‘Chief Justice’s intent, not properties, matters’

MANILA, Philippines—While probably terrified of her, the House prosecutors may have found an ally in Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago who thinks there’s too much ado over the prosecution’s “flip-flop” on the number of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s properties.

After critics lambasted the prosecution for producing only 21 property documents instead of 45 as they had earlier announced in a press conference, Santiago said the number of properties was not really important.

Regardless of the number of properties, Santiago said the more important issue was whether the prosecution could prove there was “criminal intention” on the part of the Chief Justice not to declare his assets, which would then constitute “proof of a high crime.”

“If it appears indicative of a criminal intent, there’s no need to go to the other properties. One or two examples would suffice,” she said, quickly adding: “Unless he has an explanation acceptable to the reasonable man.”

“There is a Latin phrase we often use, ‘falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything). If a witness is caught lying on one detail, he has been lying on other details,” Santiago said in a phone interview.

The prosecution is attempting to show irregularity in Corona’s alleged failure to declare some properties in his statement of assets, liabilities and new worth (SALN).

A lawyer for Corona has maintained that Corona’s SALN was “accurately reported.”

Defense panel spokesperson Tranquil Salvador also appealed to the public to hold judgment on the embattled magistrate because Corona had yet to present his evidence.

Hold judgment on Chief Justice

“What we are saying is that the SALN was accurately reported … Don’t judge us yet, please, because we have not yet presented our evidence,” he said at a forum in Quezon City.

When she appeared on the second week of Corona’s impeachment trial, Santiago lambasted the prosecution for their purported lack of preparation and long-winding antics in court.

The prosecution came under fire on Day 11 of the impeachment trial after lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. admitted that they had evidence only for 21 of Corona’s alleged properties, not 45 properties as they had earlier declared in a press conference.

They parried the round of criticisms by asserting that the crux of the matter was whether or not Corona had declared the assets in his SALNs.

Sen. Gregorio Honasan agreed with Santiago: “Whether 21 or 45 doesn’t make a difference. That’s not the point. The point is whether he declared them in his SALN. If he did not declare them, that’s the problem. We should not be talking arithmetic and splitting hairs here.”

After the fuss over the matter, Honasan said he would propose at their Monday caucus that Tupas and his defense counterpart, Serafin Cuevas, brief the senators and the public on the kind of testimony or evidence they would present this week.

Honasan also wants to hold Cuevas and Tupas accountable for whatever their respective spokespersons say outside of the subject of their briefings, he said.

“The spokespersons can’t go beyond what the lead counsels have told the court,” he said by phone. “If we can spend two hours marking evidence, maybe we can let the prosecution and lead counsels speak for 3 to 5 minutes at the outset, without giving away their strategies.”

Honasan, however, balked at the idea of gagging either the prosecution or the defense. “Assuming we issue a gag order, do you think we can enforce it? Do you think we can discipline violators of the gag order? We will end up sanctioning or disciplining everybody,” he said, chuckling.

‘Overzealous’ prosecution

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, who got the prosecution to admit that they had presented evidence for only half of Corona’s alleged 45 properties, also observed that the prosecution had been “overzealous” in announcing the information to the public which “they have so far failed to defend” in court. But he agreed with Honasan that there was no need to issue a gag order.

Topping the agenda at the senators’ caucus on Monday is the prosecution’s request for a subpoena for bank documents pertaining to Corona’s accounts, including a dollar account, in two local banks.

Santiago said the senator-judges should be very careful in deciding the matter because of its far-reaching implications on the banking industry and bank secrecy laws.

“The banking industry depends on confidentiality for success. These banks are so successful in attracting depositors from all over the world,” she said. She said that in the aftermath of the financial crisis in the United States, Americans moved their accounts to the Philippines, and eventually Singapore.

“We senators should think very carefully about whether we shall continue to support the law on the secrecy of bank deposits, or grant an exception at an impeachment trial,” she said, pointing out that if the Senate decided to do the latter, this might sow fear among businessmen and bankers that “other exceptions might be allowed in the future.”

She said she would study the matter over the weekend and make her position known on Monday.