How Corona lost his impeachment case

When Chief Justice Renato Corona admitted during his impeachment trial that he had almost P200 million in undeclared cash deposits, he probably hoped the gesture of transparency would work in his favor. Instead, it backfired and proved to be the decisive factor for many senator-judges who voted to convict him.   “The Chief Justice himself openly admitted before this Court that he has four U.S. dollar accounts totaling $2.4 million, and three peso accounts of P80.7 million,” noted Senator Edgardo Angara, who was the first to cast a guilty verdict at the conclusion of the trial.   “I may grant the Chief Justice’s plea of honest mistake of judgment. But given his broad experience in public law and practice in investment advisory services, his willful and deliberate omission, together with the magnitude of the subject matter, amounts to a culpable violation,” Angara added.   In his testimony last May 25, Corona made the admission in response to questions from senators. Defending his actions, he said he did not declare the dollar deposits because he believes they are protected by the confidentiality clause in Republic Act 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.   As for the peso deposits, he said that although they were in his name, they contained commingled funds from his three children, his mother, and the contested revenues of the family corporation of his wife.   Confidentiality vs. accountability   But 20 of out of 23 senators did not buy Corona’s claims and explanation, pointing out serious flaws in his interpretation of the foreign currency law.   “This kind of interpretation will encourage aspiring thieves in government to simply hide all their loot in FCDU accounts,” Senator Franklin Drilon said.      “Nowhere in the FCDU Law is the depositor not allowed to disclose his own deposits. All the FCDU Law prohibits is the depository banks and third parties from disclosing the account and its deposits,” Senator Sergio Osmeña added.   Senate President and presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile agreed: “There is nothing in R.A. No. 6426 which prohibits the depositor from making a declaration on his own of such foreign currency funds, especially in this case where the Constitution mandates the depositor who is a public officer to declare all assets under oath.”   The turning point   But things weren’t so bad for Corona at the beginning of the trial.   In the first few weeks of the proceedings, the defense seemed to have the upper hand as the prosecution committed one blunder after another, starting with the rushed filing of the impeachment complaint.   More than a few times, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago berated the prosecution panel for lack of preparation and for often disregarding the rules of evidence. “I am deeply disappointed that on at least three occasions, the prosecution claimed that its documents came from an anonymous source. Are you for real?” she said when she acquitted Corona.   Enrile also noted: “The repeated recourse to this court's compulsory processes to obtain evidence which normally should have formed the factual basis of the charges in the first place further burdened and, at times, taxed the patience of this court.”   Ironically, the tide turned in favor of the prosecution when the defense panel insisted on calling Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales as a hostile witness. In a post-trial interview with GMA News TV, Enrile said the testimony of Morales became a crucial factor for senators who had remained undecided up to the last minute.   “I found it difficult to make a decision two-thirds through the trial. However with the appearance of the Ombudsman and the testimony of the Chief Justice himself, the whole picture came together not just for me, but for many of my colleagues as well. You can see this sentiment reflected in the overwhelming vote,” said Enrile.   Based on a 17-page report from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, Morales had testified that Corona had 82 dollar accounts in five banks. She also presented an analysis made by the Commission on Audit that showed circuitous movements of funds and at least $10 million in transactional balances.   “Palusot” with a “pizza pie”   Corona responded to the testimony of Morales with his own version of pie charts in an attempt to explain away his huge undeclared wealth, but deputy lead prosecutor Rodolfo Fariñas labeled the explanation as “palusot” in his deftly crafted closing arguments last May 28.   Enrile praised Fariñas for his persuasive speech delivered in the vernacular, but perhaps the best affirmation came from Senator Lito Lapid when he voted to convict Corona.   “Naawa po ako sa kanya. Akala ko totoo sinasabi niya, hindi pala. ’Yung sinasabi niyang pizza pie, [na] hindi totoo yung 82 accounts...” said Lapid, referring to the pie charts that Corona presented to prove his innocence. “[Pero] ‘yun pong ipinrisinta ni Congressman Fariñas, malinaw na si chief justice ay lumabag sa batas.”   Corona made matters worse when he abruptly left the impeachment court after taking the witness stand last May 22, without waiting to be discharged. “In a way it affected the attitude of the members of the Senate because they felt rudely insulted,” Enrile said.   The presiding officer also faulted the defense for committing other mistakes.   “Unang-una, sila ang nag-presenta ng quantum of income ni chief justice – element ng illegal wealth yan,” Enrile observed.   “Second, sila ang nagbukas ng issue nung Basa-Guidote corporation, na kung saan lumabas yung issue ng execution ng judgment in favor of Mrs. Corona na kung saan ipinagbili yung 90% control ng Basa-Guiidote sa anak niya for P28,000,” he added.     Three voted not guilty   In the end, the only senators who voted for acquittal were the ones known to be critical of President Benigno Aquino III, who has advocated the removal of Corona due to Supreme Court decisions allegedly favoring his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.   Senator Joker Arroyo argued that the impeachment trial violated Corona’s right to due process, saying: “Impeachment is a political process, not a political assassination. What started in the House was not an impeachment.”   Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. thought conflicting laws were to blame, and said: “Corona must be presumed to have acted in good faith.”   Meanwhile, Senator Santiago asserted that Corona’s failure to declare all his wealth in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) was not enough reason to convict him. “An omission in good faith in the SALN carries a light penalty, and is even allowed to be corrected. Thus, it is not impeachable,” she said.   The case of Delsa Flores   But for several senators who voted to convict Corona, his omission brought to mind the case of Delsa Flores, a court interpreter in Davao who was removed from office and permanently disqualified from holding any government position merely because she failed to disclose a market stall in her SALN.    “Ang patakarang pinatutupad para sa pangkaraniwang empleyado ng gobyerno ay dapat ding ipatupad sa punong mahistrado, sapagkat tayong lahat ay pantay-pantay sa ilalim ng batas. Ang batas para kay Juan ay batas din para kay Renato,” said Senator Koko Pimentel.   “Tama ba na ang pagsisinungaling ng maliliit ay parusahan habang ang pagsisinungaling ng makapangyarihan ang tungkulan ay i-abswelto?” added Senator Francis Pangilinan. In 1997, the Supreme Court had decided to remove Flores from government service, ruling that “her failure to disclose her business interest which she herself admitted is inexcusable.”   Reached by GMA News TV for comment, Flores said she was glad the same law that removed her from office did not spare a Chief Justice.   “Happy ako na patas lang pala ang batas, malaki man ang iyong ranggo o maliit man. At least, pareho lang pala kami," Flores said. – YA/HS, GMA News