Corona lawyers call Ombudsman inquiry ‘fishing expedition’

Impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona can either ignore or question the Ombudsman’s inquiry into his bank accounts, which his lawyers described on Friday as a “fishing expedition.”

But the Senate impeachment court could also ask Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to stop the inquiry while his trial is going on, defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III and spokesperson Karen Jimeno told reporters.

“He can ignore this if, in his view, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over him,” Jimeno said.

Corona’s other option is to file a petition in the Supreme Court questioning the Ombudsman’s inquiry for grave abuse of discretion, but he has not consulted his lawyers about his next move, Salvador said.

Sen. Franklin Drilon predicted that Corona would “run to his colleagues” in the Supreme Court to stop the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

“I expect Chief Justice Corona to once more petition his colleagues to restrain Morales from continuing with the probe,” Drilon said in a talk with reporters at the Manila Hotel.

Acting on complaints brought to her office, Morales ordered Corona on April 20 to explain in writing how he managed to have millions in peso and US-dollar bank accounts despite his modest government salary.

Morales said there were several accounts in Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and other banks in Corona’s name with deposits amounting to

$10 million. Corona denied having $10 million in bank accounts, claiming the information was “black propaganda” and that Morales had no jurisdiction over him.

Defense lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho, citing jurisprudence, said no criminal investigation could be initiated against an impeachable official during his tenure.

That’s why the impeachment court could ask the Ombudsman to stop its inquiry pending the trial, Jimeno said. But Drilon, a former secretary of justice, said the Senate had no jurisdiction over an independent body like the Office of the Ombudsman.

“It has no effect,” Drilon said when asked about the effect of the Ombudsman’s inquiry on Corona’s impeachment trial.

Prosecution’s work

Quicho said the Ombudsman’s inquiry was a “fishing expedition” by Malacañang to paint the defense into a corner, and compel it to speak up on “dollar accounts that are nonexistent.”

“They’re doing the work that the prosecution should have done before,” Quicho said.

He recalled that PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified on Corona’s account at the impeachment trial, but did not specify the nature of the account.

“What they’re trying to do is force us to volunteer information, and that information will be used as allegation to file another case against [the Chief Justice],” he said, referring to the prosecutors’ mounting calls for Corona to testify on the alleged US-dollar accounts.

Garcia admitted that Corona maintained five dollar accounts in PSBank. On the bank’s petition, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the disclosure of the dollar accounts at the trial.

Corona’s trial resumes next Monday. As of yesterday, there was no decision whether he and his wife, Cristina Corona, would testify, the defense lawyers said.

Jimeno said the Coronas will decide to testify only if they felt it was necessary.

Salvador said that may not be necessary because the prosecution had “failed to establish an impeachable offense.”

10 witnesses for defense

The defense has lined up 10 witnesses, including Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, whom it wants to call a hostile witness. But the prosecution has moved to quash the subpoena issued for De Lima’s return to the trial.

In a motion to nullify the subpoena, the prosecution said recalling De Lima would violate her rights and be unfair to the prosecution and the impeachment court, as it would unduly prolong the proceedings.

The prosecution pointed out that the defense cross-examined De Lima for two days—Feb. 22 and 23—and the defense lawyers were even allowed to ask her leading questions.

That should be enough. Calling her again would be not only a delaying tactic but also an act of harassment, as there is no new, startling evidence that the defense can cite to justify calling her back, the prosecution said.

Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, a spokesperson for the prosecution, said yesterday that the defense was trying to delay the proceedings.

“Apparently, the Lenten break was not enough for the defense lawyers to come up with a story that the public would accept,” Tañada told a news conference.

The trial should end before Congress goes on recess on June 7 to avoid further delays in the legislative business, but it seems the defense wants to drag the trial beyond the midyear break, Tañada said.

Drilon said he would propose that the impeachment court set a date for the verdict before June 7.

“We can’t let this go beyond this adjournment,” Drilon said. “The schedule is under the control of the court. We will not be unreasonable.”