Speech of Miriam Defensor Santiago in the Trial of Chief Justice Corona
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.
Source: http://miriam.com.ph/newsblog/
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento