After the PSBank President reminded the panel – and the prosecution team for that matter – that RA 6426 prohibits the disclosure of foreign currency deposits – even to an impeachment court, the prosecution was akin to deer staring at headlights on high beam in pitch black midnight.
I can just imagine someone in the prosecution team thinking (assuming they do think) – “OMG – anak ni Janice, how could we have missed that…. among other things – someone effed up real bad – and it’s “.
- the proverbial blinding flash of the obvious.
Yesiree – RA 6426 hit the pack of deer known as Aquino’s prosecution team, like a fully stacked 40 footer semi without losing speed.
This of course, left the prosecution whining like juveniles (roadkill as far as am concerned – like their equally juvenile boneheaded Great Successor Noynoy.
Supposedly Corona’s foreign currency deposits at PSBank could have been the prosecution’s “coup de grace” to seal his fate before the end of the fourth week of the impeachment trial, according to Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo. The prosecution spokesperson, Quimbo was quoted by the Inquirer saying that
What the prosecution team is trying to do in this instance is to secure a conviction from the impeachment court so he can be tried for criminal cases. The problem with this approach is that it introduces ambiguity – at a moment when we are looking for clarity.
Shouldn’t there have been a criminal case filed against the Chief Justice in a separate venue? And after securing such conviction – use it as basis for filing an impeachment case.It does not provide an assurance because it raises the question of whether a conviction in a criminal court automatically leads to a conviction in an impeachment court – and by extension – will an acquittal in criminal court automatically lead to acquittal in impeachment court?
However, Claiborne was convicted on the basis of falsifying his income tax returns. In the case of Corona – it can be said that until proven otherwise – his income tax returns are accurate.
Now, if Corona’s SALN and ITR do not match – he ought to be convicted first on those grounds – in another court and not the impeachment court. After securing a conviction – use that as basis for “betrayal of the public trust”. That’s how Claiborne was convicted. The prosecution however, would rather bypass this procedural nuances -and that’s when they get in trouble – and wind up as “roadkill”. 
Still, such an approach that takes time will not be acceptable to the handlers of Aquino because the longer Corona stays in the SC, the lesser the chances of Hacienda Luisita in milking government coffers dry. It will also mean that there is an SC which has the balls to tell PLDT that it is not abiding by the rules of the 60/40. It is an SC which effectively interprets the Constitution – including the warts of the 60/40 provisions. The Corona SC is starting to hit the oligarchs right at home – their landholdings and their equity.
SC TROs on Presenting Unlawful Evidence
Another issue is one of the SC TROs. Aquino ally Drilon that the impeachment court is above the SC and that the SC TROs should not have the force of law. Let’s see what the constitution has to say about that.
While the Senate “shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment” (Sec 6, Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers ) – its procedures are still subject to judicial review.
And who exactly is responsible for judicial review of the procedures of an impeachment court who happen to be made up of Senators?
Clearly an impeachment court is a special court – that happens to consist of Senators – in their roles as justices – and not as senators. To whom does the constitution vest the power of judicial review over special courts such as an impeachment court?
The powers of the Supreme Court, as stated in Article VIII – Judicial Department, Section 5-(5) include the following:
Clearly, the Supreme Court is within its powers to protect the enforcement of constitutional rights of Corona from potential infringements by the prosecution if not the Senate-as-impeachment court cum special court.
Note further that there is a difference between:
The impeachment court has power over the trial of the individual (a) – but its procedures are still under the review of the b) institution aka the Supreme Court.
More Missed Opportunities
On the long term however – the coup-de-grace interruptus is nothing compared to the continuing lines of economic refugees that line the foreign embassies – seeking for work anywhere BUT the Philippines – no different from investors investing in Asia BUT the Philippines.
Don’t look now… there goes the neighborhood.
Observe the rule of law
1. RA 6426 prohibits disclosure without approval of depositor.
2. Corona has no obligation to disclose his dollar accounts – it is a constitutionally protected right against self-incrimination.
3. The Senate as Impeachment Court has power to try the CJ – however, such power does not trump the powers given by the constitution to the SC to review the impeachment court’s conduct of the proceedings.
About the Author
BongV has written 364 stories on this site.
BongV is the webmaster of Antipinoy.com.
188. That’s the total IQ of all those who signed the articles of impeachment. Doesn’t necessarily include any learning thus far.
[Reply]
Ipakta ni Corona ang dollar account nya hbang pinagbbgyan pa sya ng taumbayan. May hangganan din ang pagtatago ng yaman nya na maaaring nagmula sa corruption.
[Reply]
DaidoKatsumi Reply:
February 12th, 2012 at 3:45 am
Meron tayong Bank Secrecy Law. Ang hindi mo alam is pwedeng mangyari sa iyo ang nangyari kay Corona.
That’s from the words of an ANARCHIST, not a good citizen. And that is nothing but hearsay. You just love to break the law for the sake of seeking justice. That’s flawed logic.
[Reply]
Bill Kasi Reply:
February 12th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Right on Daido. I blame the incompetent conspiracy of Noynoy and his clans. I also thought that it was so stupid that Noynoy challenging Corona to voluntarily disclose his dollar bank accounts. It would have been intelligent if he had asked everyone on that court room, or better yet all the politicians and judges to voluntarily disclose their bank accounts. ”let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” _JesusC.
[Reply]
Ozneh Reply:
February 13th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Sometimes you can defeat justice without becoming unlawful.
[Reply]
DaidoKatsumi Reply:
February 13th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
On the contrary, you can never right a wrong with another of the latter.
Otherwise, he is just confirming to the public the allegations that he is the main instigator in the bid to oust Chief Justice Corona.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
doing a wrong to right another wrong does not make it right… didn’t your mama teach you that?
[Reply]
Ozneh Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
The end justifies the means. But this won’t be an issue if Corona would just voluntarily disclose his account. After all, there’s nothing to hide if you know that all your transactions are legal. In that way, doubts will be settled. People who commit crimes try their best to hide under the flaws of laws. He may have the protection of law, but his image is not protected from scorn and disdain.
BongV Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
the end justifies the means in a LAWLESS SOCIETY… are you admitting that Filipinos are by nature LAWLESS?
why would Corona disclose his accounts – he is entitled to privacy, innocent until proven guilty – and has constitutionally protected right against incrimination – if you have LEGAL evidence, produce it. if not, SHUT UP – the burden of proof is on those who allege that Corona is corrupt.
who gives a **** about pinoy tsismosos… except their fellow tsismososs – they can shove their unproven guni guni right up their butts
Ozneh Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
why would Corona disclose his accounts – he is entitled to privacy, innocent until proven guilty – and has constitutionally protected right against incrimination – if you have LEGAL evidence, produce it.
-That’s why he is asked to VOLUNTARILY disclose his accounts because disclosing his accounts without his permission would mean a violation of law. He has to disclose his accounts because although the law protects him and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, his integrity and the truth would be at stake
the end justifies the means in a LAWLESS SOCIETY…
-It is not true that it only happens in a lawless society. Certain court disputes led to amendment of laws because the court says that the real intention of the law is blah.. blah… blah.. These court disputes give rise to shed light and patch up the loopholes of our laws. The court does not decide based on legal technicalities alone, they also consider the intention of the parties involved. That’s why the interpretation of the law is vested on them. Otherwise a lawyer with bad intentions could easily use his knowledge in law to victimize others.
BongV Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
tough luck – all that says is the prosecution does not have a case at all.
as you have pointed out – the correct way is to amend the law – and not defy the existing one…
but just the the amended law will have to comply with RA 6426 Section 12A – it is a grandfathered clause..
moreover – this also shows the need for government to get out of the market – without government intervention in markets – it is pure competition – drastically reduces the conditions which enable corruption – after all
the law is the law… it might be tough but it is the law… COMPLY WITH RA 6426 period..
which brings another point – remove useless inutile regulations – that only create enabling conditions for corruption
TaengGorbachev Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I have to agree with Ozneh about the “end justifies the means” clause. If the person who decides to, example, seize power and yet managed to bring the economy high(I believe Park Chung-hee did that in South Korea), perhaps such clause is true. Also, I heard that Park Chung-hee amended the Constitution many times to suit himself, thus legitimizing his maximized number of terms in power. It’s just the matter of specifying your end in specific details, not just general.
BongV Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
you mean… if for example… the ends that I want is a Philippines filled with smart people… it’s justified that I have all the people whose NCEE is below 95 or whose UPCAT is below 90 – or whose CS exams prof are below ninety – exterminated?
Bill Kasi Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Right on BongV. Filipinos don’t know how to go to war. They would ask their opponents to surrender now because it’s not good to their leaders ego.
TaengGorbachev Reply:
February 15th, 2012 at 5:48 am
@BongV
If those are your most specific ends, then it’s justified. I may also want it(I believe in that Malthusian concept of overpopulation, you know), but avoiding generalizations, not all who has a score lower than such are considered dumb. Einstein, they say, was considered dumb until he thought of the theory of relativity(correct me if I’m wrong about the story). In fact, I am still trying to specify further the ends in which I want to happen to the Philippines.
But I suggest you also specify further your end. Like, for example: “My end is to pass a test cleanly, without guilt.” So what happens is: cheating is not part of the options to pass a test. Compare it with “My end is to pass the test”, which I think is too general, in which cheating remained an option. (^_^)
BongV Reply:
February 15th, 2012 at 7:22 am
so if in my view – your aptitude tests didn’t make the cut – you agree to be exterminated – together with your equally feeble-minded kin for the sake of a smarter Philippines? are you willing to die?
- in your example… you had qualifications – “without guilt” – cheating justifies the end – you pass –
the qualification you included – is akin to the rule of law… – by your example… the means do not justify the ends..
balutpenoy Reply:
February 15th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
@TaengGorbachev
That has been done here already. Just remember Marcos. And you would know how epic fail that social experiment was
Ozneh Reply:
February 15th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
@BongV
-The U.S. violated international laws multiple times in order to meet their end. Haha.. In times of war, the law falls mute.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward818.htm
Condoleezza Rice, the Bush Administration’s National Security Adviser, has claimed that President Bush’s faith in military force became the guiding tenet of his presidency after 9/11. “He determined on that day that you could not fight this war just on defense,” Rice says. “It’s an unfair fight when they have to be right once and you have to be right 100% of the time.” [1] In effect, Ms. Rice is saying that if the goal — the ends — is to reduce the risk of attack by terrorists, then the process — the means — by which one does that is inherently okay. If, for example, this means violating International Law and invading a country (such as Iraq) purely on the basis of what Iraq under Saddam Hussein might do, then according to the Rice/Bush doctrine, it’s okay to violate the law and any inconvenient moral principles encountered along the way.