JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAWS & CONSTITUTION OF THE PHL!
[PHOTO - Rep. Niel
C. Tupas, Jr. in behalf of the prosecution]
MANILA, JANUARY 17, 2012 (ABS-CBN)
by Rep. Niel C. Tupas, Jr. at the Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice Renato
Corona Session Hall of the Senate of the Philippines Pasay City, January 16,
2012
As public servants, we took an oath to uphold the people's will at all times.
All who hold positions in the government of our Republic are accountable for
their actions. For the power of the sovereign Filipino people is a power that is
higher than the Executive, the Legislative or even the Judiciary. And therefore,
no matter how high and mighty one's position may be, one can never, ever be
beyond public accountability.
Today, we lay down before this impeachment tribunal the product of the
collective voice of the people. Impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice
Renato Corona for betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the
Constitution, and for graft and corruption is the verdict in the House of
Representatives. By issuing such verdict, we took the first step to accomplish
our oath as the keepers of the people's trust.
Let me be clear: We are not here to indict the Supreme Court as an
institution, or to do battle with the judicial branch of government. We are here
to search for the truth so as to restore the strength and independence of the
judiciary. We are here because one man – Chief Justice Renato Corona — has
bartered away for a pot of porridge the effectiveness, the independence, and the
honor of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Senate President, your honors, one very important question before this
honorable impeachment tribunal is, by what standards should Renato Corona be
judged?
You only have to look at the Supreme Court itself to know the answer. As you
climb its steps, you will see two statues. One of these statues is of Cayetano
Arellano, the first Chief Justice, a man of absolute integrity, and of the
deepest legal wisdom. The other is of Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos, who viewed
his oath so sacred, and loved his country so deeply, he preferred to die at the
hands of the Japanese rather than betray his country.
The Supreme Court itself, then, views the position of Chief Justice as beyond
politics, beyond personal considerations, and always about putting honor and
justice ahead of every other consideration. Pagkatao po ang ating pinag-uusapan
dito. The Code of Judicial Conduct demands that a judge must be like Caesar's
wife – someone who must not only be pure but must be beyond suspicion at all
times. Therefore, a Justice must be judged according to the highest standards.
Against such standards, we then ask: Who is Chief Justice Corona? What kind of a
man is he? Ano po ba ang pagkatao ni Renato Corona?
Chief Justice Renato Corona was a loyal servant to former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo from the time she became Vice-President in 1998 until she
became President in 2001. Such loyalty had numerous rewards for the Chief
Justice. Imagine, GMA paid for his back surgery. His wife was given plum
positions in the John Hay Management Corporation. He was appointed Associate
Justice, and the best reward of all, against all odds, he took a midnight oath
as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Corona's appointment as Chief Justice also served an immoral purpose: that of
shielding GMA from prosecution for her misdeeds during her presidency. The
prosecution will show how Chief Justice Corona became the crowning glory of the
cast of accomplices of former President Arroyo, and how he protected GMA's
interest in exchange for his position of prestige and power. This is at the
heart of Article 1 of the Impeachment Complaint.
This unholy alliance between Chief Justice Corona and GMA, and Corona's deep
indebtedness to the former President culminated in the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) to enable GMA and her husband to leave the country, and
escape accountability. This is Article 7, Corona's biggest favor yet to his
benefactor. And in Article 4, we will show how the Chief Justice intervened in
the impeachment case against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez also to
protect GMA.
In Articles 3 and 5, we will show the lack of moral fitness of Chief Justice
Renato Corona when he committed acts of impropriety involving parties with
pending cases in the Supreme Court. His mockery of the disciplinary institutions
of the Supreme Court in the plagiarism charge against a Supreme Court Associate
Justice will be proven in Article 6. And in Article 8, we will show how he
failed to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ), funds which are managed by the Chief Justice.
Malinaw po: Kung gusto natin ng hustisya, hindi na dapat ipagkatiwala kay Chief
Justice Corona ang pinakamataas na pwesto sa hudikatura.
And finally, we come to Article 2 where the prosecution will prove that Chief
Justice Renato Corona amassed ill-gotten wealth after he was appointed to the
Supreme Court in 2002. To give you an idea of this article, let me present to
you some of the prized pieces of the Corona crown jewels:
Spanish Bay Tower, Bonifacio Ridge, acquired October 14, 2005, purchase price
Php9,159,940; McKinley Hill, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, acquired October 21,
2008, purchase price Php6,196,575; Bellagio I Tower, Taguig, acquired December
2009, purchase price of Php14,510,225; The Columns, Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
acquired in 2004; One Burgundy Plaza – the building where Mrs. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo had a penthouse unit while she was Vice-President - acquired in
2003, purchase price Php2,758,000; and Number 57 Maranao Street, La Vista,
acquired in 2003, zonal valuation Php20.4 million, sold to his daughter for
Php18 million.
The governing principle of our laws is clear: unexplained discrepancy between
an official's income and his assets, declared or undeclared, is prima facie
evidence of ill-gotten wealth, and therefore, is an impeachable crime of graft
and corruption.
The process of accountability is always a painful one. But the legislature is
tasked by no less than the Constitution, the very expression of the people's
will, to undertake this sacred duty. And if at this instance, this is how we are
called upon to be of service to our country, impeach we must. Mr. Senate
President, your honors, we submit that Renato Corona, by his misdeeds, is unfit
to remain Chief Justice.
In closing, the message of the House, as the representatives of the people,
is the same as that given by Oliver Cromwell when he dismissed England's Long
Parliament on April 20 of 1653. Before God and country, we say: "It is high time
for us to put an end to your sitting in that place, which you have dishonored by
your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice, you are
an enemy to good government, as you have sold your country for a mess of
pottage, and like Judas Escariot betrayed your God for a few pieces of gold.
Depart I say, and let us have done with you.
In the name of God, go!"
Thank you and good afternoon.
Opening statement: Corona defense team
[Photo - Eduardo delos Angeles in behalf of the defense]
Your Honors,
My Countrymen: Good afternoon.
During the past few days, Prosecutors happily displayed pictures of the
Bellagio and a list of some 45 properties, supposedly owned by the Chief
Justice, to create the impression that he accumulated ill-gotten wealth. In
fact, the Chief Justice owns only five (5) real properties.
Yet, the Complaint, which contains eight (8) grounds for impeachment, does
not accuse the Chief Justice of acquiring ill-gotten wealth. He is accused of
graft and corruption only for refusing to account for the Judiciary Development
Fund or JDF. Even with regard to his statements of assets, liabilities and
networth or SALN, the issue is whether or not the alleged failure to disclose
violates the principle of accountability.
The pictures of the Bellagio and the bloated list of titles are, therefore,
irrelevant to this trial.
This impeachment finds its roots in President Aquino's fight against
corruption and his perception that the Supreme Court is a hindrance to his
quest. He believes that the Supreme Court protects former President Gloria
Arroyo. On the other hand, the defense believes that President Aquino is
antagonistic to the Court because of its ruling in the Hacienda Luisita case.
The nobility of President Aquino's fight against corruption cannot be
questioned. It is respectfully submitted, however, that in his fight, the
President and the Executive Department are duty-bound to scrupulously observe an
abiding respect for the Constitutional rights of every one of us.
The eight (8) Articles of Impeachment can actually be classified into two (2)
categories. First, those that involve decisions of the Supreme Court (Articles
I, III, IV, V, VI, VII). And, second, those that pertain to the non-disclosure
of the SAL-N of the Chief Justice, and his alleged refusal to account for the
JDF. (Articles II and VIII).
Let me first address the latter. Complainants accuse the Chief Justice of
allegedly refusing to account for the JDF. The documentary evidence will prove
the contrary. And, with respect to his SALN, the defense will establish that in
accordance with law, the Chief Justice annually files his SALN with the Clerk of
Court of the Supreme Court, who has legal custody of such documents.
We shall show that the Clerk of Court is restricted from disclosing the SALNs
by resolutions first issued during the term of Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan way
back in 1989. In light of current developments, the Chief Justice has already
caused these resolutions to be included in the agenda of the Supreme Court for
re-evaluation.
With respect to the decisions, the complainants made a tally of selected
cases to show that the Supreme Court was biased. This is not so. First, it is
not fair to handpick decisions that supposedly favor the Arroyo Administration;
all the decisions of the Supreme Court must be considered.
Second, there are several decisions against the former President and her
administration. For example, in Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v.
Office of the Executive Secretary, the Chief Justice himself penned the decision
declaring former President Arroyo's Executive Order No. 46 null and void. Third,
in any decision, the Supreme Court always bases its judgment on sound legal
grounds.
