MALAYBALAY CITY (MindaNews/30 May) – In the end, it was not the evidence presented by the prosecution but the words coming from the mouth of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona himself that sealed his fate in the impeachment trial. So damning was his own testimony that twenty senators saw it fit to judge the highest magistrate of the land guilty as charged. Only sixteen votes were needed to convict him.
Left with no other option but to testify in open court after Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales brought out documents that proved his ownership of bank accounts that were not declared in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, Corona walked right into the trap laid – ironically – by his own lawyers. His lawyers bluffed Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile into summoning the Ombudsman to testify under oath on her statements concerning those accounts. Unluckily for the chief justice, Enrile called the bluff. The rest is history.
Corona sought a way out through a legal explanation: Aside from the P80 million, he concealed the $2.4 million he had in the banks, as he was convinced that foreign currency accounts are protected by the confidentiality clause in Republic Act 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act of 1972).
He further argued that this provision stands even with the passage of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees of 1989) which requires government officials and employees to disclose their “assets, business interests, and financial connections including those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.” (Section 8)
Corona also offered an explanation for the enormity of the amount: the funds were commingled with those of his family members, and he started investing in dollars in the late 1960s, when, to his recollection, the exchange rate was still two pesos to a dollar. He must have thought that was convincing enough. But as the Chinese would say, more words, more mistakes.
In their closing arguments, Corona’s lawyers extended his explanation, saying the non-declaration of those accounts was made in “good faith” since the impeached official did it in the belief that it was not illegal. Besides, they said, RA 6713 allows for corrections in case of errors or omissions.
But while Corona’s lawyers may have shown brilliance and finesse, they ignored two things which may not be found in the statute books but are embedded in human consciousness as essential elements of life and justice – common sense and sense of fairness.
Common sense tells us that Corona’s explanation – and that of his lawyers too — defies logic. As an exalted lawyer of the land, it could not have escaped him that RA 6713 provides for no exceptions with regard to the disclosure of assets, that the confidentiality clause in RA 6426 is addressed to the banks, and that a later law prevails over an older one.
Common sense also tells us that the law would be useless if it gives thieves in government an opportunity to hide their loot. Sometimes we fail to see the truth because it looks so simple. SALN means statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. It does not say SOME assets, liabilities, and net worth. Enrile posed a question to the defense which the latter could not answer because it was already an answer in itself: What harm would it do the chief justice if he declared his dollar accounts?
Corona’s lawyers tried to justify his act by invoking good faith. But what good faith are we talking about if huge amounts in the banks were left undeclared over many years and then withdrawn right after the impeachment complaint was submitted to the Senate?
As yet, nobody has proved that his dollar deposits came from public funds and other dubious sources. However, the hasty withdrawal buttressed the suspicion created by the nondisclosure. As Senator Gregorio Honasan put it, “We have not proven if the defendant is corrupt. Ang malinaw ngayon ay may duda na. Doubt is the opposite of faith, and faith is the source of hope. I ask the chief justice to step down from the pedestal.”
Moreover, the senators were duty-bound to convict Corona as an act of fairness to lowly public employees who were charged and dismissed for lesser offenses. It was only fitting that some senators cited the case of Delsa Flores, a court interpreter in Panabo City who lost her job for not disclosing a market stall in her SALN. If Mrs. Flores deserved to be booted out from her low-paying job for not declaring a modest business, why should the law be soft on Mr. Corona who did not disclose his huge amounts in the banks and high-end real estate properties over many years?
Senator Lito Lapid gave the best definition of fairness – conscience. (H. Marcos C. Mordeno writes mainly on the environment, human rights and politics. He can be reached at hmcmordeno@gmail.com)