Corona impeachment: Prosecution team is incompetent not just underdogs

Supreme Court Chief Justice, Renato Corona is richer (only) by eight million pesos according to an ABS-CBN headline report. This is shocking news, indeed. This means that the embattled Chief Justice won’t be able to afford to purchase even just a second hand Porsche similar to the one President Noynoy Aquino (PNoy) bought in 2011, which reportedly cost P4.5 million. In fact, Corona can forget about having a mid-life crisis and buying himself any sports car at all. At the rate he accumulates his wealth — through investment properties instead of dipping his fingers into public funds – Corona will neither be included in the Forbes rich list nor given membership to the poshest country club in the country meant for the rich and famous before he retires.

Seriously, eight million pesos is nothing to boast about in public, really. No wonder, CJ Corona was confident he had nothing to hide in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). On the contrary, I would say that he must have been slightly embarrassed at the thought that people would discover that he is not even “rich” enough compared to some of his peers.

Indeed, if we can rely on some data cobbled together from different sources by Get Real Philippines Community netizen Amy Lee, we will find Corona rather impoverished by the standards of his colleagues in the other branches of government…

I don’t understand why ABS-CBN News, which is said to be owned and operated by people close to the Aquino family is misleading the public about Corona’s supposedly ill-gotten wealth. They are reading things that are not even on Corona’s SALN. Last I heard, it’s not a crime to invest in properties. In fact, investing in properties is one legitimate way of accumulating wealth.

The allegations that CJ Corona hadn’t been filing his SALN since the start of his membership in the Supreme Court has been proven false. And the allegations that he had “enriched” himself during his time as member of the Supreme Court is also false. It is crystal clear from his SALN that he is paying for his property investments by instalment and any earnings from those properties are only on paper due to the fact that the appreciation in value of those properties can only be realised if he decides to liquidate them. Which means Corona won’t even be able to buy anything worth even one million pesos without liquidating any of his assets and without the approval of his spouse.

His SALN, which ABS-CBN News have published does not indicate that he had amassed “ill-gotten” wealth. Where the prosecutors got the idea that CJ Corona had “enriched” himself and had amassed “ill-gotten” wealth is a mystery considering they haven’t even seen his SALN until the third day of the impeachment trial. What has been proven in the proceedings is that they were making baseless allegations using their suspicion and broadcasting it to the public using mainstream media, which includes media networks ABS-CBN News and The Philippine Daily Inquirer. It is worth emphasising again that both are said to be operated by people close to the Aquino family. Indeed, Philippine media can sometimes cause more problems than they do good.

It was a good decision on the part of the defense team not to allow CJ Corona to testify. If the treatment of Supreme Court Clerk Enriquietta Vidal by the members of the prosecution team and some of the Senator judges are any indication, Corona would be bullied and mistreated too. We all know how these so-called “statesmen” conduct themselves during congressional and senatorial hearings. Some of them seem to take the opportunity to act like rabid mad dogs aggressively intimidating persons of interest as if they are superior beings when in fact, they are supposed to be working for the people. Their kind of behaviour is usually evident in people who lack substance and harbour delusions of grandeur. They try to hide their incompetence by acting boorish or rude just to distract people from their own shortfalls.

Speaking of incompetence, the prosecution team is justifying their incompetence by saying that they are underdogs compared to the defense team. They said that despite having ABS-CBN private lawyer Mario Bautista and a total of 59 private lawyers who are said to have volunteered to help. It’s a bit weird that they admit being the “underdog” because being an underdog means one who is expecting to lose or struggle. The question is, where did their confidence to file the impeachment case come from? They shouldn’t be struggling now if they had a solid case to begin with.

It is beginning to appear like the prosecution’s main reason for filing for impeachment was merely to humiliate CJ Corona into resigning. It probably didn’t occur to them that they would have to present the so-called compelling evidence they spoke of with the media in court. They are certainly learning the hard way that the due process involves dealing with facts and not fiction.

print

169 Comments on “Corona impeachment: Prosecution team is incompetent not just underdogs”

  1. The prosecution team is a bunch of hungry dogs (in filipino “asong ulol”). One – Rep Quimbo of Marikina – I am from Marikina and in all honesty he is also a corrupt politician hungry for attention as he is planning to run for higher office in the next elections. Marami siyang ninakaw na pera sa pag-ibig fund before and fraud cases as well which involves milllions of money. I know where he lives before and now he is living at a very private and expensive subdivision. Saan niya kaya kinuha ang perang pambayad niya sa buhay na meron siya ngayon = just wondering. Akala mo naman kung sino magmalinis ang mga prosecutors na yan….they are all hiding skeletons in their closets more baka mas marami pa silang ninakaw kesa inaakusahan nila…

    1. And this is why I am surprised at the way they treat Corona. They can’t even try putting themselves in his shoes and say, “I will be kind to Corona so that when it is my turn to be in the hot seat, the people will treat me with respect too.”

      Ewan ko ba. They seem to have very low emotional intelligence. They don’t have the ability to understand how other people are feeling. In short, no empathy.

    2. kaya nga even before the trial starts pa lang, di na talaga ako naniniwala sa mga taong yan kasi all the while to me they are all a bunch of thieves…kung baga eh, look who’s talking???..he who has not sinned, cast the first stone??? mahiya naman sila sa sarili nila!!

      1. Ibig sabihin ba na kapag nagnanakaw din sila e dapat wala nalang sa kanila ang manghuli sa iba? Tandaan natin na hindi lang SALN ang tinitignan. Point of comparison lang ito.

        1. Kasi that’s what you get about other opportunists. Ung mga prosecutors ni Corona e they refused to show their own SALN and why did they skip to Article 2.

          Most of the prosecution panel have questionable integrity.

        2. @Ice

          If they haven’t seen the SALN prior to the third day of the trial, what was their basis in saying CJ Corona amassed ill-gotten wealth?!?

    3. i am also wondering, since CJ Corona has already declared his SALN, can the prosecution now declare their own SALNs? or is it just too much to ask?

      1. If they keep insisting that it’s a crime not to declare the SALN, then they should declare theirs too or be charged the same.

        1. I’m wondering why no one has filed a complaint.

          That’s the problem in this country. Everybody sees, no one complains formally. Is there a petition somewhere?

        2. I think most people were not aware that it should be declared and be available to the public. We were not even aware that the SC needs to approve the use of SALN in court.

          Now that it is clear that it is part of their responsibility as a public servant, the people should be more vigilant. The defense team of Corona could help force the congressmen and senators to declare their SALN.

        3. Being a public document, SALN can be requested by anyone from the Office of the Ombudsman. This document contains the simplified guidelines : http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/54/39367966.pdf
          The only reason CJ’s SALN was not available to public and hence unverifiable is because it was under he protection of an SC resolution. Note that the witness Atty. Vidal even insisted on asking her superior first regarding the release of the SALNs (which were already with her in the witness stand) – because of the said resolution. It dawned on me then that the the reason why earlier, the other camp challenged CJ to disclose his SALN because of the alleged posh properties was because his SALN was not publicly accessible being protected by the SC resolution. Many people (including me ) thought that he did not file – he did at the SC’s office of the clerk of court. But remember that SC resolution is not a law hence the provision of the RA6713 still prevails over it.I have never tried requesting anyone’s SALN but the guidelines are quite clear. Those who want to see Tupas’ SALN may give a try at the Ombudsman’s Office.

        4. Being a public document, SALN can be requested by anyone from the Office of the Ombudsman.

          If it’s just a matter of “requesting” for it, I wonder why they had to charge Corona for “refusing” to disclose his SALN?!?

        5. Didn’t I highlight that it was covered by the SC resolution and that is where Corona capitalized on? Disclosing is different than filing. The only way for the other camp to verify his income/resources is through his SALN which is prctically steel-safed at the office of the SC’s clerk of court – not at the Office of the Ombudsman , accessible to teh public. The only way to see the SALN is for Corona to voluntary show it to the public – that is disclosing or through a subpoena by an impeachment court.

        6. You are basically confirming therefore, that the allegations that Corona has “amassed ill-gotten wealth” is baseless because they have not seen his SALN prior to the trial. Likewise, the allegations that he hasn’t been filing his SALN is false and should be junked.

          Thank you!

        7. @Ilda,

          You are basically confirming therefore, that the allegations that Corona has “amassed ill-gotten wealth” is baseless because they have not seen his SALN prior to the trial.

          NOPE!The other camp saw a loophole and took the opportunity. As I have mentioned already, the resolution is only covering the SC people while the RA6713 is the one recognized by Congress as the basis for filing SALN. They seized the opportunity to use it as ground. CJ’s case then, in view of the other camp, was considered a non-filing of SALN and with the documents being unavailable qualifies to non-disclosure which is punishable by law.. The posh properties were just mere accessories which will substantiate the case later. Let’s face it, in time of peace you can afford to be carefree but in time of war, you have to guard your posts otherwise the enemy will try to enter your camp through openings.. CJ was basically caught without his pants on. BTW, this is only regarding the article #2 of hte Articles of Impeachment which says:
          Failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under the constitution.

        8. That’s just basically scraping the bottom of the barrel. They are making a mountain out of a molehill. As a member of the SC, of course Corona was just following the resolution. It’s effing unbelievable they would use this to vilify a man and make him look like a criminal. There’s a lot to be said about the people who support this impeachment considering that most of the congressmen haven’t disclosed their own SALN to the public.

        9. @Harakiri

          I would like to weigh in on this matter.

          The SC Resolution states that release of justices SALN will only be done if it is not for a fishing expedition or used maliciously.

          Now, the SC/CJ has now released his SALN based on the fact that it was the impeachment court/Senate that has requested/subpoenaed it.

          Again, it looks bad in that in needed a subpoena before it was shown publicly, but had the CJ resisted the release of the SALN even after being subpoenaed, it would have been a different matter.

          Anyway, point is, Article 2 focuses on release and I agree on that. However, the SC resolution protects them from releasing it when the release will help malicious motives by the other party.

          Well, you might ask what malicious intent one can gain from a SALN? I think I stated it in one of my post (forgot which article) that the media ended up showing all addresses, especially the actual homestead/residence of the CJ.

          Think about the repercussions of this? This not only risk safety of life and property of the CJ, but also his family which I think is malicious. They could have at least blurred it out.

          Anyway, going into article 2, it is about disclosure. But they jumbled it all up (the prosecution) with issues of ill gotten wealth, which made it more so to be a fishing expedition. They did not have facts and therefore, they are now fishing for data.

          It would have been an entirely different matter if the Congrees (prior to signing of the complaint) requested for the SALN of the CJ and then were denied, then it would be grounds for Article 2. But stating ill-gotten wealth without actually having a reference for it, is kind of like a kid crying wolf repeatedly until a time that a “wolf” may come by.

          I am not saying CJ is innocent and a saint. I am saying, the whole process was ruined by the precedents that Congress has laid as foundation.

          The ends do not justify the means. This is what is causing the numerous objections by the defense panel, which I believe have its merits as the complaint is just too vague and general. Kind of like a shotgun approach with a blindfold hoping to hit something in the process. It is just irresponsible if you ask me.

          Anyway, SALN is out for CJ. Article 2 should techinically be over with already and move on to the next article until such time that their memorandums for Article (both defense and prosecution) are out. Because if the defense has valid points and the prosecution has none in the memorandum, then we are practically wasting our time. If the prosecution has more merit than the defense in their memorandum, we can always jump back to Article 2 right?

          Just my take. Cheers!

    4. ano masasabi ninyo ngayon…

      corona MUST BE IMPEACHED!

      with the help of arroyo, he singlehandedly made the FILIPINO’s SUPREME COURT to a supreme corrupt institution…
      HE IS NOT ONLY A LIAR, HE IS A TRUE BLOODSUCKER like arroyo and their cohorts

  2. ‘Politics has nothing to do with fair play. It
    is bound up with hatred, jealousy, hypocrisy,boastfulness,
    disregard of all rules, and sadistic pleasure in
    witnessing defeat. In other words, it is war
    minus the shooting.’
    George Orwell – adapted

    Vidal – will not win employee of the month.

    Karen jimeno – miss photogenic

    Drillon – prosecutor and spokesman. Also wants to be judge, jury, and executioner. Already building the scaffolding

    Political process – the rights of the individual and due legal process dont apply

    ABS-CBN – providing the prosecution with 5 abs-cbn lawyers free! Mmmm

    Conflict of interest – ask abs-cbn lawyers

    Payback – who will buy NBN network at knockdown price!?

    Cuevas – old dog showing young (b)ucks a trick or two

    Makati bars/restaurants – full of laughing/drinking congressmen and their ‘daughters’!. Does impeachment mean holiday.

    Coronas address – abs-cbn published it! Irresponsible and unethical

    P-noy – “he has adjusted his schedule to monitor the trial” lacierda. Does impeachment mean no work – as usual

    It’s the hacienda, people! – the elephant is getting out of the room

  3. so what ever happened to the no-loopholes and airtight case with tons and tons of evidence then?
    its more pun in the philippines indeed…

      1. Probably because the Aquino’s and ABS-CBN is the same to the eyes of the masses.

        They share the same philosophy towards people. Give them wealth, they give back loyalty.

        They just throw a slab of meat and the masses will gather around it like stray dogs. Once they’re through with it, they have your loyalty hoping for more meat.

        That’s how they work. Less thinking more instincts

  4. The Yellow cabal was expecting Corona to breakdown under the onslaught of distorted facts, falsehoods and name-smearing campaign. Unfortunately for them Corona prove to be more tougher than expected and now that the clash have come to the impeachment process. One can see that they were more or less unprepared for such an eventuality and are now floundering in the process of directly facing Corona in the trial.

    You all know that said onslaughts thrown by the Yellow cabal are quite formidable. The manpower and resources mobilized is quite remarkable in terms of sheer effort(competence and smarts are not barred in the remarkable bit). Imagine if such effort was directed to some more useful venture like say improving the country perhaps?

    Such efforts are also remarkable in terms of being squandered big time.

    1. The headlines in the media are still misleading. One headline in the Inquirer says: “Corona lied about his SALN.” But when you read the article, it will say “Corona allegedly lied about his SALN”. They know there is a difference but they still do it anyway. Deceptive, indeed.

      1. Poor minded people will just read the title of the story not the whole story itself.
        Title – Less words to understand.
        Story – more words to understand.

      2. If the truth is not ones liking, one can either twist or simply cover it in lies. The Yellow cabal are doing everything just to bring Corona down and blind the gullible as well.

  5. Poor dude. He’s literally poor compared to most lawyers.

    There’s still that sudden spike in his 2009-2010 assets though. Must be the 7M he lost back in 2003 coming back as a failed investment.

      1. Actually he amassed wealth thru his own private enterprises, but if you mean that he amass wealth thru siphoning state funds then the prosecution ought to prove it, but then again they really have nothing solid to gon and straw-clutching is the option for them.

  6. 1) Perhaps it is also incumbent upon Pnoy to explain to his bosses how come he accumulated P4.8M in a matter of 6 months immediately after becoming the Chief Executive of an impoverished country. Certainly his salary as president won’t be able to explain that increase (about 20% annualized).

    2) Philstar and GMA News are also biased in their reports and manner of reporting although to a slightly lesser degree.

    3) I am not a lawyer but from my standpoint, the prosecutors are clearly on a fishing expedition and witch hunting. Article 2 is based merely on speculation and assumption. How can they allege non-declaration of some properties when they have not seen the declaration tself?!

    4) I pity Atty. Vidal. She pushed to the wall and her arm was twisted by the senators just to get the SALN. She was intimidated. I am not sure if this can be considered illegal as am not a lawyer. But if yes, isn’t it that evidence obtained in illegal manner is not admissible in court?

    5) I can forgive the prosecutors if they are not at par with the defense as they are politicians not praticing litigators like the former. But, if they are being eaten alive, it is not because of their lack of competence but because they are not prepared. If the evidence presented is as solid as what they wanted us to believe, the defense will not be able to demolish it irrespective of competence.

    Now, the question is, can the senators offer Atty. Vidal a position if she loses her job because of their bullying?

    1. We really can’t blame some of the media.

      Most people, poor minded people will only read what they want to learn. For them, a sweet lie is the truth rather than the truth itself.

      Here’s what I think is happening right now.

      The higher echelons in the government is using Corona and the former president as an escape goat. They saw an opportunity, they grab it. Put all the blame on them and will come clean. Of course the people, now brainwashed, would demand justice. Giving them the truth would be suicide since you’ll be clashing with the brainwashed angry mob.

      With that, we can only move on with our lives. There’s no use reasoning with people who doesn’t have the capability to reason. If they can’t use their brains, they’ll use their muscles. And because they have no brain, they’ll go straight to their muscles

    2. @roi

      I just thought of something. Hope everyone can discuss about this too with me.

      Atty Vidal (SC Clerk of Court) was subpoenaed on Tuesday late afternoon to come to the court and also with the documents. The subpoenas are needed to be responded to within 10 days (if I am not mistaken). She showed up, the next morning (wednesday) and even brought the SALN regardless of the approval of the SC. This is less than 24 hours wherein approval was needed for records requests.

      Now, we go now to the BIR Commissioner Henares. Subpoenaed also for god-knows-how-long ago. Yet she is also tasked to produced the records for the CJ, which also need approval from her boss, in this case the president.

      Why is it, then the BIR Commissioner was given time (hopefully within the 10 day limit) before she can produce the documents, while Atty Vidal was not? As Mr. Joker Arroyo pointed out, what is one day? In fact, what is a few days in my mind?

      Point is, these two entities have ruling pertaining to the matter being requested (SALN and ITR) which have a required approving body/head to grant in case of such a request. If found to be valid, then request will be granted.

      I just do want to emphasize this because I believe in just and equal exercise of the law. If a resolution/ruling/decree has scope over it, then we respect it as well do we not?

      Anyway, that’s me, and I think it is also logical for anyone to give time for requests, especially if these request require approval.

      It is not an issue of whether the impeachment court is higher than the SC. As one could actually say, this impeachment court is higher than both the executive and the judiciary and therefore would not need the approval of the president even if it requests for ITR right? Just my point of view.

      I still think the impeachment court is still the legislative and co-equal in reach to both the judiciary and executive. As such, respect between each other’s resolutions and rules should be observed.

      Cheers!

  7. the whole thing may come down to the undervaluation of properties in saln.

    it will be enough for those who want to convict.

    but the ‘concrete evidence of 45 properties’ has shown the prosecution have nothing but a lack of integrity and are really conducting an audit and hoping to find something as they go.

    i thought such fishing expeditions were not allowed.

    next tax returns and then bank accounts

    1. Since it has been proven that he doesn’t have 45 properties, the defense team should use that to put more crack on the credibility of the cases against Corona.

    1. What about you weh? What observation and thoughts can you contribute? Perhaps you can enlighten us if our analyses are flawed.

  8. I think that if the house prosecutors had a smidgin of competence, or even just basic decency, they wouldn’t be on the side they are on right now.

      1. of course they have common sense. it’s money and publicity that they’re gonna get.. bottom line, money is all that matters with politicians…

  9. Can we publish or send the bar graph of the dictator Aquino to the social networking sites like facebook? 50.2M and 55.0M is a giant leap for his unexplained wealth! Please guys send the comparison to Noynoy Aquino’s official facebook account and watch him wilt in the bright light of truth. 🙂

    1. i think his initial wealth was inheritance from father and latter increase inheritance from mother.
      the graph says the lazy sod never worked or achieved anything on his own.

      1. That’s the first thing that came to my mind. But you gotta educate me, how would divesting shares increase your net worth by tens of millions? Was that the profit?

  10. May we are giving them too much credit by calling them a “Prosecution Team”. Lets see… the administration is a student council, right? Then this team should be “Hall Monitors” perhaps?

  11. Corona is not rich in U.S. standard. Noynoy Aquino is very rich, and it is amazing…his wealth went to the Roof of the Bar Graph, in his two years term…112 Billion Pork Barrel Fund has to do with it…Noynoy Aquino is the Crook here.
    The ABS-CBN and all networks media informations that provide sanitized news for the Noynoy Aquino regime are doing it, because the owners vested interests.
    The Lopezes has many companies with juicy government contracts…and they may have interest also in the hacienda Luisaita ownership…It’s a biased Media , we have…the purpose is not to inform us, but to spread lies and disinformations…the Aquino are: liars, hypocrites, deceitful people, swindlers, and are the ultimate political opportunist.

    A 22 million pesos, is just an equivalent of U.S. $500,000 . A common yearly salary of a tenured professor in a good university in the U.S. Technical men and Researchers earn more than that a year…U.S. Filipino Doctors who are specialists can earn that also in a year…

  12. @Hyden Toro

    A 22 million pesos, is just an equivalent of U.S. $500,000 . A common yearly salary of a tenured professor in a good university in the U.S. Technical men and Researchers earn more than that a year…U.S. Filipino Doctors who are specialists can earn that also in a year…

    That figure is from the SALn and is already a sum of all his assets and liabilities, not just his salary. The prosecution lawyers and politicians could’ve easily been earning so much more than Corona.

    The prosecution is fishing for volunteer witnesses who are prejudiced enough against Corona that they’d be willing to lie or mislead in favor of the prosecution.

    The AbNoy party have been fiercely predatory in its lust for unmitigated power, control, and shameful greed. They’ve been willing to muster all their vast resources to vilify a sworn enemy. They’ve drawn upon their inordinately advantageous media privileges in order to incite public hostility towards vulnerable targets who do not enjoy those same media privileges they do. By limiting the public’s choices to just an assortment of half-truths, they’ve sown so much malice and perversion that the public ended up strangers to truth.

    The prosecution have been busy promoting their maliciously grotesque interpretation of data to TV viewers. They’ve garnished an unremarkable set of documents to look as if it were a great archeological find—a “victory” to them probably, considering their mediocre standards.

  13. Observe some of the senator judges as they act like the prosecution. Lack of fairness and impartiality in siding with the prosecution’s train of thought is a ground for inhibition.

    1. i think the defense is just giving drillon enough rope so that he can hang himself.
      and obviously he is being fed inside info from malacanan in preparation.
      no doubt he already has info in coronas tax returns so tuesday is a make or break day especially as it is aquino that has to authorise the release of coronas tax returns. a foregone conclusion but a feeding frenzy will ensue

  14. Them? Underdogs? I don’t think so.

    I mean, the guys at the pro-prosecution camp have ALL the resources needed for them to throw eggs and tomatoes at Corona, even though I predict that these will not affect the outcome of the trial.

  15. I recently watched the news today and good thing, some Filipinos already noticed how the prosecutor team and also how the Senator Judges questioned the witnesses. some of them also thinks that Corona should have a fair trial, I guess they are seeing the big picture now. Hope that more of them thinks this way.

  16. If the Senate really were seriously smart about the trial, they’d have dismissed the case the moment the persecutors said “We’re not prepared with…”

    1. “If the Senate really were seriously smart about the trial, they’d have dismissed the case the moment the persecutors said “We’re not prepared with…””

      Ito ang nangyari noong panahon ni Pres. Arroyo. Immediate dismissal ng mga impeachment complaint sa kanya sa Committee on Justice palang.

      Kaya natatago ang katotohanan.

      Let’s just wait for the Impeachment proceedings to finish and then let’s decide if the Articles of Impeachment merits an affirmative or negative vote.

      1. @Ice

        To quote Alex Magno:

        “They (prosecution) bragged their case was strong and the Chief Justice was doomed. At every media forum, they waved all sorts of documents they claim to be “evidence.” At every opportunity, they spewed venom liberally and wantonly demonized the defendant in this case.

        This was a propaganda team; not a prosecution panel.

        For as long as they rode the crest of a massive propaganda apparatus assembled to demolish the Chief Justice, they were awesome. Every claim they made grabbed the headlines in every sympathetic media outlet. Every attack line they devised was echoed by sycophants down the ranks. It seems they were spoiled by this.”

        They simply weren’t ready because they didn’t think the case would actually go to court. They were expecting Corona to resign.

  17. To all of you guys. . . Still’ Corona is not fitted. Prosecution is just doing their job. Of course when we follow technicalities in court, definitely we will not be able to know the truth. The Defense will just object and block any presentation of evidences. Good thing Senators-judges are allow to question and cant be objected. At least theres a way we could find the truth. After all, Prosecution admits that they lack practice in Trial Law. . . . . Its better if we’ve just abolished SUPREME COURT!!! Shame on all Arroyo appointees. . . !!!

    1. “Of course when we follow technicalities in court, definitely we will not be able to know the truth. ”

      Er… no.

      Those technicalities are permissible under law; they’re not illegal. Heck, look at it this way: the Defense wouldn’t have to invoke those technicalities if the Prosecution would not give them opportunities by preparing the solid case they claim to have.

      “Its better if we’ve just abolished SUPREME COURT!!!”

      RI-IGHT.

    2. @Gerad

      Your logic is flawed. Of course we need to follow the procedure. The prosecutor’s incompetence has nothing to do with their lack of practice. It has more to do with their lack of evidence.

      No evidence = no case.

    3. What Gerard wanted is ANARCHY and CHAOS.

      “Introduce a little ANARCHY. Upset the established ORDER, and everything becomes CHAOS. I’m an agent of CHAOS. Oh, the thing about CHAOS… IT’S FAIR.” – The Joker

      Yes, you wanted a CHAOTIC country. And it’s happening…..

    4. All CJ needs to prove is that his income can afford him to buy those properties in question. Cuevas is a very good lawyer and he may thwart the prosecution despite the big inconsistencies between the acquisition costs of the properties and CJ’s income. But even if Cuevas wins the case not on merit but on technicality, the inconsistencies will remain a big doubt in the eyes of many. As a chief justice, his character should be beyond reproach – of high integrity in both professional and private life. Just like what Teddy Locsin Jr. said, “what used to be supreme is no longer supreme”

      1. It would be hard to reverse the public’s perception, indeed due to the trial by publicity. But if he gets acquitted, PNoy and his supporters should apologise to him for damaging his reputation without any basis.

        1. @Ilda

          If he indeed does get acquitted, I think a statement from the congress would be in order that vehemently absolves him of any and all accusations. And I hope they will also be man enough to stop themselves from saying they were cheated in the event of an acquittal.

          I do not know however what would happen if a censure/reprimand would be the verdict. It would be interesting to find out what the censure/reprimand could entail.

        2. They will cry foul, I’m sure. As early as now, Tupas is saying that it is the defense team who is delaying the trial even if it was him who requested for 3 days to prepare.

        3. @ Ilda

          Actually, during the press brief, I recall the prosecution spokesperson mention that it was in fact a successful move of the defense (kuno) to delay the presentation of the BIR which I am not in agreement with.

          They were late in the submission of their memorandum, which is what is causing the delay.

          I am not sure if it was during the interview of Sen. Bongbong or Sen. Santiage, but one of them did state that it was not a delaying tactic as an inquiry was presented and it should be answered as it is a legitimate one.

          I just think they just can’t keep crying foul/foulplay when they can not even define what they are playing and the rules of it.

          I was shocked actually when Cong. Tupas asked for leniency but he couldn’t give what kind of leniency. And he specifically requested leniency only on the part of the prosecution, which is again, NOT FAIR. I am not a lawyer, but I think I can at least understand the technicalities and points of objections the prosecution are facing are all their own fault. Why pass blame when it was them who did not do their part prior to the trial? Prior to even having the impeachment complaint VERIFIED THEN SIGNED.

          This is just on Art 2. I wonder what would’ve happened if they were ready with Art 1? I think another inquiry would be raised, caused the proof of bias has been time and time again shown that CJ has also voted against GMA’s camp, not always in favor, therefore not immediately biased. Plain and simply for me. But I think there are again underlying accusations not stated in the actual title of the complaint, but as underlying sections like Art 2.

          I think the words of Sen. Santiago can be rephrased in this manner, “The show must go on..” Andiyan na yan e, pinalusot sa congresso, kelangan lang natin gawin ang mandate ng senado. Pero hindi ibig sabihin na lulusot na kaagad yan na walang hustisya, process at rules na sinusundan.

          I know I have paraphrased, and reworded, but I think that is basically the essense of what JPE and MDS are saying.

        4. Tupas asked for leniency but he couldn’t give what kind of leniency.

          I think he wants the inadmissible evidence accepted; misleading questions allowed and senator-judges helping to keep on helping. Nananaginip.

          Doesn’t he realise that everyone is already helping them? Even Cuevas is helping them clarify what they mean because it is obvious to him that they are not familiar with the court rules.

      2. @Harakiri

        I think we can hold off on trying to raise whether or not (at this point in time) the CJ needs to prove anything. Let’s wait for the Impeachment court to decide on the matter after the submission of the memorandum by the prosecution, which is already 1 day delayed by tomorrow.

        If that was also an issue (for me), they should have just simply made it a completely separate article.

        We all want justice, but in order to illicit such, we must also be fair and proper in our means to achieve it. If not, then we who obstain such a “justice” will be guilty of “injustice”.

        I understand that there is sentiment that technicalities are arising that seem to impede the trial/proceeding, but these technicalities have their basis/rules. They were not made us, and as such they are already being discussed, and hopefully once and for all. After these things are ironed out, then we can proceed to what is the next logical step for the trial.

        At this point in time, I believe the CJ’s character in public office and private life is not yet proven to be in violation of what a CJ is, simply that he is being accused of being in violation of this. So I reserve judgement. Remember, they have also taken their oath as lawyers with the PRC. Every single one of the professions under the PRC has in one way or another subscribed to an oath of having GMRC (for lack of a better word) and to uphold that title.

        So let us all reserve judgement until such a time that judgement based on actual and relevant evidence can be made.

        Cheers!

  18. this article is premature.. Corona is found to be unfit, if you have problems with the prosecutors then we should also file a petition of impeachment on them, i would really appreciate investigate journalism rather plain opinion

    1. Your statement is a bit premature. The trial is not yet over.

      His ruling on Hacienda Luisita should be enough proof that he is fit for the job.

      I would really appreciate if you could accept that other people have an opinion too.

  19. “It is beginning to appear like the prosecution’s main reason for filing for impeachment was merely to humiliate CJ Corona into resigning. ”

    Ilda, you’re into tactics. Let’s talk about strategy.

    By its very nature, government is all about politics. And how does one define politics?

    The best definition is by H Lasswell: Politics is “who gets what, when, and how?”

    In fact, the President, the Congressmen, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice are all political actors.

    If you really want to state the reasons why the Congressmen filed the impeachment case vs the CJ, please select:

    1. The Reps really wanted change.

    2. The Reps want more PDAF, they will go with the Executive Branch.

    3. The Reps, individually or collectively, are aiming for higher political positions, i.e. Senator; or if lower, more powerful, Governor.

    I will bet my a**, its all about reasons #2 and #3. 🙂

    1. @Phil

      Well whatever it is, it is not for the good of the people.

      I don’t know what you mean by “tactics”. I just say it like it is. 😉

  20. Before I speak my mind regarding this blog, may I ask for what reason did you post a graph of President Aquino’s annual net worth based on his SALN? Thank you.

    1. @Em

      Who do you think has amassed significant amount of wealth between PNoy and Corona? Both of them started their term in 2010.

  21. @Ilda

    Let me enlighten everyone on this issue by sharing my honest opinion…

    1) “The allegations that CJ Corona hadn’t been filing his SALN since the start of his membership in the Supreme Court has been proven false.”

    As far as my knowledge is concerned, the issue of the prosecution against Chief Justice Corona was not about his “filing” of SALN but his “disclosing”.

    Let us read the 2nd Article of Impeachment – “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 Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.”

    Take note: “disclose”; not “file”. Before the 3rd day of the Impeachment Trial, no one had seen Corona’s SALN except the clerk of court of the Supreme Court. Not the prosecution. Not the media people. Not even Juan de la Cruz. In fact, according to Atty. Vidal, about 10 people had requested for Corona’s SALN before the start of Impeachment trial but NOT ONE was granted. Yes, the Chief Justice filed his SALNs at his own office and kept them inside a steel vault. No question about that. But had he disclosed them in public prior to the start of the impeachment? Certainly NOT.

    2) “If it’s just a matter of “requesting” for it, I wonder why they had to charge Corona for “refusing” to disclose his SALN?!?”

    FYI, Atty. Vidal already testified from the witness stand of the Impeachment Court that some 10 people had REQUESTED for Corona’s SALN but not one was granted. It’s already proven that the Chief Justice had no intention to disclose his SALN to the public. So the last resort was for the Impeachment Court to subpoena the Clerk of Court in order to surrender Corona’s SALN once and for all.

    Now let me raise some excerpts from the Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Specifically Section 8 (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. – ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households…

    Section (C) Accessibility of documents. – (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION at reasonable hours…(2) Such statements SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR COPYING OR REPRODUCTION after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law…(4) Any statement filed under this Act SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement…

    This is the law. No one is exempted. Not even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It is every public official or employee’s OBLIGATION to file and disclose his or her SALN. So it is apparent to say that any public official or employee who does not file and/or disclose his/her SALN will have a legal liability.

    1. dude, you probably had it wrong when it comes to “disclosure”. The “disclosure” that is in question is in fact the SALN itself, a “disclosure document”, not the act of “disclosing” to the public. The fact that the article 2 of the impeachment is confusing even to the senators is that it misconstrue the meaning and nature of disclosure documents in general.

      “Section (C) Accessibility of documents. – (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION at reasonable hours…(2) Such statements SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR COPYING OR REPRODUCTION after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law…(4) Any statement filed under this Act SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement…”

      —HELLO, the SALN was submitted to the clerk of court (THE CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS). It means the SALN is in public custody (Supreme Court=an example of public institution). The problem lies with the public institution (in this case, the Supreme Court, with which the clerk of court WORKS) that has custody of the document.

      Time and again, the SC is criticized for keeping the SALN of their employees to themselves. This does not mean that the Chief Justice is the one to blame — the practice/tradition of the institution is the one to be blamed. Want to impeach the Supreme Court as an institution?? GO AHEAD 🙂

      PS: don’t cite too many articles if the foundation of your point is flawed in the first place.

    2. Sorry for the additional post, but let’s give an example to explain the point. Since disclosure documents are also a mainstay in the financial sector, let’s put it this way:

      Say a non-retail investment fund is required by securities regulation to disclose a prospectus. The investment fund complies and files the documents to the SEC. Good enough.

      But let us say that journalist A wants to investigate alleged fraud by the investment fund. He then asks the investment fund for the document; the fund company declines.

      Is the fund company liable for any securities law violation? No, because he complied with the law and submitted the requirement to the SEC. The journalist should have asked the SEC for the document, not the company.

      Now what are the implications of these with CJ Corona’s case? Simple. It highlights the fact that the Supreme Court is the problem, not the chief justice (the filer of the document).

      First, it is an established tenet in corporate and public governance that disclosure documents should not be kept by or filed to a party/person/institution that has conflict of interest with the filer. In this case it is the practice of the Supreme Court (take for example the recent interview of Atty Rene Saguisag) to keep custody of SALNs to themselves. In this case, it is either a blatant disregard of the law, or simply because the Republic Act No. 6713 has a loophole with regards to this matter (if you would be so kind to go ahead and research the specifics for me 🙂 ).

      With regards to the impeachment case, the only point of contention in this matter is if CJ Corona amassed ill-gotten wealth. I think that is why the prosecutors welcomed Senator Escudero’s comment that Article 2 is actually composed of three accusations. They have a weak case with regards to the “disclosure” thing, they must build an alternative case. Allies are sure handy these days; they make your work easier, better still, they’ll identify a thing which make it even easier.

    3. @Sarah

      I’m sure that in the process of writing your explanation you already realise yourself that there was no “betrayal of public trust”. I personally don’t feel betrayed.

      You focus too much on the members of the judiciary like Corona who have very little funds to handle compared to Congressmen. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The contents of his SALN should already prove to you that he did not amass ill-gotten wealth so what is the basis of “betrayal”? You already mentioned that “ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES” are required to disclose their SALN but you seem more focused on Corona than the 188 signatories of the impeachment case who have not disclosed theirs.

      It’s just wrong to keep pinning him down on the supposed non disclosure of his SALN when he is a member of the SC and is covered by the SC resolution.

  22. the confusion re disclosure arises because there are 2 types of disclosure
    public disclosure – availability
    financial disclosure – accountability

    the interpretation and legal position of this is the heart of the case itself.
    the public disclosure is more of a moot and technical legal point/argument and revolves around the sc en banc decision in ?1989.
    the financial disclosure will be the subject of tuesdays session and the admissability or otherwise of tax returns/bank statements could be the pivotal point one way or the other.

    1. the point is if the chief justice complied with the law that requires submission of a SALN, a disclosure document, which he did. He did so to the clerk of court, the custodian of the Supreme Court, a public institution. It means that the SALN is now, technically, in “public” hands by virtue of the SC being a public institution.

      The “public disclosure”, or the act of disclosing the document to the public itself, is left to the Supreme Court as an institution. If they are not disclosing it to the public, then there lies the problem. If we invoke the cliche that the leader should be held accountable to the actions of his institutions, then we should remember the fact that decisions of the Supreme Court are made by a collegial body and not by one person.

  23. Let me just illuminate everyone that I came here to post my honest opinion. It is not my intention to contradict anyone’s opinion. My only desire is to share my thoughts on the subject matter to hopefully arrive with common discernment. Peace.

    @ flax

    1) The “disclosure” that is in question is in fact the SALN itself, a “disclosure document”, not the act of “disclosing” to the public.

    Let us read again the 2nd Article of Impeachment – “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 Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.”

    The key words here are FAILED TO DISCLOSE. This is clearly referring to the specific “act”, not the “document”.

    2) —HELLO, the SALN was submitted to the clerk of court (THE CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS). It means the SALN is in public custody

    We already know that Corona’s SALNs were at SC’s custody and was kept by the clerk of court inside a steel vault so need to reiterate. But did Corona DISCLOSE his SALNs to the PUBLIC? Certainly NOT.

    3) This does not mean that the Chief Justice is the one to blame — the practice/tradition of the institution is the one to be blamed. Want to impeach the Supreme Court as an institution?? GO AHEAD

    As far as my knowledge is concerned, only public officials or employees can be impeached; and not institutions like the Supreme Court as you suggested. So no need to propose a stupid idea. 🙂

    4) They have a weak case with regards to the “disclosure” thing, they must build an alternative case.

    Yes, they have a “weak case” but that’s according to Corona’s defense lawyers who did nothing but object and delay the proceedings by being too technical.

    @ Ilda

    1) I’m sure that in the process of writing your explanation you already realise yourself that there was no “betrayal of public trust”. I personally don’t feel betrayed.

    The impeachment trial has merely touched on Article 2 so far, and the prosecutors have just begun with their presentation of evidences. There are 7 more Articles to go. So at this point, it’s still premature to judge. But as far as the NON-DISCLOSURE to the public of Corona’s SALNs is concerned, I personally feel betrayed.

    2) The contents of his SALN should already prove to you that he did not amass ill-gotten wealth so what is the basis of “betrayal”?

    As far as I know, Corona’s SALNs were surrendered to the clerk of court of the Impeachment Court. And copies were given to both prosecution and defense. I don’t have legal access to those documents so naturally I don’t have copies of Corona’s SALNs to scrutinize. So it follows that I cannot judge yet at this point whether the Chief Justice did “amass ill-gotten wealth” or not. And I doubt anyone here has certified true copies of Corona’s SALNs. Do you?

    3) You already mentioned that “ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES” are required to disclose their SALN but you seem more focused on Corona than the 188 signatories of the impeachment case who have not disclosed theirs.

    Let me clarify that we are discussing about CORONA’S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL here. The title of this article is “Corona Impeachment”, right? So naturally, I will focus on the subject matter which is the Chief Justice Corona. This does not mean I am keeping a blind eye on other public officials who according to you didn’t file or disclose their SALNs.

