Is it unreasonable to conclude from the latest statements made by Chief Justice Renato Corona, this time concerning supposed family assets in the United States, that he appears to be dissembling? Is it not puzzling that one day he speaks of mere apartments rented by his two daughters and the next day he discloses that a house was actually purchased by one of them on a 30-year installment scheme? Was that disclosure an afterthought, issued to correct an initial hasty denial that seemed headed for equally swift overturning?
Corona’s statements in reaction to the information on the supposed family properties offered by reporter Raissa Robles in her blog and in a television interview make him look, at best, questionable and bereft of the dignity expected of him by virtue of the lofty post that he occupies. His text message to reporters on March 25—“[The reports] are not true 101 percent. We have no property in the US.”—was as categorical as they come and effectively portrayed Robles as a liar. What is the flabbergasted observer to make of his statement on March 26 that his daughter, Maria Charina, had indeed bought a house in Roseville, California, “dirt cheap at the height of the mortgage foreclosures in the US”? Is it unreasonable to think that he should have mentioned it in the earlier process of explaining that the properties cited by Robles as these supposedly appear in US public records—one in Tampa, Florida, and another in Mountain View, California—were his family’s “temporary mailing addresses” whenever any member visited the United States?
More than ever, the call for the Chief Justice to take the witness stand when his impeachment trial resumes in May acquires resonance. It is now extremely urgent for him to squarely address the case that has dragged on for more than two months, to defend himself in his own words, and to ultimately straighten out accusations and claims on the properties he had supposedly excluded from and/or undervalued in his sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, in violation of the Constitution and in betrayal of the public trust. Damning details are coming out of the woodwork, as it were; it has yet to be definitively denied by Corona if his daughter actually purchased the California house 22 days before buying a multimillion-peso condominium in posh McKinley Hill in Taguig City (suggesting that the physical therapist was truly awash in cash). Given the strange manner with which Corona issued a vigorous denial and then a quick clarification, his and his wife’s insistence, as well as that of his lawyers, that the California property is owned by their daughter and not by them can hardly be expected to hold. And even if the Senate impeachment court will not accept evidence on this latest revelation, complete with pictures in living color, the suspicion that the Chief Justice owns more than he has been declaring in his SALNs gets stronger by the day.
Addressing employees of the Supreme Court in a Monday-morning flag ceremony on Dec. 12, 2011, hours before he was impeached by the House of Representatives, Corona claimed that the move to oust him was the doing of the tribunal’s “enemies” who were actually targeting the entire judicial branch of the government. “Your Chief Justice continues to be in command and will lead the fight against any and all who dare to destroy the court and the independence of the judiciary,” he said. But three months later, the tribunal is tarnished by the words and actions of its top magistrate who, against all reason, has adamantly refused to take a leave of absence while being tried by the Senate impeachment court. “This is our path, the only path to a principled life. By continuing with uninterrupted dedication to our work, we will prove all our critics and detractors wrong,” Corona told the employees of the high court. Did not his better angels weep when, in the course of his trial, his undeclared dollar deposits came to light but was (and continues to be) protected from the senator-judges’ scrutiny by a temporary restraining order issued by the same tribunal over which, being sui generis, the impeachment court should have taken precedence?
Last Monday, the Chief Justice called on Philippine Law School graduates to stand with him in defending the Supreme Court from the purported attacks of the executive branch. It’s a familiar and increasingly galling refrain from a man whose dissembling tack has been to equate himself with the high court and the judiciary.