Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Show the way

(The Philippine Star) Updated February 11, 2012 12:00 AM

Chief Justice Renato Corona gave the green light for the clerk of the Supreme Court to release to the Senate impeachment court his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth or SALNs for the past years. Will he also give his written permission for the release of documents regarding his reported dollar accounts in Philippine Savings Bank? That’s the lone exception, under Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, for the “absolutely confidential nature” of foreign currency deposits in the country’s banks to be lifted.

The president of PSBank argued that violating the law not only could land him in prison but also result in sanctions on his bank, including the withdrawal of its authority to engage in foreign currency transactions. PSBank turned to the SC, which issued a temporary restraining order the other day, stopping the probe into Corona’s dollar accounts.

That much could be gleaned from the Senate proceedings: the Chief Justice has dollar accounts with the bank, details of which the bank’s president, Pascual Garcia III, could not release to the public. Garcia said he held on to five documents subpoenaed by the impeachment court because these involved dollar deposits. Sen. Jinggoy Estrada mentioned “$700K” – with “K” usually interpreted to mean “thousand” – in one purported account. The nation will not know the truth unless the account is bared to the public. Was the amount declared in Corona’s SALN?

The court that he heads will still make a final ruling on whether the secrecy rule can be lifted in this particular case, as the SC once did in a case involving the foreign currency deposit of a nonresident. But Corona can issue a written permission any time to open his deposits. When reports came out that the House prosecution team would bare details of over 40 properties that he did not declare in his SALN, he was quoted as saying that if the prosecutors could produce the properties, “I will sign a deed of donation.”

So far he has said nothing about donating dollar deposits. Instead he has asked the SC to stop his impeachment trial altogether. This trial is supposed to bring transparency and accountability to the most opaque branch of government, in the process improving the administration of justice. The Chief Justice may want to help show the way.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Corona’s ‘second envelop’

‘These sums are not reflected in the declared assets of the chief justice and his wife. Which is what Corona’s trial is all about.’

THE temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court against the Senate in seeking access to the foreign currency bank deposits of Chief Justice Renato Corona may yet turn to be the tipping point in the ongoing impeachment trial.

During the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada in 2001, his supporters succeeded in blocking the opening of the so-called second envelop but in so doing triggered instead Edsa 2 which led to the extra-constitutional ouster of Estrada. The irony is that the second envelop, in fact, contained a letter from Jaime Dichavez naming himself as the controlling interest of the "Jose Velarde" account. The contents of the second envelop indeed bolstered Estrada’s denial that he owned the Velarde account.

In getting the SC TRO, the defense panel may have won a skirmish but lost the war.

The prosecution alleges that Corona owns 10 accounts with PS Bank Katipunan QC branch. The bank management, upon subpoena by the impeachment court, turned over records relating to five peso accounts, containing more or less P24 million in combined outstanding balances.

As to the five others, the bank management said it could not turn over the records because these were foreign currency denominated accounts which are covered by stricter rules on bank secrecy.

On questioning in open court, the bank manager said the five accounts identified by the prosecution by their accounts numbers indeed exist in bank’s records.

So there it is – five more nails on Corona’s coffins. The five accounts could contain a picayune amount in total. Or these could contain a king’s ransom that could sustain the Coronas in their accustomed lifestyle for generations to come.

But these sums are not reflected in the declared assets of the chief justice and his wife. Which is what Corona’s trial is all about.

He should be found guilty as charged.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

‘I am not guilty, I don’t want trial’

AMADO P. MACASAET

‘In this sense, it is Gloria Arroyo who is under trial. If Chief Justice Corona is not convicted, Mrs. Arroyo’s majority of eight jurists will save her from the gallows.’

FIRST, the Chief Justice declared upon impeachment that he did no wrong and was prepared to face trial.

Second, he declared that anybody who can find the 45 or so pieces of properties in five cities of Metro Manila in his name and that of his wife will get them. Upon his written permission, of course.

Third, the prosecution was furnished machine copies of his "initial deposit" of $700,000 in a savings bank in Quezon City. Now he objects to the production of the records for examination by the senators sitting as judges in the impeachment trial.

Now comes Chief Justice Renato Corona filing a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to stop the impeachment trial.

The petition, denied or granted, does not prove his claim of having done no wrong. He does not want to defend himself as he said he was ready to, in fact in full battle gear to face his accusers, namely President Aquino, who he said wants the Supreme Court destroyed so he can have one under his control.

In the same fashion probably that Gloria Arroyo made sure that she keeps control of the Court even after she retires. She still has the tenuous majority of eight magistrates known to be loyal to her to the end, that is, until they retire or are impeached.

Not to be forgotten by everyone is how the Arroyo court "violated" the Constitution by allowing then President Gloria Arroyo to appoint Renato Corona to head the court to ensure her protection from what, as early as then, she knew would be charges of plunder that she would definitely face under the Aquino administration.

In this sense, it is Gloria Arroyo who is under trial. If Chief Justice Corona is not convicted, Mrs. Arroyo’s majority of eight jurists will save her from the gallows.

I am reasonably certain that the Senate will defy the TRO in case one is issued. That means the impeachment trial will continue. That means a constitutional crisis could ensue.

The impeachment trial is muddled by issues that can only result in delays. For example, Congressman Danilo Suarez wants a probe on the leak of the records of the "initial deposit" of $700,000 in a savings bank in the name of the Chief Justice.

