Corona found guilty

MANILA, Philippines (1st UPDATE) - With 19 votes already in, the Senate has found Chief Justice Renato Corona guilty of betrayal of public trust for failing to disclose his true wealth in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) as required under the Constitution.

As of posting, only 3 had voted to acquit, and the decision of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile will no longer affect the outcome.

Those who found the chief justice guilty were:

1) Edgardo Angara
2) Alan Peter Cayetano
3) Pia Cayetano
4) Franklin Drilon
5) Francis Escudero

6) Jinggoy Estrada
7) Teofisto Guingona III
8) Gregorio Honasan
9) Panfilo Lacson
10) Lito Lapid

11) Loren Legarda
12) Sergio Osmeña III
13) Francis Pangilinan
14) Aquilino 'Koko' Pimentel III
15) Ralph Recto

16) Ramon Revilla Jr.
17) Vicente Sotto III
18) Antonio Trillanes IV
19) Manuel villar

Those who have so far found Corona innocent are:

1) Joker Arroyo
2) Miriam Defensor-Santiago
3) Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Corona thus becomes the first high-ranking official in Philippine history to be removed from office via the method prescribed by the Constitution.

Then-President Joseph Estrada's impeachment trial in 2001 was cut short by a military-backed civilian uprising which ousted him from office, instead of via the impeachment process.

Stronger democracy or dictatorship?

The 5-month long impeachment process is seen by analysts as an exercise that will strengthen the country's democratic institutions.

Various surveys have shown that the Filipino public will accept the verdict of the Senate, regardless of whether Corona is found guilty or not.

The historic vote on Tuesday was also expected to strengthen the Aquino presidency, as well as its campaign against corruption and efforts to promote transparency and accountability.

Corona, however, has said that President Aquino's bid to remove him from office is an attack on an independent branch of government, and that if he is removed from office, it would lead to a dictatorship.

98% of cash assets undeclared

In its closing arguments Monday, House prosecutors said Corona failed to disclose 98% of his cash assets in his SALNs. Corona's defense lawyers argued that the law on foreign currency deposits provides for absolute confidentiality, and that failure to disclose is not one of the impeachable offenses provided under the Constitution.

The vote focused on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint filed by 188 congressmen last December 12, which alleges that Corona failed to disclose his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as required under Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

The senator-judges no longer voted on the 2 other articles of impeachment (Articles 3 and 7), which accuse Corona of failing to meet the competence, integrity, probity and independence of a government official, and favoring former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in one of his decisions.

During the 44 trial days spread out in 5 months, the chief justice's real property acquisitions and dollar deposits became the subject of heated debate and discussions.

Family feud

The family feud between the Coronas and the Basas over Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI) also hurt his stature during the trial, although the two families began to reconcile last Friday by hugging and kissing at the Senate session hall during a caucus break.

In the beginning, many thought the prosecution would likely lose, with many senator-judges criticizing them for their unpreparedness and poor presentation of evidence.

They were assailed for presenting a bloated list of Corona’s real properties, and for wrongly fishing for evidence during the trial.

The defense, on the other hand, earned the ire of many senators when they claimed that Malacañang tried to bribe a couple of them in order to vote for the opening of Corona’s dollar accounts. The Senate voted 13-10 to respect a Supreme Court TRO on Corona's dollar accounts.

Corona's dollar accounts

In the last days of the trial, the focus was on the dollar accounts of Corona. The defense presented a hostile witness, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, who presented an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report which purportedly shows Corona had at least $10 million-$12 million in transactional balances in 82 foreign-denominated accounts.

The allegation prompted Corona to agree to take the witness stand, a move which many thought was a big mistake.

Corona debunked Carpio-Morales’ accusations, saying he has only $2.4 million, including interest earnings since the early 1970s, plus P80 million in commingled funds.

He said there was no need to declare his dollar deposits in his SALNs because of the absolute confidentiality provided by the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

He then signed a waiver authorizing banks to disclose his financial assets, but the Senate merely took note of it since it was not a producer of evidence for either party.

Corona's move last May 22 to leave the witness stand without being excused and attempt to leave the Senate also proved costly since many senators saw it as an attempted walkout and disrespect of the impeachment court.

source: abs-cbnnews.com

Estrada votes to convict Corona

MANILA, Philippines - Senator-judge Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada voted to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona on Article II as the impeachment court rendered a verdict on Day 44 of the historic trial.

Estrada, eighth in the line of senators called upon to declare and announce their vote, said he could not accept the defense explanation of "good faith" in Corona's exclusion of huge chunks of his assets from his SALN, because "the chief justice is a learned man."

