Di dapat ikaila kung walang tinatagong masama: My explanation of verdict on the case vs Chief Justice Renato Corona

Hindi dineklara ni Ginoong Corona ang daang milyong piso at dolyar namga account. Hindi niya idineklara taon-taon ang mga milyon- milyong pisong pag-aari ng mga condo units. Ang hindi pagdeklara ng makatotohanang SALN taon-taon sa loob ng halos isang dekada ay dishonesty at isang culpable violation of the Constitution.

Ano po ang ebidensiya? Nariyan ang salaysay ng PS Bank President, ng Ombudsman, at ni Ginoong Corona mismo. P22 Million ang sinabi niya sa SALN niya, ngunit halos P200 milyong cash ang inamin niyang hawak niya. Ito ba ay minor na kakulangan lamang? Dapat bang daang bilyon ang hindi idineklara para maging mabigat ang kaso?

At kung sa malinis na paraan nakuha ang mga ito ano ang masama na ideklara niya lahat dahil wala naman siyang tinatago? Di dapat ikaila kung walang tinatagong masama. Base po sa ebidensiya, maliwanag na nagkaroon ng sistematikong pagtatago ng ari-arian, sistematikong pagtatakip sa tunay na halaga ng mga ito.

It pains me as a lawyer and as an officer of the court to say that clearly the Chief Justice displayed a disturbing pattern of dishonesty, willful concealment, and evasion and a blatant and wanton disregard of the provisions of the Constitution on the SALN.

Sa paglilitis na ito, nakita rin natin ang pagkatao ni Chief Justice. Siya ba ay dapat pa nating pagkatiwalaan? Kung hindi po natin i-convict si Ginoong Corona, sabi po ni Speaker Belmonte, anim na taon pa siyang uupo bilang Chief Justice. Kung kaya niyang ipagkait sa mismo niyang kamag-anakan ang kanilang ari-arian sa Basa Guidote gayong daang milyon na pala ang kanyang cash, siya ba ay dapat pagkatiwalaan sa loob pa ng anim na taon?

Kung kaya niyang ipakita ang kawalan ng respeto sa 23 Senador nung siya ay nagtangkang magwalk-out, na sa aking paniwala ay napigil lamang dahil sa mabilis na kilos ng ating mahal na Senate President, ginawa niya ito sa harap mismo ng lahat ng media at buong bansa, paano kaya ang pagtrato niya sa maliliit nating mga kababayan na hindi mga Senador na dumudulog sa kanyang tanggapan? Siya ba ay mapagkakatiwalaan na rumespeto sa maliliit nating mga kababayan sa loob pa ng anim na taon?

Dapat po siyang managot dahil siya po ay nagkasala. Tulad na lamang ng isang court interpreter sa Davao na sinibak mismo ng Supreme Court dahil hindi nito inilagay sa kanyang SALN ang pag-aari niyang market stall sa palengke.

Tama ba na ang pagsisinungaling ng maliliit at mahihirap ay parusahan habang ang pagsisinungaling ng makapangyarihan ay i-abswelto?Ang pagsisinungaling ba ay impeachable offense?

Si Chief Justice na mismo ang nagsabi sa kanyang talumpati sa harap ng Manila Overseas Press Club noong June 24, 2010 kung ano ang nararapat sa mga huwes na hindi tapat sa tungkulin.

Sabi po ni Chief Justice, “I believe that a member of the judiciary who is found guilty of dishonesty should not only be dismissed from the service; he should also be disbarred—no ifs or buts.

Siya na po ang nagsabi na kapag ang isang huwes ay nagsisinungaling hindi lang ito dapat sibakin sa pwesto—dapat pa itong ma-disbar bilang abogado. Sa kanyang mga labi na mismo nanggaling na nararapat siyang ma-convict at masibak sa pwesto.

The vote to convict is a vote to defeat abuses and excesses in government.


Ang boto ng conviction ay boto upang wakasan na ang pang-aabuso at pagmamalabis ng mga opisyal ng ating bansa.

We all want a better, more progressive nation. We all want our nation to reach developed nation status in our lifetime and for our children. But critical to a modern state is an effective system of justice that has the trust and faith and confidence of our people. We all want to see the end of abuses in governance.
We have heard of expose’s after expose’s of abuses in the government.
We have witnessed lawlessness, criminality, corruption and disrespect for the rule of law.
Respect for the rule of law will only be realized if punishment of the guilty is swift and in a fair trial. Unless we punish more and punished swiftly, lowlessness, abused and disregard of our laws will not be defeated.

Those who wish to abuse their offices will continue to be emboldened to commit their nefarious activities. Only when we punish the guilty and punish them swiftly in a fair trial will respectfor the rule of law be restored.

No Less than the Chief Justice has been accused of culpable violation of the Constitution.
To convict him is to uphold the rule of law and it will send the signal to the entire nation that the rule of law should be respected and should strike fear in the hearts of all those who wish to violate our laws and disrespect the constitution.

For this reason, I find the Chief Justice guilty.

On CJ Corona's dollar accounts: Divulge dollar accounts willingly as you promised — or we will do it for you

If Chief Justice Corona refuses on the witness stand to have his dollar accounts opened for the scrutiny of the senator-judges, we will be left with no choice but to set aside the previous vote to respect the Supreme Court TRO on these accounts and compel PS Bank to open up these accounts in the trial.

The verdict in this trial rests primarily on determining whether or not these dollar accounts exist. It is the duty of the impeachment court to seek the truth even if it means disregarding a TRO by the Supreme Court.

This TRO has become a tool used by the respondent to suppress the truth. The impeachment court has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and this TRO violates the Constitution because it severely hampers our ability to try the case. The SC TRO, as feared, has become an unwarranted and unlawful encroachment on our sole power to try the case. If we continue to respect this TRO we are not only sharing a power that the Constitution says is ours alone—worse, we become obedient serviles of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice, allowing them all to tell us how we are to try and decide impeachment cases.

Hawak, ika nga, sa leeg o sa ilong ng SC ang impeachment court sa TRO na ito.

What would you like to ask CJ Corona?

Yesterday we posted this question on our Twitter and Facebook accounts. Below are some of the responses we got from you.






"Since the Chief Justice said he would appear in the trial, if you could ask him the questions directly, what question(s) would you ask?"


If you want to give/post your own questions, please leave a comment below or tweet using the hash tag #questionsforCJ


Joel P Garduce: Honorable Chief Justice, why did you choose for your defense in this impeachment trial lawyers from powerful law firms that surely have important cases pending in our justice system, if not the SC itself? Isn't it obvious that even if you are acquitted from this trial, you will have clearly compromised the integrity of the SC and the office of the Chief Justice itself, whether or not these lawyers handled your case pro bono?

Joseph Pangilinan: Would you consider the SALE of 90% BGEI shares of stocks by your wife Mrs. Cristina Corona, for Php28,000, to your daughter Carla Corona Castillo, a legitimate, ethical, and morally palatable transaction?  Who were the lawyers of the said transaction, what were their law offices, and did such offices have any cases pending in the judiciary?

Sheila Mae Tabamo:  I'd like to ask the CJ about the honors he received while he was a student & why he allowed misrepresentation of his credentials

Cez Montejo: Are you willing to submit yourself and your family for further investigation once irregularities have been found in ALL THE COURT CASES of your immediate family?...and allies? The Basa Case clearly appears to be a brilliant machination of legal minds that brought about the stripping off of wealth from the original owners, the BASA family, your wife's kin. Do you think it's fair? You might be victorious in crippling the very family of your wife bourne from her stealing the rent. The machination led to practically rendering the case against your wife a JOKE. Hence, the need for your wife and daughter to reveal further involvement of other parties only your wife and daughter can explain. Its relevance to the SALN? Your family appears to be "double owners" of the company, as a result of the execution of the writ, and by purchasing of the shares by your daughter. Kindly explain why it is not declared in your SALN?

Patrick C. Guanzon: Why did u not hear the government 1st before granting the TRO to GMA when she was about to leave the country? 


Steven Baldesco Why do you have so many bank accounts? Are you trying to escape accountability in doing so? Are you willing to let the Impeachment Court open every single one of those accounts? And for the sake of the country, won't you just resign and spare the Filipino people from more of your melodrama?

Tanghod Pinoy: Why did u accept a midnight appointment? Why did BGEI money ends up in your account? Why did u close PSB acct n open another?

Patty Reyes: My question for CJ is...why didn't you put all your assets in your previous SALNs? Are you hiding anything?

Tess Gulledge: Sir, my question would be how did he acquire his assets and can he show us documentation explaining the acquisition.

Sinawe Cali Mamao CJ Corona, will you let your dollar account be opened by the Impeachment Court?

Cez Montejo Are you the legal counsel of BGEI with your daughter now being the major stockholder? Since you are not, will you allow your daughter to declare BGEI's networth and explain other circumstances in behalf of BGEI? What is the legal definition of fair ?

Marie Keith Habal For the sake of peace and unity in our country, would you be willing to set aside your personal interest and relinquish your position even if in yourself, you believe you have done nothing wrong?

Nelson Salazar Badilla  How come you earned millions of money and acquired several properties when in fact your only job for the past several years was serve the public? 

Rene Pedro C. Baltasar CJ will you waive the TRO on your supposed Dollar Accounts? Why not come clean and save your family's reputation? 

Daisy Zapanta-Nodque Acquitted or not, will you still hold on to your position as CJ? or get out of SC to enable it to start fresh & anew... because whether you agree or not... the reputation of SC has somehow been affected because of you...does it come to your mind to spare SC from all the brouhaha and leave the post to someone whose reputation has not been tarnished?! 

Linda Pangilinan Why don't you spare us the drama and quit while you are ahead? 

Olit Milan Sa airport nga po ndi ba pag me nakipadala sa inyo ng kung anu man dahil nasa pangalan nyo yun ndi ba kau dapat managot kung anu man laman nun? Anu po pagkakaiba nun sa pera ni mrs corona na pinangalan sa inyo? 

Joel Ferrer CJ Corona do you consider yourself to be an Unbiased and Fair judge when it comes to cases of the Arroyos?Do you have a clear conscience, and do you sleep peacefully at night?

Philip Camara:  Mr. CJ, in your SALNs you placed the value of your real estate acquisitions on the basis of government assessed values rather than the acquisition price as has been revealed and defended in this trial. True, there are no clear cut rules on valuation for SALNs. However, since you took out a loan of P11 million which rightfully enters the "liability side" of your SALN and this loan is placed at face value, how can you justify using any other value for the "asset" side apart from the purchase price considering that doing so (using a government assessed value) will result in a transaction that causes the Networth to become negative for that transaction and therefore undervalue the networth in total?

In other words, if I take out a loan of P11m and buy a property for P12m and declare it in my SALN at the purchase price, then my networth increased by P1m, which is fact the truth of what that transaction does to my networth. But if I declare the property that I purchased for P12m using a loan of P11m at say only P3m justifying this based on government assessed value, then my Networth will decrease by P8m (P11m Loan - P3m new asset at declared value).

Is this kind of reporting on your SALN your idea of a public official declaring the true value of it's networth? Is this even logical?

For me it may be defensible if no loan was contracted. But with a loan, declaring any other value apart from the purchase price is an attempt at misleading if not outright lying to the public about one's networth, which is the whole purpose of filing the SALN in the first place. Please explain.

Pompeyo Pedroche : 1. Did he know that he accepted an unethical midnight appointment to the highest position in the judiciary? 2. Did he really have that huge amount of money, granting it's not ill-gotten? 3. Why keep such ridiculously enormous amount? For his grand children's grandchildren? 4. Did he really embellish his Ateneo academic records or someone like Midas did it but keeping quiet about it until it's exposed? 5. Is he paying gratis to all these abogados de Campanilla to defend him from the charges? 6. How much sleep does he enjoy since the trial began? 7. Where do his knights of the Round Table? In one of his mansions? Just Delivery Pizza for dinner? 

 Cocoy Dayao: Why did you take the job of Chief Justice? 

                          How many millions of pesos do you have? 

                          Why don't you just resign? 

                         Why do you sound like a trapo and not a Chief Justice? 

                         What can you say to convince me that your wealth is not ill-gotten?

mlerias: Which one is your payroll? Isn't it suppose to be in a government bank like Landbank? I didn't hear any mention of that at all so I don't know where all the rest is coming from when you are not suppose to have any businesses as CJ? 

