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.

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.

SC should not interfere in the impeachment trial

The Supreme Court should not interfere in the impeachment trial because the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. It will also leave a bad taste in the mouth should they interfere because it may be perceived as an attempt of the Supreme Court to rescue the Chief Justice from being accountable to the public. The impeachment process as a constitutional mechanism to exact public accountability from the highest ranking officials of the land will be undermined by any interference from the SC.

We do not wish to ignore the Supreme Court, and to avoid this we urge the Supreme Court to respect the powers and prerogatives of the impeachment court by not stepping into the fray. Our position is that the rulings and decisions of the Senate as an impeachment court cannot be subject to judicial review. If the Senator-Judges err in the conduct of its proceedings, the correction of such error is not by way of judicial review, but by the sovereign will of the people--who can and ought to reject us at the polls if they believe that we committed errors in our judgment as Senator-Judges.

The SC’s image will be further tarnished if it prevents the Senate from doing its constitutional duty to try and decide the case against the Chief Justice. A TRO on the subpoena of dollar bank accounts may be perceived as a desperate attempt at shielding the Chief Justice from accountability and a move to suppress the truth. It will be damaging to the SC as an institution.