The 23-member Senate court needs 16 votes to convict and eight to acquit the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. It would seem from their remarks after his testimonies last week that many senator-judges have made up their minds on which verdict. The prosecution and defense will direct today’s closing arguments on the crucial undecided ones. To be taken into account are each senator’s interest: reelection, party affiliation or career change. Whichever, the senators know the historic implication of their vote. Their choice will be their legacy to the nation.
Corona invoked clear conscience in defense against the impeachment charges. Although confessing to not declaring all his wealth, as required of all government men, he claimed he did so in good faith. Supposedly all his assets honestly were acquired. His $2.4 million (P102 million at today’s P42.50 : $1), deposited in four banks, is the result of thrift. It grew by hard work, from an unspecified amount since the era of purported P2: $1 exchange rate in the late ’60s. It remained unlisted all these years in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth due to “absolute secrecy” of foreign currency deposits. The confidentiality rule may be directed at banks, but his interpretation is that it gags depositors as well. As a lawyer he cannot defy the law.
The separate P80.7 million, deposited solely in his name in three banks, allegedly are not all his. Most are the monies of his three adult married offspring, his wife’s family corporation, and his late mother’s bequest. His real cash, as stated in his yearly SALNs, ranged only from P2.5 million to P3.5 million in 2001-2010. All these were comingled only to fetch higher interest rates. He did not think to list those other funds as assets then deduct them as liabilities, in keeping with the SALN form, for he does not understand such accounting terms. He is but a lawyer.
Corona did not dwell much on the two other impeachment raps. His defenders already had refuted his alleged bias in voiding, on say-so of an airline lawyer, a years-old Supreme Court ruling to rehire 1,400 flight attendants. Same with purportedly letting his patron ex-President Gloria Arroyo nearly escape abroad from heinous crime indictment. Both, so they said, were products of SC justices’ collegial deliberations.
A clear conscience is usually a sign of bad memory, Mark Twain quipped. Today the prosecution will sum up the inconsistencies in Corona’s alibis. For one, that he feigns unfamiliarity with bookkeeping terms, yet once headed the legal staff of a top accounting firm. Relatedly, that despite huge dollar and peso stashes, he had “borrowed” from the wife’s family enterprise (and listed as liabilities in SALNs for three years) P11 million to buy a condo. Too, that he denies any influence in SC edicts (on the airline and Arroyo), yet claims credit for its parceling of President Noynoy Aquino’s family hacienda to the workers, the “motive” for having him impeached. And many more contradictions.
The prosecution also will recap its — and the defense’s accidental — damning evidence against Corona. Foremost is the Ombudsman’s list, from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, of his 705 large transactions, from 82 accounts in several branches of five banks, in 2003 to 2011. These include withdrawals totaling $3.25 million from four banks over ten days starting December 12, 2011, the day he was impeached. Unchallenged except by Corona’s word is the Ombudsman’s finding of $12 million in fresh deposits.
To be included are records of Corona’s personal deposits of at least P36.6 million in two banks — undeclared in his SALNs. As well, the non-disclosure of one condo purchase, the years-late listing of four other real estates, and the fudging of all acquisition prices — to deflate his net worth.
The prosecution will aim to show that Corona’s acts are willful. His are not forgivable misreading of laws, but culpable violations of the Constitution and so betrayals of public trust. He knows the consequences of falsifying SALNs. His SC has fired a court clerk for not disclosing the ownership of a small market stall, and convicted a vice mayor for not listing a cousin as fellow-municipal employee.
Tomorrow, Judgment Day, it will be the senator-judges’ turn to call up conscience. They acknowledge that impeachment is a political process with a judicial character. Their vote will thus rest not only on evidence or legalism. Of equal importance is the lasting effect on the land of acquittal or conviction. They will strive to discern if institutions and morals will be weakened or strengthened. They will weigh personal biases against the greater good.
In this task, deep meditative prayer would be needed. For, as theologian Peter Kreeft said, “Conscience is thus explained only as the voice of God in the soul (Christian Apologetics).”
* * *
Want to know the judicial outcome of such scams as in the NAIA-3 construction, the NBN-ZTE $200-million overprice, the Diwalwal-ZTE giveaway, Malacañang’s secret maritime survey with China of 2005-2008, or the General Garcia plunder? Answers are provided in Exposés: Investigative Reporting for Clean Government. The compilation of my selected columns is available in hardcopy at National Bookstore and Powerbooks. And soon in electronic format.
* * *
Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).
E-mail: jariusbondoc@gmail.com