MANILA, Philippines—Chief Justice Renato Corona is not yet off the hook even if he claims that some of his properties belonged to his children, senators said on Tuesday.
“The senator-judges will have to weigh the evidence presented before it (Senate) and decide whether or not the properties in the name of the children are in fact theirs and purchased using their own money or if it was purchased money coming from the Chief Justice and thereby in truth belongs to the Chief Justice which in turn he failed to declare in his SALN,” Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan said in a text message.
SALN stands for statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.
But if the properties indeed belonged to Corona’s children and were purchased using their own money, Pangilinan, said the Chief Justice has no liability.
“There is no liability if indeed the properties were purchased by the children out of their money and hard work,” the senator added.
Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV shared the same view.
“Ibang usapan ‘yong binili mismo ng mga anak at ‘yong binenta diumano ng magulang sa anak ( It’s a different matter if it is purchased by the children and if it was allegedly sold by the parents to his children,” Trillanes said in a separate text message.
During the impeachment trial, Corona’s lawyers presented witnesses and evidence to show that some of the properties he allegedly owned were in the names of his children – either bought from Corona and wife, Cristina, or from other owners.
But to be fair with the Chief Justice, Trillanes appealed to the media to first ascertain if Corona’s children were capable of buying their own houses though their own income before making speculations.
Trillanes was referring to an article by a blogger regarding a property in the Unites States allegedly in the name of Corona’s daughter, Maria Charina Corona.
Even Senator Panfilo Lacson could not say if this new revelation could be used as evidence in the impeachment trial of Corona.
“Whether or not the court will allow such evidence could be admitted on rebuttal, the burden of proof is on the prosecution,” Lacson said.
“To say at this point if such property/properties may be presented and admitted as evidence is still premature,” he added.