PHNO-HL: JPE: FINAL VERDICT CAN'T BE APPEALED TO SC / BELMONTE: VOTE GUILTY!

JPE: FINAL VERDICT CAN'T BE APPEALED
TO SC / BELMONTE: VOTE GUILTY!

MANILA, MAY
29, 2012 (PHILSTAR) By Christina
Mendez and Alexis Romero - (PHOTO -CONVICTION OR
ACQUITTAL? The Senate is set to rule today on the fate of Chief Justice Renato
Corona (inset, top), bringing down the curtain on an impeachment trial that
lasted almost five months. EDD GUMBAN)
MANILA, Philippines - Today, Chief Justice Renato Corona either keeps his job
or goes down ignominiously in Philippine history as the first official to be
forced out of office by an impeachment court.
The impeachment court led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is set to
vote today on whether to convict or acquit the Chief Justice of the charges
against him, including failure to disclose all his assets and betrayal of public
trust.
A conviction may also pave the way for the filing of criminal charges against
Corona by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The impeachment court wrapped up its trial of the Chief Justice yesterday
after hearing the oral arguments of both the prosecution and the defense panels.

A guilty verdict on any of the charges is enough ground for his removal from
office. But he can also get a mere reprimand or suspension if found guilty.
Today's verdict will also bring down the curtain on a political drama driven
by President Aquino's anti-corruption campaign. Aquino has openly declared his
wish for Corona's removal from office.
The impeachment trial of Corona began on Jan. 16 or more than a month after
188 members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach him.
Aquino has said that removing the Chief Justice is a crucial step in his
crusade to clean up the government.
Corona, 63, is accused of protecting former President and now Pampanga Rep.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from prosecution, as well as lacking integrity and
amassing a personal fortune above the limits of his salary – which he failed to
declare as required by the Constitution.
Sixteen votes – about two-thirds of the chamber – are required to unseat
Corona.
The senators, who include only four members of Aquino's Liberal Party, have
been tight-lipped about how they intend to vote.
"The impeachment process was carried out in a very open, credible and
transparent manner and we think the public will accept whatever the decision of
the Senate is," court spokesperson Valentina Cruz said.
"The public is waiting with bated breath. We view it as a chance to move
forward in the fight for good governance," said prosecution spokesman Aurora
Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara in an interview.
In a statement, he said conviction is "the only logical conclusion to the
four-month impeachment trial" of Corona.
"We don't see how the Senate impeachment court would acquit the Chief
Justice. We don't see any reason why he should be acquitted," Angara said.
Another prosecution spokesman, Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, said Corona
sealed his fate when he left the witness stand without permission of the
impeachment court last Tuesday
"His (Corona's) Tuesday walkout was a game changer. We were always confident
before he actually appeared that we had overwhelming evidence in our favor. But
that incident, Tuesday, really spelled the difference," Quimbo said.
Quimbo said the senator-judges are likely to take into consideration the
issue of ill-gotten wealth in casting their votes.
"Although the impeachment court had set aside the ill-gotten wealth charge
and had prohibited us from presenting evidence to prove it, it would have to be
taken into consideration by the impeachment tribunal because CJ Corona's assets
are grossly disproportionate to his income," he said.
"The Chief Justice admitted that he has $2.4 million and P80 million in the
bank, which he did not declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net
worth (SALN). Defense lawyers have presented witnesses who testified that he
made a gross income of about P26 million. Clearly, his assets cannot be
supported by his income," he said.
Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas said political considerations will come
into play in the decision of each senator-judge.
"We are not sure of what will happen because they say that it (impeachment
court) is not purely legal. It is also political. I am nervous," Cuevas told
reporters after yesterday's oral arguments. "On the facts, on the law I think
everybody is satisfied, and will agree with us."
"It will be a reckoning point whether the country will move forward to the
direction of public accountability and transparency or stand still and follow
the whims of a President," defense panel spokesperson Rico Quicho told The STAR.

"Everyone is nervous but we leave it up to the impeachment court to decide,"
Karen Jimeno, another spokesperson for the defense, said.
But defense lawyer Jose Roy III, however, is confident of an acquittal.
"Personally I find it difficult to believe that we can have a verdict of
anything other than an acquittal. So we're very happy with the case. I'm very
happy with the performance of the team," Roy said.
Ramon Esguerra, another defense lawyer, called the impeachment a "grueling
experience" for the Chief Justice.
"The more important thing here if you will ask me now is whether or not as a
nation we have learned from this experience. It's been grueling for the Chief
Justice, it almost caused – in a manner of speaking – his life and then he did
what he believed should be done," Esguerra said.
"The experience shall we say was a cultivation of whatever talent we may
have," Cuevas said.
Senator-judges will announce their votes one after another and will each be
given two minutes to explain his or her decision. They, however, are not
required to explain their votes.
Senators will cast their votes in alphabetical order except for Sen. Juan
Ponce Enrile, who will be the last to announce his vote.
Unappealable
Enrile, meanwhile, made it clear to Cuevas that the impeachment court's
decision would be final and that only the Senate has "the sole power to try and
decide all impeachment cases."
"We respect your position but I want to remind you that our reading of
Article XI provided that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide
all impeachment cases. I just want to put that on record," Enrile said.
The Senate president voiced his position after confronting Cuevas over the
latter's declaration in a radio interview that his team would question a Corona
conviction before the Supreme Court.
"We have no other alternative but to resort to certiorari… I have asked a
petition for review questioning the validity of the actuations of the
proceedings before the impeachment court, if necessary a motion to nullify the
entirety of the proceedings that took place therein," Cuevas said based on
transcript of the radio interview read by Enrile before the court.
"I hold the position that any decision of the Senate, sitting as an
impeachment court, is final and non-appealable," Sen. Francis Escudero said.

Prosecution spokesman Rep. Erin Tañada of Quezon also chided the defense
lawyers for bringing up the idea of appealing a conviction before the SC.
"Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding judge, has made it clear
from the start that the decision of the senator-judges is final and that the
penalty is removal from office," he said.
"It's clear in our Constitution that whatever decision the impeachment court
will make or hand down is unappealable so that although it is a right to bring
the case to the Supreme Court, (it) would be treading on a constitutional crisis
scenario," Tañada said in an interview.
"What if the Supreme Court suddenly says that the proceedings here in the
impeachment court are illegal or null and void? Then we would be placed in a
constitutional crisis," he added.
He said the Chief Justice should not renege on his promise to accept whatever
verdict is issued by the court.
Veteran lawyer Romulo Macalintal echoed Enrile's and Tañada's position. "The
moment the impeachment court renders its decision, the petition assailing the
impeachment court jurisdiction will become moot and academic and the verdict,
whether acquittal or conviction, will be implemented accordingly," he said in a
statement.
"By the time the SC resumes its regular session, the impeachment case of
Corona is already settled and the verdict executed accordingly," he stressed.
The SC resumes session on June 19.
He, however, explained that the high court may still rule on petitions
questioning the impeachment court's jurisdiction over Corona's case to "serve
for future guidance of the lawyers and the courts, as well as by the Congress of
the Philippines to guide our lawmakers in handling future impeachment cases."

What's 'culpa?'
After the final arguments, Enrile asked Cuevas to explain what injury may
arise if a government officer declares his or her foreign deposits or equivalent
amount in his SALN. Cuevas at first said he was not sure.
Enrile reiterated his question: "What in your opinion would be the injury to
be prevented or prejudice to be avoided warranting the depositor of a foreign
currency deposit to be permitted not to include his foreign currency deposits in
his SALN if he is a public officer of a public employee?"
Cuevas said concerned officials might become victims of kidnapping or
extortion.
"We are forgetting that the law allows that exposure of a foreign currency
deposit by expressed provision of Republic Act 6426 if the depositor himself
would do it. There is no monetary secrecy law in this country that prohibits or
inhibits or proscribes the depositor from revealing his own deposits," Enrile
said, pointing out that a third party is the one prohibited by law, not the
depositor.
"Do you consider that as a mandatory provision that requires to be obeyed by
a public officer or a public employee? …Do you consider that as a command of the
people or something to disregarded?" Enrile asked Cuevas, referring to Article
XI Section 17 of the Constitution, which provides that a public officer or
employee shall, upon assumption of office, and as often thereafter as maybe
provided by law, declare his wealth under oath in his SALN.
"I do not think that it is something that should be disregarded but there are
rights that arise from a different law… I do not see any reason why it cannot be
availed of in this particular instance, the depositor your honor," Cuevas said.

"If it is a command, it is a sovereign command, an Austinian concept of
command, will disobedience of that command constitute a culpable violation of
the Constitution?" Enrile asked.
Cuevas said he was not in a position to make an assertion without the
circumstances.
Enrile pointed out that the Constitution speaks of culpable violation.
"I am sure all of us, graduates of UP, went through a study of human law,"
Enrile said, to which Cuevas agreed.
But when Enrile asked Cuevas to define "culpa," the defense counsel failed to
answer.
"There are four kinds of culpa – nata or magna, culpa levy, culpa levisima
and culpa aquiliana," Enrile said, asking Cuevas again to define "culpa."
"As of this moment, I am not in a position to recall. Maybe I was absent when
it was discussed by my professor," the former justice said partly in jest.
Enrile said it was bad luck for Cuevas not being able to answer his
questions.
"I think this is material in the consideration of this provision of the
Constitution, what is the difference between culpa and dolus?"
Enrile then provided the answer: "Fault or deserving of blame."
When Enrile asked Cuevas if he considers the provision the first sentence of
Article XI Section 17 of the Constitution as "deserving of blame," Cuevas
replied: "If it is intentional your honor…"
"No, it does not call for intent," Enrile shot back. "I think it is in the
provision which says 'as maybe required by law'," Enrile said.
Enrile explained that he was asking these questions to guide him and the
senator-judges.
Speaking for the prosecution, Ilocos Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas explained that
culpable violation of the Constitution is the "willful and intentional violation
of the Constitution."
He said culpable violation of the Constitution is "… not committed
unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or an honest mistake of
judgment and it implies deliberate intent, perhaps even a degree of perversity,
for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category would go so far
as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands," Farinas said. With Edu Punay, Jess Diaz, Paolo Romero
'Corona morally unfit, all palusot' By Marvin Sy
(The Philippine Star) Updated May 29, 2012 12:00 AMComments (12)

[PHOTO -Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (left), lead prosecutor Rep
Niel Tupas Jr. (top right) and Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas asked the senators to vote
according to their conscience and find the Chief Justice guilty.]
MANILA, Philippines - Renato Corona is morally unfit to remain as Chief
Justice, and his defense consists mainly of "palusot."
This was the gist of the final argument delivered by the prosecution team
yesterday as it asked the Senate impeachment court to find Corona guilty and
remove him as Chief Justice.
Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, a member of the House prosecution team,
decribed as mere palusot (excuses) everything that Corona and the defense
raised.
Fariñas, one of the House panel members who delivered the closing arguments
yesterday, cited the explanation made by the Chief Justice about his undeclared
$2.4-million deposits, which was supposedly accumulated over the years, starting
from the 1960s when Corona was still a student.
"He (Corona) wants us to believe that when he was in grade four 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 US
dollar. Maliwanag po na palusot at pagsisinungaling sa Senado at sa buong mundo
(It is clear that these were excuses and lies made before the Senate and the
entire world)," Fariñas said.
"It is very clear that what the Chief Justice said about (Republic Act) 6426
(Foreign Currency Deposit Act) are excuses, done in hindsight because this was
exposed," he added.
Fariñas pointed out that the Chief Justice declared a mere 1.97 percent of
his actual assets in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

"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," Fariñas said.
"Honorable senators, let us not be swayed by the excuses and dramatic
statements made by Chief Justice Corona. It is very clear that he abused and
bended the laws to hide his money, the sources of which are highly
questionable," he added.
After more than four months of arguments, presentation of evidence, theatrics
and high drama, the House of Representatives has asked the Senate to convict the
head of the judiciary for being morally unfit to remain in office.
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., who served as
the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, also delivered oral arguments for
the prosecution team that appealed to the consciences of the senator-judges to
determine if Corona is morally fit to remain as chief justice.
The manifestation made by the prosecution team that Belmonte would be among
those who would deliver the oral arguments came as a surprise to many since he
was not a member of the prosecution panel.
But the move sent a clear and strong message that the move to remove the
Chief Justice from office was backed by one of the highest officials of the
country.
"I stand as the voice of an institution that, together with yours, form the
legislative branch of government. The legislature crafts and passes the laws.
The executive enforces these laws, but of what use are our efforts to build a
better future if the head of the entire judiciary interprets the laws through
the crucible of partisanship or personal gain," Belmonte said.
"I ask that you see through the character of Renato Corona and reflect
whether this is the man we want as our chief justice, the head of the entire
judicial system, for the next six years. I ask that you vote according to
conscience and the evidence and find Chief Justice Renato Corona guilty. May the
truth be your guide," he added.
Belmonte said the Chief Justice wanted the court and the public to ignore the
fact that he has millions in his bank accounts, which he did not declare in his
SALN by citing the absolute confidentiality of dollar deposits under RA 6426 or
the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
"Isn't it disturbing, your honors, that the judiciary's highest official, the
last bastion of justice for uniform application of laws all over the land, is
himself the very person hiding behind these laws, bending justice and misusing
the laws to hide his crime? Our people will not allow that, your honors,"
Belmonte said.
"Let us be done with Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona," he said.

"What this honorable court is called upon to decide is far more complex than
the entitlement of the Chief Justice to his position. In truth, what this
honorable court must ultimately determine is the standard of conduct required by
the Constitution of the person to whom is entrusted the leadership of the entire
judiciary," Belmonte said.
"Will we look forward to a Chief Justice who can be an independent person, a
person with nothing to hide and a person whose loyalty ultimately rests on the
people, or a man who has clearly betrayed the public trust be allowed to remain
in office?" he added.
Tupas, who opened the oral arguments for the prosecution, clarified that the
decision of 188 members of the House of Representatives to impeach the Chief
Justice was not meant "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," Tupas said.
Tupas explained that the decision to drop five of the eight Articles of
Impeachment against the Chief Justice was done because the prosecution was
convinced that the evidence they have in Articles 2, 3 and 7 were already
sufficient to prove that the Chief Justice should not remain in office.
He said the Chief Justice lied about the true extent of his assets in an
attempt to conceal his enormous wealth as alleged in Article 2.
The Chief Justice peddled his position of power in exchange for material gain
and that his loyalties do not lie with the Filipino people, Tupas said.
"It has led us to the truth that he is in public service not to serve his
country but to serve his own ends," Tupas said.
The prosecution relied heavily on the alleged discrepancies in the SALN of
the Chief Justice in proving that he was not truthful in the disclosure of his
assets.
"To be meaningful and effective, the SALN requirement must be complied with
truthfully, completely and accurately. It must be complied with in good faith,"
Tupas said.
At the start of the trial, the prosecution panel alleged that the Chief
Justice failed to declare several pieces of property in his SALN, including
several high-end condominium units in Taguig City, Makati City and Quezon City.

When he finally declared some of the real properties, the prosecution noted
that he did not indicate the acquisition cost of these and instead used their
fair market values, which have nothing to do with the computation of net worth
in the SALN.
The Chief Justice also admitted to owning four dollar bank accounts
containing a total of $2.4 million and three peso accounts with an aggregate
deposit of P80.7 million.
For the peso accounts, the Chief Justice said that he did not declare the
amounts in his SALN because these represented commingled funds of his family
members and over P30 million held in trust for Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc., a
corporation owned by his wife Cristina's family.
Tupas noted that the Chief Justice presented no documentary proof or any
evidence whatsoever to support his claim other than his "self-serving
statements."
"The Chief Justice has woven a fantastic tale in his desperation to explain
his incredible wealth. To adopt the Chief Justice's 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," he said.
Tupas said that the Chief Justice must be judged by the highest standards
that are "fair to demand of a Chief Justice and any member of the judiciary for
that matter."
"Against such standards, we then ask: Does respondent Corona's failure to
completely, truthfully and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and net
worth constitute an impeachable offense? Our answer is yes because it is both a
betrayal of public trust and a culpable violation of the Constitution," Tupas
said.
"It is lying, it is dishonesty, it is deception of the highest order," he
added.



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/