Evidence

AMADO P. MACASAET

‘The problem with the Chief Justice is he cannot even be true to himself as proven by lying under oath in his SALN. How can he be true to his country?’

THERE is some kind of dilemma in the Senate on whether or not the impeachment court should accept as evidence documents covering the deposits, not declared in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The debate is over the interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Law that prevents anybody from prying into a deposit record without the written permission of the depositor or an order of the court.

We chanced upon the pertinent provision of the law and concluded that there should be no debate at all.

Sec. 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law states "all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the government of the Philippines, its political subsidiaries and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon the written permission of the depositor or in CASES OF IMPEACHMENT (emphasis ours) or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation."

We should all dispassionately take note of the fact that in cases of impeachment disclosure (to the impeachment court) and examination of the details of the deposits of Mr. Corona in this case since he is a respondent in an impeachment trial is allowed.

The money deposited by the Chief Justice is the subject of litigation because the amounts, increasing almost by the day, are not included or listed in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

They become subject of litigation following the ruling the Chief Justice (when he was associate justice) wrote.

He stated in his ponencia that amounts in excess of what the income of a state employee or official can buy are prima facie evidence that such excess is ill-gotten.

It is clear that the Chief Justice cannot escape the provisions of Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law because he has been impeached and is going through trial.

How can his lawyers in the present case reverse the intent of their client’s own ruling by not allowing the records of the deposits as evidence against the Chief Justice?

This reminds me of King Canute who tried to roll back the waves just because he is king.

Can the lawyers of Mr. Corona reverse the ponencia of their client for the reason that he is Chief Justice?

Ordinary people like us insist that the fact of the Chief Justice being impeached opens his deposits to admission as evidence against him or for him, if as his lawyers say, the dollar portion of the deposits will be explained in due time.

Right now or "in due time" has no relevance to the fact that the Head Magistrate concurred in a ruling of his Court that dollars in the Foreign Currency Deposit Unit are exclusively for Filipinos.

The FCDU law has the clear intent of attracting money of foreigners to the FCDU for investments and lending to help make the economy grow. And again, the alleged $700,000 deposit of the Chief Justice in a savings bank is not listed in his SALN.

Therefore, he may be held liable for two violations. He is not a foreigner and therefore does not have the right to make deposits in the FCDU. He hid the deposits which cannot be justified by his income as associate justice or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The use of legalese, niceties and technicalities cannot sweep these documented facts under the rug.

It may be edifying for the Chief Justice and his lawyers to recall (if they read him at all) Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) essay Of Wisdom for a Man’s Self where he wrote: "For whatever affairs pass such a man’s hands, he crooketh them to his own ends, which must needs be often eccentric to the ends of his master of state."

Before that line, Bacon wrote: "Divide with reason between self love and society; and be so true to thyself as thou be not false to others specially to thy king and country."

The problem with the Chief Justice is he cannot even be true to himself as proven by lying under oath in his SALN. How can he be true to his country?

The Head Magistrate wrapped himself with his own lies, lies which he said in his own ponencia are crimes or sins to others. But not to himself as he now insists through his lawyers.

Visit his past and that of his wife. It tells a lot about the spouses. There are legal documents to prove it.

It is in this sense, President Aquino, although he may be talking out of turn, insists that the rule of law may never visit this land again if the Head Magistrate is allowed to keep his office.

How can a plain public servant be dismissed from the service for not declaring a market stall in his SALN but allows the Chief Justice to walk by violating his own ruling on ill-gotten wealth?

Indeed what the Chief Justice wants and expects is one law exclusive to himself and another law for ordinary mortals.

How many millions of pesos have we discovered as belonging to the Chief Justice but not declared in his SALN?

Is this his way of preserving the respect and integrity of the Supreme Court and accusing President Aquino that his impeachment is for the sole purpose of destroying the Court because he wants one of his own, one similar to the one described as being in the pocket of Gloria Arroyo?

We will not lend ourselves to this mockery.