May 29 Senate Impeachment Court Record

7/31/2019 May 29 Senate Impeachment Court Record

1/40

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012, 1

AT 2:20 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.

CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Manny Villar.

Senator Villar.

Almighty Father,

In Psalm 58, You asked, Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly

among men?

Maraming salamat, Panginoon, sa Iyong mga salita. Higit naming kailangan ito

ngayon habang ginagampanan ang aming mga tungkulin bilang mga hukom sa paglilitis

na ito.

Salamat, Panginoon, sa makasaysayang araw na itinakda Ninyo upang tuldukan

ang paglilitis na ito. Ito ang katapusan, ngunit ito rin ang simula, simula ng panibagong

gawain para sa Inyong mga lingkod. Anuman ang hatol, tulungan Ninyong makausad

ang aming bansa na dala-dala ang bagong pag-asa na Inyong ipinangako. Tulungan

Po Ninyo kami sa aming tunay na gawain na matulungan ang mga walang trabaho, ang

mga nagugutom, ang mga maralita, at ang mga nangangarap. Basbasan Mo po kami

na sa pag-unlad ng aming demokrasya ay ang pag-usad rin ng aming ekonomiya.

Bahaginan Mo po kami ng Iyong karunungan at pang-unawa. Ikaw ang magsilbing

gabay at ilaw sa pagbuo ng aming desisyon.

Mangibabaw nawa ang respeto sa bawat isa. Mangibabaw nawa ang paggalang.

Mangibabaw nawa ang katarungan. At higit sa lahat, mangibabaw nawa ang tama.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Pasay City


2/40

2 TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012

Ipinapanalangin namin, O Diyos, na manaig ang mga testigong nagsasabi ng totoo.

Manaig ang mga testimonyang walang bahid ng kasinungalingan. At higit sa lahat,

manaig ang katotohanan sa lahat ng ito.

Give unto us the strength of discernment to choose what is right and honorable, as guided

by our conscience and steered by Your divine will. As You said finally, Consummatum est.

To God be the glory.

Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will please call the roll.

The Secretary, reading:

Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................ Present

Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... PresentSenator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present

Senator Franklin M. Drilon ............................................................... Present

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present

Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................ Present

Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ...................................................... Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ....................................................... Present

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ...................................................... Present

Senator Loren Legarda ..................................................................... Present

Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. ................................. Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmea III .......................................................... PresentSenator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... Present

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present

Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. .................................................... Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present

Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present

Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present

The President ..................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 23 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the

presence of a quorum.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while

the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.


3/40


The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 28, 2012

Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection?[Silence] There being none, the May 28, 2012

Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate acting and sitting as an Impeachment

Court.

The Clerk of Court. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice

Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or their respective Counsel to enter

their appearances.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. Senate President, and ladies and gentlemen of theSenate. On the part of the House of Representatives Prosecution Panel, same appearance. We are

ready, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. It is noted.

The Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are ready for the

scheduled promulgation of the decision of this case, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the Senate has met as an Impeachment Court for 44 trial days

starting January 16, 2012, to consider the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C.

Corona. The Court convenes today to conclude this trial by voting on the Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. President, pursuant to Article XI, Section 3, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Constitution, and Rule

XXI of theRules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, we are ready to vote on the articles.

The Presiding Officer. Before we proceed, the Chair would like to remind the Members of the

Court, the parties to this case and the public that on March 12, 2012, this Court ruled that no evidence

from both the Prosecution and the Defense will be received and no verdict will be rendered on Articles

I, IV, V, VI and VIII. In accordance with that earlier ruling, the votes will only be taken on Articles

II, III and VII.

The Clerk of Court will now read Article II.

The Clerk of Court. Article II. Respondent 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 Presiding Officer. The question is on the second article of impeachment. Senator-Judges in

this Impeachment Court, is the Respondent, Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,

guilty or not guilty?


4/40


The Clerk of Court will now call the roll and each Senator shall have timewe will not limit the

time. This is a historical event and each one of us must vote according to his conscience and explain

the reason for his vote. So, therefore, each Senator shall have as much time to explain his or her vote

in this case.

Proceed.

The Clerk of Court. The Honorable Senator-Judge Angara.

Senator Angara. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, distinguished brothers in the profession from the Prosecution

and Defense, ladies and gentlemen.

[Kung nalaman ko lamang dinala ko na iyong libro ko, Mr. President.]

Sa nakalipas na limang buwan, ang atensiyon ng sambayanan ay nakatuon sa impeachment

trial ni Chief JusticeCorona.Mula sa pagiging pribadong abogado, siya ay nanungkulan sa ilalim

ng dalawang Pangulo at nahirang bilang Pinakamataas na Mahistradoisang natatanging

tagumpay para sa isang abogadoang pinakamataas na posisyon sa isa sa tatlongmagkakapantay na sangay ng pamahalaan.

Ngunit napapaloob po dito ang isa pang istorya, ang kuwento ng isang pamilya na

pinagwatak-watak ng mapait na away tungkol sa pag-aari at pera. Tumagal ng tatlumpong-

taon ang away, nauwi sa demandahan, at humantong pa dito sa paglilitis natin.

Pera, kapangyarihan, away-pamilya, ito po ang ugat ng istoryang ito. Hindi ang lahat ng

ito ay matutugunan natin sa paglilitis na ito. Subalit hangad po namin, hangad ko po na sana

dito rin ay magkaroon ng hantungan o closure ang away-pamilya.

The question, Mr. President, is quite simple: Does the Chief Justices alleged failure to disclose a

true and complete statement of assets, as mandated by the Constitution, constitute a culpable violation

of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust?

The Constitution and our statutes oblige every public official to make and submitand I quote: a

complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth or SALN in order to suppress any

questionable accumulation of wealth. This obligatory constitutional rule seeks to eradicate corruption,

promote transparency in government, and maintain a standard of honesty in public service.

The Prosecution and the Defense, combined as one in producing proof that the Chief Justice has

bank accounts that he did not declare in his SALN and removing any iota of doubt about this vital fact

was the Chief Justice himself coming here to testify openly and openly admit that, in fact, he did have

four (4) US dollar accounts totaling $2,400,000 and three (3) peso accounts of P80,700,000.

I may grant the Chief Justices plea of honest mistake of judgment. But given his broad experience

in public law and practice in investment advisory services, his willful and deliberate omission, together

with the magnitude of the amounts involved, amounts to culpable violation.

Yesterday, you were asking: What is the root meaning of culpable? Mr. President, I just looked

up this morning what is the dictionary meaning of culpable. It means simply a failure meriting

condemnation.

The Chief Justice justified his willful failure to disclose his US dollar accounts on the so-called

absolute confidentiality provision of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. However, it seems clear to me,


5/40


that the mantle of protection is extended to foreign depositors, to foreign savers in the spirit of

promoting foreign investments. The law was never, never intended to be a convenient excuse for

Filipinos, especially for Filipino public servants, to conceal their assets.

When the accounts were disclosed by no less than the Chief Justice, this left this Court no restraint,

no constraint, no prohibition against admitting the evidence and weighing it on the scales of justice.

The Defense argues that the Ombudsman illegally obtained documents on the Chief Justices banktransactions because there was no pending case involving the subject bank accounts or any court order

authorizing the production of such records.

Mr. President, this argument overlooks one important fact. It fails to consider that the documents

produced by the Ombudsman were official records of the AMLC which it receives from covered

institutions pursuant to law. The Ombudsman has the power and authority to obtain these records from

the AMLC pursuant to the Constitution and the Chief Justices own written waiver on his SALN.

On the whole, the Defenses main objection does not sound acceptable. It rings hollow to me since

the Chief Justice himself admitted to the existence of the accounts and more than that the amounts they

held, not to mention the fact that information on these were provided by witnesses presented by theDefense panel themselves.

The Supreme Court no less has said, No position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness

and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. As the head of the Judiciary, a standard

far higher is placed on Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

This impeachment breaks new ground. This Senate, sitting as judges, adopts its own rules and

makes its own decision within the bounds of the rule of law. It can initiate new doctrines, it can pass

new precedents. Its pronouncement is the final word.

It seems unnecessary for me to dwell further on the P80.7 million account of the Chief Justice

which, he said, is a commingled fund, commingled with the funds of his children and the Basa-Guidotefamily. But this fund could very well provide the seed of reconciliation for the two feuding branches

of the family.

For this reason, Mr. President, I find the Respondent Guilty.

The Presiding Officer. The Secretary.

The Clerk of Court. The Honorable Senator-Judge Arroyo.

Senator Arroyo. I will not discuss what both the Prosecution and the Defense had already argued

in the closing arguments.

Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, impeachment is a political process, not a political assassination.An impeachment aspires to be a judicial proceeding that makes imperative that it stick to judicial rules.

An impeachment must ever uphold the due process that no citizen, high or low, can be denied. That

is why we wear judicial robes as you see them, to listen, to ponder, and decide like judges according

to law.

What started in the House was not an impeachment, for an impeachment is an accusation

accompanied by necessary formalities, attended by the appropriate solemnities, flanked by the liberties

and guarantees that a genuine grand jury proceeding upholds.

The purpose is to arrive at a sound finding of probable cause, sufficient to lodge a valid complaint

charging real offenses before the appropriate tribunal.


6/40


The Senate is being asked to remove the Chief Justice from office all because he submitted an

allegedly erroneous SALN.

The Senate trial could be as close to a criminal proceeding in a court of law as non-lawyers can

approximate thus far, as all the great authorities agreed. What has happened is the passage of that to

which the Senate President once warnedthat we were veering close to a bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder is a law passed by one house and approved by the other creating an offensewhere there was none, inventing a crime out of actions, willful or not, that were innocent when they

were performed. It is a legislative act of convicting an accused of acts that were not offenses in the

very measure by which he is condemned through a vote instead of a trial on the basis of accusations

taken as proof.

I cannot imagine removing a Chief Justice on account of a SALN.

Today, we are one step from violating the Constitution and passing a bill of attainder. No one

can stop us if we do not stop ourselves. This is not justice, political or legal. This is certainly not

law. For sure, this is certainly not the law and the Constitution; this is only naked power as it was

in 1972.

I have not thought that I would see it again so brazenly performed, but for whatever it is worth,

I cast my vote, if not for innocence falsely accused of offenses yet to exist and if not for the law and

the Constitution that we were privileged to restore under Cory Aquino then because it is dangerous not

to do what is right when soon we shall stand before the Lord.

I vote to Acquit. Thank you.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Senator-Judge Alan Peter Compaero Cayetano.

Senator Cayetano (A). You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to

the poor or show preference for the mighty; but in the righteousness and according to the merits of thecase, judge your neighbor. Leviticus 19:15.

Why do we complicate the simple? Di ba simple lang naman ang issue? Sino ba ang nagsasabi

ng katotohanan? Ano ba ang katotohanan base sa ebidensiyang naibigay dito sa Korteng ito?

Ano ba ang katotohanan?

Almost 10 years ago, nasa Amerika po kami at nagpapagamot po ang aking ama. Hindi pa

namin alam at that time na may kanser na pala po siya sa tiyan. Dahil gabi-gabi naman po siyang

umiiyak sa sakitaround two oclockin the morning, tinanong ko siya, Dad, anong masakit?

Nagulat po ako sa sagot niya dahil sabi niya, Alan, 40 years ago I studied here, I worked here

but I was determined to go back home. Forty years later, nandito na naman ako. Ang dami nang

umunlad na bansa, ganun pa rin tayo.

Nabasa ko sa kanyang mata ang simpleng katotohanan na iyong corruption at kahirapan ay

dinudurog ang espiritu ng isang nadudurog na ang katawan. Mas masakit pala iyon na iyong

espiritu at pag-asa ang nadudurog lalo kung para sa sariling bayan.

Gusto ko pong magbago ang ating bansa. Gusto ko po na makita na nakatawa rin ang

aking ama. Ngunit mayroon ding kanser ang ating lipunan, kanser na ang ibang batas at ang

ibang pamantayan o standards sa ating lipunan ay iba para sa mayaman at makapangyarihan

at iba para sa mahirap. Kanser ang corruption, kanser na para sa mga mayaman at

makapangyarihan na ang simple ay ginagawang kumplikado.


7/40


Dahil sa kanser na ito, ibat-iba ang interpretasyon ng batas para sa mayaman at mahirap.

Hindi ko po matanggap ang interpretasyon ng Pinakamataas na Hukom ng ating bansa na iyong

$2.4 million ay hindi kailangang ideklara sa SALN sa ilalim ng RA 6426. Hindi ko po puwedeng

matanggap na isang public official sa isang simpleng ploy o paraan na iku-convert niya ang

kaniyang pera sa dolyar ay puwede na niyang hindi ideklara sa SALN.

Kaya po ba nating tanggapin ang interpretasyon na kung ang $2.4 million po ninyo ay

ilalagay ninyo sa safety deposit box, ilalagay ninyo doon sa Kaha de yero ninyo doon sa opisina

o itatago ninyo sa baul sa bahay ay kailangan itong ideklara sa SALN, pero kapag idineposit

mo sa isang dollar account, hindi mo na kailangang i-deposit sa SALN?

Mukhang ginawa nating kumplikado ang simpleng-simple. Pesos, kahit may confidentiality,

kailangang ideklara. Pero pagdating po sa dollars, hindi kailangang ideklara? Pati ba naman

sa pera may diskriminasyon tayo? Pati ba naman sa sarili nating bansa, mangingibabaw pa ang

dollar sa peso?

When a public official especially a judge is faced with two possible interpretations of the law, one

which will give life to the spirit of the sovereign will of the people embodied in the Constitution, and

another that will protect only himself, it is his moral, human, constitutional duty to choose to protect theConstitution and not himself.

If a public official has a choice between harmonizing several laws with the Constitution, RA 6713,

6426, and the other choice is to make them repugnant with each other or hindi puwedeng

mapagsama, ano ang dapat niyang desisyon? Hindi ba simple? Lahat ng abogado alam iyon.

You construe it that you will harmonize all of these laws.

Ito po ang tanong ko: Paano po kapag may kaso ang 1.3 million civil servants, ilan man sa

kanila, isa, dalawa o marami sa Korte Suprema? Paano kung halatang-halatang itinago lang

ang pera pero dollar account ang ginamit? Will the Chief Justice have the moral ascendancy now

to convict that public official? Hindi puwede. Dahil sa sarili niyang depensa, ginamit na niya anginterpretasyon na ito.

Sana po kaya kong tanggapin na ganoon yun ang interpretasyon niya but just in case

idineklara pa rin niya, I would respect him for that. This is what I think the law is, but this is what

is good for the country. Therefore, idideklara ko pa rin.

Hindi ko rin po matanggap ang interpretasyon ng P80 million na aminado niyang hindi

idineklara or part of it ay hindi idineklara na ipinaliwanag niya sa pamamagitan lang ng isang

kuwento. Ni wala siyang isinabmit (submit) sa atin na ebidensiyawalang ITR ng mga anak

niya, walang mga resibo, walang mga passbooksasabihin lang po na based on his credibility.

I am not saying he is not credible. But if it were anyone else, if it was not CJ Corona on the stand,tatanggapin ba natin ang sagot na iyon? O sasabihin natin, ano ba ang iyong ebidensiya?

Especially when the explanation is against human experience or normal human experience.

Marami po na may edad na sa lipunan, ilalagay sa mga anak ang mga account nila. Pero

tama po, bihira iyong anak ang inilalagay ang pera sa kanilang magulang.

Bakit ang isang clerk, hindi lamang nag-deklara ng isang stall sa palengke, tinanggal na?

Bakit ang mahirap kapag nagnakaw bawal? Ano ba ang sinasabi natin sa mahirap? Bawal

magnakaw. Bakit sa mayaman, bawal magnakaw ng kaunti? Kasi kapag nagnakaw ng

marami, lahat na ng technicalities, lahat na ng batas, lahat na ng puwedeng ikumplika ang

sistema para protektahan siya ay nasa kaniya. Bakit po kapag mahirap ang nahuli, ang


8/40


sasabihin sa kaniya, Sa presinto ka na magpaliwanag? Bakit po kapag mayaman, lahat ng

lusot, batas, technicalities, available sa kaniya?

Sa totoo lang po, sobra po ang ganda ng pagpapatakbo ng ating Presiding Officer ng Korte

na ito, and I admire the Prosecution and the Defense, and I admire my colleagues. Pero, let us be

honest with each other. Forty-four days, more than 200 hours. Sa totoo lang po, isang linggo kaya

nating tapusin ito kung inilagay na lamang natin sa stand at nagsabi na lamang tayo ng totoo

sa isat isa, eh. Ang tingin ko po kung mahirap po ang akusado, nasa presinto at nagpapaliwanag

na lamang siya.

Tingnan ninyo po, kahit sa cellphone, hindi ba kapag mahirap, nahulihan ng asawa na may

sweet na text sa iba, ano ang sasabihin niya: Honey, mis-sent po iyan; hindi ko cellphone

iyan. Pag mayaman, kukuha pa ng abogado. Sasabihin mo pa: Darling, hindi ko text iyan.

Hiniram ng iba iyan. Nakikigamit lamang ako ng cellphone o share kami in trust iyan. Commingled

ang mga text kaya hindi akin iyan.

Why do we complicate what is so simple? Technicalities should protect the rights of people,

andI do not blame this Court for sticking to technicalities because this is supposed to protect the

rights of the people. Pero, somehow in this country, it is being used to protect people whoplunder this country.

I remember my law professor at Ateneo School of Law. Sabi niya sa amin and those who are

here who have graduated at the same school will remember this: If you are strong on the facts, pound

on the facts, if you are strong on the law, pound on the law. But if you are not strong or you are weak

both on the facts and the law, pound on the table. Pukpukin ang batas kung doon ka malakas.

Pukpukin ang katotohanan o ang facts kung doon ka malakas. Pero pag hindi, pukpukin mo

na lang ang mesa. Iyon po ang turo sa ating mga abogado.

But can we not agree as a nation to pound on the truth, to pound on justice, and to pound on

grafters in this country?

Sabi po ng iba, mabait po si Chief Justice Corona. Sabi ng iba, hindi siya notorious sa Supreme

Court. Actually, kilala din po namin siya at mabigat po sa amin ang desisyong ito. Some describe

him as decent. Kaya sabipo ng iba sa akin: Mag- abstain ka na lang kasi kumplikado naman

ang batas, kumplikado naman ito. This is my reply to them with all due respect: If your client

cannot explain, I cannot abstain. If you did not disclose, we have to depose, and if you are not fit,

you cannot sit as the CJ of our Supreme Court.

You will have your day in court. You will have your day in media, for a civil case, for a criminal

case. But for the impeachment case, ang pinag-uusapan po natin ay iyong kabutihan ng ating

bansa.

The Impeachment Court does not simply pass judgment on this specific case or on this specific CJ.

The Courts action, being far-reaching and precedent-setting, is actually rebuilding a new paradigm of

transparency and accountability in public office. The verdict of this Court will affect 1.3 million or more

than 1.3 million civil or public servants, government employees and officials. It will affect 100 million

Filipinos here and abroad. It will affect our future, because transparency and accountability fight

corruption, and corruption has a direct correlation to investments, business, jobs, prices, and the quality

of services we give our people.

Ang corruption po ay direkta ang epekto sa presyo, sa kawalan ng trabaho, at sa kita ng

bawat mamamayan.


9/40


I cannot agree with the CJs interpretation of the law in his explanation that the P80 million and $2.4

million. However, in signing the waiver that allowed the Ombudsman to look into bank accounts, he

has set a new standardbagong pamantayan. Sabihin niyo man napilitan, sabihin niyo na

lumabas, pumirma pa rin siya at sinabmit(submit) niya iyong waiver. We should all follow the

standard. Itong pamantayang ito ay dapat para sa ating lahat.

Transparency of bank accounts is good. I ask the President to instruct his Cabinet, sign the waivers

or resign and leave government. Executive, legislative, judiciary, COA, Comelec, BIR, Customs,

judges, governors, mayors, barangay captains, congressmen, senators, let us agree on one standard.

At least, eto pong ginawa ni CJ ay maganda.

We can agree on safeguards and protection. Hindi naman ibig sabihin na lahat na lang ay

kakalkalin ang bank accounts, di ba? Payagan natin ang Ombudsman na kung may kaso o issue

laban sa inyo makita niya at tingnan po ito. Hindi popang-abuse o pang-harass ito but all of us

should have the same standard. The waiver, taken together with the SALN at kung maipapasa natin

ang Freedom of Information Law, we will have entered a dawn of transparency and accountability in

our country. It will be a new milestone in the Tuwid na Daan.

For myself, gagawin ko po ito. Kapag ako inimbestigahan ng Ombudsmanpapayag po akona buksan ang aking account. Okey po ako sa waiver. Walamg dapat ikakatakot kung walang

tinatago. Ayoko ko ring i-harass, ayoko ko ring kulitin, pero wala po tayong choice, eh, kung

gusto natin magbago ang bansa dapat pare-pareho.

Hindi ko makakalimutan ang pag-iyak ng aking ama noong gabing iyon, hindi dahil sa sakit

ng tiyan o dahil ang katawan niya ay unti-unti pong nadudurog sa sakit kung hindi dahil sa

pagmamahal sa kanyang Inang Bayan, ang bansang Pilipinas.

Nais ko po ng pagbabago. Naway sa desisyon na ito nakapag-ambag, nakatulong po ako

ng kaunti. Masakit man ang proseso sana nagdulot ito ng pagbabago sa ating bansa. Presume

him guilty, presume him innocent, give him his day in court, ascribe to him good faith, yes, sa civil andcriminal cases, sa media, et cetera but not today and not in this Impeachment Court.

GUILTYwith the penalty of removal from office.

The Clerk of Court. The Honorable Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano.

Senator Cayetano (P). Today, we face a difficult task of deciding whether the man who holds

the highest position in the Supreme Court has committed acts tantamount to betrayal of public trust that

would warrant the removal from office. It is all the more difficult for me because I took my oath before

this man.

If this were a purely legal process, my legal training would require that much of the evidencepresented is disregarded due to the irregularities in obtaining the same. But this is not a purely legal

process. The framers of the Constitution did not set the quantum of evidence nor the burden of proof

required to convict. Much was left to the individual conscience and the collective wisdom of the Senate.

Further, impeachment cases are heard by Senator-Judges with different professional backgrounds.

Of the 23 Senator-Judges, less than half of us are lawyers. Thus, I was challenged and admittedly

burdened by the need to balance my legal training as a lawyer and my calling as a public servant,

particularly a Senator-Judge.

The Chief Justice states that the requirement in the Constitution to declare ones assets, liabilities

and net worth is as may be required by law. He then cites Republic Act No. 6426 or the Foreign


10/40


Currency Deposit Act as that law which states that dollar deposits are absolutely confidential, thus

providing him with a shield. Is that the law in point? Is that the law that the Constitution stated will

be required by law? I submit it is not.

It is Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees, which, among others, requires the submission of a Statement of Assets and Liabilities, and

provides the details thereof. It requires stating all kinds of assets, including cash on hand and in banks.

There are no exceptions. To allow the contrary view would be setting a deadly precedent, it would

allow any official to hide his assets behind the cloak of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. Does that

make sense? It does not, both from a legal point of view and from a lay persons point of view. Bakit

puwedeng itago ang pera sa dolyar? Makatarungan ba iyon?

Republic Act No. 6426 on the Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposit is not an exception to the law

requiring the declaration of the SALN. In fact, it is easy to reconcile the same. A government official

should declare his assets and liabilities. But then, no one can examine the bank account without his

written consent.

The Defense then posits the view that misdeclaration in the SALN is minor and, therefore, not an

impeachable offense compared to other impeachable offenses like bribery and treason.

As a lawyer, to me, minor inaccuracies in the SALN such as parking lots or a unit whose ownership

is under contention would not amount to betrayal of public trust. In fact, corrections are allowed under

the law but the failure to declare $2.4 million and some P80 million is not minor.

In decided cases, the Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal from service of public officials and

employees for failure to declare a sari-sari store, two motor vehicles and for nondeclaration of several

assets such as real property and bank deposits. These are the cases ofRabe v. Delsa Flores,

Ombudsman v. Nieto Racho, Flores v. Montemayor.

I also have difficulty accepting the defense of commingled funds. Yes, the fact of commingling of

funds, I believe, is common among families, but the huge amounts involved leave much doubt in mymind.

In our interpretation of the law, we, who hold a position of public trust, must choose the

interpretation that will uphold public interest over private interest. Regardless of whether malice or the

intent to suppress the truth was present, we must remember that public office is a public trust. Once

that trust is gone, we must step down to preserve the integrity of the position we hold. Kapag nawala

po ang tiwala ng taong bayan dapat po bumaba na sa puwesto. Dapat po pangalagaan ang

posisyon na iyon.

Lastly, we need to remember that we can only mature as a democracy if we can learn from this

impeachment experience.

From the start I questioned breaches in procedural law and ethical conduct of various participants

in the impeachment processthe trial by publicity, the irresponsible hurling of bloated unverified figures

and assets, among others. My fervent hope is in the future, the pursuit of justice will be conducted in

a more responsible manner lest our children are left with the impression that those accused of

wrongdoing can be persecuted without respecting their rights.

The other lesson must go beyond the Chief Justice. It is the call for transparency. I echo that call.

Those of us who sit as judges, those of us who act as prosecutors and all those in public service should

not hide behind our titles. We must come clean and give meaning to the constitutional requirement that

we declare all our assets.


11/40


Mr. President, on the accusation made in Article II, I find the Respondent GUILTY.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Senator-Judge Defensor-Santiago.

Senator Defensor Santiago. The Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the

accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof is on the

Prosecution. How much proof is necessary? In other words, what is that standard of proof?

I have adopted the very high standard of overwhelming preponderance of evidence pursuant to the

recommendation of Prof. Charles Black of Yale University, author ofTheImpeachment, considered

the bible for the whole world on impeachment process in a democracy.

My standard is very high because removal by conviction on impeachment is a stunning penalty, the

ruin of a life.

The Defendant admitted that he did not declare his dollar accounts and certain commingled peso

accounts in his SALN. Let us begin with this threshold question: Did this omission amount to an

impeachable offense? No.

Under the rule ofejusdem generis, when a general word occurs after a number of specific words

the meaning of the general word shall be limited to the kind or class of thing within which the specific

words fall.

The Constitution provides that the impeachable offenses are culpable violation of the Constitution,

treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.

An omission in good faith in the SALN carries a light penalty. It is even allowed by law to be

corrected by the person who submitted it. Thus, it is not impeachable because it is not in the same

class as the offenses enumerated in the Constitution. If we disregard this rule ofejusdem generis,

then we can interpret the law to mean anything as long as the enumeration of specific words is followed

by a general word.

Wala nang limitasyon iyon. Pag sinabi pala ng Constitution, other high crimes or betrayal of

public trust, wala na palang limitasyon iyon-iyan kung hindi ka nag-aral ng batas. Sabi ng

batas, you apply the rule ofejusdem generiskailangan may listahan na isa-isa nilang sinasabi

kung ano ang kasalanan at mayroong isang salita na hindi mo malaman kung ano ang

kasalanan. Dapat basahin mo iyan na pare-pareho doon sa kasalanan na nalista na. In other

words, it should belong to the same class. Does omission in the SALN belong to the same class, as,

for example, treason, bribery, et cetera?

