No excuse

Some initial news reports on last Tuesday’s indictment of Renato Corona and his wife Cristina played up the irony angle, noting that despite the latest revelations about the supposed “flaws” in the impeachment trial of the then chief justice in 2012, the Ombudsman still found probable cause to charge the spouses with eight counts of perjury and eight counts of misdeclaration of assets, and to initiate forfeiture proceedings.

But have we already forgotten what actually transpired at the impeachment trial? The self-serving revelations of Senators Jinggoy Estrada (alleged bribery) and Bong Revilla (alleged presidential intervention) should not blind us to the main evidence unearthed at the trial: Corona had lied about his assets, repeatedly and on a massive scale.

The filing of the charges against the spouses is therefore not ironic, or somehow quizzical, but entirely necessary; it follows, rigorously, from the logic of Corona’s impeachment and conviction.

When the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, found Corona guilty of having “committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution” (the text of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, the only one on which the senators voted), the senators based their individual votes largely or partly on the evidence that Corona had hidden as much as 90 percent or even more of his personal fortune.

The conviction resulted in Corona’s removal from office. It took almost two years, but the Ombudsman has now completed the next step: using the evidence presented at the impeachment court to file the appropriate charges against Corona.

Based on the determination that Corona and his wife earned about P30 million between 2001 and 2011, but had unexplained and unreported wealth of at least P130 million, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved the resolution of a special panel of investigators recommending the filing of perjury and misdeclaration charges against Corona and his wife and the initiation of forfeiture proceedings.

In response, Corona criticized the Ombudsman as personally hostile to him, the charges as politically motivated, and the impeachment trial itself as tainted by Malacañang-released funds.

“This development, unfortunate as it is, is something we have been expecting all along. What fairness could we have expected from an Ombudsman who viciously prevaricated and testified against me as a malicious witness during my sham and multibillion-peso bribe-laden impeachment trial in 2012?”

“This merciless persecution is but a replay of that PDAF—and DAP—facilitated impeachment proceeding against me and my family,” Corona also said, referring to rumors about the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund and to Estrada’s allegations that the Disbursement Acceleration Program had rewarded those senators who voted to convict. And then he added: “Malacañang and its attack dogs were not content with removing me from office. They have been filing all sorts of baseless and contrived cases against me and members of my family. I will fight this persecution to the very end, knowing that truth is on my side.”

But in fact removing him from office is only the terminus of the impeachment process. Justice requires that the evidence discovered and presented during the trial should lead to the filing of the appropriate criminal or civil cases against the official impeached and convicted. Corona makes it sound as if the government had a choice, to let him enjoy his postcourt life in peace now that his removal from office had been effected. But that is mere political expediency; the logic of his impeachment and conviction requires that the cases be filed.

A member of the House prosecution panel famously and fatefully characterized Corona’s shambling defense as “palusot,” street talk for made-up excuses. The filing of the charges against Corona this week was nothing less than the Ombudsman’s bounden duty: She had no excuse not to do it.