Corona, Chief Justice cases different – Sereno camp

MANILA, Philippines — The issue that doomed the late chief magistrate Renato Corona is different from that of his successor, the camp of embattled Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said yesterday.

In arguing against the quo warranto petition filed by the solicitor general in the Supreme Court (SC), a spokesman for Sereno said there was no basis of comparison between the two cases.

Lawyer Jojo Lacanilao said that while Corona’s ouster after impeachment trial was based on issues involving his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), it cannot be compared with Sereno’s case.

Lacanilao pointed out that Sereno is not being charged with undeclared income or graft and corruption, unlike Corona during his impeachment.

Lacanilao said that Corona himself admitted he had about P183 million in peso and dollar deposits, which were not reflected in his SALN.

“We have to remember that CJ Corona himself admitted that he had $2.4 million and his defense centered on his interpretation that he was not required to declare his dollar deposits because of the confidentiality of foreign accounts under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act,” he argued in a statement.

Lacanilano recalled that Corona also did not declare P80 million in local currency deposits as he claimed the funds were commingled, mostly belonging to his children and wife’s family corporation, the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc.

“One cannot draw parallels between the two Chief Justices because their cases are entirely different from each other. The difference is monumental,” the lawyer stressed.

The petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida cited Sereno’s non-submission of required SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council during her application for the top judicial post in 2012 as basis for asking the Supreme Court to invalidate her appointment.

But in the impeachment case against her in the House of Representatives, Sereno is accused of non-declaration of her over P30 million income from the arbitration case against Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco), builder of Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3. Lacanilao maintained that Sereno has fully declared everything in her SALNs.

“From 2010, when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court, all the way up to her latest SALN, Sereno has faithfully complied with all the requirements in the SALN law,” he said.

Contrary to the claim of impeachment complainant lawyer Lorenzo Gadon that Sereno received P37 million from the Piatco case, Sereno was only paid a total of P30.3 million before taxes for legal services rendered from 2003 to 2008, he explained.

The remaining amount after taxes has been spent over time for various asset acquisitions and investments, which are all reflected in Sereno’s current SALN. The rest went to the Sereno family’s tithes, offerings, living and medical expenses, and other operating expenses.

Lacanilao furthered argued that SALNs are only relevant to the question of integrity if the issue is ill-gotten wealth.

“There is no allegation in the petition that the Chief Justice has any such ill-gotten wealth,” he added.

The camp of Sereno has announced that they have already recovered 11 of her 21 reported missing SALNs.

They said nine of Sereno’s SALNs filed at the University of the Philippines had been recovered aside from her 2002 SALN found in her files at the UP administration office and her 1998 SALN that is with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Calida himself admitted that he had secured from UP records the other SALNs of the Chief Justice for the years 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. The UP records did not include the 1989 SALN that Sereno had recently retrieved from her files.