The Constitution simply provides that the public officer shall submit a declaration under oath of his

assets, liabilities, and net worth. I am quoting the Constitution. That is all. There are no details. TheConstitution is a brief declaration of fundamental principles. Many constitutional provisions are only

commands to the Congress to enact laws, to carry out the purpose of the Charter. As a general rule,

constitutional provisions are not self-executory.Hindi naman puwede na basahin mo ang Constitution

na para ka bang nagbasa ng diyaryo, tapos kanya-kanya kayo ng interpretasyon. Hindi ganuon

iyon. Kaya nga mayroon tayong constitutional law, which is said to be the most difficult subject to

pass in the entire College of Law.

Hindi ganoon kadali magbasa ng Constitution. Constitutional analysis is a field of art in itself.

It is a technical field. Kaya apat na taon ang abogasiya. Kung maski sino na lang pala pwedeng

mag-interpret ng Constitution, bakit pa tayo may mga abogado? Eh di kanya-kanya na lang.


12/40


The usual exceptions are the Bill of Rights-iyan, self-executory iyan, basahin mo, sundin mo

and constitutional prohibitionspag sinabi ng batas, hindi puwede ito, iyan sundin mo kaagad.

Pero lahat hindi mo puwedeng masunod kaagad-agad. Maghintay ka kung anong batas ang

ipapasa ng Kongreso. Wala kaming ginagawa sa Kongreso kundi maghintay kung ano ang

sinabi ng Constitution. That is the main function of legislation. All other constitutional provisions such

as the SALN provision, need implementing laws to provide the details. Hence, Congress, to implement

these constitutional provisions, has passed a number of laws including the Foreign Currency Act, whichconfers absolute confidentiality on dollar deposits.

Nakikinig lang ako doon noon sa mga argumento na the Foreign Currency Act violates the

Constitution. I was already hoping with all my heart that God would strike me dead. Mabuti pa ang

mamatay ako bilang isang abogada kaysa makinig ako ng mga rason na ganuon. Wala iyan

sa libro, wala iyan dito, wala iyan doon. Para bang hindi ka nagbasa ng batas mo.Ibig mong

sabihin wala na palang batas na umiiral sa mga trial na ito kundi kanya-kanya ng isipan?

There is no conflict between the Constitution and the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. The perceived

conflict is so simplistic that it is seriously laughable-nakakatawa ka o nagpapatawa ka. If there

is any conflict, it is between the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards on the one hand, which

provides for a waiver of confidentiality, and the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, on the other hand,

which provides for absolute confidentiality.

Kaya sinusunod natin ang batas-the Constitution-pero ang batas na pinaiiral ng Kongreso

ang mukhang may conflict. Pero hindi mo masabi na the Constitution is clear, so the Constitution

will, of course, prevail over an ordinary law. Ano namang klaseng kagaguhan iyan? Galit kayo

dahil ginamit ko ang salita na kagaguhan. I repeat, kagaguhan iyan. Why do we study law

if that is your opinion?

At bakit mo tawagin na quasi-judicial itong proceedings na ito if it is all purely political and

anyone can have his own opinion?

It is for Congress to balance, on the one hand, the need for public accountability from public officers

with, on the other hand, the desperate need for foreign investment, which entails confidentiality on pain

of driving away investors from our country. Iyan ang rason kung bakit mayroon tayong Foreign

Currency Deposit Act dahil gusto natin na iparating ang foreign investment at walang foreign

investor, I promise you, na darating kung mayroong bayan na may batas pala na lahat ng dolyar

mo ideklara mo. Walang darating maski ni isa. That is the purpose of that law. Did anyone of

you bother to find out why we have a Foreign Currency Deposit Act? Puro lamang ang tingin ninyo

tungkol sa impeachment. Iparke mo ang pera mo diyan, mamaya isasalungat ko iyong mga

argumento ninyong iyan. It makes me angry as a former law professor and as a future judge of the

International Criminal Court that you should presume to administer justice in this manner. I am insulted

by the way your minds run. The argument that a dollar deposit, protected from inquiry, would nullifythe principle of transparency is for Congress to resolve. E, di tayo, kayo sa House at kami sa

Senate, tayo ang gumawa niyan, tayo ngayon ang may problema. Bibigyannatin ng solusyon

ang problema. We could retain the absolute confidentiality clause with the amendment that Filipino

public officers are not protected. Iyon ang dapat na gagawin natin.

The Prosecution mistakes admission for confession. In law, in a confession, the defendant admits

his guilt. In an admission, the defendant merely states facts which might tend to prove his guilt. In the

instant case, the Defendant did not make a confession but merely an admission with a legal defense.

As a former RTC judge, I find it reprehensible, reprehensible beyond belief that the AMLC

document was introduced in evidence without authentication as required by the rules of evidence.


13/40


Nagpapanggap-panggapanpa tayo na Korte tayong quasi-judicial. Iyon pala, sinabi pa natin na

if there is any need, we shall use as a supplemental authority the Rules of Court. Iyon pala, hindi natin

susundin ang rules of evidence. Hindi ka puwedeng magdala maski na anong papel sa Korte, i-

authenticate mo. Kung hindi monaintindihan ang authenticate, huwag kang mag-abogado diyan.

I am deeply disappointed that on, at least, three occasions, the Prosecution claimed that his

documents came from an anonymous source. Strike me dead. Three times is just too much coincidence.

Are you for real, Prosecution? Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.

The Defendant used his own name in all his questioned transactions. He could have done otherwise

if his purpose was invisibility. Kung ayaw ninyong matuklasan, napakadali. Gamitin niya ang

pangalan ng iba. Lahat naman tayo....hindi naman lahat marami sa atin dito kung tungkol

na sa batas, ibang pangalan ang ginagamit. Sigurado ako niyan. RTC judge ako eh. Mag-isa

lamang akong RTC judge dito sa Korteng ito. Maski ano, puwede mong ma-manufacture sa

Pilipinas. Minsan binigyan pa nga ako ng death certificate ng akusado, pagkatapos pinahuli ko;

huling-huli, buhay na buhay. Ganoon ang ating Korte dito. Huwagniyo akong paandaran ng

kalokohan ninyo dahil alam na alam ko iyon. Kayo, nag-practice kayo isang taon, dalawang

taon? Ako, RTC judge.

Why would a suspected criminal leave his calling cards at the scene of the crime? Kung noon pa

gusto pala niyang itago ang kayamanan niya, bakit niya ilagay sa pangalan niya? Marami dito

sa Pilipinas naglalagay sa ibang pangalan ng ibang tao. Hindi kaya alam ng abogado iyon?

May masterspa sa Harvard, may doctorate pa sa UST. Ganoon ba siya katanga?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a preponderance of evidence for the Prosecution,

the preponderance is not overwhelming.

Iyan ang English. Inihanda ko para sa two minutes ko. Eh wala pala kaming limitasyon.

[Laughter] Ngayon Tagalog naman at hihingi na ako ng paumanhin abanse pa lamang, dahil

kulang na kulang ang Tagalog ko.

Unang punto: Kung matalo ang Chief Justice dito, ibig sabihin pala ang mga nananalo aymga honest na tao dahil kinondena nila dahil corrupt ang taong iyon. Palagay din natin na itong

mga representantedahil nga tayo we represent the people, is that not so? That is why we are

elected officers; we are supposed to represent our constituencies. Kung hahatulan nating may sala

iyan dahil crooked siya, di ibig lang sabihin honest tayo. Ngayon, kung lahat pala tayo honest,

o marami pala sa atin ay honest, why is the Philippines often, or if not all the time, why is the

Philippines always ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the whole world?

Iyan, sagutin ninyo ako niyan. Nagpapakalinis kayo. Aba kung malinis pala ang mga

opisyales natin at malinis pala sa buong bansa, bakit palagi tayong nililista ng Transparency

International as one of the most corrupt countries in the world? Magtitinginan tayo? Sino kaya dito?

Iyan ang unang punto ko.

Pangalawa, tumigil na nga kayo ng kapapanggap-panggap ninyo, mga artista. Mayroong

mga pulitiko na alam na alam natin kung ano ang loopholes nila sa SALN. Ang sinasabi ng

batas, kapag katapusan ng Disyembre, katapusan ng taon, magdeklara ka kung magkano ang

pera mo sa bangko. Hindi ba wini-withdraw nila pera nila sa buwan na Nobyembre o Disyembre

para pag nag-file sila ng SALN nila, wala nga silang deposito o kaya mayroon lang silang couple

of thousands kasi winidraw (withdraw) nila eh. Pag Enero, i-deposit nila uli.

Taongbayan, kayo ang mag-testigo. Iyan, bakit hindi natin habulin iyong ganoon?

Pangalawa, palusot. O pangalawang ginagawa nila na loopholes sa SALN lahat ng pag-aari

nilareal estate, bank accounts, iba pang pag-aariilalagay sa ibang pangalan. Iyan ay very,


14/40


very widespread. O di wala na naman silang pag-aari dahil lahat inilagay na nila sa ibang

pangalan. Kung bawal ang asawa at ang mga anak dahil sa batas ay inspeksiyunin pati iyan

iyong mga malapit sa kanila, di doon sa mga malalayo na mga kamag-anak. O kaya maski hindi

kamag-anak, sa kaibigan na pinagkakatiwalaan nila.

What a hypocritical accusation. That is a problem with this country. We are all for honest

government, and yet the world condemns us as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. That

is why it is difficult to win in any international election, in any international campaign, because the

Philippines, among others, has a reputation of being a corrupt country.Isip ng iba kung corrupt ang

bayan na iyan, walang matinong lalabas diyan. Walang matinong ibubunga iyan.

Bakit bawat isa ba sa inyo walang sala tungkol sa SALN? Bigyan ninyo ako ng isa pang

buhay. Panginoon, bigyan mo ako ng isa pang buhay at iimbestigahin ko lahat isa-isa dito sa

Senado at sa House of Representatives. Tingnan natin. Pati sarili ko imbestigahin ko. [Laughter]

The Presiding Officer. Order please. [The Senate President banged his gavel.]

Senator Defensor Santiago. Ang daming loopholes ng SALN na iyan, bakit hindi kayo

umimik noon? Bakit ngayon bigla na lang kayong so exorcised about a loophole? Well, if thatis the case, then let us all just put our assets in dollars and the purpose of the SALN will be perverted

or corrupted. That is true. But what about all the other loopholes? Bakit ngayon lang kayo nagalit

tungkol sa loophole na iyan? Bakit hindi noon pa? Dahil iyong iba sa atin ginagamit iyong

mismong loopholes na iyon. Hindi lang sila ma-impeach.

Sunod na punto. Sinabi ko sa umpisa, this is quasi-judicial and this is quasi-political. Iyan

aminado iyan ng mga authorssi Prof. Charles Blackng Yale, si Prof. Raoul Berger ng Harvard.

Mga tinitingala iyan ng mga authorities all over the world.

Ngayon, this is quasi-judicial. Ibig sabihin, kalahati niyan pulitika, kalahati niyan batas.

Napakahirap gawin iyan.

Ngayon, ako dahil naging RTC judge, ang ginagamit ko lang ay ang batas. Wala akong

ginagamit na pampulitika dahil hindi na ako makatakbo uli. Tinatawag na ako ng International

Criminal Court. Wala na akong kinabukasan sa pulitika sa Pilipinas. Even though I wanted to,

I am prohibited because this is already my second consecutive term.

Ngayon, ano ba ang sinasabi na quasi-political?Imbestigahin nga natin for future impeachments.

Ano ang sinasabi na quasi-judicial, quasi-political?Madaling intindihin ang quasi-judicial. Kalahati

niyan ay tungkol sa hustisya o tungkol sa batas, pero ang kalahati niyan ay tungkol sa pulitika.

Ano ang ibig sabihin ng tungkol sa pulitika? Tungkol sa pulitika, dahil ang ibig sabihin niyan

ay pag-iisipan mo at pakinggan mo ang mga taong bumuto sa iyo. That is actually the meaningof quasi-political. Because people might disagree with what the law says, iyon ang pakikinggan mo.

That is the meaning of quasi-political.

Hindi ang ibig sabihin quasi-political na buboto ka ulit, bibigyan ka ng mamahaling proyekto

sa public works na kung saan maaaring kumita ka. Alam naman natin iyan kung magkano ang

halaga ng public works mo, 10% ang mapupunta sa iyo kung gusto mo. Hindi iyon ang ibig

sabihin ng pulitika. At hindi ibig sabihin na quasi-political na isipin mo, naku, tatakbo ako, either

for reelection or for another position, or I need some position in government for my kaalyado ko,

whom will I use as my dummy. That is not the meaning of quasi-political.

The Presiding Officer. May I request the Lady to wind up please.


15/40


Senator Defensor Santiago. I thought that I was unlimited. I prepared a two-minute paper but

I will obey the injunction.

At saka, isang punto. Nang matapos mag-prisinta ng ebidensiya ang Prosecution, naglabas

ng mga survey na ang mga tao gusto pala na guilty ang Chief Justice. Ngayon, natapos ang

Depensa, nasaan ngayon ang mga survey? Wala.

At huli sa lahat at pinakamahalagahindi na importante kung ano ang magiging desisyonnatin ngayong haponano ang magiging katuparan, ano ang susunod sa ating desisyon? Ulit

ba mananalo tayo sa botohan, panalo na tayo?

Sa masa na nakararami sa ating bansa and we follow the rule of the majority, sa kabataan sa

pamantasan dahil they are educated constituency, sa kasaysayan ng ating bansa, this will go down

in history. Nagtrabaho ako abroad, nagka-cancer ang tatay ko, bumalik ako, ang sabi ng tatay

ko, Mag-resign ka nga riyan sa trabaho mong iyan, wala kang silbi sa bayan mo. Magsilbi ka

sa sarili mong kababayan. Nagsilbi na nga ako. Pero kung ang pulitika ay mangingibabaw sa

batas, wala na rin akong silbi.

Bayan, kayo ang maghatol sa ginagawa rito sa Impeachment Trial.The Presiding Officer. What is your vote?

Senator Defensor Santiago. Would you be very surprised if I say that I vote Not Guilty?

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Senator-Judge Franklin M. Drilon.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, the Constitution commands every public official, including the

respondent Chief Justice, to file an accurate and complete SALN. This requirement is not a mere

formality as it goes into the heart of a public officials and respondents moral fitness to hold public

office.

Respondent concealed his luxurious condominiums for five (5) years after they were fully paid.Respondent reported the values of these condominiums at less than 50% of their acquisition costs.

Respondent admits that he did not declare $2.4 million and P80 million in his SALN. The enormity

of the Respondents hidden assets over P180 million or 50 times more than his declared cash assets-

is scandalous. It is grossly disproportionate to his total income for 10 years of about P27 million. It

establishes aprima facie case of ill-gotten wealth under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

One hundred eighty million pesos.Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

Respondent justifies his concealment of his dollar accounts because of the alleged confidentiality in

Republic Act 6426. This kind of interpretation, Mr. President, will encourage aspiring thieves in

government to simply hide all their loot in FCDU accounts. The law does not prohibit Respondent fromdisclosing his foreign currency deposit. What the law bars is for a bank to disclose this foreign currency

deposits without the consent of the depositor. In fact, the Respondent authorized this Impeachment

Court to inquire into them.

How can the Respondent, the Chief Justice no less, claim good faith in asserting such a twisted

interpretation of the law? Besides, the defense of good faith cannot be invoked. The punishable act

of nonreporting of assets in ones SALN is mala prohibita, where good faith is immaterial.

Respondent concealed his P80-million deposits because, allegedly, they are commingled funds of

BGEI and that of his relatives. Respondent presented no evidence to substantiate his claims. If BGEI

funds are held in trust, Respondent must report such funds as assets and enter the corresponding


16/40


liabilities in his SALN. He did not. He cannot claim good faith. He was the manager of SGVs Tax

Department.

The Supreme Court dismissed Delsa Flores, a lowly court interpreter for not reporting in her SALN

her stall in a public market. The Chief Justice must be held to a much higher standard. Those who

dispense justice must conform to the highest standards of professional integrity and personal honesty.

Chief Justice Corona, knowingly, deliberately, and with malice, aforethought, filed inaccurate andfalse SALNs to conceal his enormous wealth. Where our Constitution and our laws require disclosure,

he chose the path of concealment. He has lost his moral fitness to serve the people. He has betrayed

the public trust. He cannot be Chief Justice a minute longer.

I find the Respondent guilty of Article II.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

The Secretary. The Honorable Senator-Judge Escudero.

Senator Escudero. It is written: Do not judge, lest you be judged; for the measure you measure

with will be measured back to you.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues in the Senate and the House, the Prosecution and the

Defense Panel, my countrymen, magandang hapon po sa ating lahat.

While I do not approve of the manner and way by which the House of Representatives initiated,

proceeded and handled this impeachment when they filed the complaint for impeachment before the

Senate, the House, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, in the exercise of its wisdom,

determined that nondeclaration in ones SALN is an impeachable offense.

Ang ibig sabihin po nito, mula ngayon, dahil sa pag-determinang iyan ng Kamara de

Representantes, puwede na nating tanggalin ang Punong Mahistrado, kabilang ang Pangulo atIkalawang Pangulo ng bansa at gayundin ang ibang impeachable officers kapag sila ay mayroong

ari-arian na hindi idineklara sa kanilang SALN.

Mr. President, matapos pong aminin ni Chief Justice Corona na mayroon siyang US$2.4 million

at P80 million na hindi niya idineklara sa kaniyang SALN, naging simple na lamang ang

kailangang pag-desisyunan at pagpasiyahan ng Senado at ito po ay: Hindi nga ba ito

kailangang ideklara dahil sa Republic Act 6426 o FCDU Law? Kung sasang-ayon tayo sa

posisyong ito ni Chief Justice Corona, dapat natin siyang ipawalang-sala. Subalit kung hindi tayo

sasang-ayon dito, dapat ay gawaran natin siya ng hatol.

Ikinalulungkot ko po, Mr. President, na hindi ko masasang-ayunan ang posisyong ito ngPunong Mahistrado. Para sa akin, maliwanag ang batas. Hindi po ito nagbabanggaan.

Ang pinagbabawalan ng FCDU Law na mag-release ng inpormasyon tungkol sa dollar

accounts ay ang bangko at hindi ang depositor. Samantala, ang ating Saligang Batas, Republic

Act 6713, ay ipinag-uutos na ideklara ng lahat ng naninilbihan sa pamahalaan ang lahat ng

kanilang yaman at pinagkakautangan. Kung ayaw ninyong ideklara, eh di huwag kayong

tumakbo o tumanggap ng anumang puwesto sa gobyerno. Subalit kung ikaw ay naninilbihan sa

pamahalaan, dapat lamang at kailangang ideklara mo ang lahat ng ito.

Dahil dito, mabigat man sa aking kalooban, kailangan kong maigawad ang hatol laban kay

Chief Justice Corona.


17/40


Maging ganoon pa man at sa kabila ng aking hatol, nais ko pong muling batiin muli si Chief

Justice Corona dahil sa kasaysayan ng ating bansa, siya ang alam kong kauna-unahang opisyal

na naglakas-loob at nag-execute ng waiver para buksan ang lahat ng kaniyang mga deposito sa

bangko. Sana siya at ang kasong ito ang magsilbing hudyat para sa isangbagong simula sa

ating bansa, isang bagong simula na kung saan ay hindina puwede ang dating gawi. Hindi

na puwede ang dati nating nakasanayan.

Panahon na po ito marahil na taasan natin ang antas ng pamantayan ng mga naninilbihan

sa pamahalaan at dapat po pantay ang pamantayang ito, hindi lamangkay Chief Justice Corona,

kundi para sa ating lahat.

Kahapon isinumite ko sa Senado ang isang waiverpabor sa Ombudsman upang buksan, kung

kinakailangan, ang anumang deposito ko, dollar man o anumang uri ng currency, kaugnay at

kalakip ng aking SALN.

Hinihimok at hinahamon ko ang lahat ng aking kasamahan sa Senado, gayundin sa

Kongreso na gawin din ito. Hinihiling ko rin sa aking mga kasamahan sa Senado at sa

Kongreso na ipasa sa lalong madaling panahon ang iniakda kong Senate Bill No. 107 na

naglalayong i-require ito sa ating lahat. Hindi simpleng pagtanggap ng hamon, kundi aktuwalna pagpirma.

Tulad po ng sinabi ko sa aking pambungad na salita, kung anuman ang panukat na

ginagamit natin sa paghusga o pag-akusa ay siya ring panukat na dapat nating gamitin sa ating

mga sarili. Ika nga ni Congressman Farias, kung hindi natin pinapalusot si Chief Justice

Corona, puwes tayo rin ay huwag nang magpalusot.

Ito ay hinihiling ko para magkaroon po ng saysay, kahulugan at positibong kahihinatnan ang

kalbaryong pinagdaanan, hindi lamang ni Chief Justice at ng kaniyang pamilya, kundi ng ating

bansa bunsod ng proceedings na ito. Dalangin ko po na sana ay matapos na ito at magsimula

nang maghilom ang pait, sugat at pagkawatak-watak natin. Sana naman po pagkatapos nito,tama na, magtrabaho na tayo. Let us move on and let us move forward. Pagtuunan na po natin

ng pansin ang mas mahahalagang problema ng ating bansa na may kinalaman sa ekonomiya

at paglagay ng pagkain sa bawat lamesa.

Tanggap at nalalaman nating lahat na anuman ang hatol na igawad ng Hukumang ito, hindi

naman biglang magkakatrabaho iyong walang trabaho at hindi naman biglang gagaling ang

maysakit. Hindi biglang makakapag-aral ang hindi kayang makapag-aral, at hindi gaganda ang

buhay ng ating mga kababayan.

Mr. President, anuman ang maging hatol natin sa hapong ito, nais kong sabihin to the Chief

Justice and his family, I wish you well. Naway gumaling po kayo sa inyong karamdaman sa lalong

madaling panahon. Patnubayan nawa kayo at tayong lahat ng Diyos kaugnay sa malaking

hamon at pagsubok na sabay-sabay po nating kinaharap at pinagdaanan nitong mga nagdaang

buwan.

Mr. President, on Article II, I find for the complainants and render judgment against the Respondent

Chief Justice.

The Presiding Officer. One-minute suspension, if there is no objection. [There was none.]

The trial was suspended at 3:34 p.m.

At 3:35 p.m., the trial was resumed.


18/40


The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Secretary, call the next speaker.

The Clerk of Court. The Honorable Senator-Judge Ejercito Estrada.

Senator Estrada. Kagalang-galang na Pangulo ng Senado, sambayanang Pilipino, magandang

hapon po sa lahat.

This trial and this Court, the entire process, its completion is a historic redemption of our justice

system. We owe that in great measure, to the brilliance, sense of fairness and firm resolve of our

Presiding Officer, no less, than Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.

I say redemption because this same process failed to achieve justice for my own father, former

President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. It failed because, clearly, the plan was to resolve the issue in the

streets and it failed sadly because the presiding officer at the trial of my father proved to be a partisan

himself. Those sordid accounts, those sordid events led this nation to nine (9) years under the rule of

a woman, a small woman, who was installed by the rule of the mob and the imprimaturof a

Supreme Court that succumbed to the pressure of that mob.

I am more than sure that my father would have been given the chance to be heard fairly, justly and

squarely katulad ng pagkakataong ipinagkaloob ng Impeachment Court na ito kay Chief Justice

Corona. Had the impeachment rules been strictly implemented then in 2001, those Private Prosecutors

who disrespected this Court by walking out, thus robbing my father the chance to defend himself, would

have not been allowed to do so, much less be held in contempt.

Today, we confront and make history. We make a historic decision this day to pass judgment on

the Chief Magistrate of the Supreme Court of this nation after 44 gruelling days of trial spread out in

four (4) difficult months. Our people followed this trial closely. And in this exercise, we have

demonstrated to them and to the international community that our country adheres and subscribes to

the supremacy of the democratic framework and the majesty in fulfilling the mandate of the most basic

of all our laws: the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

Sa paglilitis na ating isinagawa sa harap ng sambayanang Pilipino, itinaguyod natin sa ating

Senado ang itinadhana ng ating Saligang Batas. Binigyang-buhay natin ang diwa ng mga

proseso ng ating batas at binigyan natin ng patas na pagdinig ang panig ng taga-usig at ng

nasasakdal.

Today, I join the nation, in a fervent prayer, that we can begin healing the wounds inflicted by the

pain of this trial. We pray that we can, as soon as possible, bring closure to this painful episode in

the annals of our country. I pray that, as we conclude this defining moment, we can unite again as a

nation, as a society and attend to the many pressing problems that face us.

I take the view, after hearing the arguments and counter-arguments, that the Chief Justice did not

include in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, his SALN, $2.4 million and

P80.7 million. This, he admitted in open court. Napatunayan ng Depensa na hindi 45 properties

kundi lima lamang. Hindi 82 dollar accounts, kundi apat lamang. At hindi $10 million, $11 million,

$12 million, kundi $2.4 million lamang. But these numbers are irrelevant. Because the most important

question is:Itong limang real properties, apat na dollar accounts na may halagang $2.4 million ba

ay idineklara nang tama? Idineklara ba ito sa takdang oras o panahon? Ang sagot ko po ay

hindi.

It was argued by the Defense panel that the non-inclusion of dollar deposits by the Chief Justice

in his SALN was made in good faith and is covered by the provision of absolute confidentiality under


19/40


the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. I regret to say that I am not convinced because the Chief Justice

is a learned man of law. He is, in fact, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, isang opisyal na hindi

lamang malalim ang kaalaman sa batas kundi isang opisyal na may tungkuling basahin kung

ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga batas. Bilang Punong Mahistrado, siya ay dapat na may higit na

kaalaman at pag-unawa sa diwa ng batas at tungkulin niyang ipatupad ito na walang bahid ng

pagtatakip sa pansariling interes. And I believe that the framers of the Foreign Currency Deposit

Act did not intend to create the opportunity for public officials to conceal their assets or stash awayforeign currencies under this law.

I, therefore, make this painful decision with a heavy heart but confident that we have given justice

to our people.

Sa kadahilanang ito, wala akong pag-aalinlangan ngayon na ang nasasakdal ay nagkasala

at lumabag sa itinadhana ng ating Saligang Batas. Sa wikang Ingles, in my eyes, he is guilty.

Maraming salamat po.

The Secretary. Honorable Senator-Judge Guingona.

Senator Guingona. Mr. President, before I proceed, I just would like to manifest that I will besubmitting after my explanation a more comprehensive written decision which will form part of the

records.

The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Senator Guingona. Ginoong Pangulo, sa paglilitis na ito, ang aking boto ay para sa

kasagraduhan at kapangyarihan ng Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas.

Mr. President, if there is one thing that our nation would have learned in this impeachment process,

it is thisthat we must renew our respect for and protect the sanctity and primacy of the Constitution

of our Republic.

