May 28 Senate impeachment court record

7/31/2019 May 28 Senate impeachment court record

1/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 1

AT 2:06 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO

C. CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV.

Senator Trillanes. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Almighty God, we thank You for all the blessings that You have bestowed upon our

country and people. We praise You and we worship You. We humbly submit our lives to You

and ask for forgiveness for all the wrong things we have done to our fellowmen and to Your

creations. We seek Your wisdom and divine light as we try to live our lives in accordance with

Your will.

In Jesus Name, we pray. Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators.

The Secretary, reading:

Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................ Present

Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon ............................................................... Present

Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................ Present

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, May 28, 2012

Pasay City


2/33

2 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present

Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ...................................................... Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ....................................................... Present

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ...................................................... Present

Senator Loren Legarda ..................................................................... Present

Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. ................................. PresentSenator Sergio R. Osmea III .......................................................... Present

Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... Present

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present

Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. .................................................... Present*

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present

Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV .......................................... Present

Senator Manny Villar ........................................................................ Present

The Senate President ......................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With twenty-two (22) Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer

declares the presence of a quorum.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation?

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while

the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 25, 2012

Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence]

There being none, the May 25, 2012Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is

hereby approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.

The Clerk of Court. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief

Justice Renato C. Corona.


Senator Sotto. May we ask the parties or their respective Counsel to enter their appearances,

Mr. President?

______________

*Arrived after the roll call


3/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 3

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, good afternoon.

The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon.

Representative Tupas. For the House of Representatives Prosecution Panel, same appearance.

Aside from that, we would like to add the appearance of the Speaker of the House.

We are ready, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Before we proceed, I would like to clarify something from the Defense and I address this to the

Chief Defense Counsel.

I understand that there was an interview done where you were involved this morning and that youindicated your determination to elevate the result of this proceeding to the Supreme Court. Is this

correct?

Mr. Cuevas. I did not have any interview, Your Honor, with anybody this morning. In fact,

I woke up about nine oclock already because of the preparation of my paper in connection

with the argument.

The Presiding Officer. I got this information, Transcript of Interview of former Justice Serafin

Cuevas with Weng Salvacion of DZBB.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, most probably yesterday.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. Sunday yata iyan.

The Presiding Officer. Maybe.

Mr. Cuevas. Sunday, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Sunday.

Senator Sotto. Yes. Yesterday.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Not this morning, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I will quote what the Defense Counsel said:

We have no other alternative but to resort to certiorari. I have asked a petition for

review questioning the validity of the actuations or the proceedings beforewith the

Impeachment Court and necessarily with a motion to nullify the entirety of the proceedings that

took place therein.

Iyon pong walang appeal, hindi po kami totohanang sumasakay doon sapagkat

hindi naman nakalagay sa Konstitusyon iyon. Ang nakalagay lang, The moment the

Senate convenes as the Impeachment Court, it shall continue the trial. Wala po naman

sinasabi na ang desisyon shall be final and non-appealable. Wala po talagang ganon na

nakalagay sa Saligang Batas.


4/33


We respect your position but I just want to remind you that our reading of Article XI, it is provided

that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases. I just want to put

that into the record.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. If the question refers to the interview ofWeng Salvacion ba

iyon?I admit, Your Honor, that last Sunday, I think, in her program I was interviewed. And I made

those statements, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, a Member of the Court would like to raise a point of order.

May we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago?

The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you.

The Constitution provides and I quote, Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further

thanshall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the

Republic of the Philippines. Thus, the Senate can impose a lesser penalty like censure, reprimand, fine,

suspension from office or the like.

My question is, in case of conviction, how shall the penalty be determined?

I humbly present this question both to the Presiding Officer and to our colleagues, not necessarily

to be answered immediately but to be disposed of at the discretion of this Court.

Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Well, perhaps, Mr. President, we can take it up after todays session.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, with each side having rested their case, we now open the floor

for the parties to present their respective arguments. Now, under Rule XX of the Rules of Procedure

on Impeachment Trials, which I now quote:

The final argument on the merits may be made by two persons on each side and thearguments shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

And as previously ordered by the Court, each side will have a total of one hour. The final argument

on the merits shall be opened by the House of Representatives then afterwhich, the Defense. The

House of Representatives shall then close the arguments for a period not exceeding the time not used

in their opening statement.

With that, Mr. President, the Court is ready to hear the arguments of the parties.

I move that we recognize Representative Tupas

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President


5/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 5

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Point of information, please. This is not provided for in theRules

of the Senate.

May I please inquire whether the Senator-Judges are allowed and then expected to examine those

who will present the closing arguments or not?I do not care really any which way. I just want to know.

Thank you.


Senator Sotto. We will submit it to the Body later after the arguments, Mr. President. But the

tradition is thatwell, in the courtsit may be allowed depending on the judge. But in our case, we

have not taken that up formally. We can probably take it up also, as I said, after the arguments.

So with that, taking into consideration the point raised by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, may I

move that we recognize for the presentation of the arguments, for the House of Representatives,

Representative Tupas.

Representative Tupas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

Representative Tupas. Yes, may I just speak first.

Mr. Senate President, earlier the Prosecution conferred with the lead Defense Counsel and we

agreed that the Prosecution will speak first, then the Defense, then the second speaker for theProsecution, then the second speaker for the Defense, then the Prosecution will close the argument to

be delivered by the third speaker.

The Presiding Officer. But under ourRules the opening argument is supposed to be done by

the Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir, that is why we will open it but the presentation will be

alternatemeaning, we will open it, the first speaker from the Prosecution, then Defense, then

Prosecution, Defense, then Prosecution will close the argument.

The Presiding Officer. So you have three times to speak, two times for the Defense?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor, and we really have agreed on that, subject to the approval

of this Honorable Court.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection from the Members of the Court? [Silence] The

Chair hears none, the motion is granted.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.


6/33


Representative Tupas. Mr. President, permission to begin the closing arguments for the

Prosecution. May I ask permission?


Representative Tupas. Thank you.

Mr. Senate President, Honorable Members of this Senate Tribunal, Mr. Speaker of the House, andFloor Leader, fellow Members of the House, Counsel for the Defense and Prosecution, my fellow

Filipinos, good afternoon.

Like all defining moments in our nations history, we are once again called upon to make a choice

between right and wrong. The day of reckoning is here. Everyone has said his piece. It is now time

for us to make sense of all the pain that this Impeachment Trial has caused. Let it be clear that we

meant not to destroy a man but to destroy the evils that plague our system. We do not rejoice over

the fact that in the process, deep wounds were inflicted. But sometimes great pain must be endured

so that genuine healing may begin.

Today, we lay down before the Filipino people and this Impeachment Tribunal the truths that havecome out of this proceedings.

Tungkol saan po ba talaga ang Impeachment Trial na ito?

The Presiding Officer. Excuse me, Counsel.

At this point, I would like to inform the Court that if there is any Member of the Court that wishes

to ask clarificatory question about the statement of any speaker here in the course of their

argumentation, you raise your hand, you will be recognized by the Floor Leader and you may posit

your clarificatory question and you have two (2) minutes, not more than two (2) minutes.

Representative Tupas. Is that after the delivery of the speech, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. If that is the pleasure of the House, after each speaker has delivered his

speech.

Okay, so ordered.

Representative Tupas. May I proceed now, Mr. President?


Representative Tupas. Tungkol saan po ba talaga ang Impeachment Trial na ito? More than

anything else, this Impeachment Trial is about our peoples aspiration to regain the greatness that

was once ours. For how can we inspire greatness in our people if it is not greatness that sits on

the thrones of power. We Filipinos come from a long line ofmaharlikas and heroes with rich

and proud heritage. Our history is lined with honorable men and women who suffered so much in

the name of country.

Seventy years ago, this month, Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos died in the hands of the Japanese

rather than betray his country. Fifty years ago, former Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran who was offered

a chance to return to the Supreme Court refused a midnight appointment rather than dishonor himself.

Today, we have a Chief Justice who has been impeached and now faces judgment before this

honorable Tribunal. Obviously, we took a wrong turn somewhere that led us to stray from the path

of greatness.


7/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 7

That is why on December 12, 2011, an overwhelming majority of the Members of the House of

Representatives, 188 in all, heeded the peoples call for truth and impeached Chief Justice Corona for

culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, a new ground for impeachment under

the 1987 Constitution.

