Aquino allies want Corona to testify on dollar accounts

MANILA, Philippines—Just three days in the defense panel’s presentation, President Aquino’s impatient allies sitting as judges in the Senate impeachment court on Wednesday demanded that Chief Justice Renato Corona himself testify and explain his assets and dollar deposits.

Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV sought a categorical commitment from lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas that Corona himself would appear in the impeachment trial. He reminded Cuevas that Corona himself had promised in media interviews last week that he would explain his dollar accounts.

“I would like to take this opportunity to ask you if you have any plans to divulge the dollar accounts as promised by the Chief Justice himself,” Trillanes said on Day 29 of the impeachment trial.

“I’m only holding you to your word … as well as the word of the Chief Justice in his media rounds that he will divulge and if you have the Chief Justice talking, then you have to value his word,” said Trillanes.

Sen. Teofisto Guingona III noted that Corona’s dollar deposits were not declared in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

“The thing that I would like to find out then is how come the dollar account is not declared in the SALN?” he asked Cuevas.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson said that evidence earlier presented by the prosecution created “doubt in my mind at least that there was a basis for the impeachment complaint.”

“Now this remains hanging because I want to hear your explanation and that doubt in my mind could go away if your explanation or the explanation of your client would be good,” he told Cuevas in Filipino.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, reminded his colleagues to “wait for the reception of evidence coming from the defense before we discuss these things.”

Cuevas told Guingona that there was still “no necessity” to reveal details of Corona’s dollar deposits, noting that the accounts could not be divulged without the respondent’s consent. The Philippine Savings Bank also has a pending petition asking the Supreme Court to prevent the impeachment court from scrutinizing the dollar deposits. The court has issued a temporary restraining order in the meantime.

Under questioning by Trillanes, the counsel said he had only been told about Corona’s pronouncements in media that the Chief Justice would disclose details of his dollar accounts.

“But I will go on record as not having stated that we will present his what we call foreign currency deposits,” he said.

On whether Corona himself should face the impeachment court, the counsel said: “I have not concretely and positively arrived at that ultimate conclusion. That will depend on the progress of the proceedings and the nature of our evidence or the stages at which our evidence may be.”

“If the prosecution has not even established a prima facie case against the respondent, then I do not think we have to place him on the stand,” he added. Trillanes said he would remind the defense “every now and then” about Corona’s “promise.”

“Whether or not there was a TRO from the Supreme Court, I said I will open it in due time and the due time is next week. I have always said there is no problem with my dollar deposits because I can explain it, “Corona had said in an interview over dzBB on March 7.

Cuevas, however, apparently feigned ignorance, saying that he “may be asleep or elsewhere” when the Chief Justice issued this assurance.

Senators spent a portion of Wednesday’s trial questioning the relevance of the testimony of defense witness Araceli Bayuga, a Supreme Court budget and disbursement officer. Bayuga on Tuesday testified that Corona had earned P21.6 million in salaries, allowances and other benefits as a member of the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2011.

Trillanes asked Cuevas if the defense was trying to prove that Corona’s bank deposits were not “ill-gotten.” He reminded the counsel that the Senate earlier ruled that the prosecution could not present evidence on alleged ill-gotten wealth because it is not alleged in the second article of impeachment—Corona’s alleged failure to publicly disclose his SALN.

“I have not gone that far,” the lawyer replied.

Cuevas said Bayuga’s testimony was “very relevant because if the other amounts of compensation…goes into the coffers of the chief Justice, then it will explain the other alleged deficiencies brought about by the evidence of the prosecution that he could not have acquired this amount of properties because his income does not justify the acquisition thereof.”

Sen. Francis Escudero on Wednesday sought yet another clarification from prosecutors as to the exact number of properties they claimed were under the possession of the Chief Justice. The prosecution earlier declared in a series of media interviews that Corona had 45 properties.

Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the lead House prosecutor, could not readily answer Escudero, prompting Enrile to declare a 15-minute break. When trial resumed, Tupas said his panel had offered evidence on 21 properties, including three parking lots.

Escudero noted that defense witness Demetrio Vicente on Tuesday testified that he owns seven of these properties in Marikina. By Escudero’s reckoning, the defense should dispute only five properties because Corona already admitted to owning the other five properties.

These five properties were the condominium units at The Bellagio and Bonifacio Ridge in Taguig City, The Columns in Makati City, and Burgundy Towers in Quezon City. The last property is the family residence in Xaviervill Subdivision, also in Quezon City.

Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano asked about the “connection between (Corona’s) income and his declaration in the SALN.”

“If you’re just trying to show to the public that he is not corrupt and that he had sources of income (to acquire the properties), I understand that, but that is not the issue in court,” the senator said.

Cuevas replied: “We will be dealing with that aspect in the litigation not only through the testimony of this witness (Bayuga), but there are other witnesses that we will be presenting in connection with the additional income.”

“This is not the totality of the evidence for the defense in order to establish the non- culpability of the honorable Chief Justice,” he added. (With a report from Michael Lim Ubac)