Impeachment battleground: Corona's alleged dollar accounts

The almost three-month-old impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona seems to have boiled down to this: Does he have dollar accounts containing millions? And if so, why did he not declare these in his Statement of Assets Liabilities and Networth, or SALN.   The latter point is one of the three grounds for impeachment that the prosecution is still pursuing, and on which basis the senator-judges will convict or acquit the chief justice.   On May 8, 2012, a day after the impeachment court resumed after a month-long break, Corona through his lawyers committed to the Senate that he will, finally, testify.   It is a gambit that impeachment watchers did not expect to come this soon.   What triggered the decision seemed to be the latest allegation by civil society group “Kaya Natin" that Corona had $2 million in several accounts in at least seven banks.   Prior to the revelation, the Ombudsman, headed by Corona’s former colleague, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, had written Corona asking him to explain an alleged $10-million deposit under his name.   The letter was related to an investigation the Ombudsman has been conducting, which was prompted by a complaint filed by former Akbayan Partylist Representative and spokesperson Risa Hontiveros and Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello.   In a February 17, 2012 complaint, Hontiveros and her colleagues cited 10 pieces of real property that were allegedly not declared in the SALNs of Corona. It also mentioned Corona’s alleged 10 peso accounts and two dollar accounts at PSBank, and five peso accounts with the Bank of the Philippine Islands. Another complaint filed on March 1 by Bello and company alleged that Corona “underdeclared the values of his real properties in his SALN and did not declare his property in La Vista, Quezon City and in McKinley Hills, Taguig.” Uphill climb for defense   The trickle of information on alleged dollar bank accounts apparently whetted the senator-judges' appetites enough for them to demand during the May 7 resumption of the trial that the Chief Justice himself must testify.   “Why don’t you present the respondent himself?” Senate Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile told the defense panel. “This (trial) is a burden to the nation."    The seeming change of demeanor of the Senate was not lost on the defense panel.   “They’re not anymore sympathetic to us. It’s going to be an uphill climb for us,” lead defense counsel Justice Serafin Cuevas said.   The next day, defense lawyers met to re-group with the Chief Justice in attendance.   That was when the decision was made: Corona would testify.   Cuevas said that Corona was losing his “sobriety” over what seemed to be endless allegations against him and his family.   The next day, lawyer Judd Roy, speaking for the defense panel, dangled a proposition: Would the Senate be interested in discussing the alleged $10-million account? Recall that evidence on this matter has not been included in any of the grounds filed by the prosecution. If proven to exist, it will only be characterized as assets not declared by the Chief Justice. If proven to be ill-gotten, it would also be of no use since the Senate had already ruled that evidence on ill-gotten wealth under Article 2.4 is prohibited. Forfeiture proceedings can proceed elsewhere if there is a complaint filed before the Ombudsman and consequently tried before the Sandiganbayan.   “I would like to tell you frankly that any asset not included, regardless of its characterization, whether it’s legally obtained or illegally obtained, is a function of the SALN and it must be included. So, if there’s $10 million and it’s proven to be there or one dollar and (is) not included, it’s the function of this court to interpret whether it constitutes a violation of Sec. 17’s first sentence of Article 2,” Enrile said.   The defense said that Corona was “willing to confront them,” but not after setting out what appeared like a condition: Let his accusers take the stand under oath before Corona does the same.   Roy asked the court to subpoena at least 11 witnesses including Carpio-Morales, Hontiveros, Bello, Keh, and company.   “We are ready to meet this issue head on,” Roy said.   “Submit the request and we will issue the subpoena,” Enrile told Roy.   Senators were quick to bite the challenge. After all, they had long asked for Corona's testimony. But why was the Chief Justice finally giving in? Waiver for dollar accounts   Sen. Panfilo Lacson asked if Corona was willing to sign a waiver to open his dollar accounts. “If he takes the witness stand and he will invoke Republic Act 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act), then we’ll go back to zero," Lacson said.    Under Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines, “all foreign currency deposits … are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature….”   The only time an account may be opened is when the depositor gives his/her consent through a written waiver.   