Lethal filial ties

Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dramatic appearance at his impeachment trial on Tuesday trained the spotlight on the feud raging in his wife’s family, which he portrayed as a battle over inheritance caused by jealousy and greed. It’s an impressive tale that would put “Dallas” to shame. But if Corona felt his defense had put to rest all issues against him in connection with his impeachment, he’s wrong.

The family feud of the Basas, in which the Chief Justice’s wife, Cristina, figures heavily, is inextricably linked with him and questions on his probity and integrity. Specifically, the matter is linked with the truthfulness of his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. He had reported as a liability in his 2003 and 2004 SALNs P11 million in cash advance from Basa-Guidote Enterprise Inc. (BGEI), the company established in 1961 by his wife’s family. In addition, he allegedly withdrew P32.6 million from his time deposit accounts in Philippine Savings Bank on Dec. 12, 2011, the same day the House of Representatives impeached him. The prosecution has noted that he did not declare the deposits in his SALNs, but the defense has argued that the money did not belong to him because it came from the proceeds of the sale of a BGEI property to the City of Manila.

Corona basically claimed that questions on his SALNs arose because of the Basa family feud over inheritance, which he described as “so grave … so deep.” He said the conflict began when Jose Maria Basa III, his wife’s uncle, claimed sole ownership of a two-hectare property in Libis, Quezon City, leaving out Asuncion Basa-Roco, his wife’s mother. “My mother-in-law’s share just went missing,” he said. The purported trickery, he said, triggered the “bitter feud” within the family, thus the pending court cases between the warring members.

When Basa charged Cristina with estafa and took out a newspaper ad telling BGEI tenants not to give her their rent payments, she sued him for libel. She won the case and the court ordered the garnishment of Basa’s shares in BGEI as damage. In 2002, the Chief Justice’s daughter Carla purchased at an auction BGEI shares owned by Basa and his wife Raymunda for only P28,000. On Tuesday, the Chief Justice read his daughter’s statement in which she said her uncle was claiming ownership of 4,860 shares, apparently because “he claimed to have bought and paid off the shares of other stockholders, that is, his siblings—Mario Basa, the late Sister Concepcion, and Sister Flor Basa.”

In reality, the daughter said, the shares up for purchase were only 220 shares representing the combined shares of Basa and his wife. At P100 per share, these were worth P22,000. She added she was willing to sink in only P50,000 maximum because BGEI was an “uncertain corporation” in view of the legal squabbles among the heirs.

But the Chief Justice did not explain how Cristina and her immediate family had been able to take over BGEI and ease out her uncles and aunts, including 90-year-old Franciscan nun Flor Basa. It is also suspicious how Basa’s shares seemed to have been offered to Carla on a silver platter, without Basa’s children given the opportunity to bid for them.  Exactly because of the infighting in the family corporation, which Carla cited to explain the ridiculously low bid she had offered to buy the shares, the other claimants should have been invited to buy them so that they could invest in a losing proposition, the better to spread the risk. But Basa’s children seemed to have been kept out of the bidding.

Moreover, despite portraying the troubles revolving around questionable entries in his SALNs as mainly caused by the fight over inheritance by his wife’s family, Corona seemed oblivious of the fact that he had contributed to its nasty polarization. Surely, since he heads the judiciary, his own personal life should reflect a certain balance and fairness, his family and other relations evincing calm and tranquility. But he himself admitted that whatever questionable wealth he has is all because of the public perception of the fabulous riches of his in-laws, which, he added, were the subject of bitter legal wrangling.

All of this should indicate the tumultuously litigious situation he’s in, which does not inspire public confidence. At the least, the public has cause to worry how a head magistrate whose own family is embroiled in a host of legal suits could possibly act consistently with proper legal comportment, particularly when confronted with suits involving his wife’s messy business interests.