“The Constitution commands the Respondent Chief Justice to file an accurate and complete Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). This requirement is not a mere formality, as it goes into the heart of Respondent’s moral fitness to hold public office.
“Respondent concealed his luxurious condominiums for five years after they were fully paid. Worse, Respondent reported the values of these condominiums at less than 50 percent of their acquisition cost.
“Respondent admits he did not declare $2.4 million, and P80 million, in his SALN. The enormity of Respondent’s hidden assets – over P180 million, or 50 times more than his declared cash assets – is scandalous. It is grossly disproportionate to his total income for 10 years of about P27 million. It establishes a prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
One hundred eight million pesos. Res Ipsa Loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.
“Respondent justifies his concealment of his dollar accounts because of the alleged confidentiality in Republic Act 6426. This kind of interpretation will encourage aspiring thieves in government to simply hide all their loot in Foreign Currency Deposit Unit accounts. The law does not prohibit Respondent from disclosing his foreign currency deposits. It bars the bank from disclosing them without his consent. In fact, he authorized this court to inquire into them.
“How can Respondent, the Chief Justice no less, claim good faith in asserting such a twisted interpretation of the law? Besides, the defense of good faith cannot be invoked. The punishable act of non-reporting of assets in one’s SALN is mala prohibita, where good faith is immaterial.
“Respondent concealed his P80 million deposits because allegedly they are “commingled funds” of BGEI and that of his relatives.
“Respondent presented no evidence to substantiate his claims. If BGEI funds are held in trust, respondent must report such funds as assets, and enter the corresponding liabilities, in his SALN. He did not. He cannot claim good faith. He was the manager of SGV’s Tax Department.
“The Supreme Court dismissed Delsa Flores, a lowly court interpreter, for not reporting in her SALN her stall in a public market.
“The Chief Justice must be held to a much higher standard.
“Those who dispense justice must conform to the highest standards of professional integrity, and personal honesty. Chief Justice Corona knowingly, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, filed inaccurate and false SALNs to conceal his enormous wealth. Where our Constitution and our laws require disclosure, he chose the path of concealment. He has lost his moral fitness to serve the people. He has betrayed the public trust. He cannot be Chief Justice a minute longer.
"You shall do no injustice in judging a case. You shall not be partial to the poor or show preference for the mighty. But in the righteousness and according to the merits of the case, judge your neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15
Why do we complicate the simple? Diba simple lang naman ang issue: Sino ang nagsasabi ng katotohanan? Ano ba ang katotohanan base sa ebidensiya na naibigay sa korte na ito? Ano ba ang katotohanan?
Almost 10 years ago, nasa Amerika po kami at nagpapagamot ang aking ama. Hindi pa namin alam noong panahon na iyon na may cancer na pala po siya sa tiyan. Dahil gabi-gabi naman po siyang umiiyak sa sakit around 2 o'clock in the morning, tinanong ko siya: Dad, ano ang masakit?
Nagulat po ako sa sagot niya. Sabi niya: "Alan, 40 years ago, I studied here and worked here. I always planned to go back home. 40 years later andito na naman ako. Andami nang umunlad na bansa, pero ganoon pa rin tayo."
Nabasa ko sa kanyang mata ang simpleng katotohanan na yung corruption at kahirapan ay dinudurog ang espirito ng isang nadudurog na ang katawan. Mas masakit pala yun na yung espirito at pagasa ay nadudurog lalo na kung para sa sariling bayan.
Gusto ko po na magbago ang ating bansa. Gusto ko po na makita na nakatawa rin ang aking ama. Ngunit mayroon din pong kanser ang ating lipunan. Kanser na ang ibang batas at ang ibang pamantayan o standard sa ating lipunan ay iba para sa mayaman at makapangyarihan at iba para sa mahirap. Kanser ng korupsyon. Kanser na para sa mga mayaman at makapangyarihan na ang simple ay ginagawang komplikado.
Dahil sa kanser na ito, iba't iba ang interpretasyon ng batas para sa mayaman at mahirap. Hindi ko po matanggap ang eksplanasyon ng pinakamataas na hukom ng ating bana na yung $2.4M ay hindi kailangang ideklara sa SALN under RA 6426.