    4) It’s just wrong to keep pinning him down on the supposed non disclosure of his SALN when he is a member of the SC and is covered by the SC resolution.

    And as far as I remember, Atty. Vidal, the prosecution’s first witness, already testified under oath that Corona failed to disclose his SALNs to the public when some 10 people were not granted request for copies of his public documents. She even added that Corona could have disclosed them on his freewill if he wishes to even without the sanction from the Supreme Court. But the Chief Justice did NOTHING. He only realized to act when his clerk-of-court-in-quandary was already at the witness stand being interrogated by senator-judges. As soon as the witness revealed that she had Corona’s SALNs in her possession, the seemingly clueless Corona immediately called his Court Administrator, Marquez, to tell the media that he already gave his “authorization” to Atty. Vidal for her to finally submit his SALNs to the Impeachment Court. But it was TOO LATE, wasn’t it?

    In my opinion, the SC resolution is just a “self-serving” ruling of the justices for officials and employees of the judiciary. However, there is a higher law and it’s called Republic Act 6713 which complements Article 2 Section 28 of 1987 Constitution that reads: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of all its transactions involving public interest.”

    1. I just want to ask you, how do you propose CJ Corona and/or the other members of the Supreme Court to disclose their SALN? By posting it at the internet or by announcing it to via mass media? Because I don’t see other public officials doing that.

      You keep on pointing that CJ Corona failed to disclose his SALN so please define the process or act of disclosing that he “failed” to do.

    2. @sarah

      Yes, they have a “weak case” but that’s according to Corona’s defense lawyers who did nothing but object and delay the proceedings by being too technical.

      Actually, the rules of evidence which is the minimum requirement in the fair presentation of a case is already unavoidably “technical.” If one wishes to avoid anything technical, then one would just rather listen to hearsay and follow one’s prejudices as this doesn’t require careful methodical deliberation on anyone’s part.

      “..when some 10 people were not granted request for copies of his public documents..”

      Very easy to claim this. They have to present witnesses and not just make claims. Also, given the prosecution’s ill-reputed ability to awe or twist somebody’s arm to witness for them against Corona, not only should they come up with witnesses, but also forensic evidence to support witness’ claims. Witnesses have always been good only as means to expedite a search leading to forensic evidence but do not stand as necessarily sufficient; or reliable evidence by themselves.

      She even added that Corona could have disclosed them on his freewill if he wishes to even without the sanction from the Supreme Court. But the Chief Justice did NOTHING. He only realized to act when his clerk-of-court-in-quandary was already at the witness stand being interrogated by senator-judges.

      This is of course according to Atty Vidal. Curiosity regarding it was only raised just recently when the current admin found it necessary to come up with dirt to win over public opinion against Corona, thanks to biased media, more likely due to an SC ruling regarding HL. The context of the Constitution reads that “full public disclosure” is for “public interest”, not to serve a few private groups out to abuse the CJ’s vulnerability to malicious attacks and not-so-subtle “politicization” which btw do not qualify as “reasonable conditions prescribed by law.”

    3. @Sarah

      When did you start feeling “betrayed” about not seeing his SALN? Was it after reading the articles of impeachment? I’m pretty sure you weren’t even concerned about it prior to the filing of the impeachment case.

      Yes we do not have copies of his SALN, which is why we don’t go around the Net accusing people or insinuating that someone has amassed ill-gotten wealth.

      If you are going to accuse Corona of non-disclosure of SALN, you have to do it to the rest of the Congressmen who haven’t file it. You should also feel “betrayed”. Otherwise, what you are doing is applying double standard and bias against PNoy’s political enemies.

      The issue regarding the SALN of the SC is not black and white. There is a resolution covering members of the SC. It would have been different if there was no resolution at all. And besides, I agree with Felipe, who are those ten people you are talking about who tried to ask for his SALN? And even if they did, there was a resolution.

  24. @ art

    1) I just want to ask you, how do you propose CJ Corona and/or the other members of the Supreme Court to disclose their SALN?

    The public disclosure of SALNs is detailed by the Civil Service Commission’s IMPLEMENTING RULES OF RA 6713, specifically Rule VII.

    Follow this link please:
    http://excell.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/RA6713b.html

    Furthermore, according to Christian Monsod (a former COMELEC chairman & a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution), the mere filing of the SALN does NOT constitute disclosure. He stressed out further that DISCLOSURE means that SALN should be easily AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

    @Felipe

    1) Actually, the rules of evidence which is the minimum requirement in the fair presentation of a case is already unavoidably “technical.”

    Regarding the “technical” issue at the Impeachment Court, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago “asked that the Senate should be more LIBERAL in accepting the pieces of evidence against the Chief Justice so that the public would know what is going on.”

    The Lady Senator added…

    “Impeachment is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. There is no other process in government or in the judicial system that approximates impeachment. As much as possible ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED. We cannot be as strict as a trial court…”

    “We do not need jurisprudence by the Supreme Court on whether it should be liberal, or highly technical, or very strict…Rules of Court itself …provides these rules shall be LIBERALLY construed so that we can achieve justice that is just, expedient.”

    2) Very easy to claim this…This is of course according to Atty Vidal. Curiosity regarding it was only raised just recently when the current admin found it necessary to come up with dirt to win over public opinion against Corona…

    Atty. Vidal is a VITAL WITNESS. Since she works as the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Corona is her boss, she has first-hand knowledge regarding the filing, safe-keeping and releasing of SALNs. And her testimony under oath that some 10 people were not granted request for copies of Corona’s SALNs was not even objected by the defense. So her testimony stands. And before she was brought to the witness stand, majority of the public had NO IDEA whether Corona did file/disclose or not. So there was clearly PUBLIC INTEREST. Thanks to Atty. Vidal for she alone CONFIRMED that the Chief Justice did not DISCLOSE his SALNs to the PUBLIC.

    @ ahehe

    1) I felt betrayed by Pnoy when he kept refusing to show his Porsche papers. Second hand car my ***.

    If you think he betrayed the public trust, then impeach Pnoy. But for now, Chief Justice Corona is the one being tried on Impeachment Court. So let the proceedings continue and wait for the verdict.

    @ Ilda
    1) When did you start feeling “betrayed” about not seeing his SALN? Was it after reading the articles of impeachment? I’m pretty sure you weren’t even concerned about it prior to the filing of the impeachment case.

    And may I ask what was the basis of your assumption that I didn’t feel betrayed prior to the filing of the impeachment case? How can you be so “sure”? You don’t even know me and I highly doubt that you can read my mind and feel my emotion. As far as I’m concerned, everyone should feel betrayed whenever any public official ignore the Constitution’s rule on FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

    2) Yes we do not have copies of his SALN, which is why we don’t go around the Net accusing people or insinuating that someone has amassed ill-gotten wealth.

    And did I already give my judgment on Corona that he “has amassed ill-gotten wealth”? NOT yet. At this point, I’m still giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, you said, “The contents of his SALN should already prove to you that he did not amass ill-gotten wealth…” My question is how did you come up with this conclusion since you had just admitted that you do not have copies of his SALN? Again, what is your basis?

    3) If you are going to accuse Corona of non-disclosure of SALN, you have to do it to the rest of the Congressmen who haven’t file it. You should also feel “betrayed”. Otherwise, what you are doing is applying double standard and bias against PNoy’s political enemies.

    I already told you that I am not keeping a blind eye on other public officials who also didn’t file/disclose their SALNs. It’s true that aside from Corona, other civil servants are guilty of the same act. And if there are valid proofs of their non-disclosure, then they should also be impeached and hopefully be ousted. Now, does that sound “double standard and bias” to you?

    4) The issue regarding the SALN of the SC is not black and white. There is a resolution covering members of the SC. It would have been different if there was no resolution at all.

    That’s exactly the predicament. That SC resolution was Corona’s grand ALIBI on his nondisclosure of SALNs. But if he is a Chief Justice with “high standard of ethics in public service” and if he discharges his duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, acts with patriotism and justice, leads modest lives, and upholds public interest over personal interest, he should have scrapped that “self-serving” SC resolution for it totally contradicted Republic Act 6713 and Article 2 Section 28 of 1987 Constitution which is by the way the SUPREME LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES.

    1. @sarah

      Regarding the “technical” issue at the Impeachment Court, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago “asked that the Senate should be more LIBERAL in accepting the pieces of evidence against the Chief Justice so that the public would know what is going on.”

      The Lady Senator added…

      “Impeachment is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. There is no other process in government or in the judicial system that approximates impeachment. As much as possible ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED. We cannot be as strict as a trial court…”

      “We do not need jurisprudence by the Supreme Court on whether it should be liberal, or highly technical, or very strict…Rules of Court itself …provides these rules shall be LIBERALLY construed so that we can achieve justice that is just, expedient.”

      The good Sen Santiago neither suggested that the minimal rules of evidence be disregarded nor flimsy time-wasting trial-and-error evidence gathering and selection be indulged.

      The prosecution is already been liberally accomodated with the creation of this court in spite of the dubious if not illegal conduct of admin supporters in railroading this case, and yet on day 2, when the prosecution had all the liberty to present their case, what they have are not only poorly crafted articles but also a lack of ready witnesses and proper evidence to back their accusations—a very telling picture.

      Sen. Enrile already clarified that, even to the point of belaboring to enumerate all possible kinds of evidence, with Tupas and Tupas could not give specifics as to what sense or respect he expects the court to be “more liberal” in.

      Atty. Vidal is a VITAL WITNESS.

      No question about that—Anything or anyone would be “vital” to a prosecution who’s so far been grasping at straws and groping for the light regarding a case both ill-conceived and ill-prepared obviously.

      Since she works as the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Corona is her boss, she has first-hand knowledge regarding the filing, safe-keeping and releasing of SALNs. And her testimony under oath that some 10 people were not granted request for copies of Corona’s SALNs was not even objected by the defense. So her testimony stands. And before she was brought to the witness stand, majority of the public had NO IDEA whether Corona did file/disclose or not. So there was clearly PUBLIC INTEREST. Thanks to Atty. Vidal for she alone CONFIRMED that the Chief Justice did not DISCLOSE his SALNs to the PUBLIC.

      Which Chief Justice? If such requests were made prior to Corona’s term as SC CJ, then people should be taking this matter up rather against previous Chief Justices, since these are (or should be) directly reported to them and/or decided en banc. Corona was only made CJ on 2010 and this case gained interest only at an even later date—i.e. fairly recently. It surely would be interesting to learn of “some 10” requests within this brief period and considering the circumstances under which these people were prompted to make said requests. I therefore wonder whether they meet “reasonable conditions prescribed by law.” Atty Midas Marquez made it even clear that Corona did not have any problem regarding its disclosure. Whatever doubts and reservations Atty Vidal had were hers. If she had already truly consulted (and clarified the matter up) with Corona about all these, she would not have felt the need to ask the court’s permission to disclose or hand it over during her interrogation.

      That’s exactly the predicament. That SC resolution was Corona’s grand ALIBI on his nondisclosure of SALNs. But if he is a Chief Justice with “high standard of ethics in public service” and if he discharges his duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, acts with patriotism and justice, leads modest lives, and upholds public interest over personal interest, he should have scrapped that “self-serving” SC resolution for it totally contradicted Republic Act 6713 and Article 2 Section 28 of 1987 Constitution which is by the way the SUPREME LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES.

      It has to pass due process. He cannot just wantonly or arbitratily scrap laws or policies already in place, even if they seem unfavorable to you. A justice is rather an interpreter than a legislator of laws—Due process reigns supreme, and this is what constantly escapes those whose real preoccupation are [with] personalities rather than principles.

      1. @sarah

        Just a quick reply, I don’t feel betrayed just because a constituent did not declare accurately his SALN. Why should you? I mean, it is common knowledge/open secret that SALNs of public officials would have inaccuracies to them. I think maybe even Sen. Flavier (Former DOH Secretary) would have his own fair share of inaccuracies, we just don’t know of the details.

        Do not add more to what is in front of you, you have to weigh it based on facts.

        Anyway, I think dwelling on the SALN is just like beating a dead horse, move on to a new one which is more relevant which is his “perceived bias” and then we’ll talk business again after proofs are shown (hopefully by both sides) then let’s make a judgement from there, ok?

        I still don’t think that it would be right to question why a justice may have changed his mind. What if the prosec fails to present a fact wherein new evidence was presented to dispute the previous ruling in the course of its appeal? And what then if the defense was unprepared to show proof of said new evidence? Will you then cry foul that the justice is a floozy?

    2. @Sarah

      FYI: A lot of people like me do not feel betrayed. Just because the prosecution says that Corona “betrayed the public’s trust” doesn’t mean you should feel betrayed. His SALN was with the SC anyway. So wag mo na paulit-ulitin pa na feeling betrayed ka because it is so lame.

      I said, we do not have copies of his SALN but it was published by the media last week. And reading it gave me the impression he did not “amass ill-gotten wealth”. How about you? If you really give him the benefit of the doubt, why do you go around the Net arguing your way like this as if he is already guilty?

      You should be more passionate about going after the Congressmen who have not disclosed their SALN because they are not covered by a resolution like the members of the SC. They do not have an excuse for not disclosing it until now.

      It was not CJ Corona who authored that resolution about SC’s SALNs. Neither did he predict that PNoy and his minions would one day use it against him. He has only been the CJ since 2010 and was obviously busy with other more important cases than looking at resolutions like that which should not be an issue in the first place.

      Ok. Sige na. Manuod ka na lang ng trial.

  25. Already, you can see how the prosecution has already been exploiting technical loopholes every possible chance they get, since GMA, even by railroading this case, and when measures are in place to avoid room for loopholes or error, they complain, question even the person administering due process, and act like cry-babies—but aren’t these very actions themselves technical maneuvers?

  26. @ Felipe

    1) The good Sen Santiago neither suggested that the minimalrules of evidence be disregarded…

    And neither had I suggested that the minimal rules of evidence be disregarded. I was pointing out the defense lawyers’ very predictable scheme of, not only being “technical”, but being TOO TECHNICAL where the Lady Senator suggested otherwise to the Impeachment Court to be LIBERAL.

    2) The prosecution is already been liberally accomodated with the creation of this court in spite of the dubious if not illegal conduct of admin supporters in railroading this case.

    If that’s how you perceive this whole democratic process of Impeachment, then what kind of legal course of action in favor of Corona do you suggest?

    3) If she had already truly consulted (and clarified the matter up) with Corona about all these, she would not have felt the need to ask the court’s permission to disclose or hand it over during her interrogation.

    Here’s the REAL story told under oath by the first witness. Atty. Vidal said she never had a chance to talk with Corona since she got her subpoena until she went to the trial. At the Impeachment Court, she requested to the Senator-judges that she would like to ask for the Supreme Court’s “authorization” first before she could submit Corona’s SALNs. But everyone knew Corona never had any intention to disclose them in public and just let her humble clerk of court be grilled by Senator-judges helplessly. However, due to extreme pressure, she finally surprised everyone that she had with her Corona’s elusive SALNs. The Senator-judges were stunned. And so as the prosecutors and defense lawyers, and even the Chief Justice himself. And that made him jump out of his couch, dialed his cellphone, and immediately called his sock-puppet Court Administrator to execute a lightning press release to inform everyone that he already gave his quote unquote AUTHORIZATION to her clerk-of-court-in-QUANDARY. Yes, finally. But it was TOO LATE. (Sigh)

    4) It has to pass due process. He cannot just wantonly or arbitratily scrap laws or policies already in place, even if they seem unfavorable to you. A justice is rather an interpreter than a legislator of laws—Due process reigns supreme, and this is what constantly escapes those whose real preoccupation are [with] personalities rather than principles.

    Hmm. If a former Chief Justice could issue that SELF-SERVING en banc resolution in 1989, why couldn’t the incumbent Chief Justice Corona revoke it? That is, if he is not using it as his majestic ALIBI for not disclosing his SALNs.

    5) Due process reigns supreme, and this is what constantly escapes those whose real preoccupation are [with] personalities rather than principles.

    FYI, the democratic process of the Impeachment Court is already ongoing. And this gives Corona the proper forum to prove to the public that he’s “innocent”. Corona has his highly-prized-and-too-technical lawyers to defend him from prosecution and to protect his legal rights. So what kind of “due process” are you proposing? If there’s any.

    And speaking of “principles”, according to Oxford dictionary, the definition of CONSTITUTION is “a body of fundamental PRINCIPLES”. And the only body of laws in this country that is “supreme” is the 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.

    6) Already, you can see how the prosecution has already been exploiting technical loopholes every possible chance they get…and act like cry-babies—but aren’t these very actions themselves technical maneuvers?

    You seem apprehensive of the prosecution’s “technical maneuvers” while Ilda already proclaimed that “the prosecution team is incompetent”. Now there’s the contradiction.

    @ Ilda

    1) A lot of people like me do not feel betrayed.

    Did you actually COUNT how many people like you “do not feel betrayed”? The present population of the Philippines is 100 MILLION plus. So how many?

    2) Just because the prosecution says that Corona “betrayed the public’s trust” doesn’t mean you should feel betrayed.

    So if I follow your “logic”, I can also say that just because the defense says that Corona didn’t betray the public trust doesn’t mean you should feel not betrayed, too. Now does that sound logical to you?

    3) His SALN was with the SC anyway. So wag mo na paulit-ulitin pa na feeling betrayed ka because it is so lame.

    FYI, the only thing “lame” here is Corona’s alibi of en banc resolution. And you’re the one who has the propensity to be redundant of that “betrayed” issue. Please, get over it.

    4) I said, we do not have copies of his SALN but it was published by the media last week. And reading it gave me the impression he did not “amass ill-gotten wealth”.

    So now you saw Corona’s SALNs from media publication. And just by your mere “impression”, you already concluded that he had not “amass ill-gotten wealth”? Wow. You must be an “expert” on documentary evidence. With your indulgence, can you tell us the DETAILS of your impression?

    5) How about you? If you really give him the benefit of the doubt, why do you go around the Net arguing your way like this as if he is already guilty?

    For the record, I believe Corona FAILED TO DISCLOSE his SALN to the public as Atty. Vidal had testified. But the impeachment trial is far from over so I have no conclusion yet if he is guilty or not.

    But like millions of Filipinos, I am interested in knowing other’s opinion and sharing mine regarding social, economic and political issues as the Impeachment Trial. So whether one is for conviction or acquittal, everyone has the right to articulate his or her thoughts and be heard by the public. Ever heard of “freedom of speech”? Try reading the Bill of Rights, Article 2 Section 4 of 1987 Constitution.

    6) You should be more passionate about going after the Congressmen who have not disclosed their SALN because they are not covered by a resolution like the members of the SC. They do not have an excuse for not disclosing it until now.

    Yes, Corona indeed had an “excuse” or ALIBI for not disclosing his SALNs to the public. But are you suggesting now that other government institutions should also fabricate their own versions of SC resolution so all public officials and employees can also have an excuse or alibi for not disclosing their SALNs? Brilliant. That solves all the problems of graft and corruption in this country.

    7) Ok. Sige na. Manuod ka na lang ng trial.

    Same to you. Happy viewing.

    1. Eto lang nabasa ko pero WTF:

      “6) You should be more passionate about going after the Congressmen who have not disclosed their SALN because they are not covered by a resolution like the members of the SC. They do not have an excuse for not disclosing it until now.

      Yes, Corona indeed had an “excuse” or ALIBI for not disclosing his SALNs to the public. But are you suggesting now that other government institutions should also fabricate their own versions of SC resolution so all public officials and employees can also have an excuse or alibi for not disclosing their SALNs? Brilliant. That solves all the problems of graft and corruption in this country.”

      Taken sorely out of context. Congratulations.