Take the case of the Truth Commission. The defense will establish that the
Supreme Court was not biased towards the Arroyo Administration. Aming ipapakita
na tama ang desisyon dito. Nilabag ng Executive Order No. 1 ang Equal Protection
Clause dahil ang pag-imbestiga kay Ginang Arroyo ang tanging layunin ng Truth
Commission. Moreover, the Supreme Court even suggested a cure for the defect by
not limiting the probe to the Arroyo Administration. But the Executive
Department stubbornly refused to adopt such a simple amendment.
The defense will also explain that when the Supreme Court issued a TRO
enjoining Secretary Leila de Lima from enforcing her Watchlist Order, the
Supreme Court acted in accordance with the Constitution and jurisprudence.
Hukuman po lamang ang maaaring magbigay ng Hold Order kapag mayroon nang
na-isampang criminal case. Ngunit, noong panahong iyon, wala pang na-isasampang
criminal case si Secretary de Lima laban kay Ginang Arroyo kahit, bago pa dito,
matagal nang naghain ng reklamo ang Akbayan for Plunder. Bakit naman po natin
sisnisisi si Chief Justice? Di po ba't malinaw na ang Executive Department ang
may pagkukulang sa kaso ni Ginang Arroyo?
I remember a Secretary of Justice who aimed to rid our country of corruption.
His name is Jose W. Diokno. He secured several search warrants and raided the
offices and homes of Harry Stonehill, a rich American businessman who was
alleged to have bribed government officials.
To set an example, Secretary Diokno sought to prosecute Mr. Stonehill. Using
the search warrants, the raiding teams seized truck-loads of incriminating
documents, including a "blue book" containing the names of the bribed government
officials. Yet, after three (3) days, the Supreme Court issued a TRO preventing
Secretary Diokno from using all the seized documents.
Tulad ng marami, nagtaka ako: paano ito nangyari? After I read the decision
penned by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, I understood. The decision explained
that the search warrants were void and the seized documents inadmissible in
evidence because the warrants did not specify the things to be seized, as
required by the Constitution.
The Stonehill case is strikingly similar to the crusade of President Aquino.
In both, there are crusading officials who want to eliminate corruption. In
both, the public overwhelmingly support these officials. In both, the officials
unfortunately transgressed the Constitution. And, in both, the Supreme Court
stepped in and issued adverse and unpopular decisions because its task is to
always uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The House also complains that the Chief Justice betrayed the public trust
when the Supreme Court decided on the cityhood of sixteen (16) municipalities,
the creation of a new district in Camarines Sur, and the conversion of the
Dinagat Island into a province. Aba, nakakalimutan na yata nila na sila ang
nag-likha nitong mga batas na ito.
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld what they did, sila pa ang nagagalit at
nagmamadaling mag-sampa ng impeachment case laban kay Chief Justice. Ano bang
kalokohan 'yan?
At eto pa po. Sabi nila this impeachment is not against the Supreme Court,
but aimed to make the Chief Justice accountable for his personal actions. All
decisions are, however, rendered by the Supreme Court, never by the Chief
Justice alone. Isa lamang ang boto ng Chief Justice at hindi niya kontrolado ang
ibang mga mahistrado.
Each Justice votes according to his oown opinion. Taliwas sa sinasabi nila
Congressman Tupas, wala pong voting bloc dito.
Your Honors, in performing its responsibility under the Constitution, the
Supreme Court, as a co-equal branch of government, is now being assaulted and
criticized.
It is our humble submission that in upholding the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice cannot be considered as
obstacles to clean government, or to the President's vision to realize his
"daang matuwid".
In upholding the Constitution and in safeguarding individual rights, the
Supreme Court and the Chief Justice cannot be considered the enemies of the
people. Precisely, they protect individual rights and, therefore, do not betray
the public trust.
Today, the House of Representatives and the Executive Department have joined
all their might, power and resources to impeach the Chief Justice.
This impeachment sends a chilling threat to the Supreme Court, to withhold
the exercise of its judicial power and just let the President have his way.
Unfortunately, his obsessive pursuit of his goal has, at times, resulted in the
infringement of the law. It has also brought the branches of government inntto
collision, and now it divides the nation.
During this crucial moment in history, we fervently pray that you, our
Honorable Senators, will listen, consider the evidence and, as your solemn oath
declares, do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the
Philippines.
May God bless us all.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