Hindi ko po pwedeng matanggap na ang isang public official sa isang simpleng paraan na iko-convert sa dolyar ay pwede na niyang hindi ilagay sa SALN. Kaya po ba nating tanggapin ang interpretasyon na kung yung $2.4M ninyo ay ilalagay niyo sa safety deposit box o ilalagay niya sa isang kaha-de-yero sa opisina niyo o itatago niyo sa isang baul sa bahay ay kailangan ideklara sa SALN pero kapag idineposito sa banko ay hindi kailangan ilagay sa SALN?
Mukhang ginawa nating komplikado ang simpleng simple. Kapag Pesos ang pinag-uusapan, kahit may confidentiality, kailangan itong ideklara. Pero pagdating sa dollars hindi kailangang ideklara? Pati ba naman sa pera may diskriminasyon tayo? Pati ba naman sa sarili nating bansa ay nangingibabaw ang dolyar sa peso?
When a public official, especially a judge, is faced with 2 possible interpretations of the law, one which will give life to the spirit of the sovereign will of the people embodied in the Constitution and another that will protect only himself, it is his moral, human, constitutional duty to choose to protect the Constitution and not himself.
If a public official has a choice between harmonizing several laws with the Constitution RA 6716, RA 6426 and the other choice is to make them repugnant with each other. O sa tagalong, hindi pwedeng ipagsama (ang mga batas na ito), ano dapat ang kanyang desisyon? Diba dapat simple? Lahat ng abugado alam yun. You construe it that you will harmonize all of these laws.
Ito po ang tanong ko: Paano po kapag may kaso ang 1.3M civil servants, ilan man sa kanila, isa, dalawa,o marami sa Korte Suprema? Paano kung halatang halatang tinago lang ang pera pero dollar account ang ginamit? Will the Chief Justice have the moral ascendancy now to convict that public official? Hindi pwede. Dahil sa sarili niyang depensa, ginamit na niya ang interpretasyong ito.
Sana po kaya kong tanggapin na ganoon yung interpretasyon niya pero dineklara pa rin niya (ang mga ito sa SALN) just in case. I would respect him for that. Even if he thinks this is what the law is but for the good of the country he declared it.
Hindi ko rin po matanggap ang interpretasyon niya sa kanyang 80M pesos na deposito na aminado niyang partly hindi niya idineklara (sa kanyang SALN) pero ipinaliwanag lang niya sa pamamagitan ng isang kwento. Wala siyang sinumite na ebidensiya - walang ITR ng mga anak niya, walang resibo, walang mga passbook. Pagkatapos ay sasabihin lang po na i-base sa kanyang credibility.
I'm not saying he's not credible. But if it were anyone else, if it wasn't CJ Corona on the stand, tatanggapin ba natin ang sagot na yun?
O sasabihin natin: Ano ba ang iyong ebidensya? Especially when the explanation is against human experience.
Marami po na may mga edad na sa lipunan na nilalagay sa mga anak ang account nila. Pero tama po na bihira na ang anak ang naglalagay ng pera sa kanila magulang.
Bakit ang isang clerk hindi lamang nagdeklara ng stall sa isang palengke tinaggal na? Bakit ang mahirap kapag nagtago o nagnakaw bawal? Ano ba ang sinasabi natin sa mahirap? Bawal magtago at magnakaw diba?
Bakit sa mayaman bawal magnakaw ng kaunti? Kasi pag nagnakaw ng marami, lahat na ng technicalities, batas at lahat ng pwedeng pang komplika ng sistema para protektahan siya ay kanyang nai-invoke?
Bakit sa mahirap pag nahuli, ang sasabihin sa kanya: sa presinto ka na magpaliwanag? Bakit po kapag mayaman lahat ng lusot, batas, at technicalities available sa kanya?
Sa totoo lang po, napakagaling ng pagpapatakbo ng ating presiding officer sa impeachment na ito. I admire the prosecution, the defense, and my colleagues. But let's be honest with each other. Apatnapu't apat na araw, higit sa dalawang daang oras ang ginugol natin sa kasong ito.
Sa totoo lang, kahit sa isang linggo, kaya nating tapusin ito kung inilagay na lang natin sa stand at nagsabi na lang lahat ng totoo sa isa't isa. At sa tingin ko, kung mahirap ang akusado, nasa presinto at nagpapaliwanag na lamang siya.
Kapag ang isang mahirap, nahulihan ng asawa na may sweet na text sa iba sa kanyang cellphone, ano ang sasabihin niya? "Honey, mis-sent 'yan," o kaya ay "Hindi ko cellphone 'yan". Kapag ba mayaman kukuha pa ng abogado? Sasabihin mo pa ba, "Honey, hindi ko text 'yan, text ng iba 'yan. Nakigamit sa akin. Share kami. In trust 'yan. Co-mingled text iyan. Kaya hindi sa akin 'yan."
Why do we complicate what is so simple? Technicalities should protect the rights of the people. I don't blame this court for sticking to technicalities because this is supposed to protect the rights of the people. But, somehow in this country, it is being used to protect people who plunder this country.
I remember my law professors in Ateneo school of Law telling us, "If you are strong on the facts, pound on the facts. If you are strong on the law, pound on the law. If you are weak both on the facts and on the law, pound on the table."
Pukpukin ang batas, kung doon ka malakas. Pukpukin ang katotohanan, kung doon ka malakas. Pero kung hindi sa pareho, pukpukin na lamang ang lamesa. 'Yon po ang turo sa ating mga abogado. But to us as a nation, let us pound on the truth, pound on justice. Let us pound on grafters in this country.
Sabi ng iba, mabait si CJ Corona. Sabi ng iba hindi siya notorious sa Supreme Court. Kilala din namin siya at mabigat sa amin ang desisyong ito.
Some describe him as decent. Kaya sabi ng iba sa akin, mag-abstain ka na lang. Kasi kumplikado naman ang batas, kumplikado naman ito. This is my reply to them, with all due respect, "If your client cannot explain, I cannot abstain."
If you did not disclose, we have to depose. If you are not fit, you cannot sit.
You will have your day in court. You will have your day in media. Ngunit sa impeachment case, ang pinag-uusapan po natin 'yung kabutihan ng ating bansa.
The impeachment court does not simply pass judgment on this specific case, or on this specific Chief Justice. The court action, being far-reaching and precedent-setting, is actually rebuilding a new paradigm of transparency and accountability in public office.
The verdict of this court will affect more than 1.3 million civil or public servants, government employees and officials. It will affect 100 million Filipinos in other countries. It will affect our future. Because transparency and accountability fight corruption. And corruption has a direct co-relation to investments, business, jobs, prices, and the quality of services we give our people.
Ang korupsyon ay may direktang epekto sa presyo, sa kawalan ng trabaho, at sa kita ng bawat mamamayang Pilipino.
I cannot agree with the Chief Justice's interpretation of the law in his explanation of the P80 million and $2.4 million deposits. However, in signing the waiver that allows the Ombudsman to look into his bank accounts, he has set a new standard.
Bagong pamantayan. Sabihin man na mapalitan na siya, sabihin mo nang lumabas, pumirma pa din siya at isinumite niya ang waiver. We should all follow this standard. Ang pamantayan na ito ay dapat para sa ating lahat. Transparency of bank accounts is good.
I ask the President to instruct his cabinet to sign the waivers or resign and leave government. Lead by following, or get out of the way. Executive, legislative, judiciary. COA, Comelec, BIR, Customs, judges, governors, mayors, barangay captains, congressmen, senators, let us agree on one standard.
At least, itong ginawa ni Chief Justice ay maganda. We can agree on safeguards and protection. Hindi naman ibig sabihin ay lahat na lang kakalkalin. Payagan natin ang Ombudsman na kung may kaso o may issue sa inyo, makita niya at tingnan ito. Hindi pang-harass o pang-abuse ito. But all of us should have the same standards.
The waiver, taken together with the SALN, and if the FOI Law is passed, we will have entered a dawn of transparency and accountability in our country. It will be a new milestone in the Tuwid na Daan.
For myself, gagawin ko po ito. Kapag ako ang inimbestigahan ng Ombudsman, papayag po ako na buksan ang aking accounts. Okay po ako sa waiver. Walang dapat ikatakot kung walang itinatago. Ayaw ko din na hina-harass. Ayaw ko din nang kinukulit. But we don't have a choice. Kung gusto nating magbago ang bansa, dapat pare-pareho.
Hindi ko makakalimutan ang pag-iyak ng aking ama noong gabing iyon, hindi dahil sa sakit ng tiyan, o dahil ang katawan niya ay unti-unting kinakain ng kanyang sakit. Umiyak siya sa pagmamahal sa kanyang inang bayan, ang bansang Pilipinas.
Nais ko po ng pagbabago. Nawa'y sa desisyon na ito, nakatulong po ako nang kaunti. Masakit man ang proseso, sana makapag-dulot ito ng pagbabago sa ating bansa.
Presume him guilty. Presume him innocent. Give him his day in court. Ascribe to him good faith. Yes, in civil and criminal cases, as well as in the media; but not today, and not in this impeachment court.
The Constitution
provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent, until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof is on the
prosecution. How much proof is necessary? In other words, what is
the standard of proof? I have adopted the very high standard of
“overwhelming preponderance of evidence.” My standard is very high,
because removal by conviction on impeachment is a stunning penalty, the ruin of
a life.
The defendant admitted that he did
not declare his dollar accounts and certain commingled peso accounts in his
SALN. Did this omission amount to an impeachable offense? No.
Under the rule of ejusdem generis,
when a general word occurs after a number of specific words, the meaning of the
general word should be limited to the kind or class of thing within which the
specific words fall. The Constitution provides that the impeachable offenses
are: “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” An omission
in good faith in the SALN carries a light penalty, and is even allowed to be
corrected. Thus, it is not impeachable.
The Constitution simply provides
that a public officer shall submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities, and net worth. That is all. There are no
details. The Constitution is a brief declaration of fundamental principles.
Many constitutional provisions are only commands to the Congress to enact laws
to carry out the purpose of the charter.
As a general rule, constitutional
provisions are not self-executory. The usual exceptions are the Bill of
Rights, and constitutional prohibitions. All other constitutional
provisions, such as the SALN provision, need implementing laws to provide the
details. Hence, Congress, to implement this constitutional provision, has
passed a number of laws, including the Foreign Currency Act, which confers
absolute confidentiality on dollar deposits.
There is no conflict between the
Constitution and the Foreign Currency Act. The perceived conflict is so
simplistic that it is seriously laughable. If there is any conflict, it
is between the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, which provides for a
waiver of confidentiality; and the Foreign Currency Act, which provides for
absolute confidentiality.
It is for Congress to balance on
the one hand, the need for public accountability from public officers; with, on
the other hand, the desperate need for foreign investment, which entails
confidentiality, on pain of driving away investors from our country. The
argument that a dollar deposit protected from inquiry would nullify the
principle of transparency is for Congress to resolve. We could retain the
absolute confidentiality clause, with the amendment that Filipino public
officers are not protected.
The prosecution mistakes admission
for confession. In a confession, the defendant admits guilt. In an
admission, the defendant merely states facts, which might tend to prove his
guilt. In the instant case, the defendant did not make a confession, but
merely an admission, with a legal defense.
As a former RTC judge, I find it
reprehensible that the AMLA document was introduced in evidence, without
authentication, as required by the Rules of Evidence. I am deeply
disappointed that on at least three occasions, the prosecution claimed that its
documents came from an anonymous source. Are you for real? Falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.
The defendant used his own name in
all his questioned transactions. He could have done otherwise, if his
purpose was invisibility. Why would a suspected criminal leave his calling cards
at the scene of the crime?
Assuming for the sake of argument
that there is a preponderance of evidence for the prosecution, the
preponderance is not overwhelming.
