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

$10M dollar accounts case preparation for new impeachment case vs Corona, defense says

MANILA, Philippines -- Chief Justice Renato Corona's defense lawyer said that the ill-gotten wealth filed against his client is a preparation for another impeachment case if the current one fails to convict the chief magistrate.

“The detractors of the Chief Justice are already laying the groundwork for another impeachment complaint. This is where the investigation by the Ombudsman is headed,” lawyer Ramon Esguerra said on Sunday in reaction to news reports that the Office of the Ombudsman is set to file a forfeiture case against Corona.

“As stated, the route of the investigation is another impeachment in the future based on alleged ill-gotten wealth that has been barred in the current one,” he said

Esguerra said that Corona has expected this kind of retaliation from the administration because the chief magistrate did not inhibit himself from the decision made on the motion for reconsideration filed on the Hacienda Luisita case.

“We have somehow expected it. The complaints were filed more that a month ago. The decision on the MR on Luisita came out last Tuesday, and trial resumes a week from now,” Esguerra told newsmen.

He said that “as stated, the route of the investigation on the alleged ill-gotten wealth against Corona is another impeachment in the future since the current one is marred with legal loopholes and lack of concrete evidence and testimonies that will merit conviction.”

“What is telling is that the complaints made no mention of $10 million but appear to be merely a mirror of accusations in the current impeachment,” he added.

“If i relate it to the law, RA 6770 and the Constitution, the detractors of CJ are already laying the groundwork for another impeachment complaint. It cannot be for alleged unexplained wealth for forfeiture under RA 1379. CJ is still holding his position and any legal action under this law will have to await the verdict in the current impeachment complaint."

source: interaksyon.com

Corona argument on Arroyo watch list order centers on right to life

Unlike his fellow magistrates who focused on a person's right to travel, Chief Justice Renato Corona instead centered on the right to life during Tuesday's oral arguments for and against the watch list orders issued against the Arroyo couple.

During the latter part of the arguments, Corona posed a question to Anacleto Diaz, counsel for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on what does he think is the right violated by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Department Circular 41, which paved the way for the watch list order against the Arroyo couple.

Diaz took the stand to insist the watch list order violated Mrs. Arroyo’s right to travel, which they described as "absolute" and was enshrined under Section 6 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In response to Corona's question, Diaz said: "I place a person's right to life paramount to all other rights."

Corona uttered back: "Yes, right to life. That's a right guaranteed not only by the Philippine Constitution but also guaranteed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission."

Added Corona, who was one of the 12 current magistrates appointed by Mrs. Arroyo while she was president: "[A person has a right] to live life as life should be lived."

No basis

Diaz claimed there was no basis for the DOJ to issue DC 41, which he said was "violative of a person's right to travel. "Public officials should not be allowed to strike when and where they please. They should not be allowed to use unchanneled governmental power," he said.

Under the Constitution, a person's right to travel should not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public, health, and public safety.

Diaz said there is no law authorizing the DOJ to issue a watch list or a hold departure order to anyone being subjected to a preliminary investigation by the department.

"With the absence of any law, there is no basis for DC No. 41. It is clear that DC is clearly violative of a person’s right to travel," he said.

For his part, Justice Antonio Carpio likened the issuance of a watch list order to the issuance of a subpoena. "A prosecutor can issue a subpoena during preliminary investigation compelling respondents to appear," he said.

"The prosecution can also inform the immigration service not to allow the departure of respondents until he or she complies with the subpoena," Carpio added.

Satisfied

Justice Diosdado Peralta openly said he was "satisfied" with Diaz's explanation. Contradicting Carpio, Peralta said: "A subpoena is not equal to a hold departure order."

But unlike Corona and Peralta, Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno seemed unconvinced with Diaz's arguments.

Corona and Peralta were among eight justices who earlier voted in favor of a temporary restraining order against the watch list orders. The TRO rendered the Arroyo couple free to travel abroad.

Sereno and Caprio, on the other hand, were among the five justices who dissented.

"Why are we going to make an exceptional case and not make a presumption that the Arroyo administration did not believe that?" Sereno asked Diaz.

Mistake

The associate justice noted that under the Arroyo administration, more than 6,000 people became subject of a watch list or a hold departure order by virtue of Department Circulars 17 and 18.

In response, Diaz admitted it was a "mistake" when government officials under the Arroyo administration enforced the plethora of watch list and hold departure orders issued at the time.

The watch list order issued against the Arroyo couple was based on DC 41, which superseded the previous DC 17 and 18. DC 41 was issued in May 2010, still during Mrs. Arroyo's tenure as chief executive.

The subject of Tuesday's oral arguments was the couple's separate petitions questioning the legality of the watch list order and DC 14, saying they were violative of their right to travel. The Arroyo camp also said they should not be placed on the watch list since no criminal cases have been filed against them at the time.

An electoral sabotage case, however, has since been filed against Mrs. Arroyo and two other government officials, former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr. and former Maguindanao provincial election supervisor Lintang Bedol.

Mr. Arroyo, meanwhile, was spared from the charges and was taken off the watch list Tuesday, along with seven other individuals, including former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra, who was Mrs. Arroyo's election lawyer in previous elections. - KBK, GMA News

source: gmanews.tv