Suppose I say somebody from the bank gave me machine copies of the deposit records, will I be held liable for some crime? Maybe my friend Danny Suarez will tell the world if not the impeachment court that there is the law creating the Foreign Currency Deposit Unit which prevents the disclosure, examination of dollar deposits by any and all agencies of government without the written permission of the depositor.

In the case of the deposit of the Chief Justice, I dare say that he used the inviolability of the record of deposits as a convenient shield to keep unexplained wealth from being examined.

In fact, he violated Supreme Court jurisprudence by making the deposit.

Now comes another friend, Congressman Ferdinand Martin Romualdez demanding that the sanctity of the Constitution be respected in the impeachment trial. Some demand!

Who, to begin with, caused the impeachment of the Chief Justice? Wasn’t it indirectly Gloria Arroyo by pressuring the court to allow her to appoint Renato Corona as Chief Justice during a period prohibited by the Constitution?

Wasn’t it Renato Corona who brought his fate upon himself by accepting an appointment made legal by his peers by misinterpreting the Constitution?

Now comes Midas Marquez, administrator and spokesman of the Supreme Court, appealing once again to the people to respect the Supreme Court and its decisions.

How long are we going to respect the "violations" by the Supreme Court of the fundamental law? How long are we going to allow the magistrates to shield themselves from wrongdoing by invoking the doctrine that the Supreme Court is right even when it is wrong after it has spoken with finality?

Until the present court allows Gloria Arroyo to walk from the charges of plunder, courtesy of Chief Justice Corona and his peers chosen for loyalty to Gloria Arroyo, not exactly to the Constitution and the laws?

Stated simply, this country is on the road to a government of men and not of laws if the impeachment trial is stopped by the Supreme Court at the behest of the Chief Justice. We must all remember that Mr. Corona’s rating is below zero – minus 15 percent to be exact.

This perception, in fact, judgment, was made by the people. Under the doctrine of "vox populi vox Dei" shall we allow the Chief Justice to walk so that Gloria Arroyo herself may walk from charges of high crimes?

Think about it. There are enough laws that sit with this situation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Impeachment trivia
3
Dahli Aspillera

‘On the FOI, Rep. Winston Castelo is elated that top government officials, including the SC justices, disclose their SALNs in official websites.’

KAREN Jimeno again shows her lack of legal knowledge. She was on radio and TV blah-blahs all week saying that bank records cannot be subpoenaed. Karen said it is against the law to subpoena bank account records based on the Bank Secrecy Law. The spokeswoman of Renato Corona had no idea that the Impeachment Court is the exception; the Impeachment Court is above Law 1405.

Karen Jimeno has been on broadcast media interviews a lot--she must love publicity and being interviewed—she is on too often, live, answering monotonous, hypothetical questions, starting at the crack of dawn. A citizen’s bank records cannot be made public, she claims. To subpoena bank records is disastrous to the citizens’ Constitutional rights. Karen fears that subpoena of bank statements will scare the criminals hiding unexplained wealth. Karen fears that the Impeachment Court’s examination of deposits will create a bank run.

Does Karen know that the Filipino Chinese Chambers of Commerce Inc. put out a press statement that members of this Chamber are not worried about bank records being subpoenaed; not worried about Article 11, Accountability. The Fil-Chinese in legitimate business know that the Bank Secrecy Law is there to protect the honest and righteous. The law was not designed to protect the corrupt. The FCCCI agrees that releasing the bank records of monies of Renato Corona is unlike releasing the bank records of law-abiding individuals. People without criminal activities are assured that they are protected by the Bank Secrecy Law. But anyone being impeached or being tried for large-scale illegal fund activities will not be protected. The Impeachment Court is mandated to subpoena a person’s bank records.

Many save money for old age, for rainy/medical days. So do I, from my modest pension. I am fortunate for the wise advice of a dear friend (the very first female CEO of a major bank) who said to spread my little money for safekeeping including stocks. My loss will not be traumatic if one bank bellies up. I have savings in four banks, one of them dollar.

Anytime a court has legal need to look into my finances, I would be very happily sign the authorization get all my bank records. I have nothing to hide. All taxes due are paid, no dollar salting or smuggling, no devaluing of properties, no money laundering or any of these exciting illegal activities. My financial state is an open book. Hopefully, when a court should want to look into my finances, prosecution and defense can work to balance my check books, something I am hard-pressed to get around to doing by myself.

On Monday, I wrote that Karen Jimeno did not know the laws on SALN. Rep. Tanada had to teach her the SALN law.

Midweek, Rep. Tanada had to teach a law to Karen Jimeno again. She was insisting that the bank records of monies of Renato Corona cannot be subpoenaed. The Impeachment Court can, and did. The bank records of Renato Corona were out during the trial Wednesday.

Back then, Karen Jimeno, spokeswoman of Renato Corona, did not think Corona was suitable to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Karen did not want Renato Corona to be CJ at the time when Gloria Arroyo had illegally appointed him. Karen opposed this midnight appointment of Renato Corona. And yet, now, Karen is defending Renato Corona with all her might, and is working by hook or by crook to put Renato Corona to stay as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

After all that’s been revealed these past weeks, Karen Jimeno still wants the Supreme Court to be led by Renato Corona? Why? Is he the best Filipino to be a Supreme Court Chief Justice? Does "Sa magkano?" get in there somewhere between Chief Justice Corona and his spokeswoman Karen Jimeno?

Or is Karen doing all this for Corona pro bono? Doesn’t Karen know that there is also a law against soliciting uncompensated favors and services from subordinates, especially female subordinates? Her pro bono service to Renato Corona leaves him open to another suit accepting uncompensated service from subordinates.

No comments: