On 30th trial day, bean counters reign

The defense began with a brazenly political witness, and then proceeded to show that Chief Justice Corona actually earned enough money to support his spending. Finally, they showed that, for each property missing from Corona’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), there is actually an explanation. The prosecution’s impulse was either to caricature the witness’ credibility, or ask which value—the acquisition cost (typically lower) or current market value (typically higher)—should have been declared.

The first defense witness was Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco who testified that the impeachment was railroaded to intimidate the Supreme Court. Several senators dismissed it as irrelevant, and held the issue to have been closed after the impeachment court ruled on Day 1 to accept the articles of impeachment. The Senate threw out the defense’s attempt to reopen the argument that, in their haste, the House of Representatives violated Corona’s right to due process. So why did the defense even bother? The only explanation is political, to send the message that behind all the “legal gobbledygook” is nothing but brazen political power play.

The Senate also accepted evidence on the Coronas’ peso bank accounts, frustrating the defense’s last-ditch effort to suppress evidence. However, the Senate maintained one of its earliest rulings that poses the central challenge to the prosecution: the Senate will not allow any evidence on ill-gotten wealth because that wasn’t charged in the articles of impeachment. The prosecution is limited to proving only the SALN discrepancies, which is what all their other witnesses last week sought to do.

The defense next presented the Supreme Court’s chief disbursement officer, who testified that Corona received over P21 million in salaries and benefits since 2002. She disputed Bureau of Internal Revenue chief Kim Henares who said that the high court failed to submit its “alpha list” on withheld taxes from 2002 to 2005, and actually produced those lists. The best that the prosecution could muster was to ask whether the hefty allowances had actually been used for their designated purposes. But there was no way to confirm this since it was standard practice that no liquidation (submission of supporting receipts) was needed for these allowances.

Senators Antonio Trillanes IV and Allan Peter Cayetano rightly asked how her testimony can be relevant, since the defense seemed to be reopening the charge on ill-gotten wealth which was already disallowed by the Senate. The defense replied that Bayuga’s numbers would tend to prove the correctness of Corona’s SALNs.

In addition, two witnesses from the House and the Senate electoral tribunals testified that the CJ earned an additional P5 million. Under the Constitution, each chamber of Congress has an electoral tribunal to decide all election protests. Each tribunal consists of 9 members, 6 seats for each respective house, and 3 seats from the Supreme Court, the most senior of whom automatically sits as chair. At one time or another, Corona chaired each of these electoral tribunals.

The defense explained why Corona omitted seven Marikina properties from his SALN. The 70-year-old Demetrio Vicente, a second cousin of Cristina Corona, the Chief Justice’s wife, testified that he bought those properties from Cristina Corona way back in July 1990, but simply hasn’t completed the transfer of title because he ran out of funds. The prosecution first line of attack was incredulity—as in, really, after 21 years? The next was to impugn the notarization of the document, apparently signed by a Quezon City notary for a transaction done in Makati. The third was to show real estate tax payments until recently, that showed both his name and that of Mrs. Corona.

The defense next explained why Corona omitted the P6.1-million McKinley Hill condominium from his SALN. The Taguig City assessor said that it had already been transferred to Corona’s daughter, Charina. Moreover, the assessor testified that the Chief Justice had accurately declared the assessed value of his P1.4-million condominium at Bonifacio Ridge and his P3.4-million unit at the Bellagio Tower.

Similarly, the Quezon City assessor explained that another Corona property, in the La Vista subdivision, has likewise been transferred to another daughter, Ma. Carla. The Quezon City assessor further explained that Corona’s SALN accurately stated the fair market value of P921,000 and assessed value of P276,000 of Corona’s Burgundy Plaza unit along Katipunan. Finally, he presented tax declarations for Corona’s properties in Xavierville Subdivision and Ayala Heights.

Bogus transfers?

In the future, the prosecution is expected to rebut Corona’s evidence by showing that all the purported transfers of the properties were bogus, either by showing that the Corona children couldn’t have afforded to buy those properties or that they performed acts of ownership even after the simulated sale.

The prosecution also has to confront the question of law: Should Corona have declared the fair market value of his properties? Or was it enough that he declared the acquisition cost? If the SALN is meant to deter ill-gotten wealth, it is the acquisition cost that is relevant. The law says that property is presumed to be “ill-gotten” if it is manifestly out of proportion to a person’s legal income. For that purpose, we ask: How much did he get it for? Could he have afforded it on his salary? If property values have escalated since, that wouldn’t make it ill-gotten.

However, if the SALN aims for larger purposes, e.g. to monitor how much of the official’s wealth comes from compensation and how much from other wealth, then the current fair market value becomes relevant.

Down to SALNs

The impeachment trial began as grand debate about how the Supreme Court shamelessly flexed its muscle to ram through a midnight appointment and to protect former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the long arm of the law. It is pathetic that, as of the 30th trial day, we are down to the issue of whether the SALNs are complete and correct.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. If the starting point is that impeachment is a political mechanism to make the Supreme Court account before the sovereign people, should we be surprised at all that it is the popular issue (e.g. purloined wealth) that should be more prominent than the juristic issues (e.g. separation of powers)? We thought we could be Don Quixotes then soon realized we were at best Sancho Panzas.