Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The truth vs. Renato Corona

DUCKY PAREDES

‘The prosecution now wants to prove that he has acquired ill-gotten wealth by taking a close look at his bank deposits.’

THE past days of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona have turned up one incontrovertible fact: that the Chief Justice has lied again and again in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), through undervaluation of his real estate properties and misdeclaration by altogether omitting certain properties from his SALN.

Why would he resort to this if he has nothing to hide -- even in his SALN, which, like all the justices’ SALNs, are inaccessible to the general public?

The prosecution now wants to prove that he has acquired ill-gotten wealth by taking a close look at his bank deposits. To do this, they have asked that the Bank Secrecy Law be waived to allow the prosecution to do its job.

But what do you know? Even before the Senate could deliberate on the matter, certain quarters have raised fears of bank runs.

These fears are unfounded. The prosecution wants to subpoena Corona’s bank records to determine whether he has, as they suspect, amassed ill-gotten wealth. How else could he have so much wealth seemingly beyond his lawful income? This is the next logical step after discrepancies were noted in his SALNs.

I am convinced that the specter of possible bank runs is deliberately being spread by Corona’s camp simply because they do not want his bank deposits to see the light of day.

These doomsayers, in other words, are spreading the rumors as part of their hidden agenda.

If he has no huge bank deposits that can only indicate ill-gotten wealth, Corona has nothing to be afraid of. In fact, if it turns out that there is nothing unusual in his bank accounts, doesn’t that practically clear him? The bank run bogey must have been raised only because they do not want the public to know that he may be keeping a huge bank stash out of proportion to his legitimate income as a jurist.

If Corona has done no wrong, all he has to do is to waive his right to protection under the bank secrecy law.

The prosecution request to waive the bank secrecy law is specifically directed at Corona, to determine whether he has hidden wealth. It is not directed at ordinary persons or the general public. It is targeted particularly at an impeached justice who is now under trial.

In the past two weeks of the Corona impeachment trial, the prosecution has amply demonstrated that the Chief Justice has not been forthright in accomplishing his SALNS. His lawyers say Corona may have made mistakes in his SALNs, but that these can be "corrected". Mistakes? This is hogwash. Corona has clearly been very dishonest in accomplishing his SALN, and this pattern of dishonesty is evident in all his dealings as a member of the Supreme Court.

If Corona is clean as he stoutly says he is, he should have no problem signing the waiver on bank secrecy. But if he refuses to do so, then the public can rightly conclude that his real property buying binge is funded by money from illicit or dubious sources.

Is dishonesty an impeachable offense and a clear manifestation of betrayal of public trust? It should be; else, what sort of a public service would we have, if we cannot trust our public servants?

Corona should at the very least file a leave of absence while the trial is ongoing. Better still, he should resign now to spare the nation an extended trial that would anyway (the way it is going) most likely result in his removal from office. Of course, he will not do so. It is not in the nature of the dishonest to do the honest thing.

Perhaps, the Senate should speed things up and already vote now on Article 2 regarding the SALN issue and convict Corona instead of continuing with the impeachment trial. We have had enough of the hairsplitting antics of Corona’s defense team.
***
One sometimes wonders whether the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines has lost its way. Does serving God and preaching religion no longer excite them? If what they are doing is God’s and his Church’s work, why do they comment on the silliest things? For instance, recently, in time for the President’s birthday, Malaya reports: "Archbishop emeritus Oscar Cruz said he expects more Cabinet members to resign.

"’Sunod-sunod na iyan pagkat napapansin nila na wala talagang patutunguhan ang gobyernong ito,’ said Cruz."

One has to assume that Cruz does this because he must find the daily news and seeing his name in the papers more exciting than prayer, the Sacraments, worshipping God or preaching religion.

He is also not the only one. On almost every issue, the bishops (priests, nuns, etc.) seem to be transformed into politicians. They comment on issues that for many of us ought to be forbidden to them by the constitutional mandate in Article 2, Section 6: "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable."

I know, I know, they will say that they are also Filipino citizens.

Okay, in that case, so as not to give the wrong impression, can we all agree not to use their ecclesiastical rank when Mr. Oscar Cruz, private citizen (and others of his coven) speak on matters not germane to the work of the Church?

That would at least prove that they speak as private Filipino citizens and not as bishop, priest, nun, archbishop or cardinal. Otherwise, if they speak and command attention because of their rank in Holy Mother Church, which they use to call attention to their private views and comments, of course they violate Article 2, Section 6!

If you disagree, ask yourself, whether it is the judgment of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in this country that "wala talagang patutunguhan ang gobyernong ito"? Or is this just Mr. Oscar Cruz, a disgruntled political animal, talking as a politician?
***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome atduckyparedes@yahoo.com

No comments: