Dean Eduardo De Los Angeles stresses a point during the closing argument of impeachment trail of CJ Renato Corona at the Senate in Pasay City. EDWIN BACASMAS
Chief Justice Renato Corona’s defense lawyers on Monday made one last pitch for his acquittal, saying his innocence “arises not from the abject lack of evidence against him, but from his conduct wholly consistent with a clear conscience.”
Led by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, the defense panel answered each of the allegations made by House prosecutors in the remaining three articles of impeachment. Five of the articles were earlier withdrawn.
The closing arguments of both the defense and the prosecution centered on Corona’s failure to declare $2.4 million in deposits—his supposed savings since the ’60s—in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
“Truly, your honors, you are called upon to judge a man who has proven why he is the Chief Justice,” defense lawyer Eduardo de los Angeles told the court. “The defense counsels and I respectfully request that you render a verdict of acquittal.”
The defense pointed to Corona’s two-day testimony last week wherein he answered each allegation, particularly the dollar deposits and how he had accumulated them. Prosecutors yesterday raised several questions on the testimony, but Cuevas noted that they “categorically and positively” waived their right to cross-examine him.
“Beyond what the prosecution failed to prove, what strengthens the presumption of innocence is the credibility of the Chief Justice in giving justice, in proving himself forthright, courageous and true,” De los Angeles said.
Common sense truth
“His innocence is buttressed by the common sense truth behind his testimony, affirming the experience of many Filipinos in their own families. His courage is shown by his dauntless determination to fight his impeachment and the horrid cesspool of propaganda along with it.”
Borrowing the words of former US President Bill Clinton’s lawyer, he said the defense was leaving senator-judges with “the voice of reason, the voice of law and the voice of truth, the voice that will ring forever in your conscience.”
De los Angeles noted that the Chief Justice had submitted to the impeachment court a waiver on all his assets—not just on the bank accounts—in a move he said set “the standard of transparency in public service.”
“He has responded to the call of the Filipino people by defying all expectations and raising the bar for all public officials,” he said.
Cuevas and fellow defense lawyer Dennis Manalo later took turns in assailing the 17-page report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), which was presented by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales last week.
Morales testimony hearsay
Cuevas described the AMLC report as “totally useless, totally irrelevant.” Describing the Ombudsman’s testimony as “hearsay,” Manalo said the AMLC officer who prepared the report was never presented in the Senate because “there was no court order allowing that inspection.”
Both Cuevas and Manalo said Morales sought the report from the AMLC on her own, without the existence of a “predicate crime” as required by law.
Assisted by the Commission on Audit, Morales interpreted the AMLC report to mean that Corona had a total of 82 banks accounts and $10 to $12 million in deposits.
In his testimony, Corona flatly denied the allegation and admitted to owning $2.4 million in four accounts. Still, Manalo said the prosecution “pounded” the Chief Justice on the admission, based solely on Morales’ testimony.
But the defense lawyers also reiterated a longstanding complaint that the Chief Justice was not accorded “due process” when 188 House members—allegedly upon orders of the President—signed the impeachment compliant, many of whom later admitted they had not examined it.
“Any act committed in violation of this due process must be declared null and void,” Cuevas said.
Awesome powers
De los Angeles added: “The President then repeatedly declared that he wanted the Chief Justice removed. In support, the executive branch then lent its full and awesome powers to interfere in the impeachment proceedings to oust the Chief Justice and to intimidate the Supreme Court.”
“The cadence of their actions imply a conductor,” he said, pointing out instances when Justice Secretary Leila De Lima “threatened other Supreme Court justices with impeachment” even as invalidated lists on Corona’s alleged 45 properties and 82 bank accounts were released.
Corona’s counsels argued that the prosecution failed to show “any damning evidence” against the Chief Justice, despite pieces of evidence such as the 17-page AMLC report presented by Morales.
Manalo cried foul over the allegation of the chief House prosecutor, Representative Niel Tupas Jr., that Corona had “peddled” his position for material gains.
“That is a lie. That is an absolute lie,” he said, pointing out that the Supreme Court acts as a “collegial body.”
The prosecution claimed that Corona favored former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when the high tribunal issued a temporary restraining order last year. The order allowed her to seek medical treatment abroad considering that no case was yet to be filed against her at that time.
Dissenting opinion
Manalo said the prosecution could not rely on the dissenting opinion on the matter by Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, President Benigno Aquino III’s first appointee to the high tribunal.
“A dissenting opinion is not binding as it is a mere expression of the individual view of the court who disagrees with the decision of the majority of the members thereof,” he said.
In its oral arguments, the prosecution recalled the case of a Supreme Court employee who was sacked for failing to include her “sari-sari” store business in her SALN. Cuevas said there was “no parity of facts” between the case and the impeachment trial of Corona.
“That is merely an administrative case, this is an impeachment case governed by the provisions of the Constitution and grounded on definite and specific grounds,” he said.
The defense said the prosecution failed to prove its much-publicized allegation that Corona owned 45 properties, as per the list released by the Land Registration Authority.
“We were able to show, and we believe to the satisfaction of this honorable court, that there were no 45 pieces of properties, and that ultimately there were only five,” Cuevas said.