      1. this is what made me “jump”

        Here’s the REAL story told under oath by the first witness. Atty. Vidal said she never had a chance to talk with Corona since she got her subpoena until she went to the trial. At the Impeachment Court, she requested to the Senator-judges that she would like to ask for the Supreme Court’s “authorization” first before she could submit Corona’s SALNs. But everyone knew Corona never had any intention to disclose them in public and just let her humble clerk of court be grilled by Senator-judges helplessly. However, due to extreme pressure, she finally surprised everyone that she had with her Corona’s elusive SALNs. The Senator-judges were stunned. And so as the prosecutors and defense lawyers, and even the Chief Justice himself. And that made him jump out of his couch, dialed his cellphone, and immediately called his sock-puppet Court Administrator to execute a lightning press release to inform everyone that he already gave his quote unquote AUTHORIZATION to her clerk-of-court-in-QUANDARY. Yes, finally. But it was TOO LATE. (Sigh)

        ??? WTF indeed…if you are really waiting for the impeachment process to complete, then your tone would be not one-sided…it appears to me you have pre-judged the outcome of the trial..i, too, am eager to see what happens in the end, but i have to wait until the whole movie is finished before i make conclusive remarks…maayong buntag

    2. @Sarah

      Most of your rebuttals are funny. Your estimate of 100 million Filipinos include infants and non-voters. It’s a fact that there are people who don’t feel betrayed and I am one of them. I don’t feel betrayed because Corona filed his SALN with the SC.

      Here’s the funniest of all your comments:

      And that made him jump out of his couch, dialed his cellphone, and immediately called his sock-puppet Court Administrator to execute a lightning press release to inform everyone that he already gave his quote unquote AUTHORIZATION to her clerk-of-court-in-QUANDARY.

      Are you saying that you actually heard the phone conversation Corona had with the person on the other line? Or maybe someone has bugged his phone?

      Yes, the SALN provided by the media did not give a full story of how he purchased his real estate properties so I wouldn’t be too quick to conclude that he has “amassed ill-gotten wealth” if I were you.

      I don’t have a problem with people sharing their opinion but you should realise that the manner with which you present your arguments comes across as someone who cannot accept that there are people who don’t feel betrayed. You also show your bias against Corona and this is evident in your fabricated story about Corona’s phone conversation, which you labelled as “the real story”.

      You have not addressed the following statement properly:

      “You should be more passionate about going after the Congressmen who have not disclosed their SALN because they are not covered by a resolution like the members of the SC. They do not have an excuse for not disclosing it until now.”

      There was no suggestion whatsoever for the “other government institutions to fabricate their own versions of SC resolution”. Try not to put words into my mouth because it’s pathetic.

  27. @ joshua r

    1) pardon me but your slip is showing…

    Are you referring to “Freudian” or a “woman’s sleeveless undergarment”?

    @ auriga

    1) Taken sorely out of context. Congratulations.

    No, I just followed Ilda’s “logic”. Actually, if you can read the recent comments, the PRO-CORONA posters here had taken me out of context many times.

    @ joshua

    1) ??? WTF indeed…if you are really waiting for the impeachment process to complete, then your tone would be not one-sided…it appears to me you have pre-judged the outcome of the trial..i, too, am eager to see what happens in the end, but i have to wait until the whole movie is finished before i make conclusive remarks…maayong buntag

    FYI, I already mentioned days ago that I believe Corona did NOT DISCLOSE his SALNs to the public as testified under oath by Atty. Vidal. But I am still waiting for the verdict of the Impeachment Court. On the other hand, other posters here are OBVIOUSLY clinging to the Corona camp like Felipe who lambasted the prosecution’s alleged “exploiting technical loopholes” and “technical maneuvers” while Ilda had even written this BIASED article with a subtitle, THE PROSECUTION TEAM IS INCOMPETENT. So who again is “one-sided”?

    @ Ilda

    1) Most of your rebuttals are funny.

    Glad you perceived my sense of humor. Others here didn’t get them. I should have inserted this phrase – (PUN INTENDED) 🙂

    2) It’s a fact that there are people who don’t feel betrayed and I am one of them.

    “Betrayed” issue again? (Sigh) No, my question was, HOW MANY like you did not feel betrayed? See? You don’t know. My point is stop CLAIMING there’s A LOT if you can’t even give me a factual ESTIMATE.

    3) I don’t feel betrayed because Corona filed his SALN with the SC.

    Huh? So that’s why you don’t feel betrayed because “Corona FILED his SALN with the SC”. Again, I have NO PROBLEM with his filing. My issue against him was his NON-DISCLOSURE OF SALN TO THE PUBLIC. And I already mentioned days ago that “filing” and “disclosing” are 2 DIFFERENT things. So how many times will I tell you this?

    4) Are you saying that you actually heard the phone conversation Corona had with the person on the other line? Or maybe someone has bugged his phone?

    No. But that part of the story was blasted by media reporters on TV. Maybe you can review that particular news clip from youtube.

    5) Yes, the SALN provided by the media did not give a full story of how he purchased his real estate properties so I wouldn’t be too quick to conclude that he has “amassed ill-gotten wealth” if I were you.

    Now you’re RETRACTING? Today, you’re saying “I WOULDN’T BE TOO QUICK TO CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS AMASSED ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.” But remember, just YESTERDAY you said that you already concluded with your IMPRESSION that “HE DID NOT ‘AMASS ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH’. So which is which? Can’t you make up your mind? (Sigh)

    And by the way, as I have assumed you’re an EXPERT on documentary evidence, let me remind you that I’m still WAITING for the DETAILS of your “impression” on Corona’s SALNs. So where are they now?

    6) There was no suggestion whatsoever for the “other government institutions to fabricate their own versions of SC resolution”. Try not to put words into my mouth because it’s pathetic.

    NO? But you already mentioned many times that Corona’s NONDISCLOSURE of his SALNs to the public was ACCEPTABLE because he has an ALIBI called SC resolution. Remember? So why can’t other heads of public institutions do the same if that SELF-SERVING SC resolution was LEGALLY RIGHT in your opinion? So once and for all, answer these questions. Was SC resolution constitutional or not? Does it correspond or contradict with RA 6713 and with the NON-DISCLOSURE rule of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines? Again, make up your mind. (Sigh)

    1. “No, I just followed Ilda’s “logic”. Actually, if you can read the recent comments, the PRO-CORONA posters here had taken me out of context many times.”

      No, you put things in her mouth. And even if people did take you out of context that doesn’t mean you should stoop to their level.

      “Now you’re RETRACTING? Today, you’re saying “I WOULDN’T BE TOO QUICK TO CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS AMASSED ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.” But remember, just YESTERDAY you said that you already concluded with your IMPRESSION that “HE DID NOT ‘AMASS ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH’. So which is which? Can’t you make up your mind? (Sigh)”

      It seems someone needs an English lesson… and that “someone” is not Ilda. Perhaps you are already far too emotional to detect the “if I were you” at the end of the sentence in question?

      ——————–

      Again: innocent until proven guilty. It’s as clear as day that you’ve prejudged the outcome of this trial; no amount of repetitive hot-blooded “argumentation” from you will convince me otherwise.

      1. @auriga

        Her style of twisting people’s words to suit hers is just so 2009. I’ve had enough of that during AP days. She just wants to go around in circles.

    2. @sarah

      And neither had I suggested that the minimal rules of evidence be disregarded. I was pointing out the defense lawyers’ very predictable scheme of, not only being “technical”, but being TOO TECHNICAL where the Lady Senator suggested otherwise to the Impeachment Court to be LIBERAL.

      When does it then become too technical to you? Enrile even asked Tupas himself, and Tupas could not give a specific answer. It’s just the prosecution’s alibi for not only being able to to cope with simple rules of evidence or provide one that measures up to standard.

      If that’s how you perceive this whole democratic process of Impeachment, then what kind of legal course of action in favor of Corona do you suggest?

      Railroading a case is not a matter of perception, but a statement of fact. Corona doesn’t need any legal recourse.

      Here’s the REAL story told under oath by the first witness. Atty. Vidal said she never had a chance to talk with Corona since she got her subpoena until she went to the trial. At the Impeachment Court, she requested to the Senator-judges that she would like to ask for the Supreme Court’s “authorization” first before she could submit Corona’s SALNs. But everyone knew Corona never had any intention to disclose them in public and just let her humble clerk of court be grilled by Senator-judges helplessly. However, due to extreme pressure, she finally surprised everyone that she had with her Corona’s elusive SALNs. The Senator-judges were stunned. And so as the prosecutors and defense lawyers, and even the Chief Justice himself. And that made him jump out of his couch, dialed his cellphone, and immediately called his sock-puppet Court Administrator to execute a lightning press release to inform everyone that he already gave his quote unquote AUTHORIZATION to her clerk-of-court-in-QUANDARY. Yes, finally. But it was TOO LATE. (Sigh)

      Interesting anecdotal “evidence”.

      Why still insist that Corona had no intention of disclosing his SALN when his SALNs were always released under the custody of the office of the SC long before Corona was even himself Chief Justice? What do you want Corona to do, publish it on a newspaper?!? Corona has just been made CJ on 2010—he was not the CJ before that. If someone had inquired about the SALN before 2010, it was rather under the direction and control of previous CJs, not Corona’s.

      Hmm. If a former Chief Justice could issue that SELF-SERVING en banc resolution in 1989, why couldn’t the incumbent Chief Justice Corona revoke it? That is, if he is not using it as his majestic ALIBI for not disclosing his SALNs.

      The only side making ALIBIS are the prosecution’s side &/or their supporters. They have an axe to grind. Tupas family had been brought to the attention of the ombudsman. The Aquino-Cojuangcos are unhappy about the ruling on HL. The rest are either making their careers over the misfortunes of others or under the behest and support of groups which would have a lot to gain from this idiocy. Much much stupidity invested for SELF_SERVING “yellow” goals. You guys are barking at the wrong tree. Priority should be on the HL case.

      FYI, the democratic process of the Impeachment Court is already ongoing. And this gives Corona the proper forum to prove to the public that he’s “innocent”.

      Burden of proof lies on the prosecution or accusers’ side.

      “Corona has his highly-prized-and-too-technical lawyers…”

      ..and so does the prosection

      to defend him from prosecution and to protect his legal rights. So what kind of “due process” are you proposing? If there’s any.