He described the impeachment of Corona as a "redemption" for the country and the democratic process, because it had once, 11 years ago, failed in the case of his father, then-President Joseph Estrada. His trial was aborted by the walkout of prosecutors, and because it is clear now, said the senator, that the issues were meant "to be resolved in the streets" right from the start. "In my eyes, he is guilty," Estrada concluded.

source: interaksyon.com

Guingona finds Corona guilty of Article 2

Senator Teofisto Guingona III finds Corona guilty of Article of Impeachment No. 2 for failing to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

"Ginoong Pangulo, batay sa ebisensiya, sa mga mismong sinabi at pag-amin ng nasasakdal at bilang pagkilala sa kasagraduhan ng Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, ito ang hatol ko: Ang nasasakdal na punong mahistrado ng Korte Supreme ay hindi na, hindi na po karapat-dapat sa pagtitiwala ng sambayanang Pilipino (Mr. President, based on the evidence, on the very words and admission of the accused and in recognition of the sacredness of the Constitution of the Philippines, this is my verdict: The accused Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is no longer, no longer worthy of the trust of the Filipino people)," Guingona said.

"I vote to convict the accused Chief Justice of the Supreme Court," he added.

Following is the full text of Guingona's explanation of his vote:

Ginoong Pangulo, sa paglilitis na ito, ang aking boto ay para sa kasagraduhan at kapangyarihan ng Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Mr. President, if there is one thing that our nation would have learned in this impeachment process, it is this: that we must renew our respect for and protect the sanctity of our Constitution of our republic.

Ang ating Saligang Batas ay sagrado at walang sinumang kapangyarihan sa ating bansa ang mas mataas pa dito. Ito ay sagrado, lahat dito dapat sumunod. Ipatupad ito at igalang ito. Ito ay sagrado kaya lahat ng lingkod-bayan, ibinoto o inappoint man sa tungkulin, ay pinasusumpa na ito ay itataguyod at ipagtatanggol.

Ang hindi pagsunod, ang hindi pagtupad, ang hindi pagtatanggol sa ating Saligang Batas ay isang malinaw na paglapastangan sa pinamakataas na batas n gating republika. At sa kaso pong ating nilitis Ginoong Pangulo, pinagaralan ko ang mga sumusunod: nagkaruon ba ng paglabag at paglapastangan sa sagradong Saligang Batas ng Pilpinas? At kung nagkaruon nga ng paglapastangan ay dapat bang hindi na payagang manatili sa kanyang pwesto at tungkulin. Inihayag ba ng nasasakdal ang lahat ng assets, liabilities at net worth niya, bilang pagsunod sa Saligang Batas: ang sagot ko po hindi po ginawa.

Nagkaruon ba ng bahid ang kanyang integrity at probity sa panahon ng kanyang panunungkulan sa pinakamataas na korte ng ating bansa? Ang sagot ko po, opo, nagkaruon ng malaking bahid.

Nilabag ba niya ang utos ng Saligang Batas na siya ay dapat maging accountable to the people sa lahat ng pagkakataon at maglingkod ng may utmost responsibility, integrity and loyalty: Ang sagot ko po, opo nilabag po.

One of the actions of the accused stands out, Mr President.

Mula mismo sa mga labi ng nasasakdal, inamin niya na nakadeposito sa iba’t ibang mga bangko ang mga salapi niya na nagkakahalagang P80M at $2.4M. Pero nasaan ito, nasaan ito, sa kanyang sinumpaang SALN?

Idedeklara lamang ba ito kung kelan gugustuhin ng isang mataas na opisyal? Pwede ba siyang magtago sa likod ng FCDA?

Mr. President, ito ay isang pabaluktot ng provision ng Constitution. How can one man use the very same Constitution which mandates full public disclosure to justify concealment of millions of dollars in his personal bank account? This is constitutional perversion in its ultimate form.

G. Pangulo, sino ba ang inaasahan ng taumbayan para maging pangunahing tagapagtanggol ng Saligang Batas? Hindi ba’t ang Korte Supreme. Ano ang aaasahan natin pagtatanggol kung ang mismong pangulo nito ang unang humahanap ng butas para baluktutin an gating Saligang Batas. Ang Saligang Batas ay sagrado. Anumang paglusot dito, anomang pagbaluktot ditto ay paglabag at papabastos sa pinakamataas na bansa. The Constitution above all.

Ginoong Pangulo, batay sa ebisensiya, sa mga mismong sinabi at pag-amin ng nasasakdal at bilang pagkilala sa kasagraduhan ng Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, ito ang hatol ko: Ang nasasakdal na punong mahistrado ng Korte Supreme ay hindi na, hindi na po karapat-dapat sa pagtitiwala ng sambayanang Pilipino.

I vote to convict the accused Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Maraming salamat po.

source: interaksyon.com

Drilon votes Corona guilty on Article 2

The Senate, convened as an impeachment court over the past four months, adjourned on Monday having heard the final arguments of lawyers prosecuting and defending Chief Justice Renato Corona, and now placing the fate of the chief magistrate solely in the hands of senator-judges.

The senators are expected to vote on Tuesday either to convict and immediately remove Corona from his post as Chief Justice, or to acquit and send the Philippines into uncharted political waters.

It will ultimately be a political vote, and while there will be time on Tuesday for each senator-judge to explain his or her vote, the impeachment trial had in fact progressed, and will conclude, with no formal guideline or consensus on the criteria for voting to either convict or acquit. The senators early on in the trial had raised questions as to the "quantum of evidence" or the level of proof that they should seek – whether at par with standards for criminal, civil, or administrative cases – but there was never any resolution on the matter.

That will leave Corona's fate to be determined by a mixed group of lawyers and non-lawyers distributed over a number of political parties and affiliations, and each with different political considerations and interests heading into a crucial election season.

Congressmen composing a panel of prosecutors on Monday accused Corona of "deception of the highest order" and called for his sacking, as the historic four-month trial reached a climax. The final plea to oust the Chief Justice came from no less than the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Feliciano Belmonte.

The first Supreme Court justice to stand trial, Renato Corona is accused of hiding millions of dollars' worth of assets and other graft, claims he says were cooked up by President Benigno Aquino to have him removed.

"Palusot." Excuses, excuses. This was how Ilocos Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas - as member of the House panel prosecuting Chief Justice Renato Corona - characterized the defense of the chief magistrate in the concluding impeachment trial against him.

Fariñas said Corona and his lawyers' explanations for peso and dollar properties undeclared in the Chief Justice's statements of assets and net worth (SALN) all amounted to "one flimsy excuse after another" ("puro palusot") - all coming too weakly and too late supposedly after Corona had been caught in what lead prosecutor Niel Tupas recapped as "lies".

Fariñas said Corona's accounting for $2.4 million and P80 million that went undeclared in his SALNs were hard to swallow.

The Chief Justice on Friday tried to counter suggestions that the moneys were ill-gotten, saying the dollar amounts could be easily explained by his and his wife's discipline and foresight in saving dollars starting from the 1960's. Corona had even noted that he started investing in dollars in the late 1960s when the peso traded at "2-to-1" with the US dollar.

As for not declaring the savings in his SALN, Corona and his lawyers have insisted that the Chief Justice had no obligation to declare his dollar "savings" given laws guaranteeing secrecy and privacy in foreign currency deposits. The peso accounts, they add, were not actually entirely Corona's, and were supposedly aggregated and co-mingled savings of Corona, his wife, children, and even relatives tied to a family company.

Fariñas, however, mocked the very notion of Corona hoarding dollars starting from the 1960s. By the prosecution's accounting, for the Chief Justice's story to hold true, Corona started buying dollars "when he was in Grade 4." Meanwhile, he said Corona's story about co-mingled funds contradicted what the prosecution tried to portray as an increasingly convoluted story that at turns made clear delienations between his properties and assets and those of his children and relatives, and at turns suggested they were one and the same.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, 63, is accused of protecting graft-tainted former president Gloria Arroyo from prosecution, as well as lacking integrity and amassing a personal fortune above the limits of his salary - which he failed to declare as required by the constitution.

The maximum penalty for a guilty verdict on any of the three charges is his removal, but the Senate, sitting as a court, said it also has the option of imposing the lesser penalties of censure, reprimand, fine, or suspension.

In his closing argument Monday, chief prosecutor Niel Tupas said the senator-judges must convict and impose the severest penalty for Corona's failure to declare bank deposits including $2.4 million in US dollar accounts. He said the campaign to oust Corona was not one waged against one man, but rather one to rid the Philippine justice system of "evils".

"His lies in the SALN (his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth) run into the hundreds of millions and cannot be ignored," Tupas said.

"It is lying, it is dishonesty, it is deception of the highest order."

Tupas said these assets were significantly higher than the P22.9 million (about $533,000) net worth declared by Corona in his 2010 declaration, an annual constitutional requirement for all public officials.

Corona's removal was sought by Aquino, who was elected to the presidency in 2010 on a platform to end corruption which he claimed reached pervasive levels during Arroyo's term.

Aquino has accused Arroyo of illegally appointing Corona as chief justice just before she stepped down, allegedly to protect her from prosecution. Arroyo is now in detention while separately being tried for vote rigging.

Corona was impeached by Aquino's allies in the House of Representatives in December, which then sent the complaint to the Senate for trial.

Millions of Filipinos have closely followed the trial, which began in January, and various opinion surveys have indicated that Aquino enjoyed widespread public support for pursuing a judge perceived to be corrupt.

Corona however was backed by his peers in the judiciary amid warnings the president may have violated constitutional provisions in his zeal to remove the chief justice.

Sixteen votes, about two-thirds of the chamber, are required to unseat Corona. The senators, who include only four members of Aquino's party, have been tight-lipped about how they intended to vote.

The senator-judges were expected to announce their vote in individual speeches later Monday or Tuesday.

Corona's lawyer Eduardo de los Angeles stressed that Corona did not commit any "high crime" cited by the constitution, such as treason, bribery, or corruption, that would be cause for his removal.

Corona's failure to declare his dollar savings was covered under the country's strict bank confidentiality laws, his lawyer said.

At most, Corona's failure to declare the dollar deposits was a minor breach of another law requiring public officials to declare all their assets, and this can be remedied by filing an amended statement of assets, de los Angeles added.

"Certainly a high government official should not be impeached nor removed from office for any minor breach of the law."

Last week, Corona appeared as the final witness in his defence and delivered a three-hour testimony accusing Aquino of a conspiracy to oust him.

He claimed his impeachment was the result of a personal vendetta by Aquino following a landmark Supreme Court ruling to break up Hacienda Luisita, a giant sugar estate owned by the president's clan.

That court decision came shortly before Aquino's allies voted to impeach Corona. With reports from Joseph Hollandes Ubalde, InterAksyon.com, and from Agence France-Presse

source: interaksyon.com

Corona says dollar accounts total $2.4M

MANILA, Philippines - Chief Justice Renato Corona told the impeachment court on Friday his dollar deposits total $2.4 million, but stressed these were not deposited in one fell swoop, but were the result of savings that yielded interest for over 30 years.

source: interaksyon.com

Corona to appear at Senate on Friday

MANILA, Philippines -- Chief Justice Renato Corona will appear before the impeachment court on Friday, his lead defense counsel, retired Justice Serafin Cuevas, said Thursday.

Cuevas told reporters at the Medical City hospital in Pasig City, where Corona is confined, that he was able to convince the Chief Justice to appear at the impeachment court because of the ultimatum given by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for the defense to wrap up its case by Friday.

The ultimatum was handed down after Corona capped his close to three-hour opening statement on Tuesday by suddenly walking out of the session hall, angering Enrile.

Corona's lawyers and family later explained he had suffered from hypoglycemia, or a sudden drop in his blood sugar levels.

The diabetic Corona was taken to the Medical City where he was confined at the intensive care unit.

Cuevas said Corona's family and his doctors were originally not amenable to allowing the magistrate to go.

However, he said he explained the need for Corona to appear lest he lose his case.

source: interaksyon.com

Impeachment court asked to summon LRA Chief, Manila records custodian

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Renato C. Corona through his lawyers has asked the impeachment court to summon the administrator of Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the records custodian of the City of Manila.

In separate motions filed Thursday by former associate justice Serafin Cuevas, the defense counsel sought the testimonies of Atty. Eulalio C. Diaz III and Ms. Annielyn C. Moises, the LRA’s administrator and the Acting Record Officer of the City of Manila respectively, to testify and bring documents in the impeachment trial of Corona on March 19.

Diaz’s testimony is expected to refute the claim of House prosecution panel that Corona owns forty-five properties as alleged in Article II, paragraphs two and three of the articles of impeachment filed against the chief magistrate.

If the defense’s request is granted, Diaz will be required to appear on March 19, 2012 and bring various documents, including a letter he wrote, dated January 10, 2012, addressed to Representative Niel Tupas enumerating the 45 properties allegedly owned by Corona.

The same subpoena, if approved by the impeachment court, will also require Diaz to bring Representative Niel Tupas Jr.’s letter request for information regarding Corona’s alleged properties.

The defense counsel also sought Moises’ appearance and testimony on the same date to prove that Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc., transacted with the Government of the City of Manila involving the sale of a parcel of land. Corona’s defense lawyers also asked the impeachment court to compel Moises to bring original and certified true copies of a City Ordinance No. 7975 enacted by the City Council of Manila on December 21, 1999 regarding the expropriation of a 1,020.7 square meter of parcel of land located in Sampaloc, Manila.

The defense panel also asked the court to require Moises to bring original and certified true copies of City Ordinance No. 7976 enacted by the City Council of Manila on December 21, 1999 regarding the appropriation of the budget of the City of Manila for the Calendar year 2000, Deed of Sale dated March 26, 2001 between the City of Manila and BGEI involving a 1,027.7 sq.m., parcel of land located in Sampaloc, Manila which was purchased for the amount of P34,703,800.00, and a Letter from Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison dated November 28,2000 addressed to Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.

“The testimony of the Annielyn C. Moises, together with the above requested documents, will prove that a transaction between BGEI and the Government of City of Manila took place that resulted in the latter’s issuance of Check No. 188804 on June 5, 2001 for the amount of P34,703,800.000 paid to Cristina Corona in trust for BGEI,” the defense said.

source: interaksyon.com