Impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona calls his wife’s 90-year-old nun-aunt a liar. The public, as part of Corona’s trial jury, finds it ludicrous, if not downright crass. More so since, he maligns her in media interviews, not under oath in the Senate court. Badly for Corona, his perplexing ownership of 31 long and short arms, and threat to blast an 83-year-old houseboy’s face stick in the public mind.
Franciscan nun Flory Basa is one of Corona’s dilemmas. Disputing her makes him look like an ogre. To admit what she’s saying would have the same effect.
Sister Flory confirmed on national TV the lament of niece Ana Basa that the Coronas had grabbed their family corporation by guile. It happened so long ago, 1995, just before Corona’s wife allegedly pocketed P34 million from the sale of a family prime lot. They’d rather forgive and forget, Sister Flory said. But then, they heard in Corona’s impeachment trial that he had “advanced” P11 million in 2003 from the company the Coronas told them was long dead. Subsequent hearings the exposed Corona to have cleaned out P37.7 million from three accounts in PSBank on Dec. 12, 2011, the day he was impeached. His defense lawyers claimed it was — again — the money of the Basa family corporation.
Truly expedient is it for Corona to deny that huge amount as his, but his wife’s family’s. That would explain its non-inclusion in his yearly Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. So, hopefully, no more questions about his moral fitness to keep the highest judiciary post. Yet, Sister Flory and Ana Basa cry that their family wealth remains under litigation for 14 long years. For that wealth to now be deposited in Corona’s name would mean his interfering in the judicial process — and cast doubts on his uprightness.
* * *
The P37.7 million in Corona’s name, that he denies is his, is not the only huge deposit he holds. There are also the five dollar-accounts in the PSBank-Katipunan QC branch, near his Xavierville home. And that’s a second dilemma.
Reportedly one of the five accounts had an initial deposit in 2008 of $700,000 (P32 million). The PSBank president confirmed to the Senate court last month that the dollar accounts do exist. Whereupon, both PSBank and Corona asked the Supreme Court to bar the disclosure of the accounts’ contents. The SC did grant PSBank a temporary restraining order by an 8-5 vote. In the TRO the justices made no mention of Corona’s parallel plea, as if to avoid any impression of his continued influence over them, as he refuses to take a leave while on trial.
Last week Corona made two big statements about the PSBank and the dollar accounts. First, he cleaned out the P37.7 million from PSBank-Katipunan on Dec. 12, 2011, because he had lost trust in it. Supposedly the branch manager had leaked to neighbors the details of his deposits. Second, as promised, he would reveal the contents of the dollar accounts in due time, and that time has come. It’s this week, he said, as lawyers commence to present his defense.
From the statements arise two options. One, the prosecution can ask the SC to lift its TRO against publicizing Corona’s dollar deposits. After all, its Chief Justice already has signified before millions of radio-TV audiences that he no longer would keep this secret. Such public promise is tantamount to official consent of full disclosure.
Two, the PSBank could withdraw its old application for the TRO — paving the way for its dissolution. After all, the depositor Renato Corona no longer trusts it, as he said publicly. Corona may reassert his own earlier plea for a TRO, but that’s of no concern to PSBank.
* * *
A third dilemma for Corona is whether or not to testify. Early in his media blitz last week he said he would. Hours later he backtracked that it all depends on his lawyers. To testify could impress on the public that he is hiding nothing. But then, senator-judges would subject him to clarificatory questioning, and prosecutors to hostile cross-examination, on unsavory matters.
Still, Corona may have no choice but testify. For, only he can controvert the charges of culpably violating the Constitution and betraying public trust. Allegedly he falsified and hid his SALNs, unduly favored certain litigants, and let his patron ex-President Gloria Arroyo nearly escape abroad from heinous criminal raps.
Witnesses lined up by the defense may prove inadequate. These are: three congressmen, two SC justices, a constitutionalist, a lawyer-accountant, and Corona’s wife. The congressmen are to talk about supposed haste in impeaching Corona. But two of them will testify only if subpoenaed, something the Senate is unlikely to do to members of a co-equal chamber. Even if the third talks on his own volition, it would be about matters long overtaken. The Senate had decided to not question the House’s manner of impeaching, and so began trial. Talking about impeachment in general, the constitutionalist would have no personal knowledge of what transpired at the House.
The lawyer-accountant can explain generically discrepancies in SALNs. But he too would have no personal knowledge of Corona’s undervaluation and non-declaration of certain lots and condos. The wife might be able to explain, but in the process would open herself to grilling on the Basa family complaints. And both would have nothing to say about Corona’s favoring of litigants and of Arroyo.
The two justices can probably explain Corona’s actions. But then, the SC has barred any member from testifying at the Senate on matters related to pending cases.
* * *
Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).
E-mail: jariusbondoc@gmail.com