Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Why Corona will be acquitted

Ad Lib
Why Corona will be acquitted
By Greg B. Macabenta

The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona is a hot topic at my favorite watering hole in Daly City. The views and opinions aired are influenced mainly by the online media reports, the news on TFC and GMA Pinoy TV, the postings on the social networks and, not least, the spinning done by the respective spokespersons of both pro-Corona and anti-Corona camps.

Not surprisingly, there are also pro-Coronas and anti-Coronas in the watering hole. And in a manner of speaking, they are also like thelegal eagles in the defense and prosecution teams in Manila. They are all members of the bar, a fact that the bartender can attest to.

Being the only one in the joint maintaining the requisite sobriety, thebartender acts as moderator-referee during the often heated discussions, the equivalent of presiding officer.

Of late, the pro-Coronas have been crowing about the bumbling performance of the prosecution team and the failure to prove the correct number of real estate properties allegedly owned by the Chief Justice and not declared in his SALN.

"Napahiya sila," jeered the pro-Coronas. "They accused the Chief Justice of owning 45 real estate properties. As it turned out, they could only point to 24."

And they added, with unveiled self-righteousness: "This proves thatthe CJ is not as dishonest as the prosecution would have the public believe."

This puzzled a non-Pinoy friend who happened to be in the joint and had been listening to the discussion.

I had to explain that in the Philippines, dishonesty is calibrated. To illustrate: under-declaring 24 real estate properties is considered less dishonest than under-declaring 45.

To further enlighten him, I also explained that a government official who enriches himself in office but accounts for a lot of public works projects, is considered "honest enough." And if he shares the goodies with other officials, gives abuloy when a constituent dies, and provides free education and health care, he is considered a great leader, fit for higher office. Even for president of the country.

Needless to say, my non-Pinoy friend remained confused.

At any rate, sensing that they had scored points, the Corona defenders also pointed out that under Philippine law, honest mistakes made in one’s SALN are correctable.

"Those are considered honest mistakes," said one.

That prompted loud cheers from the pro-Corona side. But someone from the anti-Corona camp had an immediate rebuttal.

"If you make one mistake, that may be considered an honest mistake and may be correctable," he said. "But what do you call repeated mis-declarations and under-declarations?"

"Dishonest mistakes?" jeered the anti-Coronas.

They then cited the testimony of BIR Commissioner Kim Henares, tothe effect that Corona had under-declared nine properties since becoming associate justice in 2002, under-declared the value of properties in 2003 and 2004, did not declare properties in his SALN in 2004 and 2005, and under-declared his net worth in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

"And mind you, the discrepancies run into the millions," they stressed.

They also pointed out that the value of the real estate properties accumulated by Corona far exceeded his capacity to pay for them with his legitimate income as an associate justice of the Supreme Court and even as Chief Justice.

"Where else could the money have come from?" they asked. And, without waiting for an answer, they went on: "Unexplained wealth is ill-gotten wealth, unless one has won in the lotto or has received a huge inheritance."

The pro-Coronas quickly pooh-poohed that assertion. "The issue of ill-gotten wealth has been disallowed by the impeachment court. That should not be considered in this discussion."

"But what is the truth?" the anti-Coronas pressed.

"The truth has no bearing here," insisted the pro-Coronas. "What is important is the legal technicality."

"In other words, even if Corona’s sources of funds are suspect, he will be allowed to get away with it because of a technicality?"

"Gano’n talaga ang batas" replied the pro-Coronas. "Pagalingan ng paghanap ng butas."

"In fact," they added, "Even the testimony of Henares was objected to by the defense. So, technically, that testimony has no bearing on theimpeachment case."

"That’s why, if the basis for impeaching the Chief Justice is Article 2 of the impeachment complaint, siguradong acquitted siya," concluded another Corona partisan triumphantly. "In fact, even the other impeachment complaints will not hold water. Even the allegation of bias and loyalty to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo."

"Now, I’m even more confused," said my non-Pinoy friend.

He went on: "I was under the impression that the issue is whether or not Renato Corona is fit to remain Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If he has been dishonest, no matter to what degree, can he still be considered a person of integrity? If he has made repeated mistakes in his SALN, can he still be considered a person of competence? And if he has been biased in his verdicts, can he still be considered a person of probity and independence?"

That effectively silenced the two camps.

Emboldened by the comments, another fellow joined in: "Assuming that Corona is not guilty of a high crime but is deemed guilty of a crime, nonetheless, will he still deserve to remain Chief Justice of theSupreme Court?"

At this, the bartender-presiding officer finally spoke up: "In thePhilippines, anything is possible."

Before the anti-Coronas could protest, the bartender went on: "You see, Chief Justice Corona is not the only one who has not submitted a truthful or an accurate SALN. And he is not the only one who needs to explain the source of unexplained wealth. I’m willing to bet that allthe members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are guilty of the same thing."

And he concluded: "Which is why, they will acquit Corona. Because it’s like acquitting themselves, too!"

For once, everyone in the watering hole agreed.

No comments: