Whatsikat Politics

Accountability, and Transparency

Cocoy — Sun, 27 May 2012 01:25:26 +0000

Simply put, Pro-Acquittal paints our democracy to be dying. Naturally, Pro-Conviction colors it differently.

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

A guilty verdict for the Chief Justice

PatricioMangubat — Sat, 26 May 2012 09:21:00 +0000

Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile yesterday was emphatic with his declaration that the Senate Impeachment court is a trier of "facts". It is not convened for the purposes of interpreting or construing a law.

What Manong Enrile wanted to impress is, the Court merely wants to know if the accusations heaped against the Chief Justice have basis in fact and violations of law. These articles of impeachment, mind you, were used to justify the impeachment of the Chief Justice by the lower house. In the minds of 188 Congressmen, Atty. Renato Corona violated the law when he failed to fully disclose his assets and liabilities in his SALN. That explains why these articles were heard and were re-phrased to be fully concrete and exact in alleging certain acts committed by the Chief Justice.

Meaning, the Court is trying to know whether or not the Chief Justice committed an act which violated an existing law. The law in question here, is a special law. When someone committed a violation of a special law, he is being punished by his very act. For example, you beat a red light. There is a special law punishing you for doing that. The court's function is simply determine whether or not you did, indeed, beat the red light. The traffic enforcer's job is present evidence backing his accusations up. There is no more determination if you did it because someone bumped you from behind or you lost your brakes that caused the rule to be broken. These "reasons" or "alibis only affect the gravity of your case, but not your culpability or liability. The Court may mitigate your crime, or you may be justified due to extraneous circumstances but still, the Court will still find you guilty of the violation which you are accused of.

That's the law. The law, they say, may be harsh, but that is the law.

Totally different, when, say you are accused of a crime which is considered malum in se which is evil from the very onset. These are acts which have been considered evil or morally wrong from the very beginning of time. One such act is murder. Criminal intent to commit is essential in prosecuting you or establishing your culpability or guilt.

Going back to this case---establishing whether an act violated a special law, which is termed as mala prohibitum, does not need to be as tedious as to know the intention of the violator in violating the act of which he is being accused of. The mere establishment of facts supporting the cause of the action is sufficient to render a guilty verdict.

Think about this absurdity if the court finds the Chief Justice acquitted of these charges by merely stating that the law on SALN is silent on foreign bank deposits and therefore, non-disclosure is not a violation.

Likewise this--the Chief Justice reiterates that his bank deposits were made during the sixties which is before the passage of the AMLC law and other laws which prohibits the non-disclosure of foreign bank deposits.

Bare in mind that the act mentioned as his offense was allegedly undertaken in 2010, a period within the prohibitions stated by law. What the law intends to punish is the non-disclosure of these assets and liabilities last 2010, and not the existence of these foreign bank deposits since the 1960's. This fact is irrelevant in establishing innocence in breaking the disclosure requirements.

What I meant is--we are not concerned with the existence of these bank deposits. The issue at bar is why did the Chief Justice failed to fully disclose his assets and liabilities. The Chief Justice is not being accused of illicit wealth--he is being accused of simply breaking the law on SALN. The Chief Justice is not being accused of having dollar deposits. Opening a dollar deposit account is not a crime. Engaging in foreign currency trading is not a crime too. However, not disclosing these accounts by a government official is a violation of law, since every official is required by law to disclose these assets thru the SALN.

Irrelevant still are the following defenses:

1. Those local bank accounts were "co-mingled" with monies of Corona's wife and children, hence, not entirely his. In the eyes of the law, bank accounts are owned by the person whose name is stated in the records of the bank to be the owner of the account. The Chief Justice should have stated this account and made a qualification--that he merely owns 3 or 4 or 10 million pesos in those accounts. This is allowed by the SALN law.

2. The Chief Justice owns only 5 properties out of the 23 properties he is being accused of having. These three or five properties were not stated in his SALN, therefore violates the law.

3. The Chief Justice says his foreign bank deposits ballooned to US$ 2.4 million because he opened these accounts when it was just 2 pesos per 1 dollar. He also declared that he lived an austere life. Again, these defenses are irrelevant because the Impeachment Court is not interested in determining where he got those millions---it is only interested in establishing the fact that he failed to disclose such amounts in his SALN.

The Chief Justice himself admitted in open court that he did not declare his US$ 2.4 million in dollar deposits nor those millions in local bank deposits.

His non-disclosure itself is a violation of the law.

Again, let me reiterate--the Chief Justice is not being accused of acquiring illicit wealth, no. He is being accused of breaking the law himself when he failed to disclose these facts in his SALN.

Read the following entry on what the Cj should have made as a defense...

Acquittal for the Chief Justice

PatricioMangubat — Sat, 26 May 2012 08:31:00 +0000

The Chief Justice may be acquitted on the grounds of what? Ignorance of the law? Ignorance, says a Latin legal term which a Freshman law student always utter during his first year in law school, of the law excuses no one of compliance therewith.

Three questions are now before the Senator-Judges. One is, did the Chief Justice failed to disclose his assets and liabilities fully before the public thru his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth? Two, did the Chief Justice render decisions favoring former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and lastly, questions as to the partiality of his decisions rendered before the court.

Any one of these charges could actually validate or confirm the charge of impeachment by the Lower House. The prosecution presented more pieces of evidence to prove just one of the three articles of impeachment which is the non-disclosure or full disclosure of his assets and liabilities.

The Chief Justice had an alibi----his non-disclosure of his bank accounts was deliberate because he interpreted the law protecting the confidentiality of these accounts as absolute. His local bank accounts were also not reported because it was never really his--monies were co-mingled with his and his wife's money, something like a paluwagan scheme where everyone's monies were deposited in an account for it to earn higher interests. As to the number of his properties, he claims only five properties, which were all listed in his SALN.

During an informal "cross" by Senator judge Drilon, it was proven that the Chief Justice also failed to include a 34.6 million "liability" in his SALN when he took out such amounts from his local savings account.

So there---what the Chief Justice said these "non-disclosures" were made without malice because he interpreted the law this way and that way. Hence, he deserves to be acquitted.

An acquittal would probably be in the minds of several people in the Senate because the Chief Justice "alibi" is acceptable, since many people actually do these things.

As they say, you make your money grow. What the Chief Justice revealed was something known by many people who work hard to make their monies make more money.

Senator Pangilinan and Cayetano asked the Chief Justice why did he opted not to declare these assets in his SALN, when these assets were fruits of a legitimate enterprise?

The answer of course is simple for the Chief Justice---his local accounts are not entirely his, therefore, it is his discretion to reveal or not to reveal it; same goes to his foreign bank deposits.

read the next part....a Guilty Verdict.

Sonia Brady returns to China as ambassador

Sat, 26 May 2012 07:49:13 +0000

An old China hand

GMA News
As Panatag boils, Aquino appoints career diplomat as envoy to China

During one of the Philippines’ worst diplomatic crises in recent history, a stand-off with Asian superpower China, talks have been hobbled by the lack of an ambassador in Beijing.

President Benigno Aquino III has finally appointed one, career diplomat Sonia Brady, a China veteran who had already been ambassador there from 2006-2010, as well as a young consul in the 1970s.

She is also a former ambassador to Myanmar and Thailand.

Aquino’s previous appointee, family friend Domingo Lee, could not be approved by Congress’ Commission on Appointments because some senators had questioned his qualifications.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said Saturday Aquino appointed Brady to be the ambassador to China with concurrent jurisdiction over North Korea and Mongolia.

“Na-transmit na ng Office of the Executive Secretary ang designation paper ni Sonia Brady as ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, with concurrent jurisdiction over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Mongolia,” Valte said on government-run dzRB radio.

Brady’s appointment has come as tensions are high between the Philippines and China because of stand-off at Panatag Shoal, a crisis that has entered its seventh week.

The crisis was triggered last April when Philippine military forces spotted Chinese fishermen gathering marine species but were blocked by Chinese vessels from making arrests.

Valte said Brady is no stranger to Beijing, having been ambassador there from April 2006 to January 2010.

She said Brady was in China for President Aquino’s state visit to China in 2011, and briefed Aquino and his delegation.

Brady has a master of arts in international relations from the University of Southern California and a foreign service degree from the University of the Philippines, Valte added.

“So isang career diplomat si Sonia Brady (So we can say Brady is a career diplomat),” she said.

Valte said Brady’s other career highlights included:

- Ambassador to Thailand 2002 to 2003

- Ambassador to Myanmar 1995 to 1999

- Deputy Chief of Mission to Indonesia 1994 to 95

- Deputy Chief of Mission to Thailand 1992 to 94

- Third Secretary and Vice Consul, Second Secretary and Consul of the Philippine Embassy in Beijing from 1976 to 1978

- Undersecretary for policy July 2003 to 2006

- Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Secretary for policy and coordination

- Director for the Office of the Asia-Pacific

- Assistant at the office of policy affairs

Last May 10, Aquino appointed Cesar Zalamea and Domingo Lee as special envoys to China.

Zalamea, current chairman and chief executive officer of Focus Range International Limited, was appointed to advance Philippine economic interests in China by “pursuing initiatives aimed at increasing Chinese investments in the Philippines.”

Lee, a family friend of Aquino, is responsible for promoting the 2012-2013 Philippine-China Years of Friendly Exchanges by promoting tourism.

Both envoys will serve a term of six months. — LBG, GMA News

Checks, But No Balance

Doy Santos aka The Cusp — Sat, 26 May 2012 06:03:57 +0000

With the impeachment trial winding down with all but the closing arguments and final judgement to be rendered, it is becoming clear just what is at stake. The Senate was essentially made to...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Ombudsman denies being ‘used’ by Palace

Fri, 25 May 2012 22:08:16 +0000

by Jon Carlos Rodriguez, ABS-CBNnews.com

'Yes, I have a clear conscience."

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on Friday denied the allegations made by Chief Justice Renato Corona that she was “used” by Malacañang to present documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) regarding the chief justice’s dollar accounts.

“I was never ever used by Malacañang,” Carpio-Morales told reporters in a press conference.

“Hindi ako magpapagamit. I have been trying to be impartial. I have been trying to be fair. I have been trying to be impervious to influence and I’d like to believe I succeeded,” she said.

Carpio-Morales said she felt “maligned” by Corona’s statements against her, adding that she will let the public judge who between them is telling the truth.

“He asked me if I have a conscience. Yes, I have a clear conscience. I hope he has a conscience and it is as clear as mine,” she said.

Carpio-Morales said the AMLC documents that she presented to the Senate impeachment court last week were authenticated.

“I did not pick it out from the gutter. It was handed to me by AMLC director [Vicente] Aquino,” she said.

The Ombudsman said her appearance in the impeachment court as a hostile witness “was nothing personal,” and that she was merely “doing what was expected of me.”

Inquirer leak

She also denied that she was the one who leaked the “confidential” document to the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Corona had accused his former colleague in the Supreme Court of allowing herself to be used by the Palace in its bid to remove him as chief justice.

“Palagay ko, nagpagamit ang Ombudsman sa Malacañang…Winawagayway niya ang isang dokumento allegedly from the AMLC [Anti-Money Laundering Council] na hindi naman authenticated,” he said.

Retirement money

Corona said animosity between him and the Ombudsman was caused by many factors, one of which stemmed from Carpio-Morales’s alleged request for a large retirement fund that the Chief Justice did not grant.

Carpio-Morales, however, said she never requested for Corona to increase her retirement benefits.

“It’s not true. I did not ask for it. I suffered in silence. I never asked for his consideration, bahala siya,” she said.

Carpio-Morales called Corona a “certified liar,” saying she only received P650,000 from the Supreme Court when she retired in 2011 despite the usual retirement fee placed at P1.5 million.

“The usual fee was raised to P1.5 million. In 2009, 6 justices retired and each got P1.5 million,” she said.

‘I will not resign’

Carpio-Morales added she will not resign from her post, despite Corona’s call that she should step down as Ombudsman if proven wrong about her allegations on the dollar accounts.

“I don’t think he has proven me wrong, so I will not resign,” she said.

Corona, meanwhile, also said he will not resign as chief justice.

When the Ombudsman was asked what she would feel if Corona was convicted, she only replied by saying, “Amen.”

Here’s the video:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/05/25/12/ombudsman-calls-corona-liar

Five questions on the Impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona

PatricioMangubat — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:45:00 +0000

Question no. 1: Is the prosecution correct in telling the Filipino people that the Chief Justice Corona has local and dollar accounts?

Answer, partially correct. The Chief Justice admitted having dollar accounts amounting to US$ 2.4 million. He also admitted having local bank accounts.

Question no. 2: Is the prosecution correct in saying that the Chief Justice failed to include these assets in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities?

Answer: Yes. The Chief Justice failed to include these assets in his SALN. However, the CJ posits a qualification--he did that without malice. He says that he interprets a 1974 law as applicable to his case. This law says that there is absolute confidentiality in the disclosure of foreign bank accounts.

Since there is this law, then, it is not illegal for a government official not to fully disclose all his bank deposit accounts.

Besides, these deposits are not entirely owned by the Chief Justice since these are "co-mingled" funds. Meaning, both his and his relatives' monies were deposited in these deposits so that it earns higher interests.

Question no. 3: The law is clear on the disclosure of all assets under the SALN law.

Answer: No. The SALN law, according to the Chief Justice, is not entirely clear in its instruction in disclosure of assets. It counters an old law. However, if we are to follow the rules of statutory construction, this 1974 law has been superceded by the 1987 Constitution.

Question no. 4: Is malice a necessary element in determining the innocence or guilt of the Chief Justice in the accusation made by the prosecution on him violating the 1987 Constitution.

Answer: No. The existence of malice is not an important component in determining guilt or innocence. What the accusers of the Chief Justice accused him of is the violation of the SALN law, a special law.

Violations of special law only requires evidence which proves that the law was indeed violated.

Question no. 5: What is the liability of the prosecution in presenting evidence which points

to the existence of 82 bank accounts and several properties of the Chief Justice?

Answer: Nothing. It seems like the prosecution this time will never be prosecuted for the partially true accusations they heaped against the Chief Justice. It seems like the very purpose of all these is to harm the integrity and reputation of the Chief Justice.

The Filipino People dares 188 Congressmen and Several Senators to file their waivers

PatricioMangubat — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:42:00 +0000

Now that the Highest Magistrate of this country already did what was expected of him, I, along with the rest of the Filipino People who want nothing more than see a cleaner bureaucracy, demand that these 188 Congressmen and several moralizing Senators to also file their waivers on the confidentiality of their foreign bank accounts.

The Chief Justice's act today is highly significant because it shows his willingness to "bare all" before the Public. No one expected him to do this.

Is this the act of a guilty person? I guess not.

What spin doctors of this administration tried to weave is a guilty Chief Justice whose strategy is simply to avoid prosecution by not entertaining cross-examination.

Surprises of all surprises! Both the prosecution and the defense said that they will not cross-examine the Chief Justice.

Is this an indication that there is an agreement between both camps to spare the Chief Justice from further ignominy?

The absence of a cross-examination signifies that both camps have already submitted enough evidence for the members of the impeachment court to rule on this issue. Hence, this issue is now closed.

Senate president Juan Ponce-Enrile says that the Court will rule on the issue of impeachment by May 29,2012.

Alert! Chief Justice Corona submits his waiver: Waiver is for the Filipino People

PatricioMangubat — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:00 +0000

Chief Justice Renato Corona appeared before the Senate impeachment trial and announced that he is waiving his right not to disclose his foreign bank deposit accounts.

He likewise, extended his hand of reconciliation to his in-laws, the Basas, who went back here in the Philippines to listen to the Chief Justice's "bare-all" revelations before the Courts.

Corona, who suffered a glycemic attack several days ago, appeared today to continue his opening "testimony" before the impeachment court.

He, along with his wife, Cristina, extended their hands of friendship to their relatives, the Basas and the Rocos. The Coronas asked forgiveness from the Basas.

It seems like all ends well between the Coronas and the Basas.

Now, it seems that this thing is finally over between the two "warring" families.

Corona, in an interview says that the reason why he gave his unconditional waiver is to raise the bar of expectations of the people from their elected and appointed government official.

This waiver is intended to clear all doubts as to the legality or illegality of Corona's bank accounts.

Corona's act signifies his clear and unequivocal intention of really baring everything before the Filipino people.

His heroic act right now shows a man who is not bothered by his conscience. Maybe he is telling the truth.

One simple question to ask regarding CJ Corona’s impeachment case

Cocoy — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:41:06 +0000

The case is not about whether Corona stole the money. The case is about why he did not disclose his assets as law provides. That's why it is irrelevant to talk about waiving other people's right to...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Coronas’ cash: US$2.4M plus P80M

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:36:18 +0000

Chief justice says he won’t resign

By Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNnews.com

Corona returns to the Senate

Chief Justice Renato Corona on Friday admitted having US$2.4 million, including interest earnings since the early 1970s, plus P80 million in co-mingled funds.

“I never, at any time, had 10, 11 or 12 million [US] dollars,” Corona said, denying a claim by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales that he had “transactional balances” of $10 million-$12 million in his dollar accounts.

Answering questions from senator-judges, Corona said his dollar accounts now total $2.4 million. He said he began investing and trading in dollars since the late 1960s when he was still working with the private sector.

In the mid-1970s, he said the Central Bank issued a circular allowing individuals to invest in foreign currencies.

His P80-million peso deposits, on the other hand, include P34.7 million from the sale in 2001 of a real property of Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. in Manila, P10 million interest earnings, as well as money earned by his daughters Charina and Carla, and son-in-law, Francis.

Asked why the money of his children was placed in one account, Corona said “the bigger the deposit, the bigger the interest.”

The P80 million also includes a “Coronado fund,” which came from his late mother.

Corona only declared between P2.5 million-P3.5 million in investments and cash in bank in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) from 2002-2010.

The impeachment complaint accuses him of failing to disclose his real assets, liabilities and net worth.

Dollars, pesos

Several times, he was asked by senator-judges why he did not declare his dollars plus a big part of the peso deposits in his SALNs.

Corona said: “Based on my study of the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (FCDA), the requirement of confidentiality is guaranteed.”

He cited a study by a former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) official, Estrella Martinez, which reportedly found that not a single public official has declared his or her dollar and other foreign currency deposits in any SALN.

A big chunk of his peso deposits was not declared because “it is not ours,” he said. The P34.7 million BGEI money is being held in trust by his wife.

The family feud over BGEI was widely reported during Corona’s impeachment trial.

“We never denied na sa Basa-Guidote [money] yan. The thing is, the money is intact. Here and now, I acknowledge na hindi sa amin yan,” Corona said.

He said he got a cash advance of P11 million from BGEI, which he returned by 2010. The money was used to purchase a real property which, he said, is not even in his name.

Asked why he withdrew big amounts on December 12, 2011, the day was impeached, he said: “Marami po akong naiwang kaibigan at kumpare sa Malacañang [at sinabing] ifi-freeze daw ang assets. Siguro, kung kayo rin, pangangalagaan nyo ang perang pinag-ipunan at ang perang hindi sa inyo.”

Why not declare in SALN?

Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan asked him: “You’re saying there’s absolute confidentiality. But it seems the P22 million [declared from 2002-2010] is very far from the $2.4 million or P80 million?…What is wrong if you don’t declare it.”

Corona said the confidentiality clause in the FCDA is absolute.

Pangilinan, however, pointed out that the Constitution provides that “under oath, we must declare all assets, liabilities and net worth.” He asked: “What’s more important, the law or the Constitution?”

Corona answered: “The Constitution also provides the words [in section 17, Article 11] ‘as may be provided by law’.”

He said the SALN Law is also in conflict with the FCDU.

“I don’t want to sound legalistic. Ang legalistic po dyan, sasabihin, yung isa general law, yung isa special law, merong specific guarantee of confidentiality yung isa, yung isa naman ay wala. Pero, alam po ninyo kung ngayon lang po ako nag-ipon ng mga dollars na yan, maaring sabihin po ninyo totoo yan eh, pero matagal ko na pong iniipon yung mga dolyares na yan kasi dun po namin iniinvest yung aming pera,” he said.

Wasted opportunity

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano asked if Corona and the defense will produce documentary evidence to support his testimony.

Corona said, “my account manager with the [Bank of the Philippine Islands] can answer. The accountant was already working with me when my account was still with Far East Bank [and Trust Co.].” BPI later bought Far East Bank.

At the start of Friday’s hearing, Corona submitted an unconditional waiver opening his bank accounts. The Senate only took note of the waiver, saying the impeachment court cannot produce any evidence for either party.

Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero later asked the prosecution why it chose not to use the waiver to open Corona’s bank accounts.

Lead House prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. said: “On the part of the prosecution, nag-rest na kami. We are relying on the Ombudsman and AMLC [Anti-Money Laundering Council] report…We are already getting ready for closing.”

Escudero pointed out, however, that senator-judges even had to debate among themselves during the early part of the trial whether to open or not the dollar accounts of Corona.

“Now you don’t want to look [into the accounts],” he said, adding it was a lost opportunity to know the truth about Corona’s dollar accounts.

Corona asks to be discharged

After Escudero’s questioning, Corona then asked the Senate that he be discharged because he was not feeling well.

He had agreed to return to the impeachment court against his doctors’ advice. He was brought to The Medical City and placed under intensive care after he testified last Tuesday and stayed there until Friday noon.

After his testimony on Tuesday, Corona made an unceremonious exit from the Senate floor, which many described as a “walkout.” On Friday, he apologized for his acts, saying he was suffering from hypoglycemia and felt disoriented after his 3-hour opening statment.

Corona vs Carpios

Corona also lambasted several of his critics in some of his answers to senator-judges.

He detailed the animosity between her and Carpio-Morales which, he said, was further highlighted in their bid for the post of chief justice following the retirement of Justice Reynato Puno.

Then-President Arroyo picked Corona as chief justice and appointed him during the election appointment ban in May 2010. The Supreme Court later ruled that its members are not covered by the appointment ban.

Corona also said he noticed Carpio-Morales always took the side of her cousin, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, in the high court’s rulings. Mr. Carpio was also his rival for the post of chief justice.

Corona also accused the Ombudsman of allowing herself to be used by the Palace in its bid to remove him as chief justice.

“Palagay ko, nagpagamit ang Ombudsman sa Malacañang…Winawagayway niya ang isang dokumento allegedly from the AMLC [Anti-Money Laundering Council] na hindi naman authenticated,” he said.

He noted the allegation of Carpio-Morales first came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, even if the information was supposed to be confidential.

He said he received a directive from Carpio-Morales to explain the alleged $10 million in a sealed envelope. The order had the words written in bold, capital letters: “STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL”.

Unexplained wealth

“Maximum damage to the reputation yun e,” he said, in reference to Ombudsman’s allegations of unexplained wealth.

Asked if he will still call for Carpio-Morales’ resignation if it is proven she lied, Corona answered in the affirmative.

Asked if he himself will resign, he said: “Hindi po.”

Responding to questions from Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Corona said his impeachment has sent chilling effects on the judiciary. He said the Aquino administration has violated the separation of governmental powers in an attempt to impose a “dictatorship.”

“Diktadura na ang susunod,” he said.

Desperation breeds–humility?

Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:31 +0000

In today’s resumption of the testimony of Chief Justice Renato Corona before the Impeachment Court, he made a complete turnaround. From a stance of combative defiance, seeming arrogance, and glib disregard of facts and court procedures, he portrayed contriteness, reconciliation, and openness.

He and his wife had a very public reconciliation with the children and kin of Jose Basa, whom he called “a spoiled brat” in his opening statement. Then he announced his waiver on the permission to open his dollar account, this time without any condition. Then, he reiterated his reason of “good faith” in not including US$2.4 million in these dollar accounts because of the belief that the FCDU law prevents him from doing so.

He thus tried very hard to erase whatever negative impression and actual substantive evidence against him in the matter of Article 2 of the Article of Impeachment. Will he succeed?

It will largely depend on his ability to convince both the senator-judges (at least 8 of them) and the majority of the public on his character, innocence, and fitness for the post of the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

It is still a very uphill battle for him and he may already be struggling against final conclusions by the senators (or at least a majority of them) and by the large majority of the public. His last-minute humility can only be construed as a product of desperation, within the context of the horrendous negativity brought by his walkout last Tuesday.

Humility, then, can be seen as false (from a skeptical point of view) or sincere (from a resigned-to-his-fate point of view). The problem of CJ Corona is that it came too late.

Chief Justice Impeachment Trial is as simple as getting an apple from the ref and not telling your mother what you did

PatricioMangubat — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:29:00 +0000

If this impeachment trial of Chief Justice is as simple as determining whether or not he declared every single thing in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, then, this should have been over since the very first admission of the defense that (1) indeed, the Chief Justice maintains local bank accounts and properties not entirely listed and (2) instead of 82 bank deposit accounts, the Chief Justice maintains just four or five. Whether it is five or four accounts or just one, the question is very simple---did he declared these bank accounts in his SALN?

Why is it very important that the Chief Justice or anyone answer this question? This is the main reason why he was impeached by Congress and the very same reason why he is being tried by the Senate.

By not declaring these things in his SALN shows a flaw in his integrity and honesty as a government official.

By purposely glossing over these things, and skirting the issue of declaration, the Chief Justice has very well answered the basic or core issue.

But no, this is not solely about the Law, this impeachment trial is also political. Why is he being asked to formally declare every thing he own in his SALN? Because someone wanted to hit him. And that someone happens to be Malacanang.

Corona, in his speech says that the reason why he did not declare his foreign bank deposits is his differing view about the law on SALN. Corona invoked a martial law rule which says that foreign bank deposits are confidential; hence, no one, except the Courts can compel someone to disclose these deposits before the public.

That law is as old as Cuevas, and since it was made during Martial law, it is now superceded by the new 1987 Constitution. There is a provision in the basic charter which says that those laws which contravene the spirit and intention of the Constitution are rendered unconstitutional.

The SALN law is one of the measures thought of by several of our legislators for one thing and one thing alone---to be able to curb graft and corruption and for the people to be able to see whether a government official has enriched himself while in office.

Which between the two is paramount---the right to confidentiality or the right to disclosure?

Corona faces conviction

Thu, 24 May 2012 11:16:07 +0000

Blocked from leaving the Senate

The walkout by Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona sealed his fate: he will be convicted.

During his three-hour narration, wherein he didn’t mince words against those he perceived were maligning him including President Aquino, whom he scornfully referred to as “hacienderong Pangulo”, he kept on complaining about his detractors undermining the rule law and bastardizing due process.

“Binababoy nila ang proseso ng Saligang Batas para yurakan ang aking mga karapatan,” he said.

As chief justice, Corona should be the embodiment of the rule of law. His office enforces judicial code of conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. He knows that a witness, which he was on May 22, does not leave the witness stand without being discharged by the Presiding judge.

Yet,acting imperial, he declared:“And now, the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to be excused.” He left the witness stand and walked out of the courtroom. He didn’t wait to be excused.

If the Chief Justice trampled on simple rules of court, how then can he demand obedience to it from those that come under the jurisdiction of the Court? If he arrogantly committed contempt of court, one wonders what other laws did he arrogantly violated.

Even before his May 22 appearance at his own impeachment trial, sources said Malacañang already has enough votes (at least 16 out of 23 senators) to convict him. Corona is lucky if he gets four or five (he needs eight senators to block his conviction) sympathetic senators.

Since Tuesday, he was confined at the Medical City where he was under observation “for possible heart attack.” His chief legal counsel, Serafin Cuevas, said Corona will be at the Senate today despite his doctors’ orders. The Chief Justice has signed a waiver freeing his doctors from any liability in case anything happens to him while at the trial.

Enrile set the oral arguments for both prosecution and defense panels on Monday. After that, the senator-judges will vote to either acquit or convict Corona, the first chief justice to be subjected to this judgment.

How will the voting be done?

Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials adopted by the Senate for the Corona impeachment states: “ The trial of all the articles of impeachment shall be completed before the Senators vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the vote shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of said articles by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment of conviction, and a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.

“A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.”

There will be no motion for reconsideration.

I’m not a lawyer but I suppose once he is convicted, Corona would have to be removed not only from his post as chief justice but as justice of the Supreme Court.

Those who want to see him be punished further can file charges against him before the Ombudsman. Civil society groups like that of Harvey Keh would not have to rely on Mr or Ms Anonymous for evidence against Corona. The records of the impeachment trial would be a rich source of materials for cases they can file against him.

They can charge him with perjury and violation of Republic Act 6713, the law that establishes the code of conduct for public officials and employees. If they can prove that his wealth is ill-gotten, despite his declaration that all his money were earned honestly, they can file appropriate charges with the Ombudsman.

***

Romeo Solina wrote me to dispute Corona’s statement that they do not employ a house help.

I’m publishing this so that the Coronas can counter-dispute, if they want to.

Here’s what Corona said: “Simpleng buhay at tahanan lamang—hindi man kami gumagamit ng aircon sapagka’t napakadali po naming magkasakit sa lamig. Simpleng pagkain lamang ang kinakain namin sa bahay, at sa maniwala “po kayo at sa hindi, kami po ay walang katulong sa bahay.

At, iyan ang sinasabi kong katotohan sa inyo. Ganoon kasimple po ang aming pamumuhay na paminsan-minsan lamang na may dumadating na naglilinis ng aming bahay o nagplaplantsa ng aming damit. “

Here’s a portion of Solina’s letter: “We have a ‘katulong’ with us for several years now. We took her after she worked with the Coronas. That was when Corona was still working with then President Arroyo. She said she was supposed to work in the canteen being run by Mrs. Corona near a school in Vito Cruz, but had to stay in the residence of the Coronas. She committed a blunder – by spilling something on a guest and was berated by Corona himself – and she had to resign.

“When I heard Corona’s statement ‘wala kaming katulong’ (to impress the public that he lives simply) I asked Tess, our own katulong what the situation was several years ago. She said that while she was assigned to serve at the canteen, there were three maids for the household – a cook, a laundress, and a cleaner. All of them slept in the house, but were not allowed much free time.”

Philip PHilips is new American Idol!

PatricioMangubat — Thu, 24 May 2012 10:08:00 +0000

After 132 million votes, America has decided to anoint as their new idol for season eleven of American Idol, Philip Philips, he with a pussy growl.

Filipino-Mexican American Jessica Sanchez, inspite of her amazing vocal ability, came second.

This is the highest ever such feat a Filipino-American achieved in many years in AI. Jasmine Trias placed third several years ago.

I had a feeling that Jessica would lose this time to Philips due to the West Coast votes. Likewise, Jessica's choice of songs really affected her performance.

This is a season shocker, I might say. Philips is not among those chosen early as frontrunners, but he came as a winner.

It remains to be seen though who between the two would reap Grammy awards and on the charts.

So, Jessica fans out there, like me, should support her budding career as one of Hollywood's legendary belters. Jessica all the way!