I wrote this piece on the eve of the decision that the Senate impeachment court was scheduled to hand down on the case of Chief Justice Renato Corona. It appeared then that the senator-judges had already made up their minds on their respective votes. According to a late poll, the Filipino people had also framed their own decision.
I had to consider the harsh fact that the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was not simply a matter of determining an immutable right and an undeniable wrong. No doubt Corona was as convinced of his innocence as the prosecution was of his guilt.
Indeed, determining right and wrong is sometimes a matter of objectives. Perspective. Upbringing. Values. Or lack of values.
To the professional assassin, consummating a contract is the right thing to do. To the serf, loyalty to his master is a matter of honor. To the businessman, undercutting a competitor is part of doing business. To the suicide bomber, killing the enemy is deserving of paradise.
In this context, the arguments of the defense and the prosecution for and against Corona were part of their job. They did what they had to do, twisting and coloring the facts and interpreting the law to suit their ends.
Doubtless, chief defense counsel Serafin Cuevas could just as deftly have argued for Corona’s conviction, as he had argued for acquittal, if he had been on the side of the prosecution – using exactly the same information presented in the trial and exactly the same laws and rules on assets and dollar deposits to support his thesis.
There is no better example of how black can be made to appear white and white to appear black than listening to Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago rationalize whatever position she happens to be sponsoring or emasculating at any given time.
Against that background, I saw that the reason or reasons that would be given by each senator-judge to support his or her decision – whether for acquittal or dismissal of Chief Justice Corona – would be par for the course. Just like the lawyers.
There was every possibility that Corona would be acquitted as there was every possibility that he would be adjudged guilty. And in either case, the senator-judges would endeavor to persuade the Filipino people of the righteousness of their decision. And they would be entitled to that.
For the same reason, I felt that I, too, was entitled to my own perspective, opinion, rationalization and justification for my own verdict on the case – just like every single concerned citizen.
It was argued by the defense that lying under oath and not fully disclosing his real properties, his bank deposits and his dollar accounts did not constitute an impeachable offense.
The defense also argued that Corona did not intentionally try to hide his assets, including real estate properties, the size of his bank deposits and his dollar accounts, rationalizing their non-inclusion as honest mistakes.
Yet the repeated non-disclosure over a number of years, despite filing his SALN under oath, indicated a pattern that could not believably be considered honest mistakes.
The argument that the dollar deposits were not declared by Corona because banks were inhibited from disclosing them was non sequiter. The prohibition on the banks does not apply to the depositor. It was his choice not to declare them.
The story about “co-mingled funds” strained the limits of believability. The record of deposits and withdrawals, including those made on the day of the filing of the impeachment case, showed full control of funds in accounts in Corona’s name.
The highest magistrate of the land must be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty. Higher than the standards to which an ordinary citizen is held. On this basis, as Chief Justice, Corona’s integrity and honesty had to be absolutely beyond reproach.
Did Corona’s acts indicate a person of integrity and honesty beyond reproach?
The members of the senate and the legislature, as well as the president of the Philippines and the members of his cabinet must also be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty. Higher, too, than the standards to which an ordinary citizen is held.
But that is an entirely separate issue. It was Corona who was on trial.
The defense also suggested that Corona was not the only one who was guilty of non-disclosure of assets and foreign currency accounts.
Even assuming that, the fact was that it was Corona who was on trial. Whatever the crimes or the sins of members of the Senate, the president and other high officials might be, those are matters that deserve to be subsequently pursued.
But that did not – could not – mitigate the violations committed by Corona.
Corona and his defense counsel accused PNoy of mustering all the resources of government to impeach him. Assuming that to be true, would a less determined effort have been expected of a new government whose commitment to the citizenry is to relentlessly go after those in high office who have violated the law?
It still did not – could not – mitigate Corona’s violations.
The three-hour soliloquy of the Chief Justice may have been heart-rending, but nothing he said constituted a documented rebuttal of the information presented by the defense’s hostile witness, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
The defense lawyers argued that the information provided by the Anti-Money Laundering Council were not “validated.” But Corona himself validated the existence of his dollar accounts and the approximate size of his peso deposits. He also admitted not having reported them in his SALN.
In other words, he himself confirmed the infirmity of his integrity and honesty.
What is ironic is that the basis for Corona’s impeachment was simply a convenient reason for doing so. It was what one might refer to as The Al Capone Solution.
It was much like the tax case for which Al Capone was indicted and jailed, rather than the killings and the other high crimes that the authorities wanted to pin on him.
But, like the crimes of Al Capone, the real reasons for ejecting Corona – from his illegal appointment as Chief Justice to his aborted attempt to allow the Arroyos to flee the country and his unfailing support of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during her incumbency – could not be adequately framed by the Aquino government.
If Corona had been acquitted, Aquino and the Congress would have impeached him again. And they would have been better prepared. With more solid grounds for conviction, specifically, unexplained wealth.
I asked myself: Did we want the country to go through this excruciating experience again?
As I pondered the impeachment trial, I concluded that our country could not afford to have Renato Corona continue to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
We deserve better.
My verdict: GUILTY!
( [email protected])