Ang ating Saligang Batas ay sagrado at walang sinumang may kapangyarihan sa ating

bansa ang mas mataas pa dito. Ito ay sagrado, lahat dito ay dapat sumunod, ipatupad ito at

igalang ito. Ito ay sagrado kaya lahat ng lingkod-bayan, ibinoto o in-appoint man sa tungkulin,

ay pinasusumpa na ito ay itataguyod at ipagtatanggol. Ang hindi pagsunod, ang hindi pagtupad,

ang hindi pagtatanggol sa ating Saligang Batas ay isang malinaw na paglapastangan sa

pinakamataas na batas ng ating republika.

At sa kaso pong ating nilitis, Ginoong Pangulo, pinag-aralan ko ang mga sumusunod:

Nagkaroon ba ng paglabag at paglapastangan sa sagradong Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas? At

kung nagkaroon nga, ang lumabag at lumapastangan ay dapat bang hindi na payagang manatili

sa kanyang puwesto at tungkulin? Inihayag ba ng nasasakdal ang lahat ng assets, liabilities atnet

worth niya bilang pagsunod sa utos ng Saligang Batas? Ang sagot ko po, hindi po ginawa.

Nagkaroon ba ng bahid ang kanyang integrity atprobity sa panahon ng kanyang panunungkulan

sa pinakamataas na korte ng ating bansa? Ang sagot ko po, opo, nagkaroon po ng malaking

bahid.

Nilabag ba niya ang utos ng Saligang Batas na siya ay dapat maging accountable to the

people sa lahat ng pagkakataon at maglingkod ng may utmost responsibility, integrity and loyalty?

Ang sagot ko po, opo, nilabag po.

One of the actions of the accused stands out, Mr. President. Mula mismo sa mga labi ng

nasasakdal, inamin niya na naka-deposito sa ibat-ibang mga bangko ang mga salapi niya na


20/40


nagkakahalaga ng walumpung milyong piso at $2.4 million. Pero nasaan ito? Nasaan ito sa

kanyangsinumpaang Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth? Idedeklara lamang ba ito

kung kailan gugustuhin ng isang mataas na opisyal? Puwede ba siyang magtago sa likod ng

Foreign Currency Deposits Act?

Mr. President, ito ay isang pagbaluktot ng probisyon ng Konstitusyon. How can one man use

the very same Constitution which mandates full public disclosure to justify concealment of millions of

dollars in his personal bank account? This is constitutional perversion in its ultimate form.

Ginoong Pangulo, sino ba ang inaasahan ng ating bansa at lipunan para maging pangunahing

tagapagtanggol ng Saligang Batas? Hindi ba ang Korte Suprema? Ano ang aasahan nating

pagtatanggol kung ang mismong pinuno nito ang unang humahanap ng butas para baluktutin

ang ating Saligang Batas?. Ang Saligang Batas ay sagrado. Anumang paglusot sa mga utos

nito, anumang pagbaluktot dito ay paglabag at pambabastos sa pinakamataas na batas ng

bansa, the Constitution above all.

Ginoong Pangulo, batay sa ebidensiya, sa mga mismong mga sinabi at pag-amin ng

nasasakdal at bilang pagkilala sa kasagraduhan ng Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, ito ang hatol

ko: ang nasasakdal na Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema ay hindi na, hindi na po karapat-dapat sa pagtitiwala ng sambayang Pilipino.

Mr. President, I vote to Convict the accused Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Maraming salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. The Clerk of Court.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Senator-Judge Honasan.

Senator Honasan. To our countrymen, my fellow Filipinos, Mr. President, distinguished

colleagues, honorable members of the Prosecution and Defense panels.

From the beginning of this trial, I have been looking for a reason to acquit based on compassion,

based on the basic precept that a man is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And

based on my own personal experience, I know what it is like to have my family maligned and to be

deprived of due process.

That being said, this trial is not about personalities, emotions or partisan politics. This is about

judging whether the highest magistrate in the highest court of the land is fit for the job. It is his integrity

beyond any doubt. Is his understanding of the law absolute and beyond question as the position

demands? At every moment in his legal career, did he speak out against injustice and uphold the law

rising above us all? An institution is only as strong as its leader and we, Senator-Judges, are only

extensions of the will of the people. We have gone through the process to bring us as close as possibleto certainty.

It is my opinion that we have not proven if the Defendant is corrupt or if he is malicious.

What is clear is that based on the doubt cast on his capability to dispense justice and to do his duty,

he is no longer fit to preside over the highest court in the land. Ang malinaw po ngayon ay may duda

na sa kakayahan ng ating Punong Hukom. Doubt is the opposite of faith and faith is the source

of hope. Doubt does not happen in our brain where reason lives but in our hearts where our moral

compass rests.

I vote to ask the Chief Justice to step down from the pedestal where he was installed by the nation

and where he was supposed to preside over the highest court in the land, so he may once more walk


21/40


among our people where all public officials must be judged.Bumalik nasiya dito sa atin, sa piling

ng taumbayan para maranasan niya ang bunga ng kanyang pagkukulang.

Sambayanang Pilipino, ang hatol ko po ay guilty. Mr. Chief Justice, I wish you strength

and honor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Secretary. Honorable Senator-Judge Lacson.

Senator Lacson. When a witness takes the stand, he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth

and nothing but the truth. That makes half-truths no better than lies.

I have always been an investigator all my public service life. Modesty aside, I have the uncommon

ability to determine if a person is telling the truth or not. An error in judgment has no place in

this trial because it is final and irreversible. Equally important to me is the testimony of the

Respondent, particularly in this case, because the exalted position of the highest magistrate of

the land must shut its door to anyone who desecrates the solemn oath that engulfs a testimony

in any judicial proceeding.

Over the weekend, I did my homework and discernment. Let me share it with you. Chief Justice

Renato Corona, at one point, had $3,977,790.87. At a given time, he had P91,280,499.22. If you

ask me, so what is the difference between $3.9 million and $2.4 million, between P91 million and P80.7

million? My answer is, a lot of money.

Chief Justice Renato Corona used to work as a senior officer of the tax and corporate counseling

group of the tax division of a prominent accounting firm, Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and Co. He also taught

commercial law, taxation and corporate law at the Ateneo de Manila University for 17 years. I find

it hard to believe his testimony that he does not understand accounting.

Chief Justice Renato Corona testified under oath that he invested in currencies and not in propertiesin the late 60s, mindful of the Basa-Guidote family squabble over some real estate properties left by

their deceased parents. The fact is, the family feud started in 1989. One cannot simply learn from the

lessons of the future. Even if the standards of moral fitness for such a lofty position in government were

lowered, an acquittal may still be difficult to justify.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I, therefore, find the Respondent guilty as charged under

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

The Presiding Officer. Secretary.

The Secretary. Honorable Senator-Judge Lapid.

Senator Lapid. Magandang hapon po, Senate President. Mga kasamahan kong Senador-

Judge, Prosecution at Depensa, sa ating mga kababayang nanonood at nakikinig sa TV atradio,

inuulit ko, magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat.

Alam niyo po, wala man lang akong speech dito o ano, wala po akong dala. Iyong mga

kasamahan ko dito, pag pinasok sa isip nila, dadalhin sa bibig at maganda na ang sasabihin.

Bilang high school graduatepo, sa ating mga kababayan, ano ang sasabihin ni Lito Lapid, na

hindi marunong mag-English, na hindi maalam sa batas? Ano kaya ang magiging desisyon?

Didesisyunan po ang Kataas-taasang Hukom ng isang high school graduate lamang na taga-

probinsiya ng Pampanga.


22/40


23/40


24/40


25/40


Ironically, the answers to the first two questions were supplied by the Defendant himself when

Justice Corona admitted that he did not disclose in his yearly Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net

Worth (SALN) over P180 million in cash and near-cash assets.

While not in consonance with the SALN law, Justice Corona gave as his excuse the FCDU law.

Yet nowhere in that FCDU law is the depositor not allowed to disclose his own deposits. All the

FCDU law prohibits is the depository banks and third parties from disclosing the account and the

amount of deposits.

Searching for the answer to the third question took a little longer. Is the violation of the SALN law

of such gravity as to merit impeachment?

Not surprisingly, the answers were again supplied by Justice Corona and the High Court.

Numerous decisions on cases involving SALN law violations have been handed down by the

Supreme Court. Among others: Rabe v. Flores; Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada; Carabeo v.

Court of Appeals; Office of the Court Administrator v. Usman; Flores v. Montemayor and

several others.

InRabe v. Flores, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that a simple, humble court interpreterin Davao del Norte in Mindanao had to be dismissed from service because she had failed to disclose

in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth that she rented a market stall in the Panabo

market. The High Court further ruled that Ms. Flores was perpetually disqualified from holding office.

I went a bit further and posed a hypothetical question to myself. If the Court had been supplied

with a bank passbook belonging to Ms. Flores which showed a deposit of $10,000 which had not been

reported in her SALN, would the Courts ruling have been the same? Dismissal and perpetual

disqualification from office?

My plain, ordinary, legally untrained but reasonable mind tells me yes, the Supreme Court would

have ruled similarly.

If these public officers had been dismissed from office for failing to declare far less remarkable, far

less valuable assets in their SALNs, despite and regardless of their excuses, then there is more reason

to apply the law when the assets in question amount to over P180 million.

We should not penalize the poor man for stealing a bicycle but rule that the rich man must first steal

a Mercedes before he is subjected to a similar penalty.

My fourth and last question was: Did Justice Corona betray the public trust?

Again, ironically, the answer was supplied by Justice Corona and the Supreme Court.

For contained in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary under Canon 2which covers integrity are two sections:

1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach but that it is perceived to be so

in the view of a reasonable observer.

2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity of the Judiciary.

Justice must not merely be done, but must also be seen to be done.

Mr. President, we all must face the Ms. Floreses of our country, whether in Mindanao, the Visayas

or Luzon. We must be able to tell them that justice is, to the best of our ability, being applied equally

to the rich and to the poor, to the powerful and to the powerless.


26/40


The Senate Impeachment Court must restore the peoples faith in the judicial system. The Senate

must bring about a higher level of moral standards in governance.

I therefore find for the people, guilty on Article II.

The Clerk of Court. The Honorable Senator-Judge Pangilinan.

Senator Pangilinan. Kagalang-galang na mga kasamahan sa Impeachment Court, mgakababayan, magandang hapon po sa kanilang lahat.

Hindi dineklara ni Ginoong Corona ang daang milyong piso at dolyar na mga account. Hindi

niya idineklara taun-taon ang mga milyun-milyong pisong pag-aari na mga condo units. Ang

hindi pag-deklara ng makatotohanang SALN taun-taon sa loob ng halos isang dekada ay

dishonesty at isang culpable violation of the Constitution.

Ano poang ebidensya? Nariyan ang salaysay ng PSBank president, ng Ombudsman, at ni

Ginoong Corona mismo. Twenty-two million pesos ang sinabi niya sa SALN niya ngunit halos

P200 million cash ang hawak niya. Ito ba ay minor na kakulangan lamang? Dapat bang daang

bilyon ang hindi idineklara para maging mabigat ang kaso?

At kung sa malinis na paraan nakuha ang mga ito, ano ang masama na ideklara niya lahat

dahil wala naman siyang itinatago? Di dapat ikaila kung walang tinatagong masama.

Base sa ebidensya, maliwanag na nagkaroon ng sistematikong pagtatago ng ari-arian,

sistematikong pagtatakip sa tunay na halaga ng mga ito.

It pains me as a lawyer and an officer of the court to say that clearly, the Chief Justice displayed

a disturbing pattern of dishonesty, willful concealment and evasion, and a blatant and wanton disregard

of the provisions of the Constitution on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

Sa paglilitis na ito, nakita rin natin ang pagkatao ni Chief Justice. Siya ba ay dapat pa nating

pagkakatiwalaan? Kung hindi po natin i-convict si Ginoong Corona, sabi po ni Speaker

Belmonte, anim na taon pa siyang uupo bilang Chief Justice. Kung kaya niyang ipagkait sa

mismo niyang kamag-anakan ang kanilang ari-arian sa Basa-Guidote gayong daang milyon na

pala ang kanyang cash, siya ba ay dapat pagkatiwalaan sa loob pa ng anim na taon?

Kung kaya niyang ipakita ang kawalan ng respeto sa dalawamput-tatlong Senador noong

siya ay nagtangkang mag walkout, na sa aking paniwala ay napigil lamang dahil sa mabilis na

kilos ng ating mahal na Senate Presidentginawa niya ito sa harap mismo ng lahat ng media at

buong bansapaano kaya ang pagtrato niya sa maliliit nating mga kababayan na hindi mga

senador na dumudulog sa kanyang tanggapan? Siya ba ay mapagkakatiwalaan pa na

rumespeto sa maliliit nating mga kababayan sa loob ng anim na taon? Dapat po siyang

managot dahil siya po ay nagkasala.

Tulad na lamang ng isang court interpreter sa Davao na sinibak mismo ng Korte Suprema

dahil hindi niya inilagay sa kanyang SALN ang pag-aari niyang market stall sa palengke. Tama

ba na ang pagsisinungaling ng maliliit at mahihirap ay paruhasan habang ang pagsisinungaling

ng makapangyarihan ay absuwelto? Ang pagsisinungaling ba ay impeachable offense?

Si Chief Justice na mismo ang nagsabi sa kanyang talumpati sa harap ng Manila Overseas

Press Club noong June 24, 2010, kung ano ang nararapat sa mga huwes na hindi tapat sa

tungkulin. Sabi po ni Chief Justice, and I quote: I believe that a member of the Judiciary who is found

guilty of dishonesty should not only be dismissed from the service, he should also be disbarred, no ifs


27/40


or buts. Siya na po ang nagsabi na kapag ang isang huwes ay nagsisinungaling, hindi lang

ito dapat sibakin sa puwesto, dapat pa ho ito ma-disbar bilang abugado. Sa kanyang mga labi

na mismo nanggaling na nararapat siyang ma-convict at masibak sa puwesto.

The vote to convict is a vote to defeat abuses and excesses in government. Ang boto ng conviction

ay boto upang wakasan, wakasan na ang pang-aabuso at pagmamalabis ng mga opisyal ng

ating bansa.

We all want a better, more progressive nation. We all want our nation to reach developed nation

status in our lifetimes and yes, for our children. But critical to a modern state is an effective system

of justice that has the trust and faith and confidence of our people. We all want to see the end of abuses

in governance. We have heard of exposs after exposs of abuses in government. We have witnessed

lawlessness, criminality, corruption, and disrespect for the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law will

only be realized if punishment of the guilty is swift and in a fair trial. Unless we punish more and punish

swiftly, lawlessness, abuse, and disregard of our laws will not be defeated. Those who wish to abuse

their offices will continue to be emboldened to commit their nefarious activities. Only when we punish

the guilty and punish them swiftly in a fair trial will respect for the rule of law be restored.

No less than the Chief Justice has been accused of culpable violation of the Constitution.To convict him is to uphold the rule of law and will send the signal to the entire nation that the rule

of law should be respected and it should strike fear in the hearts of all those who wish to violate

our laws and disrespect our Constitution.

For this reason, I find the Chief Justice Guilty.

The Clerk of Court. Honorable Senator-Judge Pimentel.

Senator Pimentel. Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat!

Maayong hapon kaninyong tanan.

Impeachment is a constitutional administrative proceeding. When there is sufficient credibleevidence to prove a constitutionally recognized ground for impeachment, then the impeached high

government official must be removed from office.

There is evidence on record which shows that Respondent Corona did not declare in his SALNs

for certain years real properties worth millions of pesos. There is also evidence on record as well as

admissions that millions of pesos and millions of dollars were also not declared in the Respondents

SALNs.

The arguments of the Respondent do not persuade this Senator-Judge.

1. The ownership of real property is transferred upon delivery of the real property sold.

When the contract of sale of the real property is embodied in a public instrument, the execution of

the said instrument is equivalent to delivery of the things owned.

2. There is no law exempting commingled funds from disclosure in the SALN.

Minarapat sana ng Punong Mahistrado na iwasan ang ganitong mga alanganing transaksyong

pinansiyal. Hindi na nga iniwasan, ginagamit pang kasangkapan upang hindi tumupad sa

kaniyang tungkuling ilahad ang tunay niyang yaman.

3. The duty of a public officer or employee to submit under oath a declaration of assets,

liabilities and net worth is mandated by the Constitution. In case of conflict, the Constitution

prevails over RA 6426.


28/40


4. The SALN is required by RA 6713, a 1989 law. The Respondent relies on RA 6426, a 1974

law. In case of conflict, the later law prevails over the earlier law because the later law is the latest

expression of the legislative will.

5. RA No. 6713 emphasizes the obligation of the public official and employee to file his SALN as

well as the right of the public to know their assets, liabilities and net worth.

The 1974 law, RA 6426, cannot be interpreted in such a way that it would nullify the main purposeof the Code of Conduct as a tool against graft and corruption.

Hindi layunin ng RA 6426 ang magsilbing kanlungan ng mga tiwali sa gobyerno. An earlier

law cannot be interpreted to nullify the purposes of a later law. The Respondent relies too much on

the phrase of an absolutely confidential nature. This phrase is practically useless as the Secrecy of

Bank Deposits Act itself provides four (4) exceptions. Jurisprudence and other laws add six (6) more

exceptions. The Foreign Currency Deposit Act, the FCDA, provides one (1) exception and

jurisprudence and other laws provide for a further two (2) more exceptions. How can something be

of an absolutely confidential nature when there are so many exceptions to the rule of confidentiality?

The 1974 Foreign Currency Deposit Act and the 1989 SALN Law do not have to exclude eachother, they can be harmonized. This Senator-Judge respectfully submits that the two laws could be

harmonized as follows: foreign currency deposit accounts continue to be protected from idle inquiry

but the amounts of these deposits must be declared as assets in the SALN, converted to Philippine peso

without need of disclosing details like the existence of the foreign currency accounts, the name of the

bank, and account numbers.

Furthermore, RA 6713, in requiring that the SALN shall contain information on all other assets,

does not distinguish between peso and foreign currencies. When the law does not distinguish, neither

should we distinguish.

Documents

May 29 Senate Impeachment Court Record