Sec. 8 of the Act states: “…except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired, or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private….” But Roy sought to assuage Lacson’s fears: “There is a strong possibility that he (Corona) will disclose everything.”   After the day's hearing, another defense counsel, Ramon Esguerra, told this reporter that it will be a “full disclosure.   “He will rise or fall based on what’s he’s willing to share with us,” Esguerra said.   The defense recognized it as a risk, a gamble that may or may not be in their client's favor. But Corona, they said, has been pushed against the wall.   “Risk? There’s nothing more to risk, he’s already dying from the accusations hurled against him,” Esguerra said.   The prosecution panel expressed optimism about Corona’s decision. “It’s a welcome development for the prosecution and the Filipino people,” lead prosecutor Iloilo Rep Niel Tupas Jr. said. How many dollar accounts are there?   But the question now is this: just how many dollar accounts does Corona have?   It is, for now, uncertain.   Before the end of the trial session last May 8, Drilon stated that Corona has at least  five dollar accounts in PSBank.   “There are five dollar accounts in PSBank, that is admitted and established already. That was presented in this court by the president of PSBank who said that the accounts were covered,” Drilon said.   But the defense disagreed.   “That is his (Garcia III) testimony. I don’t believe the defense has admitted that fact,” Roy said.   During Garcia’s testimony on February 9, the banker confirmed the existence of at least one dollar account.   Under questioning from Enrile, Garcia III confirmed the existence of 10 bank accounts, identifying at least one (Bank Account No. 089-141008145) as a dollar account.   The following is a transcript of stenographic notes on the February 9, 2012 hearing:   “The Presiding Officer.  All right.  I’ll ask you and listen carefully.    Account No. 089-121011957, does this account exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia. It existed in our records, Your Honor...   The Presiding Officer. Does it exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia. For the year 2007, yes, Your Honor ...   The Presiding Officer. Just tell me, yes or no, if it exist or not exist. Does it exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  Account No. 089-141008145, does that account exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Your Honor, ...   The Presiding Officer.  Does it exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  This pertains to a dollar account.   The Presiding Officer.  I’m only asking whether it exist in your record.   Mr. Garcia  Yes, it exists, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  089-141007469, does this account exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  089-141007129, does this exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  089-121021681, does this account exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, which particular account?   The Presiding Officer.  Account No. 089-121021681, does this exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  Account No. 089-121020122, does this exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  Account No. 089-121019593, does this exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  All right.  Then, next, Account No. 089-121017358, does that exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor.   The Presiding Officer.  Account No. 089-131002826, does that exist in your record?   Mr. Garcia.  Yes, Your Honor. Ombudsman's testimony   Whether there is one account or five, and $2-million, $10-million, or $700k in those accounts is up to Corona to confirm or deny.   Or the Ombudsman.   Ombudsman Carpio-Morales has already indicated that she will obey the subpoena. Reports say that the $10-M figure came from information from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, o AMLC.   As of this writing, the defense has not yet finalized the line-up of their witnesses for the week.   “We are not sure yet if those subpoenaed have been served the subpoena. If that is so, then we need to see who will appear to comply. We will play it by ear. No final decision has been reached yet but we are preparing for all these witnesses. There is no point arguing on their appearance and testimony. What clearly appears to us is that the Senate decided to listen to all of them. If they do not know anything  about the millions of dollars allegedly owned by the Chief Justice, so be it,” Esguerra said in a text message sent to this reporter.   It will be interesting to watch Carpio-Morales’ testimony not only for any information that her office might have received in connection with its investigation, but also because many perceive that the Office of the Ombudsman is an extension of the battle in the Senate.   Corona has said that the Ombudsman's order was a retaliation of the Palace for the Supreme Court’s decision on Hacienda Luisita, yet another attempt by the Chief Justice to link the government's moves against him to the Supreme Court's rulings that were unfavorable to the plantation that has long been owned by members of President Aquino's family. - HS/YA, GMA News