‘Corona out to stir constitutional crisis in case of conviction’

MANILA — A House prosecutor accused Chief Justice Renato Corona, on Sunday, of trying to ignite a constitutional crisis, with his top lawyer threatening to seek the intervention of the Supreme Court should the Senate trial court vote to convict.

“The game plan of Corona is obvious — create a constitutional crisis,” said Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao who reckoned the Senate had no choice but to convict Corona after he admitted leaving out a substanial amount of money — P80 million in three peso accounts and $2.4 million in four dollar accounts — from his SALN. Corona claimed in his testimony that the money in the undeclared peso accounts were “co-mingled” funds of his wife and children and that he did not reveal his dollar holdings because the secrecy of foreign currency deposits was absolute.

Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, a prosecution spokesperson, accused retired Supreme Court justice Serafin Cuevas of trying to influence the vote of senator-judges with his threat of seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention. “With all due respect to Justice Cuevas, it would seem his statements may be considered as `indirectly tampering with the jury’. By going to the SC after conviction, the defense panel would want to take the country into a constitutional crisis,” said Tanada in a text message.

Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, a prosecution spokesperson, said that Corona was practically “trifling with the Constitution” as he knew fully well that this would put the Senate and the Supreme Court on a collision course.

Cavite Representative Jesus Crispin Remulla, who did not sign the impeachment complaint, did not agree with Cuevas’ tactics. “The SC has no jurisdiction over a political decision like impeachment. If he (Corona) is criminally indicted, then the SC may legally interfere, as due process can be an issue, as well as admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of bank secrecy, FCDU (Foreign Currency Deposit Unit) and (Anti-Money Laundering Council) laws,” said Remulla.

Aggabao said that the gambit of Corona’s chief logal counsel would blow up in their faces. “I like the tack of the Corona camp provoking the Senate. The Senate just might pick up the gauntlet and hasten to convict Corona,” said Aggabao in a text message.

Aggabao said that Corona was likely to be rejected by the Supreme Court if he sought its intervention. “My sense is that any petition won’t wash. The SC won’t risk bringing down the entire judicial institution just for Corona. There is no authority, even under US decisional laws, permitting judicial review of decisions of an important court. The Corona camp knows fully well, there has not been any instance in the long history of impeachment that a judicial court has reversed a decision of an impeachment body,” said Aggabao, a bar topnotcher.

Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo said that Article XI, Section 1 of the Constititution has clearly stated that that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. “The reason why the framers entrusted the Senate to be the final arbiter was to prevent the Supreme Court from coming to the aid of a Justice who has been convicted by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. To allow the SC to review impeachment judgments would make its members practically untouchable. It would be a clear case of conflict of interest. While the SC has powers of judicial review, this will only apply when there is a clear deprivation of due process. How can they claim that when the CJ has been represented by a battery of private lawyers? Their participation in the proceedings to the very end shows that they have submitted to the jurisdiction and power of the Senate impeachment court,” said Quimbo. /INQUIRER