Credible explanation

I am not pro-Corona, I just want to be fair. It seems to me that from the start, there was no genuine verification of the articles of impeachment. How could the esteemed 188 House members have read and understood the charges when they had already voted for impeachment while the corresponding document was still being printed?

On the unreported bank accounts, I think Chief Justice Renato Corona gave a credible explanation. The compounding effect of interest has an awesome impact on earnings, especially if carried on for some 40-50 years, as in his case. Any finance student worth his salt will tell you this. And the Chief Justice was willing to have the bankers concerned called in to explain. It was the impeachment court that did not want to do so, because of the so-called deadline. Why is the deadline so important that vital witnesses cannot be presented to show whether or not the Chief Justice was telling the truth, on which he would be judged? Substance should prevail over form.

On the omission of the dollar and some peso accounts in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), the Chief Justice has a point. If he really wanted to hide these assets, why would he put them in his own name? That is a point hard to put down. Also, there is no settled jurisprudence on this, on whether these accounts should be included in the SALN. If he chose to interpret it one way, then whether or not his interpretation is correct should be settled by the Supreme Court, not the impeachment court, since it is the former that has the duty to interpret laws in our country. Methinks it behooves Congress to amend the law, to make it crystal clear to avoid conflicting interpretations.

But I agree with Sen. Franklin Drilon: Corona should have followed standard accounting practice and put in all his peso assets (at least), less all liabilities, to arrive at the net worth. That is why the document is called “Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth,” in the first place. And I am sure the Chief Justice hired a professional accountant to do his SALNs, so he must have been advised accordingly on this.

Methinks also that Corona’s challenge for the 189 lawmakers to waive the confidentiality of their dollar accounts should be accepted. But not only by them but by all elected officials as well. This will be a great step to promote transparency in our country. And if P-Noy is really for the country more than he is against Corona, he should support the Chief Justice on this, and certify a bill to this effect as urgent. In one fell swoop, this bill, if signed by P-Noy into law, will greatly reduce the opportunities of corruption in our country.

Lastly, it is not seemly for the President to make comments in favor and against Corona while the trial is in progress. Not only is he violating the “sub judice” rule, he sets an example for all others to follow. By thrashing the Chief Justice in public while the charges are not yet proven, P-Noy demeans the presidency and his person. What happened to the so-called courtesy between the coequal pillars of our democracy?

—SAMUEL YAP, [email protected]