Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Evidence favorable to Corona rejected?

AMADO P. MACASAET

‘All evidence that may tend to prove any omission or inaccuracy or lies under oath in the contents of the SALN must and should be heard.’

THE defense in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona has so far gotten away with technicalities forthe simple reason that the prosecutors do not seem competent to argue their case.

However, there is one issue that remotely borders on technical questions.

This issue that spawned many, if not repetitive debates, is the evidence that can be received and heard with respect to Article II of the impeachment complaint.

The defense contends that evidence which have nothing to do with the heading of Article II – the alleged failure of Chief Justice Corona to disclose his SALN to the public - must be considered immaterial and irrelevant.

Thus, for the defense, evidence on paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the impeachment complaint, which discusses matters other than failure to disclose the SALN (non-inclusion of properties in the SALN, inaccurate disclosure in the SALN, undervaluation of properties, ill-gotten wealth and graft and corruption) should be barred.

The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the duty to file and disclose the SALN necessarily includes the duty to be truthful and accurate in its contents.

Hence, all evidence that may tend to prove any omission or inaccuracy or lies under oath in the contents of the SALN must and should be heard.

On January 30, the impeachment court resolved the issue, in what can be commended as a solomonic and fair decision.

The Court allowed prosecution to introduce evidence in support of paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. and ruled that "with respect to [paragraph 2.4], this Court shall be guided by and shall rely upon the legal presumptions on the nature of any property or asset, which may be proven to belong to … Chief Justice as provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379." Paragraph 2.4 states: "2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in Taguig. Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?"

In its Resolution, the impeachment court explained that with respect to Paragraph 2.4, it is "mindful and shall rely upon the legal presumption on the nature of any property or asset which may be proven to belong to the Respondent Chief Justice as provided under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379."

What is this Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379? It states:

"Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired."

In fact, a decision penned no less than by Chief Justice Corona himself, Republic v. Sandiganbayan, was cited by the Court as having reiterated the abovementioned legal presumption. In the said case, the Court pointed out: "The law raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it."

Additionally, the impeachment court noted that "the allegation in Paragraph 2.3 that the Respondent Chief Justice has not included certain properties in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is substantially and inextricably linked to the duty of the Respondent as a public official to completely, truthfully and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and net worth; and that even if a disclosure maybe proven to have been made, if the same may be shown to be less than the full and faithful disclosure contemplated by the Constitution, the introduction of evidence to show such alleged omission is germane to the main allegation expressed under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment."

What does the resolution of the Court mean? This simply means that evidence pertaining to alleged inaccuracies and untruthfulness of the declarations made in Chief Justice Corona’s SALN are allowed to be presented in court. Thus, for example, evidence such as the testimony of witnesses and documents tending to prove that there were under valuations and nondisclosures will be allowed.

Further; if in the course of the presentation of evidence, it appears that the assets of Chief Justice Corona are not consistent with his salary and other lawful income, then, a presumption arises that the said assets are ill-gotten. In other words, no specific evidence of ill-gotten wealth needs to be offered, since the state of being "ill-gotten" automatically arises once the disparity in income and assets is shown. When this happens, the burden of proving that the assets are lawful in all respects shifts to the defense.

Additionally, what the resolution means for the general public is that the Court does not consider the mere filing of a public official’s SALN as sufficient compliance with the Constitution. The resolution is an assurance that the Court values transparency over technicalities and will consider nothing less than a true, accurate and timely disclosed SALN.

Stripped of the legalese, therefore, the resolution of the Court simplifies the procedures, allows the presentation of one set of evidence for all the allegations in Article II, and makes use of the presumptions set by law and jurisprudence.

In this way, average persons watching the impeachment proceedings will be less engrossed in technical objections and lawyerly talk. In this way, the drama will continue to unfold, the proceedings willbecome more interesting, and there is a better chance for the truth to be told.

No comments: