Is failure to disclose acquisition cost an impeachment offense?

MANILA, Philippines - While Chief Justice Renato Corona may have overlooked some requirements in the filing of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), it does not automatically make him a candidate for impeachment, his lawyers said yesterday.

Tranquil Salvador III and Karen Jimeno, lawyers and spokespersons of Corona in his impeachment trial, said there was no intention on the part of Corona to mock the law when he left some spaces blank in his SALN.

In article two of the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against the Chief Justice, it was alleged that he lied about his wealth in his SALN.

Jimeno noted that the failure of Corona to fill up the “acquisition cost” column in his SALN was not unique to him.

“In the first place, would it be an impeachable offense if we see that most who filed their SALN, not just the justices of the Supreme Court, but other government officials, did not fill up all of the required columns (in the SALN)?” Jimeno asked. “If we see that other government officials and impeachable officers do not fill up everything and it’s true that this is the standard practice, it that an impeachable offense?” 

She also noted that the guidelines on the filing of SALN allow for corrections for errors inadvertently made.

Jimeno said that the Chief Justice should be allowed under the law to make the necessary corrections in his SALN if errors had indeed been committed.

Salvador said the alleged errors in Corona’s SALN only became an issue during his impeachment trial.

He said the emergence of the issue would be a good opportunity for authorities to review the compliance of all government officials with the guidelines for the filing of SALN.

“But is that an impeachable offense? Non-compliance, is it sufficient to remove him from office?” Salvador asked.

He said he expects the impeachment court to make a ruling on whether this constitutes an impeachable offense before issuing a verdict on Corona’s case.

Salvador lamented that the prosecution is also focusing on the “damaged goods theory,” wherein it seeks to condition the mind of the public and the impeachment court that Corona’s reputation is beyond repair and that he has no choice but to step down even after an acquittal.

“I think that is what their second strategy is. To my mind, at the end of the day, that is why they keep on hitting that he is damaged goods, at the end of the day, the impression is you are already damaged, you are no longer fit, so you must go,” Salvador said.

“But the thing now is are we talking of evidence or are we talking of perception and I think the proper conclusion would be, we should look at the evidence on whether or not he is liable,” he added.

The prosecution panel initially raised the issue of Corona’s alleged failure to declare all his properties in his SALN and listed down 45 titles to the supposed questionable properties.

However, over the course of the trial, the number was trimmed down after the defense panel presented evidence disproving the ownership of some of properties.

The Chief Justice declared only five properties under his name and based on the last count made by Sen. Francis Escudero, only five other properties have yet to be accounted for out of the original 45 the prosecution listed.

The defense panel is currently presenting its witnesses for article two of the Articles of Impeachment.

It presented last week the secretaries of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the cash and disbursement division head of the Supreme Court to show that the Chief Justice has been receiving substantial amounts of compensation.

The defense panel is expected to present the wife of the Chief Justice, Ma. Cristina Corona, as a witness for article two, specifically on the issues related to her family-owned Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc.

Salvador said that they are not certain when Mrs. Corona would testify because it would all depend on how the proceedings would move along.

He reiterated that the decision on whether or not the Chief Justice would testify is also still up in the air.