Tangled web

What is the weary observer to make of the testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales at the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona but that it appears to clinch the claim that he is holding questionable assets and is unfit to stay on at his post? Morales’ statement, made under oath, that the Chief Justice had kept more than $12 million in 82 dollar accounts for a period of about eight years is startling for the range of the shadowy fortune that a temporary restraining order, issued by his colleagues in the Supreme Court, had effectively prevented early on from being examined. It now appears that beyond the protection extended by the law on foreign currency accounts—a legality that should have been waived given the sui generis power of the Senate to tackle all matters related to impeachment cases—Corona had every reason to hide the accounts from public knowledge through his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, in violation of the Constitution and in betrayal of public trust.

The defense is taking a two-pronged tack in questioning Morales’ testimony—her supposed lack of jurisdiction over Corona in conducting an antigraft investigation and a purported government conspiracy to remove him from his post. Morales has made short shrift of the first, citing her mandate to investigate the Chief Justice as stated in Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act. As for the second, a cursory look at the formidable record of the former associate justice of the high court would make it difficult for anyone to suspect her of anything less than high-minded independence, which is more than can be said of, say, the accused at this impeachment trial, or even her predecessor at the Office of the Ombudsman. In simple terms, it’s a question of who is credible—and it’s not Corona despite his repeated denials of wrongdoing and his latest retort that Morales’ testimony was “very malicious,” “ridiculous,” and “a lantern of lies.”

These are mere words, in the same way that the Chief Justice’s statement that, for example, his family does not own properties in the United States, was easily shown to be mere words. In stark contrast, the Ombudsman’s testimony is backed by figures in documents provided by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), to show an unwieldy fortune spread out in various banks that started from a lone dollar account in 2003, Corona’s first year as associate justice of the high court. Intriguing are these accounts because of, among others, “circuitous fund movements” (such as funds drawn from one account and distributed to three others); deposits and withdrawals made on the same day; and “significant movements on significant dates” (such as during the 2004 and 2007 election periods and in the week in December 2011 that the Chief Justice was impeached). Per the analysis of the Commission on Audit, the fund inflows into the accounts reached as much as $28.7 million in the past eight years. What in blazes is, and has been, going on? Where is the money coming from?

That the senators, as much as the public represented by the people present in the gallery, wished to be apprised of the Ombudsman’s findings, courtesy of the AMLC, was announced to the nation by their show of hands approving her PowerPoint presentation. The unanimous vote appeared to be a lesson learned from Joseph Estrada’s impeachment trial, the abrupt end of which was triggered by his allies’ winning the vote against the opening of a second envelope that was then thought to contain vital information (a move that ultimately proved fatal to the political fortunes of both the accused and the senators who voted “nay”). Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s contention that the relevancy of the evidence that the Ombudsman was seeking to present makes it admissible in court displayed the senator’s legal savvy that—there’s the pity—is often eclipsed by a compulsion to exhibit strange behavior.

The Chief Justice has declared that he would rebut the Ombudsman’s testimony and “debunk all her bloated numbers.” For the sake of the lofty position that he holds and in fulfillment of a longstanding promise to explain himself, of course he should. Recall that the TRO earlier issued by the high court covered only five dollar accounts in PSBank. But Morales actually asked him early this month to explain the “information” that there are a number of dollar accounts in his name in certain other banks, and gave him 72 hours to do so—to no avail. Now the figures are out in the open. How will he disprove them?

“Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive!”