Aquino to Corona: Explain $10-M bank account
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III. MALACANANG PHOTO
President Benigno Aquino III Sunday called on Chief Justice Renato Corona to explain allegations he has a $10-million bank account, saying failure to do so would lead to a presumption he had amassed ill-gotten wealth.
As Corona’s impeachment trial resumes today after a six-week Lenten break, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he saw no conflict between proceedings in the Senate and the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman into the purported dollar account.
The President, who has been openly campaigning for the removal of Corona, said the Chief Justice had “no choice” but speak up on the investigation being conducted by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
“The minute he doesn’t explain it, the presumption [that it is] ill-gotten wealth remains,” Mr. Aquino told reporters at the sidelines of the 70th commemoration of the Fall of Bataan in Corregidor.
Aquino said keeping mum on the allegation was “not an option” for Corona. “That is the law and he is the chief magistrate. Perhaps, he should be the first one to comply,” he said, but admitted he was relying only on media reports on the alleged $10-million account.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported on the Ombudsman’s investigation shortly after the Supreme Court ruled with finality on Hacienda Luisita, a vast sugar estate owned by the President’s family, on April 24. The court reaffirmed its Nov. 22, 2011, decision ordering the distribution of the nearly 5,000-hectare estate to farmers using 1989 land valuation.
Corona has denied the existence of a $10-million bank account and said the investigation was meant to get back at him for the Hacienda Luisita ruling.
Parallel inquiry allowed
Enrile said Sunday in a radio interview that Morales could conduct a separate investigation on Corona despite the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
“[The investigations] can be simultaneous,” he said, noting that the Ombudsman could prosecute “people, including impeachable officers, if they violate the law.”
“As long as there is a case—impeachment or no impeachment—they can file a case against anybody who is a government employee,” he added. He said only the President enjoyed immunity from suit while in office, but could be investigated just the same.
At 2 p.m. today, Enrile will bang the gavel signaling the resumption of the impeachment trial, which began last Jan. 16. But with the proceedings keeping senators away from legislative work, he said he would prefer that the trial be completed within the month.
Enrile said he would be willing to extend trial until 10 p.m. or even up to midnight daily if only to meet his proposed deadline.
“If at my age, I’m already 88 years old, I could conduct a hearing until 12 midnight, perhaps the lawyers could also do it,” he said.
“I will suggest to the lawyers, both to the prosecution and the defense, that if possible, we finish the case before the end of the month because it is already affecting many bills.”
Speedy trial backed
Representative Juan Edgardo Angara, a prosecution spokesperson, said, “We support any proposal that would ensure greater dispatch in the case.”
Defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra earlier said his camp was ready to wrap up its presentation of evidence in two to three weeks. He said the defense was willing to forgo of witnesses who would only “corroborate” the testimony of other witnesses.
Former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza will return to the witness stand this afternoon to respond to further questions from senator-judges on his testimony last March. Atienza had testified for the defense on the Manila city government’s purchase of a Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. property in 2001 for P34.7 million.
For the defense, the amount explained the existence of bank accounts in the name of Corona and his wife Cristina, which were not declared in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. Cristina had received the money in behalf of the family-owned BGEI.
Hostile witness
Defense counsels are also awaiting the return of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who earlier testified for the prosecution, contending that Corona had influenced decisions of the high tribunal.
The Senate had subpoenaed De Lima, who announced last week that she saw no need to take the witness stand again. Last week, the prosecution filed a motion to quash the subpoena.
But Enrile Sunday said he would not withdraw the subpoena and that the defense was “entitled to compulsory process.” He said: “Secretary De Lima understands this.”
Enrile said it was not enough that De Lima had already been cross examined by the defense when she appeared for the prosecution. With the new subpoena, he said she could be qualified as a hostile witness for the defense.
De Lima’s testimony was earlier ruled as hearsay. She tackled the dissenting opinion of Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, an appointee of Mr. Aquino, on the court’s temporary restraining order that would have allowed former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country for medical treatment.
Whether Corona himself should testify in his trial is still being debated by defense lawyers, said Jose Roy III, a member of the team. He said the defense was not completely ruling out this possibility but that some members believed this was not necessary because the prosecution evidence was not “strong enough.”
Former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez told the Inquirer Sunday he believed Corona should testify, pointing out that this was “not a vicarious responsibility that can be assigned to anybody else.” With reports from Marlon Ramos and Gil C. Cabacungan