On January 16, 2012, the Prosecution commenced the presentation of evidence that cast serious

doubt on Respondent Coronas moral fitness to remain as Chief Justice. Chief Justice Renato Coronamust answer to the people for his wrongs.

Sa walong (8) Articles of Impeachment na inihain ng Kamara dito sa Senado, hindi na po

namin kinailangan pang i-present ang lima (5) dahil sa tatlong (3) Articles pa po lamang,

kumbinsido na kami at alam naming kumbinsido na ang taumbayan: hindi na karapat-dapat

manatili sa puwesto si Chief Justice Renato Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado ng ating bansa.

Our quest for truth has led us to many truths about the Chief Justice. It has led us to the truth that

the Chief Justice failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as

required under the 1987 Constitution. It has led us to the truth that he lied about his assets in his SALN

to conceal his enormous wealth. It has led us to the truth that he peddled his position of power inexchange for material gain. It has led us to the truth that his loyalty does not lie with the Filipino people.

On the whole, it has led us to the truth that he is in public service not to serve his country but to serve

his own ends.

Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution requires all public officers and employees to submit a

declaration under oath of assets, liabilities and net worth with an additional requirement for the highest

officials, including the Chief Justice, that the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner

provided by law. A prime objective of the framers of the Constitution in requiring SALN was to

strengthen the accountability of all public servants and to root out the perennial problem of corruption

and abuse of power in government. To be meaningful and effective, the SALN requirement must be

complied with truthfully, completely and accurately. It must be complied with in good faith.

No amount of denial, no lame excuse whatsoever can stand against the best evidence itself

the SALNs of the Chief Justice from 2002 to 2010, executed by him under oath, year after year after

year. Respondent Corona has repeatedly failed to truthfully and accurately disclose in his SALNs

numerous assets and real properties which he and his wife ownluxurious condominium units and

huge parcels of prime property in Taguig City, Makati City and Quezon City. Instead of declaring

the acquisition cost of the real property, the Chief Justice only declared the fair market value for

taxation purposes, which does not serve the purpose of and has nothing to do with the computation

of the net worth in the SALN.

The Supreme Court declared in the case ofRepublic vs. Sandiganbayan that it is the acquisitioncost of the property that must be charged against respondents lawful income and funds.

And what about the Chief Justices treasure trove of cash deposits that as evidence has shown

could put a kings fortune to shame?

Your Honor, Mr. President, siya na po mismo ang umamin. The Chief Justice himself admits

that he owns three (3) peso accounts with an aggregate deposit of P80.7 million and four (4) dollar

accounts with a total of $2.4 million, none of which he declared in his SALN. He says that the family

members commingled funds in the same peso bank accounts, along with the funds of the Basa-Guidote

Enterprises, Inc., to earn higher interest. But oddly enough, the highest magistrate who is presumed

to be trained in the law and the rules of evidence presents no documentary proof or any evidence


8/33


whatsoever to support his claim other than his self-serving statements. There is a legal presumption,

Whoever possesses the rights of ownership over a thing is presumed to be the owner thereof.

His dollar deposits, he says, are the result of his foresight in dollar hedging since the late 1960s.

Again, he shows nothing to prove this other than his testimony.

The Chief Justice has woven a fantastic tale in his desperation to explain his incredible wealth. Alegal presumption of unexplained wealth arises, When a public official acquires an amount of property

or cash during his incumbency that is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful

income.

In fact, Your Honor, Chief Justice Renato Corona as ponente in the case ofRepublic versus

Sandiganbayan and Ferdinand E. Marcos wrote that When an officials assets are grossly

disproportionate to their income, then the excess isprima facie ill-gotten. The burden there is

therefore placed on the official to prove that it is not.

Saan man po nanggaling ang kanyang salapi, ilang man ang kanyang magagarang condo

units o lupain, gaano man karaming bank accounts at gaano man kalaki ang laman nito, hindi

na po iyan ang pinag-uusapan natin ngayon. Ang tanong: Nasa SALN ba niya ang mga ito?

At the core of Article II is the question. Did Respondent Corona declare his peso and dollar

deposits in his SALN as required of him by the Constitution and the Law? He did not.

While the Chief Justice admits his non-declaration of all his cash assets in his SALN, he stubbornly

insists that his failure to do so is justified. According to the Chief Justice, he did not declare his dollar

deposits because he believed that he is covered by the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency

accounts under the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. This interpretation of the law is very disturbing.

We beg to disagree based on the law itself and the principles of public accountability.

Your Honor, the Prosecution submits that there is no conflict between the constitutional requirementof SALN and Republic Act 6426 or the Law on Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits. The SALN

requirement is addressed to government officials and employees to implement the constitutional

provision on public accountability. It requires them to declare all their assets and net worth and makes

no distinction between peso and foreign currency cash assets in the spirit of transparency and good

governance.

On the other hand, the Law on Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits applies to banking institutions

and its prohibition is addressed to the banks, not to the depositors. It penalizes bank employees who

disclose details about foreign currency deposits of their depositors but allows the depositors themselves

to waive the protection. To adopt the Chief Justices interpretation of the law would be to encourage

dishonesty in government and would lead to the absurd situation where the law itself protects ill-acquired wealth hidden in foreign currency accounts. This is how the Chief Justice, the highest

magistrate of the land who is expected to possess superior legal wisdom, interprets the law to protect

his own interest.

Your Honor, given all the things that we know now, after four-and-a-half months of trial, we go

back to the question that we asked at the beginning of these proceedings: By what standards should

Chief Justice Renato Corona be judged? We had answered, By the highest standards, standards that

are fair to demand of a Chief Justice and any member of the Judiciary for that matter.

Article VIII, Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Constitution provides: A member of the Judiciary must

be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. A nation of heroes and


9/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 9

honorable people demands that Chief Justice Corona be judged by the conduct and character displayed

by an Abad Santos and a Moran.

Against such standards, we then ask: Does Respondent Coronas failure to completely, truthfully

and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and net worth constitute an impeachable offense?

Our answer: Yes, because it is both betrayal of public trust and a culpable violation of the

Constitution. It is lying, it is dishonesty, it is deception of the highest order. As explained by

Constitutional Commissioner Rustico delos Reyes, betrayal of public trust is a catch-all phrase which

includes all acts which are not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the

officer unfit to continue in office. It includes betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of duty,

tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism,

et cetera, to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute.

As shown by the evidence, Chief Justice Coronas violation is culpable for it is willful and

intentional, judging by the habituality and sheer magnitude of the falsities, inaccuracies and omissions in

his SALNs. His lies in his SALN run into hundreds of millions and cannot be ignored. All these belie

defense of good faith.

In the case ofOmbudsman vs. Racho, the Supreme Court said, Dishonesty begins when an

individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact It is understood to imply the

disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity

or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness, disposition to defraud, deceive or

betray Indeed, an honest public servant will have no difficulty in gathering, collating and presenting

evidence that will prove his credibility, but a dishonest one will only provide shallow excuses in his

explanation.

Ginoong Pangulo, sa paghahain po namin ng aming ebidensiya sa Tribunal na ito, sana po

matandaan natin na si Delsa Flores, isang simpleng empleyado ng Hudikatura, ay hindi nag-

deklara ng maliit nasari-sari store sa kanyang SALN. Tinanggalan po siya ng trabaho. Ang sabing Korte Suprema, Although every office in government service is a public trust, no position exacts

greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the Judiciary.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we come now to the very heart of this impeachment

proceedings. Is Chief Justice Renato Corona morally fit to remain as Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court?

The damning revelations that came out of this impeachment trial go into the very core of the mans

character. Tulad po ng sinabi namin sa umpisa, pagkatao po ang ating pinag-uusapan dito. Can

we trust a man who has repeatedly thwarted the peoples will by lying under oath in his SALNs to

conceal wealth that he could not explain? Can we trust a magistrate who was very much willing toreceive discounts, favors, and other benefits from parties with pending cases before the Supreme

Court? And can we trust a man who took advantage of his position and abuse his power to commit

grave injustice and oppress his relatives in the name of greed?

Mr. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the House of

Representatives, in impeaching the Chief Justice, took the first step towards the fulfillment of our oath

as the keepers of our peoples trust. We have done our part as Prosecutors in this impeachment trial

despite the odds. No matter what the outcome will be, we know in our hearts that we have contributed

to the betterment of our nation. This impeachment is not so much about Renato Coronado Corona

but it is more about setting aright that which is wrong. It is now up to the Honorable Members of the

Senate, the Senator-Judges, to take the final step to restore the greatness that we have lost.


10/33

10 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

The people are hopeful, let us end this right. Let us decide in favor of truth and greatness. Let

us be done with Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Thank you very much and good afternoon.


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we recognize the Counsel for Chief Justice Renato

Corona to present the arguments for the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. It is the Defenses turn. So who will speak?

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we ask permission for Attorney Delos Angeles as the

speaker for the Defense, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Proceed.

Mr. Delos Angeles. Your Honors, my countrymen, after forty-two (42) hearings, there are twomatters I wish to discuss: First, whether the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under Republic

Act 6426 is a justification not to disclose dollar accounts in the SALN; second, if it is not a justification,

whether its non-disclosure in the SALN amounts to an impeachable offense.

Your Honors, the confidentiality under Republic Act 6426 justifies a public official from not

disclosing his dollar accounts in his SALN. RA 6426 provides that all foreign currency deposits

without any qualification as to whether they are owned by a private or a public personare absolutely

confidential except upon the written waiver of the depositor.

Even if Section 8, Republic Act 6713 requires public officials to file a SALN under oath,

this provision does not amend the confidentiality of dollar deposits under the Foreign CurrencyDeposit Act which is a specific law.

Besides, our Constitution provides, under the Bill of Rights, a right to privacy and a right to

information. I posit that the right of access to the SALN of public officers is covered by the right

to information. However, in Republic vs. Eugenio, the Supreme Court ruled that bank accounts

are not covered by the constitutional provisions regarding the right to information and full disclosure.

And I quote:

Unless the Bank Secrecy Act is repealedor amended, the legal order is obliged to

conserve the absolutelyconfidential nature of Philippine bank deposits. Any exception to the

rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated.

When the Supreme Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order in favor of PSBank,

Justice Arturo Brion in his concurring opinion not only cited theEugenio case but added

and I quote, Notably, the Court declared Bank Accounts Laws are not covered by the right

to information under Article III, Section 7, and the requirement of full public disclosure

under Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution which isstatutorily implemented through

Republic Act 6713.

According to Justice Brion, Republic Act 6713 did not repeal Republic Act 6426, and I quote,

The implied repeal of inconsistent laws that Republic Act 6713 mandates cannot be interpreted

as a repeal of the express substantive right granted to confidentiality under Section 8 of Republic Act


11/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 11

No. 6426 even if the latter was enacted earlier. Implied repeals are not favored; the presumption is

against inconsistency or repugnance and accordingly against implied repeals.

InBSB Group vs. Go, the Supreme Court also ruled that in case of doubt, the confidentiality of

bank deposits should be favored. The Court said and I quote:

Should there be doubts in upholding the absolutely confidential nature of bank depositsagainst affirming the authority to inquire into such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved

in favor of the former. This attitude persists unless Congress lifts its fingers to reverse the

general state policy respecting the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits.

We cannot, therefore, hold the Chief Justice liable because he believes in all good faith in the

absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.

It is argued by some, however, that insistence on the rule of absolute confidentiality will provide a

safe haven for grafters and corrupt public officials, who will simply conceal their ill-gotten wealth as

dollars, never to be reported or declared. They say that the Chief Justice is wrong to adopt the view

favoring absolute confidentiality of foreign deposits and that, therefore, he must be convicted. While

there may exist a danger that corrupt officials may escape discovery, let us not mistake the ChiefJustices use of this interpretation for the possibility of its abuse.

In this case, there is no showing that the non-inclusion of certain bank accounts was tainted with

any malice or fault. What we have here is a situation where the Chief Justice, consistent with his

practice for the last two decades, assumed that his reliance on the letter of the law could not be wrong.

Yes, there may be what we call a lacuna in the law, a gap or a hole which may pertain to an unsettled

question of law. In this case, the gap may have to do with the confidentiality of dollar deposits vis-

-vis the duty of public officers to disclose their assets and net worth in the SALN. Notably, even BIR

Director Estrella Martinez, in all her 32 years of SALN examination, did not find any public officer who

disclosed a dollar deposit. Plainly, all these public officials understood RA 6426 and 6713 in the same

manner as the Chief Justice.

We are all aware that the separation of powers requires us to look only to the Supreme Court

decisions as definitive interpretations of the law. To this day, however, there is no ruling that squarely

applies to the confidentiality provided under RA 6426 with respect to the SALN. The alternative to

filling this lacuna is through an express repeal by amendatory legislation. In both cases, the results of

these processes are decidedly prospective. In other words, the Chief Justice cannot be made

answerable for his interpretation of the law prior to a Supreme Court ruling or legislative amendment

explicitly declaring his interpretation as erroneous.

To repeat, there is no liability for an erroneous interpretation of the law when made in good faith.

The Chief Justice, Your Honors, has acted consistently, unwavering in his conviction and belief thatRA 6426 affords him full and absolute confidentiality. As held in Francisco vs. Nagmamalasakit na

Manananggol, just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than

anybody else. The law is solicitous of any individuals rights irrespective of his status in life.

Even if we assume that the Chief Justice should have disclosed his foreign currency deposits in his

SALN, it is submitted that this nondisclosure in the SALN will not amount to an impeachable offense.

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides that The President, the Vice-President, the

Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman

may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable of violation of the

Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. This


12/33

12 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

enumeration indicates that the impeachment and conviction of these high government officials should be

based on nothing less than high crimes.

Treason is abominable because it is an act of disloyalty to our country. It carries a penalty of twelve

(12) years and one (1) day to death. Bribery is penalized by six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve

(12) years. Graft and corruption also carries a penalty of not more than ten (10) years. Betrayal of

public trust, which is unique to the Philippines, must also be based on a serious crime with a highpenalty. For, certainly, the high government official should not be impeached and removed from office

for a minor breach of the law. In this case, Chief Justice Corona is not charged with treason, bribery,

graft and corruption or even ill-gotten wealth.

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment accuses the Chief Justice of not disclosing his SALN to

the public. The Chief Justice is, however, exempted from any liability for the nondisclosure of his

SALN. He is bound by the resolutions of the Supreme Court en banc regulating the release to the

public.

It is also said that the Chief Justice did not disclose all his assets in his SALN. We have

painstakingly shown, however, that the real properties allegedly belonging to the Chief Justice are not

actually his and, therefore, need not be disclosed in his SALN.

The remaining issue is, whether the non-disclosure of his other peso and dollar deposits amounts

to a culpable violation of the Constitution and/or a betrayal of the public trust. The Defense has shown

that the peso holdings or deposits of the Chief Justice were disclosed in his SALN. The other peso

accounts do not belong to him but are either owned by his children or held in trust for Basa-Guidote

Enterprises or as part of the common fund from his mother. The Chief Justice relies on the basic

principle that what he does not own, he should not declare as his asset. It is, therefore, submitted that

he cannot be held liable for culpable violation of the Constitution. His dollar accounts were not included

for reasons earlier stated.

According to Committee Report No. 1214 in the impeachment of President Elpidio Quirino, Aviolation of the Constitution committed unintentionally or involuntary or in good faith or true honest

mistake of judgment is not a ground for impeachment. Similarly, the Chief Justice cannot be held liable

for betrayal of public trust. Fr. Joaquin Bernas explained that betrayal of public trust implies deliberate

intent and perhaps a certain degree of perversity, for it is not easy to imagine that individuals of the

category of these impeachable officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution

commands. It must be of the same gravity as the other offenses in the class. In other words, not every

violation of public trust is an impeachable offense.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the failure to disclose in the SALN his dollar accounts

will not amount to an impeachable breach of trust. Indeed, the penalty of violation of the SALN is only

a fine not exceeding P5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years or both which cannotcompare with the severe penalties for treason, bribery and graft and corruption.

More importantly, even before we can get to the matter of penalty for non-disclosure or non-

inclusion, RA 6713 itself provides a corrective measure under Section 10 thereof. Perforce of logic,

there is no violation of law where the law itself provides a corrective measure. All that needs to be

done is to call the attention of the public officer. This is the remedy of first resort, not to punish him,

much less to remove him from office.

I further wish to point out that pursuant to the separation of powers, our Constitution vests the

important role of impeachment in Congress, hoping that it will act independently in hearing the

impeachment of the officials of the other branches. Regrettably, we have witnessed the unusual rubber-


13/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 13

stamping by the majority of the House of Representatives who never even read the Articles of

Impeachment. The blitzkrieg endorsement of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate was principally

undertaken by the partymates of the President.

The President then repeatedly declared that he wanted the Chief Justice removed. In support, the

Executive Branch then lent its full and awesome powers to interfere in the impeachment proceedings

to oust the Chief Justice and to intimidate the Supreme Court.

For example, the Secretary of Justice threatened other Supreme Court Justices with impeachment.

The Land Registration Authority then falsely listed forty-five (45) alleged properties of the Chief Justice.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue divulged confidential income tax returns and commenced investigation

of the Chief Justice and his entire family. The AMLC looked into the bank accounts of the Chief Justice

without a predicate crime or court order. The Ombudsman exaggerated and testified that the Chief

Justice has eighty-two (82) bank accounts and $10 million to $12 million in deposits. The Commission

on Audit disauthorized the purchase of the Basa-Guidote property after 11 long years. The cadence

of their actions implies a conductor.

Such undue interference by the Executive Department in order to undermine the Judicial Department

is clearly intended to weaken and then control the latter department, to do away with effective checks

and balances under a tripartite government system.

Under the pretext that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are impediments to reforms sought

by him, the President aims to remove the Chief Justice and make the Supreme Court subservient to

his whims.It is our fervent hope that the Senate will not lend its assistance to this plot. Let not this

institution allow the guillotine to fall on judicial independence.

During the time of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a similar situation occurred. After

being repeatedly rebuked by the Supreme Court, a peeved President Roosevelt wanted to undermine

and control the Judiciary by seeking to create additional positions in the U.S. Supreme Court so that

he could appoint a majority of the members. In refusing to pass the amendment, the U.S. SenateJudiciary Committee wrote in its report and I quote:

Let us, of the 75th Congress, in words that will never be disregarded by any succeeding

Congress, declare that we would rather have an independent court, a fearless court, a court

that will dare to announce its honest opinions in what it believes to be the defense of

the liberties of the people than a court that out of fear or sense of obligation to the

appointing power or factional passion approve any measure we may enact. We are not the

judges of the judges.

Finally, the case of the Chief Justice is not complete without reference to the fundamental right to

the presumption of innocence. We have seen the absolute lack of any damning evidence presented

against the Chief Justice. Even where it was alleged by the Prosecution that his acts are punishable

violations, the Defense has shown that the Chief Justice relied on sound legal basis for his position and,

in all instances, guided by good faith and without malice.

But beyond what the Prosecution failed to prove, what strengthens the presumption of innocence

is the credibility of the Chief Justice in giving justice, in proving himself forthright, courageous and true.

His innocence is buttressed by the common sense truth behind his testimony, affirming the experience

of many Filipinos in their own families. His courage is shown by his dauntless determination to fight

this impeachment and the horrid cesspool of propaganda along with it. Most of all, he has responded

to the call of the Filipino people by defying all expectations and raising the bar for all public officials.

Despite his reliance on the confidentiality of RA 6426, the Chief Justice has, upon the request of the


14/33

14 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

Senate, waived the confidentiality of his bank accounts, thereby setting the standard of transparency in

public service. Indeed, the innocence of the Chief Justice arises not only from the abject lack of

evidence against him, but from his conduct wholly consistent with a clear conscience. Truly, Your

Honors, you are called upon to judge a man who has proven why he is the Chief Justice.

After I speak, the Prosecution will lace your ears with the last lines or even the last paragraphs,

but their courtship shall be in vain. For borrowing the words of the counsel of President Clinton, Theirswill not be the last voice because the voice I will leave with you is the voice of reason, the voice of

the law and the voice of truth, the voice that will ring forever in your conscience.

Your Honors, the other Defense counsels and I respectfully request that you render a verdict of

acquittal.


Senator Sotto. The Prosecution may continue. They have 40 minutes left.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, before the second speaker for the Prosecution speaks,

may we request for one-minute recess just to allow us to set up the PowerPoint presentation?The Presiding Officer. Okay. One-minute recess.


The trial was suspended at 3:04 p.m.

At 3:10 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. President.

May we know from the Prosecution if they are ready for their second speaker?

The Presiding Officer. Are we recording the time?

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, may we request that Congressman Rudy Farias of the

1st District of Ilocos Norte be recognized as the second speaker for the Prosecution?

The Presiding Officer. Granted.



Representative Farias. Good afternoon, Mr. President and the Honorable Members of the

Senate sitting in impeachment.

Narinig po natin iyong Depensa, mga alegasyon nila at mismong ang mga pahayag ni Chief

Justice noong siya po ay nagsalita dito noong Martes at saka Biyernes. Medyo anti-climactic nga

po nang kaunti dahil iyong summation narinig naman po natin mula sa bibig ni Chief Justice

Renato Corona mismo. Iyong depensa po ni Chief Justice Corona, I can put it in one word. Pwede

ko pong sabihin po sa isang salita: Palusot.


15/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 15

Ang alegasyon po ni Chief Justice ay ang kasong ito laban sa kanya ay dala ng matinding

galit at paghihiganti sa kanya. Tama po siya na kami ay may matinding galit. Subalit maling-

mali po siya kung ano iyong ikinakagalit namin. Hindi po kami galit sa pagkatao ni Chief Justice.

Galit lamang po kami sa ginagawa niyang katiwalian bilang pinuno ng Hudikatura na dapat

sana ay siyang maging huwaran para sa ating lahat na nasa gobyerno.

Hindi po kami nag-aksaya ng panahon at mahabang oras sa loob ng halos limang buwan,pag-aralan lahat ang mga ebidensya namin, ihanda ang aming mga testigo, batikusin at minsan-

minsan napagsasabihan dito na para kaming mga bata. Nagsasakripisyo po kami sa aming mga

pamilya para lamang maging kasangkapan, diumano, ng paghihiganti ng Pangulo ng Pilipinas

sa personal na isyung Hacienda Luisita. Tiniis po naming lahat ito, gaya rin po ng malaking

pagtitiis ng mga Kagalang-galang na Senador dahil po sa pagpapatupad po namin sa aming

sumpa na kami po ay tatalima at itataguyod namin ang Saligang Batas. Naglakas-loob po kami

na panagutin at nais patalsikin ang pinakamakapangyarihan na tao sa Hudikatura dahil ito

lamang ang tanging paraan para mabawi ng taumbayan ang opisinang ipinagkatiwala sa kanya.

Ang pangalawang palusot po ni Chief Justice ay ang sinabi po niya na noong dalawang piso

pa lamang ang palitan ng dolyar noong late 60s, siya at ang kanyang maybahay ay namili nang mga dolyar dahil matibay po ito kaysa piso natin.

Noong narinig po ni Pangulong Enrile ang sinabi ni CJ Corona, hindi niya napigilan ang sarili

niya para kumpirmahin kay CJ Corona kung anong taon iyon. Sagot ni CJ Corona, eto po ang

transcript:

Chief Justice. Ang exchange ratepo noong mag-umpisa kaming mag-ipon nitong

mga foreign exchange na ito noong late 60s ay nasa 2:1pa lamang.

The Presiding Officer. How much?

Chief Justice. Two to onepo noong mag-umpisa po kaming mag-ipon ng mga dollarsnamin. Two-to-one po pa lang ang exchange rate.

The Presiding Officer: What? When was that, Mr. Chief Justice?

Chief Justice: Mga late 60s po, dahil ako po ay nagsimulang magtrabaho 1968.

Ngayon po ay halos 45:1 na ang exchange rate, kung natatandaan po ninyo.

The Presiding Officer: Are you sure that late 60s or early 60s?

Chief Justice: Late 60s.

The Presiding Officer: That is after 1965?Chief Justice: Opo.

Alam po ni Presidente Enrile kung ano ang palitan ng dolyar noong mga panahon na iyon

dahil siya po ay Undersecretary of Finance noong 1966 hanggang 1968. Naging Customs

Commissioner po siya atInsurance Commissioner at pagkatapos po ay naging Secretary of Justice.

Totoo ba iyong paliwanag ni Chief Justice?

Chief Justice Corona graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1970 and at its law school

in 1974. I know because he was one year ahead of me both in the College of Arts and Sciences as

well as in the College of Law. Thus, he graduated in high school in 1966 and in elementary in 1962.


16/33

16 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

Noong 1962po, ang palitan po ng dolyar sa piso ay P3iyan po. Iyong isang dollar ay P3.68

po. The exchange rate, if we are to believe Chief Justice Corona that he started saving U.S. dollars

when the rate was 2:1, such could have only been between the years 1948 to 1959. He wants us

to believe that when he was in Grade 4 in 1959, he was such a visionary that he already started

buying dollars.

The exchange rate in 1969 when Renato Corona was in fourth year college was P3.90 to the U.S.dollar. Maliwanag po na palusot at pagsisinungaling sa Senado at sa buong mundo.

Pangatlong palusot, last Friday, when CJ Corona was asked by Senator Cayetano (A) how

much money he had in the bank, he admitted of having at the very least $2,400,000 and P80 million.

Chief Justice Corona wants us to believe that he did not declare this in his SALN because of Republic

Act 6426 as advanced by my esteemed colleague. But Republic Act 6426 took effect on April 4,

1972, or almost 15 years before the 1987 Constitution mandated such filing of SALNs. It was only

in theDito lamang po sa 1987 Constitution, wala po sa 1935, wala po sa 1973 Constitution iyong

kautusan ng Saligang Batas na tayo po ay mag-deklara ng ating assets and liabilities.

Kaya nga po, pursuant to Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, Republic Act 6713, otherwiseknown as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, was enacted

into law on February 20, 1989. It provides for the following ito po ang sinasabi ng batas:

Statements and Disclosure. 2) Documents shall contain information of the following: Letter (c )

nakalagay po ditokung ano dapat ilahad po natin doon All other assets such as investments,

cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds and the like. Very clearpo dito sa batas na nagpapatupad

sa Constitution na sa ating deklarasyon po, maski pera po sa baul o sa bangko kailangan

ideklara po natin.

Nasabi po nung kabila na iyong kanilang Witness o iyong kanilang authority na hindi naman

po iniharap sa atin dito eh wala pa siyang nakitang SALN na may nakadeklara na dolyar.

Hindi naman po kasi kailangang sabihin mo na dolyar, puwede mo namang i-convert eh.Halimbawa po, eh kung ang cash on hand mo ismay $100,000 ka, eh di puwede mong ilagay

na P4.5 million kung iyon ang palitan. You do not have to say it is in dollars. Kaya lang po, si

Chief Justice ay nagpapalusot po sa 6426 na sinabi ko na nga po 15 yearspa po napasa iyong

batas na iyon. Napakaliwanag po ng ating batas.

Tingnan po ninyo sa ating SALN form. Ito ang pinirmahan po ni Chief Justice sa kanyang

SALN form. Kung puwedeng ipakita po diyan.

I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and information that these are the true

statements of my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interest and financial connections

including those of my spouse and unmarried children below 18 years of age as required by

and in accordance with Republic Act 6713.

Ayun po, nakapirma po siya at nakalagay po doon sa unang paragraph, required by and in

accordance with Republic Act 6713. Ang requirement nga ng 6713, maski na anong pera mo,

maski nakatago, i-declare mo dahilkaya po maski naman po iyong peso, may secrecy rin po

naman iyan ah. There is also secrecy in peso deposit. But you also have to declare because ang

ipinagbabawal po ng 6426 is anyone looking into the account of a depositor. Hindi po puwedeng

ibigay ng bangko iyon, pero yung nagmamay-ari po ng deposito, kailangan ideklara po niya

kung magkano ang pera niya sa bangko. Dahil kung hindi po, napakasamang interpretasyon po

nito. Lahat po ng gustong magtago ng pera ay bibili po ng dollar o foreign currency unitspara

hindi na po ide-declare sa SALN. Eh kawawa po naman ang ating bansa.


17/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 17

So, very clear po. Si Chief Justicepo puwede siyangdalawang batas po ito eh: 6426 at saka

6713. Yung 6713, sabi niya, dapat ideklara mo kung ano yung pera mo, nasa kamay mo man

o nasa bangko. Yung isa naman, bawal sa bangko maglahad kung ano yung deposito. He has

the option to obey the law. What does he wish to obey? Eh di isinekreto po niya ang pera niya.

Ano naman ang violation sa 6426 kung i-declare niya kung ano ang pera nila sa bangko? Wala

pong violation. In fact, puwede nga niyang iladlad at, katulad nga ng ginawa niya dito,

ipinagmamalaki niya na sila na raw po ang unang nag-waive ng kanilang deposits. So very clearpo na yung mga sinasabi ni Chief Justice about 6426 ay palusot. Hindsight lang po iyan dahil

nahuli po. Nahuli po.

Katulad din po nung mga $2.4 million na binili niya nuong 2:1 pa lamang yun.Maski ano pong

kwenta ang gawin natin, hindi po aabot iyon. At kung totoo naman po yung sinabi niya na noon

pa bago siya pumasok sa gobyerno nakaipon na siya ng ganuong kalaking pera, eh di ibig

sabihin nuon all these years nanduon po yung pera niya.

Pero kung tingnan po yung SALN niya, noong unang pumasok sa gobyerno ay mayroon pa

siyang car loan na P300,000. May utang pa siya na P300,000 po para sa kotse. Eh milyon-milyon

pala yung pera niya ay bakit pa siya mangungutang ng P300,000 para sa kotse niya? At nuongsumunod na mga taon po, makikita sa SALN may utang din po siyang one million sa mga

bangko. Eh milyon milyon pala yung kaban niya eh bakit ka mangungutang kung ang dami

mong pera?

Ganun na rin po noong bumale sila sa Basa-Guidote ng P11 milyon. Bakit ka babale duon

sa Basa-Guidote eh kanya rin pala iyon? Nasa kanya rin pala yung pera at iyon ay tatalakayin

ko po sa susunod.

Pang-apat na palusot ni Chief Justice. Sa testimonya ni Ginoong Corona, inamin din niyang

meron siyang P80 milyon na hindi niya idineklara ang mga ito sa kanyang SALN. Ang palusot

ni Justice Corona, hindi siya obligadong ideklara ito dahil commingled o halo-halong pondo at

hindi lang siya ang nagmamay-ari ng milyones na ito. Kung totoo ito, bakit sa kanya lamang

nakapangalan ang deposito? Alam naman po natin puwede namang joint account at saka lahat-

lahat para kung ilan po. At saka medyo nakakalito po na siya namimili ng dollar mulat mula

pa nung 2:1, tapos yung anak niya na nasa Amerika na kumikita ng dollar ay pinapalit naman

niya ng peso at si Charina daw ay may P15 million o may P10 million. Hindi ko po maintindihan.

At meron pa siyang P80 million. Eh bakit di niya ipalit sa dollar iyon para mas okay? Pero hindi

ho, nahuli lang po na iyon ang hawak niya. Kaya yung mga palusot po minsan mahirap, hindi

po magtugma-tugma. We tend to contradict ourselves if we do not tell the truth.

In the case ofFultron vs. Iron Works and China Banking, a depositor is presumed to be the

owner of the funds standing in his name in a bank deposit. Natural po eh siya ang nakapangalan

duon. At kung ako naman po kaya eh, yung mga anak ko po, sa edad ko pong ito, ibinibigay

ko pa nga yung pera ko sa pondo nila para kung may mangyari po sa akin eh di sa kanila na

yung pera. Ito, baligtad po eh, dahil na-double heart bypass na. Eh kung malasin po siya, eh di

papaano pa makukuha yung pera na P80 million dahil nakapangalan po sa kanya iyan? Babayad

ng estate tax, katakut-takot na transaction po iyan dahil hindi malalabas sa bangko iyan. Kasi

hindi naman po totoong commingled ito eh. Palusot lamang po iyon dahil para nga pohindi

naman po idedeklara iyan.

At saka kung totoo po iyon, nagtataka po naman kami. Ang haba-haba po ng panahon, mula

pa nuong March 22, kanila na po yung turn na magbigay ng mga witness. Kung sinu-sino po ang

pinepresenta dito hanggang medyo nauubusan na ng pasensya po yung mga kagalang-galang


18/33

18 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

na Senador. Kailan ba namin makikita yung kliyente ninyo? Dahil noon pa sana ho eh di inilabas

na sana niGinoong Corona dito yung alleged Far East Bank account executive niya para sabihin,

Ay totoo po na nuong ganito ay talagang ganyan kalaki na yung pera ni At saka controlled

po niya lahat itong fundsrecords na ito, eh di dapat inilabas po niya, ipinakita niya, O, eto

maski na nuong Grade 6 ako nag-iipon na ako, meron na akong passbook nito, meron akong

certificate of deposit. Oyung bank manager na lamang po,pero wala po eh.

Maski po yung mga anak niya na may kontribusyon doon sa pondo, nandoon po nanonood

sila nuong nagte-testify siya. Hindi po ba ipinasu-subpoena namin yan pero hindi pinayagan

dahil asawa, mga anak, eh di dapat sila po ang nagtestigo dito,pero siya po nagtetestigo para

doon sa mga anak niya who we cannot cross-examine.Hindi naman po yata tama yon. Kaya

medyo palusot din po yata yon dahil kung makikita po natin sa ebidensya ang laki-laki na nung

pera nung Carla Corona Castillo. Sa kanya rin po ibinenta ni Chief Justice yung bahay at lupa

nila forP19 million, ibinenta niya kay Carla. Eh sabi ni Chief Justice, Kaming mag-asawa hindi

namimili ng real estate dahil pinag-aawayan yan ng mga anak. Pero ibinebenta niya yung

property niya doon sa anak niya. Ano ba? Kasi po palusot na lamang po yan kasi nga nuong

2000po sunod-sunod angbuying spreepo si Chief Justice eh, bumili ng condominium dito, bumili

ng condominium dito, na hindi po idinedeklara sa kanyang SALN. Napakita na po naminyungmga Bellagio, Columns, and everything. Bigla-bigla nung 2010 SALN duon lamang po lumabas,

dineklare (declare) niya. Bakit po? Nagbago presidente eh. Iba na ang presidente. So, biglang

nag-declare ng mga property na binili pitong taon na ang nakakaraan; yung isa, limang taon

na ang nakaraan; yung isa, tatlong taon na ang nakaraan. Biglang-bigla kailangang magbenta

sa anak, kunwari, ng P11 million dahil, Ang dami ko nang naipamili ha,paano ko ma-e-explain

ito? Pero hindi naman niya kailangang i-explain. Aba ang dami kong pera, o, meron akong

$2.4 million diyan, may P80 millionpa nga kami,pero ito po lahat ay maliwanag na palusot.

Susunod po tayoone last question: Kung ganoon kadami ang pera ni Chief Justice Corona

dapat naman po hindi na pinag-aawayan yung pera ng Basa-Guidote. Tingnan po niyo yung

SALN niya. Taon-taon binabayaran niya ng P1 million kuno, P11 million, tapos bababa ng 10;bababa ng 9; bababa ng 8, 7, 6, 5, hanggang kunwari nabayaranna po, eh, iisang kaban lang

naman po yun. Nung tinanong ng isang Senador dito: Paano ka bumabayad doon?

Ibinibigay ko kay Misis. Ano, tseke o cash? Cash o tseke?

Bahala na siya.

Pero ide-deposit din doon sa account niya, hindi po ba? Eh bakit ka pa babayad kung sa

iyo din naman yung pera, hindi ba kalokohan lang po yon? Eh, ibibigay mo yung pera sa misis

po para ide-deposit din niya sa sarili mong account. Nakakahilo po pero yun po ang paliwanag

ni Chief Justice.

Your Honors, our nation does not deserve to have a Chief Justice who intentionally and consistently

hides the great bulk of his cash assets, and reporting in his SALN only a measly 1.97 percent, wala

pong two percent ito, of his total admitted cash assets. In short, Renato Corona, throughout his tenure

in the Supreme Court, concealed from the public 98 percent of his total admitted cash assets amounting

to P180 million.

Tatalakayin ko po nang kaunti yung mga nasabi nung professor ko na si Dean Delos Angeles.

Eto po ang sinabi ng Supreme Court doon saFrancisco case. At sino po ang sumulat nito?

Ito po ang Concurring Opinion ni Justice Renato Corona. Sabi po niya, Impeachment under the

Philippine Constitution as a remedy for serious political offenses against the people runs parallel


19/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 19

to that of the U.S. Constitution whose framers regarded it as a political weapon against executive

tyranny. It was meant to fend against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate.

Even if an impeachable official enjoys immunity, he can be removed in extreme cases to protect the

public. Si Justice Coronapa ang nagsasabi nito. Because of its peculiar structure and purpose,

impeachment proceedings are neither civil nor criminal. James Wilson described impeachment as

confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors and to political punishment.

According to Justice Joseph Storyito pa rin po yongponente ni Justice Corona quoting all theseAmerican authoritiesin his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, Impeachment applied to

offenses of a political character, not but that crimes of strictly legal character fall within the scope of

the power, but that it has a more enlarged operation and reaches what are aptly termed political

offenses growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect or usurpation or habitual disregard of

the public interests, various in character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions that it is almost

impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law. They must be examined upon very broad

and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty.

Ito po ang definition ni Justice Corona tungkol po sa impeachable offense.

Ayan po, Your Honors, huwag po ninyong palusutin si Chief Justice Corona. Nasabi ko na pominsan dito na ito po ay ginintuangpagkakataon po natin. Sinasabi ko po natin dahil ang

impeachmentpoay two-step process yan. Kailangan po magkatugma ang House at saka Senate.

Kung hindi, wala pong mangyayari. Maski gaano po ka-corrupt o may ginagawang masama

yong impeachable officer at gusto ng Senado tanggalin, kung hindi po namin isasampa yong

kaso, wala pong kaso. Kasi po nasa House of Representatives ang tanging kapangyarihan na

magsampa ng impeachment. Ginawa na po namin ang trabaho namin, isinampa namin po dito

yong Complaint at sa tingin po naman namin napatunayan po namin ang kasalanan ni Ginoong

Corona.

Kung iyong ordinaryong kawani ng korte ay tinanggal ng Korte Suprema na pinamumunuan

ni Chief Justice Corona dahil sa hindi niyapagdeklara sa kanyang SALN na mayroon siyangmaliit na puwesto sa palengkeopo, inalis po yong interpreter dahil hindi nalagay sa SALN niya

na may stall siya sa palengke at dito po sa atin sa Senado ay palalampasin natin o palulusutin

natin na si Renato Corona ay good faith naman na hindi niya idineklara yong kanyang

$2.4million, P80million masisira po ang bayan natin. Ang dali naman pong palusutin siya.

Eh, kung mahulihan po ako ng P50 million sasabihin ko, Ambag-ambag kami nina Senator

Cayetano, sina Senator Marcos, dito at lahat-lahat. Hindi naman po yata puwede. Nagkontri-

kontribusyon kami sa pondong yan. Maski ako lang po ang naka-pangalan. Sa nanay ko

po yan, eh, yong nanay ko ay pondo po niya yan. Hindi po puwede yon. Dahil ang

presumption po, kung sobra-sobra yong perang nasa sa iyo ay yan ay galing sa hindi

magandang paraan.

Mga Kagalang-galang na Senador, huwag po tayong padadala sa mga palusot at mala-

dramang pahayag ni Chief Justice Corona. Mas maliwanag po kaysa sikat ng araw na inaabuso

at binabaluktot po niyaang mga batas para itago po niya ang kanyang mga pera na kung saan

nanggaling ay kaduda-duda.

To keep a Chief Justice in office whose gross misconduct and dishonesty are a well-established fact

will weaken the authority of the Judiciary and undermine the rule of law, for lying under oath before

the Senate and the Filipino people, Renato Corona should not only be given his wish to be excused

as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, he should be removed as the Chief Justice of

the Republic of the Philippines.


20/33

20 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

It would be the greatest disservice to our nation and people to allow him to stay any minute longer

as the head of the Judicial Department of our government, the bulwark of truth and justice.

The House of Representatives has done its constitutional duty of impeaching Renato Corona and

proving his guilt, not only by clear and convincing evidence but conclusive evidence brought about by

his admission before the honorable Senate, of the charge against him under Article II of the Articles

on Impeachment.

Diyos ti agngina unay, Apo Presidente Juan Ponce Enrile. Maraming salamat po, mga

Kagalang-galang naSenador, sa inyong pagtanggap nang mainit po sa amin dito sa loob ho ng

halos limang buwan. At sa sambayanang Pilipino, maraming salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. Diyos ti agngina. Nalaing ka unay. [Laughter]

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are ready to listen to the second part of the Defense Panel.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, ten (10) minutes of my time is being granted by me to amember of the Defense panel. Your Honor, may we ask permission that he be given ten (10) minutes

to be deducted from my time, thus making itI understand I have only thirty-seven (37) minutespa.

Forty (40)pa. Charged against my time, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. Thirty-five (35). You have thirty-five (35) minutes left. Unless, there is any

objection from the Court because the rule is two (2) speakers.

Representative Tupas. No objection from the Prosecution, Your Honor.


The Presiding Officer.So, what is the proposal now?

Senator Sotto. A second speaker be recognized to take ten (10) minutes of the portion of Justice

Cuevas, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Granted.


Mr. Manalo. Good afternoon to the Senators and to the Filipino people.

Malaki po ang paggalang ko kay Congressman Rudy Farias. Isa po siyang bar topnotcher at

galing din po siya sa parehong eskuwelahan kung saan po ako grumadweyt (graduate).

Marami po siyang tinanong. Why did the Chief Justice declare two is to one (2:1)? Why did

the Chief Justice put the real properties under the names of his children? But the question is not Why?

The question is Why not? Why not did they choose to cross-examine him and pose these questions

when he was here? The man presented himself before this Court. He could have responded to all

these questions, but they chose to waive.

What is the effect of the waiver? Our rules are very clear that when cross-examination is waived,

the testimony of the witness is unimpeached. It remains on record. The issue now here is his credibility.

Let me bring this situation in its proper context. Every person is presumed to be innocent unless

proven otherwise. That is very clear. I need not cite my basis for that because that is inherently natural


21/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 21

in any system of government. The burden of proof in this case, it is also very clear, it is upon the

Prosecution. And if it fails to satisfythoroughly show the facts upon which they based their claim,

the Defendant is under no obligation to prove his defense. And if the Prosecution fails to establish any

of the elements necessary to constitute a crime, Chief Justice Corona is entitled to an acquittal.

Let me go briefly to what they tried to prove. They tried to prove that the Chief Justice did not

declare his assets in his SALN. They have presented witnesses, documents. But everything has beenexplained. It has been shown that the real properties which they wanted to prove were not really 45.

It was only five (5). And it was also shown that all five (5) have been reported in the 2010 SALN.

Are we going to trivialize this by saying that parking lots have to be included when, in fact, we know

that the accessory follows the principal? We do not have to go to this anymore.

Are we going to even go into the timing of when the Chief should have reported this? Should it

have been in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 when, in fact, witnesses here have testified under oath that the

Chief Justice had issues about the unit?

The Chief Justice was, at the very least, in good faith. That, to me, is very clear.

Again, they have pounded the Chief Justice on his dollar accounts. They have said, Inamin naniya. He already said that he has $2.4 million. What else is there to prove? As if the Foreign

Currency Deposit Law does not exist.

First of all, how were they able to prove this? This was proven through the testimony of the

Ombudsman which, with all due respect, in my opinion as a lawyer, is hearsay. The AMLC officer

who prepared that report was never presented in Court; that AMLC officer was never made to explain

the entries that he made there; the AMLC officer was never presented to show the supporting

documents that he relied upon. What did the Ombudsman say? Hindi ko naintindihan yong

AMLC report. So what did I do? I called the COA to explain to me the AMLC report. Of all

the people, to call the COA? Why did she not call the AMLC? They were the ones who prepared

the report. Bakit hindi sila ang pinagpaliwanag?

And I propose an answer to these questions. The answer is very simple: The AMLC refused to

testify because there was no court order allowing that inspection. That is very clear under the law

Authority to Inquire Into Bank Deposit, Section 11: The AMLC may inquire into or examine any

particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order

of a competent court.

Did the Ombudsman ask the AMLC, Where is your court order? She did not. She said she

never investigated the AMLC when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits

or investments are related to unlawful activities. What are these unlawful activities? Kidnapping, drug

cases, hijacking. That is definitely not within the exception. Those are definitely not within the case.

And so what did the Chief Justice do? Confronted with this situation, what did he do? He told

everybody, I interpreted the law in accordance with the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. And he

dared everybody, Hindi po ba pare-pareho ang interpretation natin niyan? Is it not? That is what

he said. We all looked at it the same way. And he said, I will sign my waiver now and I will prove

to you that we all have the same interpretation. Let us open our accounts; let us open our SALNs;

let us show it to the Filipino people that we have the same interpretation.

Did anybody take up that challenge before the Honorable Court? Nobody. Nobody. Nobody,

because the Chief was able to show that his interpretation has been followed by most of the honest,

hardworking public officials of our bureaucracy.


22/33

22 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

There is no one witness here who testified that the Chief Justice accepted a bribe. There is not

one witness here to say, Ako po ang nagdeposito niyan kasi po may kapalit po na desisyon iyan.

Not one. We are all surmising. They are saying, Kaduda-duda iyong movement ng pera.

Napakalaki noong araw na ito. Napakalaki nung ganoon. Eh, bakit hindi mo pinatunayan?

Why did you not present the witness? We never decide cases based on doubt. We decide cases

based on facts. That is how our system works.

Now, let me go to my last point. The Prosecution says that the Foreign Currency Deposit Law

is repugnant to the Constitution. My question is: Can the Senate Impeachment Court declare the

Foreign Currency Deposit Law unconstitutional? The Constitution is clear. Cases involving the

constitutionality of any treaty, international executive agreement or law shall be heard by the Supreme

Court en banc. That is very clear. And is it not the greatest height of contradiction if it is the Senate

who will declare the product of its own work, the law that came from it, as contradictory to the

Constitution? Galing po sa inyo iyong batas. Umasa po ang mga kababayan. Tapos sasabihin

ninyo hindi ninyopwedeng gamitin kapag kayo ay nalitis? And even assuming that there is a tinge

of unconstitutionality, the rule is decisions of this nature have prospective application.

And let me read: The principle of prospectivity has also been applied to judicial decisions which,although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean, the reason why

under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the

Constitution shall form part of the legal system. A compelling rationalization of the prospectivity

principle of judicial decisions is the imperative necessity to take account of the actual existence of the

statute prior to its nullification as an operative fact negating acceptance of a principle of absolute

retroactive invalidity.

If it is unconstitutional, you cannot apply it retroactively. That is a medication that the Chief has

already took. You cannot tell the medicine, Do not take effect. The person has already drunk it.

He has already taken its effect. If it is against the Constitution, it should only be applied prospectively.

In closing, let me just respond to Congressman Tupas statement that the Chief Justice peddled his

position for material gains. That is a lie. That is an absolute lie. The Supreme Court is a collegial body.

He might be referring to the FASAP case. He might be referring to the TRO granted to former

President Arroyo. But the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the individual personalities

of its members. Consistent with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual members act

not as such individuals but only as a duly constituted courts. Their distinct individualities are lost in the

majesty of their office (In Re: Almasen).

Do not blame the Chief Justice, Congressman Tupas. It was the Supreme Court who rendered

that decision. And if you are relying on the Dissenting Opinion of the Honorable Justice Sereno, let

me just say that the dissenting opinion cannot be sustained. A dissenting opinion is not binding as itis a mere expression of the individual view of a court who disagrees with the conclusion of the majority

of the members thereof.

That will be all, Your Honor.


Senator Sotto. Continuation of the Defense, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. May I just be allowed, Your Honor, to carry on the discussion?

