Suddenly, the defense team is portraying Chief Justice Renato Corona as the champion of transparency just because he issued an unconditional waiver allowing the disclosure of his dollar and peso bank accounts. “We should praise him for that. Other public officials should follow his example,” the defense said.
On the contrary, he was the champion of secrecy until he was cornered in the last few days of his impeachment trial. The Supreme Court had exempted its members from disclosing their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) that other public officials have to do under the law. The Senate impeachment court, the prosecution and the public had challenged him to disclose all his assets, but he stubbornly refused. He was forced to sign a waiver only as a form of damage control when he angered the senators by walking out of the trial after delivering a three-hour long “opening statement” (that was the longest opening statement on record anywhere in the world) as a witness in his own defense during his first appearance at the trial. Yet, he muffed that one, too, when he imposed a condition that all 188 members of the House of Representatives who signed the impeachment complaint against him and Sen. Franklin Drilon also sign the waiver. That angered the senators even further and they were ready to vote him out of the Supreme Court if he did not return to the Senate to be cross-examined.
After feigning sickness and hiding in a hospital, Corona returned in an ambulance and a wheelchair, still pretending to be the persecuted victim of the administration’s “vindictiveness.” He surrendered an unconditional waiver to his bank accounts only as a form of damage control because the angry senators were on the verge of voting for his conviction. In short, contrary to what the defense panel is claiming, he signed that waiver only because he was forced to (to save himself) and not because he is a champion of transparency.
The prosecution and defense panels will sum up their arguments before the Senate impeachment court today (Monday) after which the senator-judges will vote to either convict or acquit Corona.
The prosecution says the evidence and witnesses it has presented are enough to convict Corona for culpable violation of the Constitution; the defense claims Corona’s testimony (or long-winded speech) explained satisfactorily why he did not declare in his SALNs all his assets as required by law. (He claimed he did not declare his $2.4-million deposits because the Foreign Currency Deposits Act [FCDA] provides that deposits in foreign currency are absolutely confidential and that he did not include his P80-million deposits in his SALN because they are not all his, as his own funds were “commingled” with those of other members of his family.
Not good enough. The SALN law provides no exception. When the law provides no exception, you should not make any. The SALN law was crafted by Congress as an aid to fight government corruption. By requiring all public officials to declare all their assets, liabilities and net worth, investigators would have a basis to compare assets, etc. before, during and after an official assumes public office. That would show whether or not the official acquired unexplained wealth while in office. Providing exceptions would defeat the very purpose of the SALN law.
The FCDA, which makes such deposits absolutely confidential, was passed by Congress during the years when the Philippines had foreign exchange controls and the country was short of foreign currency to conduct business because individuals and companies were stashing their dollars abroad to hide them from Philippine investigators.
That opened the floodgates of the Philippines to dirty money, money acquired by corrupt individuals and criminal syndicates like the Mafia and similar gangs, terrorists, drug syndicates and kidnapping syndicates, fallen dictators and other such groups. They were laundering their money in the Philippines because the FCDA protected them from the prying eyes of investigators.
That was the reason the Anti-Money Laundering Act was passed by Congress. The Philippines was beginning to have the reputation of being a haven for dirty money and other countries were looking at us with untrusting eyes.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) was created to go after money launderers to correct the bad image of the Philippines in the world. It was the AMLC that unlocked the dollar deposits of Corona.
The defense says Corona’s actual deposits were very much less than what the prosecution claims. But Corona is not being prosecuted for ill-gotten wealth. He is being prosecuted for not declaring all his assets in his SALNs. Corona himself admitted that he did not declare the $2.4 million and P80 million in his SALNs although he offered some feeble excuses.
The defense says that “error” is not an impeachable offense, and that even if Corona is found guilty, he should not be punished with removal from office but with something less, like an admonition or reprimand or suspension. But the punishment for impeachment is removal from office and nothing else. Either Corona is removed as chief justice or he is not.
The senators should not allow themselves to look like fools by falling for Corona’s efforts to court sympathy with his suddenly meek demeanor, apologizing to the senators and narrating very lengthily the alleged “sufferings and pain that his family suffered” during the five months of trial.
The senator-judges should not forget that what is at stake is Corona’s moral fitness. Is he still morally fit to be the chief magistrate of the land?