On clamor behind Corona's decision to appear in impeachment court

Perhaps they have come to realize that to ignore the public clamor, as well as the clamor of senator-judges for the Chief Justice to appear and explain his side as he had earlier promised, would be detrimental to their case. The senator-judges have time and time again said that they were many questions that continue to remain unanswered—particularly on the issue of his dollar accounts—that only the Chief Justice can and ought to explain. If you tally the number of senators who have publicly said that his appearance is vital, you will see that there is near-unanimity on the issue. This may explain why the defense has shifted strategies.

Judicial privilege cannot be invoked in cases involving allegations of wrongdoing

The Supreme Court’s move to block the testimony of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno from the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona on account of “judicial privilege” has gone too far.The SC is trying to limit the powers of the impeachment court, the sole body mandated to try impeachment cases against government officials.

We cannot allow the Supreme Court to dictate, by way of restraining orders and court rulings, how we are to try and decide this case. The trouble here is that our respect for the TRO has emboldened the Supreme Court to further limit and cut down our powers and prerogatives as a court.”

Unless we do something about this now, pretty soon our sole power to try and decide impeachment cases will become a joint undertaking with the Supreme Court, but with the impeachment court as a junior partner.

Only when the impeachment court asserts its authority will the Supreme Court back off from its acts of obstruction in matters over which they have no jurisdiction.

Judicial privilege exists, yes, but it cannot be invoked to cover-up for wrongdoing—nor can it be invoked to undermine or defeat the Constitutional mandate of the Senate having the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.

Moreover, it is most unfortunate that the Supreme Court has taken this path of non-disclosure and strict confidentiality when transparency and accountability are hallmarks of the 1987 Constitution. For any witness in the judiciary to secure the consent of the Supreme Court before they can testify before the impeachment court undermines our powers and prerogatives as the only constitutional check to excesses in the Supreme Court.

How can they explain this anomalous situation wherein we need to secure the consent of the court for witnesses to appear before us in a trial where in the Chief Justice himself is being tried? What makes things worse is that four or five of the sitting justices have publicly shown support for the Chief Justice in a series of rallies. How can these justices decide with impartiality?

This is now a case of the tail wagging the dog. The only check on the Supreme Court, the impeachment court, is now being checked by the same Supreme Court. First, they TRO’d our subpoena, now they have limited our powers to summon witnesses. What’s next? Voiding the trial altogether? They have exceeded the limits of their judicial authority.

The impeachment court must take the necessary steps to prevent these unwarranted incursions on the impeachment proceedings.

My statement on the rules of impeachment

The rule on refraining to make public comments on the merits of the case, to my mind, applies strictly to the Senator Judges, but should be construed liberally when it comes to both the defense and prosecution lawyers.

Even in judicial proceedings wherein the sub judice rule applies, lawyers of both the accused and the prosecution are routinely interviewed by the media as a means to secure information about pending cases. Lawyers for former President Arroyo are even allowed to say they are willing to "cut their balls" on national television and are repeatedly interviewed about cases pending before the Supreme Court. If this is allowed in a judicial proceeding, all the more it should be allowed in a political proceeding.

The impeachment court should allow both defense and prosecution lawyers greater leeway in their efforts to engage the media and the public. We recognize that the rules provide that Senator Judges as well as lawyers should refrain from making public comments; but be that as it may, it is my view that the rule should not be applied strictly, but applied liberally with respect to the lawyers of both the prosecution and the defense.

On calls to inhibit from the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Renato Corona

The impeachment trial is a political proceeding and not a judicial proceeding. Rules on inhibition that apply to our court system do not apply to a political trial. There are as many senators who have been critical of the Corona court decisions as there have been defenders. If the rules of inhibition are strictly adhered to in a political proceeding then all the political positions taken by all the senator judges could be made basis of inhibition and there will be no one left to try the respondent.

Ultimately, in a very public trial like this one where the evidence, the line of questioning as well as the answers given for or against are to be seen and witnessed by the entire nation, it will be the public who will decide whether or not we will be biased and it will be the people who will judge us politicians by denying us their vote in any future election should they feel we were remiss or we failed to exercise discretion in our conduct as senator judges. This in essence helps describe the political nature of an impeachment proceeding.