Senator Sotto. You have 27 minutes and 36 seconds.


23/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 23

Mr. Cuevas. Nabawasan yata ng malaki iyon.

Thank you.

There seemed to be no question, Your Honor, as to the existence of Republic Act 6426 which

deals with the confidentiality of foreign accounts deposit. But the question that apparently surfaced is

the challenge or the allegation to the effect that this law is in violation of the Constitution.I do not know of any case whatsoever, nor any proceedings before the Supreme Court,

Your Honor, questioning the legality and the constitutionality of that law and simply because a

Senator or a Justice says that a law is unconstitutional is no dictum to the effect that it is really

unconstitutional.

Unless there is a pronouncement on the unconstitutionality of a law, it remains valid, it is effective

and it is enforceable against everybody within the Republic of the Philippines, Your Honor. As of date,

I am not aware of any law or any case that even merely challenges the constitutionality of Republic Act

6426. What does that imply? It is certainly valid, effective and subsisting and, therefore, any and all

depositors of foreign currency may avail thereof with no fear that they have lost the right to claim the

confidentiality enshrined in the said law.

Now, may we ask if there is any proceeding that the Prosecution knows whereby the constitutionality

of this law is being challenged or had been challenged? If there is any proceeding, has it resulted in

the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the said law? We ventured a guess, Your Honor, that the

entire annals of political and constitutional jurisprudence may be searched in vain but it will not yield

any answer to the effect that this law has been declared unconstitutional.

Now, may I go a little further, Your Honor. Even our Legislative Department, both of Congress,

both the House of Representatives and the Senate are unanimous in abiding with the dictum of

confidentiality enshrined in this law. They have amended this particular law sometime in 2002, Your

Honor, and I am referring to Republic Act 9194 which laid down the dictum or the jurisprudence tothe effect that whereas under Republic Act 6426, the only exception thereby that grants confidentiality

to the Republic Act 6426, Your Honor, is the written, lack or absence of written permission on the

part of the depositor. Under the AMLA which amended that particular provision, there are now two

exceptions.

First, it added a new exception and that is when there are a criminal proceedings involving

transactions which are illegal, violative of the AMLA, and which have been filed before a court, Your

Honor, and there are proceedings to that effect and the transaction involved is any of the transactions

mentioned on that law. For instance, Anti-Graft Law, robbery, piracy and a lot more of other

enumeratedIf the investigation deals with that particular omission, Your Honor, then it cannotthe

depositor cannot raise the defense that their deposits are secured and therefore confidentiality isavailable to them under Republic Act 6426.

Now, it had been argued, Your Honor, does that not induce criminality or does it not do a favor

especially to wrongdoers in the government service whereby in order to evade being criminally liable

for their illegal acts, they convert their properties or money into foreign accounts? That may be true

although I do not subscribe entirely to the correctness of such a view. Even if it exists, the remedy

is not judicial, Your Honor, the remedy is legislation. Let us amend the law, let us remove all these

exceptions. The necessity for written permission must be removed if the entirety of what is alleged is

that it is conducive to the commitment of illegalities, bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft Law on

the part of public officials.


24/33

24 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

But such is not the case. The legislature or Congress never envisioned a situation where

in the process of allowing foreign currency deposits and its depositors to claim confidentiality

will be resulting in violation of the law on, for instance, smuggling, on kidnapping with ransom, and

so on down the line.

Now, secondly, it is very clear now under the AMLA, as amended, that the confidentiality

enshrined under Republic Act 6426 may no longer be invoked if the Prosecution, Your Honor, is aprosecution of any of the transactional offenses enumerated under the law. In other words, it is another

exception whereby the depositor may no longer avail himself of what is known as Foreign Currency

Deposit Law.

Now, I was amazed by the peroration of my learned colleague who had spoken before us, Your

Honor, to the effect that allegedly there are a lot of falsities, a lot of lies permeating the declaration of

the honorable Chief Justice. I wanted immediately to agree with him but his behavior before and

during the presentation of the evidence or declaration by the Chief Justice does not approve of

such kind of a plea, Your Honor. Why? Because Chief Justice Corona was here, he was available

for cross-examination. If they doubted the credibility of Justice Corona, they should have taken

advantage of the opportunity to cross-examine him. But it is on record, Your Honor, that there wasno such cross-examination. In fact, it was categorically and positively waived by the lead Counsel

of the Prosecution. And for that, we were heavily thankful because it shortened the stand activity of

Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor.

Now, they likewise referred to a lot of fabricated lies, more especially with respect to alleged buying

of dollar deposits and so on. There is no statement on record, Your Honor, by the Chief Justice

Corona that he started buying when he was still an undergraduate continuously up to the point that he

accumulated the amount that he admitted before this Honorable Court. I would like to commend Chief

Justice Corona because notwithstanding several advices during the conferences that we had that it is

his right not to testify because no evidencehe cannot be compelled to testify, this proceeding being

akin to a criminal case, he still insists on bringing before this Court an admission to the effect that hehas so much. He should be commended for that matter, Your Honor. But what is his explanation?

Let me go a little further. What is the allegation with respect to the non-entry into the SALN of

the Chief Justice Corona of the various properties alluded to by the Prosecution consisting of 45 pieces

of properties? Little by little, Your Honor, while the trial went on, we were able to show, I believe,

to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court, that there were no 45 pieces of properties and that

ultimately, there were only five (5). That is why the other properties which do not belong to him and

which are registered in the name of persons whom he does not even know, need not be accounted

for by him in the SALN that he filed for that matter.

Now, he is also being charged or blamed for fraud because allegedly there were acquisitions made

by him on a particular year but they were not registered on that year and they were registered later

for a year or two years thereafter. We have no quarrel with that. Even our evidence showed that we

have some vacillation on the part of the family of Chief Justice Corona because there were some doubts

as to the validity of the transfer of the ownership to him. And, therefore, his non-reporting may not

be considered as intentional, fraudulent, malicious and be the subject of an impeachment proceedings,

Your Honor.

Now, there were statements made here in connection with an employee, a low employee of the

Supreme Court or Justice relative to certain acts committed by him or her. But that cannot be equated.

There is no parity of facts between that case and this case. That is merely an administrative case. This

is an impeachment case, Your Honor, governed by the provisions of the Constitution and grounded on


25/33

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012, 25

definite and specific grounds, namely, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, other high crimes,

violation of the Anti-Graft Law and betrayal of public trust.

May we ask the Prosecution, Your Honor, whether there is any jurisprudence on the point that a

mere deficiency or a mere inaccuracy in the entries made by a filer in the SALN is constitutive of a

ground for impeachment which they claim now? I do not thinkand I am not awareI will be heavily

thankful and be fully appreciative if they can enlightenbecause this happened to be my forte in criminallaw which is still my forte being a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College

of Law, Your Honor.

Now, if it is not an impeachable offense, if it cannot be a ground for impeachment, then why are

we building up matters after matters to the prejudice not only of the life, the honor and the reputation

of the Chief Justice but his entire family which, even after years, may no longer be erased or obliterated

because it has already sunk into the minds of the common people being the subject of what we call

conferences even outside of this Court?

Now, let me go a little farther, with the kind permission of this Honorable Court. There is a

statement here made by the Honorable Ombudsman relative to the properties and deposits and cashdeposits and accounts which she declared while on the witness stand. Unfortunately, Your Honor,

when we cross-examined her, she was truthful in admitting that there are no charges at that time filed

against Chief Justice Corona. He is not a respondent nor an accused in any crimes mentioned under

the AMLA. But that pursuant to her general power as Ombudsman, she conducted the investigation

on the strength of the affidavit-complaint presented or submitted by several persons.

Your Honor, these are the persons we introduced in evidence, we called them to testify in order

to prove our contention that none of them had mentioned the existence of the $10 million account

referred to in the report of the Honorable Ombudsman.

Now, in order to justify further any statement on the matter with respect to properties and deposits,

Your Honor, she waived certain docscertain papers allegedly they were entries or they were papers,Your Honor, furnished her by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Now, at first, I was almost

convinced that there is validity in her assertion, but when we examined the documents, and we were

permitted by the Court to do so, we found out that there was no proper attestation. There is only an

May 28 Senate impeachment court record

Documents

Transcript of May 28 Senate impeachment court record