CJ’s opening statement was a privilege speech

Chief Justice Renato Corona’s “opening statement” in his testimony last May 22 turned out to be a privilege speech that should not have been allowed by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. Worse, Enrile accepted it as the direct examination. This is patently against Section 34 of the Rules of Court which provides: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Section 35, Rule 132 provides: As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

The theory that the Chief Justice’s failure to include his dollar deposits in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) does not constitute an impeachable offense is fractured. Chief Justice Corona is accused of, among others, betrayal of public trust, which is an impeachable offense.  Republic Acts 3019 and 6713 invariably require every public officer to truthfully declare under oath in his yearly SALN all his assets and liabilities (whether peso or dollar). In failing to disclose his dollar deposits in his SALN, the highest magistrate of our land violated both RA 3019 and RA 6713. Doesn’t this violation of a law which he has sworn to obey not constitute betrayal of public trust? The defense failed to make any offer of Corona’s testimony or specify the purpose of his testimony when he was called to testify.

His statement, which cannot even be treated as direct testimony as it was given not on a question-and-answer format, cannot be considered by the impeachment court as evidence. Parenthetically, in his statement, Corona dwelt on matters not of his own personal knowledge and on irrelevant matters, and the prosecution was unjustly deprived of any opportunity to object because no question was propounded by his defense counsel.

At one point, Corona read into the record a letter purportedly written by his daughter, but the prosecution could not even object thereto for being hearsay because the question-and-answer method of examining the witness was not followed.

Corona’s statement that he has only four or five bank accounts was not supported by any document or record from the various banks. Hence, it was nothing more than his mere say-so, without any evidentiary support. That cannot overcome the Anti-Money Laundering Council report, which is a public document as testified to by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales. Significantly, he did not even state how much dollar deposits he had on such accounts. Corona did not follow through his vaunted promise that he would disclose his dollar deposits with PSBank (the existence of which were admitted by the PSBank president).

—NES M. PLACER,

former president, National Prosecution Service,

[email protected]