MALAYBALAY CITY (MindaNews/28 May) – In their closing arguments at the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the defense lawyers employed an approach that provided a glimpse of what they will do in case of a conviction. Their arguments centered on questions surrounding the process leading to the trial and on whether the allegations brought up by the House of Representatives are impeachable offenses.
Predictably, both sides focused on article 2 of the articles of impeachment, which deals with the non-declaration by the Chief Justice of his dollar accounts and some properties in his statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
Lead prosecutor Niel Tupas insisted that the amounts in Corona’s accounts cannot be explained by his salary and other lawful income, although illegal wealth is not among the articles of impeachment. He hastened to add that the issue though is not the amount but the nondisclosure of these assets in the SALN.
Congressman Rodolfo Farinas, another prosecutor, cited the inconsistencies in Corona’s actions and pronouncements in relation to the amount of money he actually has. Speaking mostly in Tagalog, Farinas called these actions and pronouncements “palusot” (lame excuses). For instance, he asked why Corona declared having obtained a loan of P11 million from the firm owned by the family of his wife when he already had tens of millions in the banks.
The congressman pointed out the error in Corona’s recollection of the dollar-peso exchange rate at the time that he supposedly started investing in dollar deposits. He also stressed that Corona was still a student then.
House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. spoke last for the prosecution. Reading from a prepared statement, Belmonte tried to convince the Senate sitting as an impeachment court that the central issue is Corona’s “moral fitness” and credibility. He cited the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court in the case between the Philippine Airlines and its employees, and the temporary restraining order which would have allowed former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country and possibly escape prosecution for graft and other crimes.
On the other hand, consistent with their tack that the trial should be treated as akin to a criminal proceeding, the defense lawyers dwelt on the supposed irregularities of the process, legal arguments on which law should prevail with regard to the once concealed accounts, and on whether the allegations lodged against their client fall under the category of high crimes as contemplated by the constitution.
The defense lawyers echoed their contention at the start of the trial that the impeachment complaint was submitted to the Senate without giving Corona due process, and that some of the 188 House members who signed it did not even bother to read its contents. Cuevas had tried to raise this issue, but Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ruled that it had become moot and academic after the impeachment received the complaint and decided to proceed with the trial.
Atty. Eduardo de los Angeles asserted that Republic Act 6713 (SALN Law) does not do away with the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits as provided under RA 6426. He further said that such confidentiality is protected by the right to privacy enshrined in the constitution.
De los Angeles added that Corona’s nondisclosure of certain assets in his SALN does not constitute an impeachable offense, citing the law itself provides for a corrective measure in case of errors or omissions. He said the Chief Justice did not declare the controversial amounts in his SALN based on his own interpretation of RA 6426, an omission made in “good faith.”
Moreover, Cuevas dismissed as mere “scrap of paper” the documents from the Anti-money Laundering Council presented by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales the other week at the impeachment trial. “They are mere scrap of papers, the attestation required by law is not present and therefore they are not admissible as evidence. If they are not admissible as evidence, what probative value does it have here?”
But the more telling part was when Cuevas admitted to Enrile that they will ask the Supreme Court to declare the impeachment proceedings null in case Corona was convicted. The lead defense counsel has always maintained that the High Court can intervene in impeachment cases.
The Senate president said that while he respects Cuevas’ position “I just want to remind you that our reading of Article 11 provided that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases.”
Will Corona run to his colleagues in case of a conviction? Nobody can stop him from doing it, but that would be like seeing the Boston Celtics play with Doc Rivers as the referee. (H. Marcos C. Mordeno writes mainly on the environment, human rights and politics. He can be reached at hmcmordeno@gmail.com)
