Ironies and lessons

True enough the rise and fall of Corona’s defense on his impeachment case largely depended on his testimony. Ironically, for telling the truth, he was found guilty. He told the truth when he admitted that he has foreign currency deposits of $2.4 million and total peso deposits in several banks amounting to P80.4 million which were not fully disclosed in his SALN. While he explained why he failed to fully disclose them in his SALN, his explanation did not convince the 20 senator-judges who found him guilty. What happened to Corona in this case clearly illustrates the big difference between Human and Divine Justice. In the case of human justice, when a man commits a wrong and admits it, he is punished. In the case of Divine Justice when a man commits a wrong and admits it, he is forgiven (The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva).

Another irony in this case is in Corona’s three-hour opening statement which was considered as his direct testimony even if it was not in the form of questions and answers as usually required in presenting testimonial evidence. He was indeed able to give answers to questions that the prosecution would have objected to. At the same time however he also answered questions that his defense lawyers would not have asked because they might bring more harm than good to his defense or might have no bearing at all on the case. For instance, he dwelt and repeatedly denied having ill gotten wealth even if it was no longer part of the impeachment charges. In doing so he had to admit his dollar and total peso deposits and explained where they came from. Then he also engaged in personal attacks against the instigators of the impeachment case and the witnesses against him, tearfully narrating the sufferings and ordeals he and his family had undergone which would not prove his innocence of the charges particularly Article II. The Senator-judges obviously thought these were part of a tactic to win public sympathy and sway their votes in his favor so they were turned off or did not buy such tactic especially when he walked out of the impeachment courtroom.

But more baffling and highly mysterious here up to now is why the defense called on the Ombudsman as their hostile witness to testify on Corona’s dollar deposits. Undoubtedly such a move all the more helped the prosecution in proving Article II of the impeachment complaint. In fact, Enrile confirmed in a recent interview that this move and the Ombudsman’s powerpoint presentation are among the reasons that firmed up his “guilty” vote. Corona may have shown by a counter powerpoint presentation that the Ombudsman’s figures are exaggerated and that the Ombudsman is a tool of Malacanang, but in the process he also admitted the existence of his dollar deposits although at a much smaller amount. The move indeed backfired.

By and large therefore the guilty verdict rendered by the 20 senator-judges does not amount to grave abuse of discretion because they have sound and convincing factual and legal bases for rejecting Corona’s explanation on his omission to fully disclose his dollar and peso deposits in his SALN. As usual, the most lucid explanation here comes from the Presiding Judge Enrile who headed the bloc of six Senators that turned out to be the swing votes. Enrile said that Corona cannot use the absolute confidentiality of dollar deposits as an excuse for not declaring them in his SALN because that provision is applicable and can be used only by the bank where the dollars are deposited and not by the depositors. Then he said that even if his peso deposits consist of co-mingled funds, he must still reflect the total amount and just list down the amount of the funds belonging to other persons as his liabilities.

It can also be said that the guilty verdict of the 20 Senator-judges is politically correct. Most of them arrived at such a decision having in mind the case cited by the prosecution about a court interpreter from Davao who was dismissed by the Supreme Court itself for failure to declare in her SALN a market stall she owned. In said case the SC justified the dismissal of the lowly court employee because “no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary”. The 20 senator-judges thought that if such strict moral standards were exacted from a mere court employee warranting her dismissal from the service for failure to disclose in her SALN a market stall she owned, with more reason should such standards be applied to the head of the judiciary himself who failed to declare millions of dollars and pesos in his SALN. Such stance has a lot of appeal indeed as it repudiated the use of double standard of justice and even turned out to be some sort of poetic justice to that lowly court employee dismissed by the Supreme Court for committing the same omission committed by its Chief Justice.

The prosecution must realize however that the guilty verdict here is not at all due to their competent and capable handling of the case. Indeed no less than the Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile expressed his painful dilemma in favoring the prosecution which had rashly filed the case and started gathering evidence from dubious and anonymous sources only after filing it. He also deplored the airing of their own conclusions of facts before the media while the case was still being heard by the impeachment court despite his admonition to all parties not to engage in trial by publicity because it would be in violation of the sub-judice rule and of respondent’s right to due process. The prosecution should not therefore grab credit for their victory. They should even thank Corona for it.

But even if he has been kicked out, Corona should console himself with the thought that he has set new standards in public service. His unconditional waiver of the secrecy of his bank deposits should be emulated by all government officials from the President down — to promote more transparency and accountability. Furthermore this case should serve as a lesson to all public officials that the truth will always come out and shall prevail under any and all circumstances.

* * *

Email: [email protected]