One, but of course the prosecution submitted the list of 45 houses apparently belonging to Renato Corona to the media. Jinggoy Estrada is right about that. It was Niel Tupas and company who brought it to the attention of reporters in a press conference. It wasn’t solicited, it was gratuitous.
All of which shows what’s dangerous, as several senators have repeatedly berated the prosecution for, about the prosecution jumping the gun and presenting evidence to the public before the court. I don’t mind that the prosecution explains the evidence it has already presented to the court to the media. Not everyone can follow the proceedings with care or be steeped in law or taxation to appreciate the nuances, legal or otherwise, of certain documents. But I do mind that the prosecution tries to bolster its case by presenting evidence to the public before the court. Whether or not the prosecution’s claim of Corona owning 45 houses is true is beside the point. This is not a case of a group making an ordinary exposé, this is a case of the prosecution making an exposé in connection with a trial. The liberalism an impeachment court may extend to the parties in it may not extend to it.
It’s another matter if media solicit the information, as reporters are wont to do. Or indeed if media make their own exposés based on their own research. The public can always take their statements as open to challenge, not as juridical truths that carry sanctions. Even then, you would hope the prosecution would be more guarded or circumspect in their answers. “We hope to show that the Chief Justice has far more houses and condo units than he declared in his SALN.” It’s not only for self-protection—the prosecution could have avoided this mess if it had practiced it—it’s also for fairness. How you do things is just as important as whether you get to do them or not.
Two, the defense is all over the prosecution for backtracking on its original proposition that Corona owned 45 houses and condo units and suggesting now that the number is probably just a little over half of that. That can only mean, the defense says, that the prosecution, and by extension the administration, was hasty about impeaching the Chief Justice.
Not at all. The prosecutors’ claim of 45 houses is a reason only to believe that they exaggerated, it is not a reason to disbelieve Corona lied. So what if it’s 24 rather than 45? That makes it acceptable? Corona declared only five houses and condo units, and grossly undervalued them to go by the Bellagio unit. Six houses alone are one house too many. If the prosecution can simply show a sixth house, it will have proven Corona falsified his SALN. It will have proven he is not fit to remain Chief Justice.
That brings me to a most crucial point, one that needs resolving before the trial goes any further. That is the question of how much you need to convict Corona or find him fit to continue serving as Chief Justice. The way it stands now, two presumptions are holding sway. One is that in order to convict Corona, he has to be found guilty of a high crime, defined as treason, betrayal of public trust, pillage. Two is that the prosecution has to prove all the articles of impeachment, or as in the case of Corona’s properties, all the 45 houses/condo units the prosecution originally proposed. Unless these are challenged, it will be the easiest thing in the world for those who vote to exonerate Corona to argue that the prosecution never proved he committed a high crime and/or only proved some but not all of its articles of impeachment.
I know most of the senators are likely to vote on political grounds and not on the strength of the arguments anyway. But unless these presumptions are junked, they will give the senators who mean to vote in favor of Corona all the justifications they need.
My own position is no to both presumptions. No, you do not need to prove that the Chief Justice committed a “high crime” to remove him. Proving him a petty thief is enough to do so. A Chief Justice who is a petty thief is less fit to be a Chief Justice than one who is a pillager. It insults the position, apart from injures it. Alternatively, as this suggests, it is to regard as high crime the lowest crime committed by a Chief Justice. An ordinary taxpayer falsifies his SALN, that is a small crime and we leave it to the BIR to hound him. A Chief Justice falsifies his SALN, that is a high crime and we leave it to ourselves to fire him.
At that there is nothing petty in falsifying SALN involving millions.
Otherwise, we would be reduced to the idiotic position of saying the highest officials of the land may remain in office even after they have been found guilty of sexual harassment because they did not really rape, after they have been found to participate in a kidnapping because they did not really mastermind it, after being found to have pocketed P10 million because they did not pocket P100 million.
Just as well, no, the prosecution does not need to prove all its articles of impeachment to remove the Chief Justice. One should be enough. A Chief Justice who reports only five houses among 24 should be enough. A Chief Justice who refuses to report the acquisition cost of a condo unit, submitting instead a valuation less than half its price, should be enough. Public office is a public trust. High public office is a high public trust. A Chief Justice who does these things has no reason to be there.
Three, why in God’s name must legal language be so resolutely opposed to the everyday one? That is one of the things that are holding back the proceedings. The point was driven home to me at a dinner with friends when someone said, “Will you please pass the rice to this representation?” Has the word “I” or “me” been banished from the Senate?
No wonder Lito Lapid doesn’t want to talk.