Enrile asks how declaring dollar deposits could have harmed Corona

In a possible indication of his vote in the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Monday asked the defense team what possible harm could befall the chief magistrate if he declared his dollar deposits in his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).   "What injury or prejudice may arise if a depositor, who is a public officer or employee with a foreign currency deposit, would include that deposit or the amount represented by that deposit in his SALN?" Enrile asked the defense panel during the trial’s closing arguments. Enrile is the impeachment court's presiding officer.    The senator raised the question after the defense team repeatedly cited Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act as the reason Corona did not disclose his four dollar accounts with almost $2.4 million in deposits in his SALN.   Responding to Enrile, lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas noted the letter and the spirit of RA 6426 probably were to lessen the possibility of kidnapping and extortion against public employees and officials, considering the "present trend of crime" in the country.   "There is no assurance that one is immune from any of these offenses… That is one," he said.   Enrile wondered out loud whether that was contemplated by the framers of RA 9426. He then cited that RA 9426 would not penalize a depositor if he does declare his dollar deposits in his SALN.   "We are forgetting that the law allows the exposure of a foreign currency deposit by express provision of RA 6426 if the depositor himself would do it,” Enrile noted.   “There's no monetary secrecy law that prohibits, or inhibits or proscribes the depositor from revealing his own deposits… What is prohibited is for third parties to reveal it and that is why they are penalized and the depositor is not," he said.   The Senate president also asked the defense panel whether it considers Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as a "command of the people or something that can be disregarded."   Section 17 states: A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. Enrile-Cuevas exchange   The constitutional provision could not be disregarded, Cuevas answered, but argued that when other laws guarantee the rights of a person there is no reason why that same person should not use that law.   "Why the law granted that is beyond my comprehension. That is a legislative function. The policy behind it may only be known by the legislators themselves," he said.   But Enrile fired back, asking Cuevas if he thinks not following the constitutional provision constitutes culpable violation of the Philippine Constitution. "Disobedience of section 17, do you consider that as deserving of blame?"   Cuevas argued that an intentional violation of the provision deserves blame.    Enrile, however, noted that intent was never mentioned in the provision. "Where in that provision will you find intent?" he said.   Apart from acknowledging having four dollar accounts under his name, Corona also admitted he did not declare his P80 million in deposits in three peso accounts as these were commingled funds with money from his mother and children.   No other senator–after the Senate President–asked either defense and prosecution panel further questions. Enrile's questions appeared to undermine the defense's argument and gave observers the impression that he was leaning towards conviction. In many analysts' thinking, Enrile represents a key swing vote that could influence other senators, including Gringo Honasan and Tito Sotto.    The Senate is expected to vote on three articles of impeachment on Tuesday afternoon. These are:

• Article II or the non-disclosure of assets in his SALN.

• Article III or his lack of probity, integrity and independence in dealing with the labor dispute involving Philippine Airlines and its employees.

• Article VII involving irregularities in the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court against the hold departure order of the Department of Justice to prevent Mrs. Arroyo from leaving the country last November.