evidence purportedly showing that Corona “also received allowances and other emoluments as Justice of the Supreme Court” and that “he and his wife have the lawful means to acquire the alleged properties.”

Among the pieces of evidence would be two separate certifications dated Jan. 5, 2012, regarding the “per diem/allowances” received by Corona as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). The certifications were issued by HRET secretary Girlie Salarda and SET secretary Irene Guevarra.

The defense would also present a separate Jan. 9, 2012, certification on Corona’s “salaries, allowances and other emoluments as Justice of the Supreme Court covering the period of April 9, 2002, to Dec. 31, 2011.” It was issued by Araceli Bayuga of the SC Fiscal Management Office’s Cash Collection and Disbursement Division.

One concern earlier raised by lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas was that senator-judges could quiz Corona “on all angles” and defense lawyers could not object as provided by the impeachment trial rules.

Esguerra acknowledged that possibility, saying his camp would like to avoid a situation where Corona “becomes helpless there as a witness.” But he said that would only happen if a witness was not telling the truth.

“Hindi mahirap kung totoo ang sinasabi mo, maski pag bali-baligtarin mo (It would not be difficult if you are telling the truth, no matter how they twist and turn the questioning),” he said.

Esguerra added in Filipino: “You will wonder—why did he decide to fight on if he really was hiding anything? On the properties, why would he put them under his name if he wanted to hide them? He should have come up with a dummy, put up some corporation. He’s a lawyer, remember.”

One such property is Corona’s condominium unit at The Columns in Makati which, the prosecution pointed out, was reflected only in his 2010 SALN when the certificate of title was issued on Nov. 3, 2004.

In a legal memorandum dated February 16, Corona’s camp argued that “he became the full owner of the Columns unit only in 2009, when he took actual possession.”

“CJ Corona refused to accept delivery in order to preserve his right to pursue legal remedies against the developer for the repair of the defects and damage to the Columns unit,” according to the memorandum. “For this reason, CJ Corona could not mention the Columns unit in his SALN before 2010.”

Esguerra said the defense would have to “recast” its list of witnesses owing to the withdrawal of the five other articles of impeachment, and by virtue of the Supreme Court’s February 14 resolution preventing its members or employees from testifying because of “judicial privilege.”

The Supreme Court resolution meant that the defense would not be able to present Justices Presbitero Velasco, Roberto Abad or Arturo Brion for Article 7. The article alleges that Corona had favored ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through the Supreme Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing her to seek medical treatment abroad last year.

“On the Supreme Court witnesses, we have reservations on calling them because of judicial privilege on account of the February 14 resolution,” Esguerra said.

What would probably be left for the defense would be constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, whose testimony would cover “the substantial issue of the WLO [watch list order] being subject to judicial review for which the assailed TRO was issued in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of liberty to travel,” the January 31 list of witnesses stated.