      Why propose antoher “kind of ‘due process'”? It’s only the current administration that is simply struggling to follow due process beyond appearances.

      And speaking of “principles”, according to Oxford dictionary, the definition of CONSTITUTION is “a body of fundamental PRINCIPLES”. And the only body of laws in this country that is “supreme” is the 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.

      As you have you own interpretation of the constitution which you insists on, the SC has its own. And guess what, the SC’s interpretation prevails. How and which laws apply to which cases are within the SC’s power to determine, not you.

      You seem apprehensive of the prosecution’s “technical maneuvers” while Ilda already proclaimed that “the prosecution team is incompetent”. Now there’s the contradiction.

      No such contradiction exists. They were stomped since they’re incompetent–and this is why the prosecution failed miserably here. Unless you’re either technophobic or technically challenged would “technical” entail ‘difficulty’ to you. “Technical” doesn’t have to mean difficult and thus doesn’t always require a high degree of competence.

    3. @ sarah

      Well, okay, how about this arguement, WHEN DID PEOPLE START FEELING BETRAYED?

      I mean, did you even know that ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD RELEASE THEIR SALN TO THE PUBLIC? When was this specifically?

      I would like to assume that this was when the prosec/admin blew the SALN issue of our proportion and kept screaming betrayal of public trust, right?

      The public didn’t even care to know of their SALN, so when did the people believe they should and doing otherwise was tantamount to betrayal.. AHA!

      Ding ding ding…

      Anyway, the point is the issue of betrayal of public trust is kind of a wierd one. If the public really felt betrayed, they would march out and cry foul in the streets, en masse. But we also don’t want that and people are still waiting for the results of the trial. This means, they are not really even sure if their trust was betrayed in the first place.

      You are asking for specifics on how many don’t feel betrayed, and other can ask as well how many feel betrayed. We won’t get any accuracy with these numbers, especially with those text vote things which are really pointless because you can vote as much as you want.

      Just keep in mind, if it really is that big a deal to the public, then prosec and defense don’t need to talk. I mean GMA was embroiled with a lot of scandals during her term which could be tantamount to betrayal of public trust but with no definite proof, so nothing. We didn’t waste our time there. So wait for proof, don’t prejudge. And also, the proof and case should have merit to be an impeachable offense.

    4. @ sarah

      About the issue of why the SC had to make their resolution of not immediately releasing their SALN.

      Well, I’d like to ask something, among the 3 branches, don’t we have only 1 branch that doesn’t have bodyguards? Congress and Senators have one. The executive has one, yet I have yet to hear the judiciary/justices having one.

      What does the SALN include? For one, their addresses. Think about an instance where the SC could have a case against say a mob boss (for arguments sake). If the public got hold of the SALN everytime/every year, the mob could easily know the residences of the SC and stake them out. They could then hold for ransom their families for a favorable verdict on their part. Or issue threats.

      I mean, why do you even think the jury system holds the jury in a secure undisclosed location? So they are no influenced by outside forces. And the SC in our case is a permanent jury wherein they vote and the majority will decide.

      Think about that.

  28. @ auriga

    1) It seems someone needs an English lesson…

    Actually, you just misconstrued me because either you didn’t get the logic or you have an academic dilemma called PRC (Poor Reading Comprehension).

    2) no amount of repetitive hot-blooded “argumentation” from you will convince me otherwise.

    Yes, keep an eye on Ilda’s blood pressure. By the way, I’m not convincing you or any other BIASED poster here. Don’t be too presumptuous.

    @ charles e. montez

    1) sarah kahit anong paliwanag mo alam na ng mga tao na si pnot ang may pasimuno sa pag-impeach kay CJ at nakakahiya….

    If you think The President did such unconstitutional act, then impeach him. We already did it to Corona.

    @ Ilda

    1) Zzzzzzzz…you’re just a time waster.

    Actually you wasted my time here with your non-factual claims, faulty reasoning, and biased retorts. And yes, you need some sleep.

    2) I have already written two articles while you are still stuck on this one. tsk tsk

    Another 2 BIASED articles? How productive. (pun intended)

    3) It seems a lot of Filipinos are gullible enough to believe that PNoy is doing this for the people.

    And now you’re implying I’m one of those Filipinos who are “gullible enough to believe that PNoy is doing this for the people”? Another baseless CLAIM. If you don’t have factual basis, STOP CLAIMING. You’re a “writer” (I suppose) and you should know this before writing anything. So may I ask, are you really writer?

    4) Her style of twisting people’s words to suit hers is just so 2009. I’ve had enough of that during AP days. She just wants to go around in circles.

    Speaking of going around in circles, who again had trouble making up her mind on whether Corona DID or DID NOT amass ill-gotten wealth? And who again couldn’t decide on whether that SC resolution is CONSTITUTIONAL or NOT? Hint – Is there a capital “I”?

    P.S.

    Still no answer from my pending questions? Still no expert details of your Corona SALN “impression”?

    Don’t worry. No pressure. 🙂

    1. “By the way, I’m not convincing you or any other BIASED poster here.”

      …and yet you took the time to reply. Thanks for feeding this *ahem* “BIASED” troll.

      One thing, though; it seems you like to throw the word “biased” around. What then, for you, is “objective?”

      “Speaking of going around in circles, who again had trouble making up her mind on whether Corona DID or DID NOT amass ill-gotten wealth? ”

      Speaking of going around in circles, who again is stuck thinking – nay, imagining – that Ilda is contradicting herself? I wouldn’t be too quick to judge other people’s reading comprehension if I were you. 😉

    2. @sarah

      Still no answer from my pending questions? Still no expert details of your Corona SALN “impression”?

      Which questions and addressed to whom? You seem to have to much time in your hands.

  29. @ auriga

    …and yet you took the time to reply. What then, for you, is “objective?”

    You just said no matter what I say, I can never convince you. And when I told you that I wasn’t convincing you, you responded, “…and yet you took the time to reply…” Ok, so you don’t want me to reply. Fine. And yet YOU’RE STILL HERE ASKING ME QUESTION? Weird.

    Never mind. I cannot argue with a fickle-minded person. Anyway, just tell Ilda not to take our discussion personally. I’m here to share my thoughts. And my only intention is to initiate a common understanding. Thanks. 🙂

    1. @sarah

      “…and yet you took the time to reply

      You should rather be thankful that they would even extend a response to you in spite of what they think of them.

  30. @ sarah,

    “Yes, they have a “weak case” but that’s according to Corona’s defense lawyers…”

    As admission of evidence concerning ill-gotten wealth was not allowed, the prosecution has a lot of work ahead.

    The news reports are saying 100 witnesses will be presented to connect the dots. 🙂

    Unless, the impeachment charges are amended.

    Back to square one.

  31. @ Felipe

    1) When does it then become too technical to you?

    Regarding the “technical” issue, Senator-judges as Miriam already proposed to the entire body to be lenient on “technicalities” and be LIBERAL on the presentation of evidences. So that’s up to the Impeachment Court to decide.

    2) Railroading a case is not a matter of perception, but a statement of fact.

    Then by “statement of fact”, tell us HOW did the railroading of this case was executed? If it did happen.

    3) Why still insist that Corona had no intention of disclosing his SALN when his SALNs were always released under the custody of the office of the SC long before Corona was even himself Chief Justice?

    But were Corona’s SALNs ever “released” from the steel vault of the Supreme Court to the PUBLIC? Did Corona do anything to DISCLOSE them since he became the Chief Justice? Certainly NOT. So don’t INSIST that he disclosed them because NO ONE had seen them until the Impeachment Trial. It’s a good thing Atty. Vidal had more balls to accomplish a man’s job. She went to the trial in response to subpoena and brought his SALNs even WITHOUT “authorization”. Smart woman huh.

    And since I assume you’re NOT a Judge, read what these Judiciary officials articulate regarding SALN. From SunStar.com, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Gabriel said “he believes that court officials and workers are bound to make PUBLIC their SALNs for TRANSPARENCY…Judge Meinrado Paredes said a magistrate should only WORRY if he DID NOT DISCLOSE THE TRUTH in his SALN…Paredes said the Constitution requires the FULL DISCLOSURE of SALNs of public officials and employees…the SC resolution needs to be REVOKED and that members of the judiciary should set an ‘example’ for other public servants to follow. Earl Bonachita of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cebu City chapter agreed. He said the DISCLOSURE would be in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.” Any objection?

    4) The only side making ALIBIS are the prosecution’s side &/or their supporters. They have an axe to grind.

    But aren’t you forgetting that Ilda, your colleague I presume, mentioned many times that Corona had an EXCUSE (or ALIBI) by virtue of SC RESOLUTION? And if there’s really a case against Pnoy and Congressmen, then IMPEACH THEM. We already impeached Corona so we can still impeach other public officials, too. And if proven guilty, those corrupt public servants will be thrown out of the government for good. Filipino people win. Everybody happy. 🙂

    5) It’s only the current administration that is simply struggling to follow due process beyond appearances.

    FYI, the current administration has served the “due process” via the Impeachment Court. The Corona’s are the ones “struggling” now after the prosecution unveiled the SALNs, TCTs, Deeds of Sale & ITRs showing their multiple multi-million assets and limited income.

    6) As you have you own interpretation of the constitution which you insists on, the SC has its own. And guess what, the SC’s interpretation prevails. How and which laws apply to which cases are within the SC’s power to determine, not you.

    And neither do you have the power to determine that. But if Chief Justice Corona really knows “which laws apply to which cases”, why did he ignore RA 6713 and FAILED to interpret the law of FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE as enshrined in the CONSTITUTION?

    7) No such contradiction exists. They were stomped since they’re incompetent–and this is why the prosecution failed miserably here.

    The Impeachment Trial still has a long way to go. However, the only one I know who FAILED so far was Corona when he FAILED TO DISCLOSE his SALNs to the PUBLIC.

    8) You should rather be thankful that they would even extend a response to you in spite of what they think of them.

    And I also did reply to them, didn’t I? So they should also be “thankful”. But no more fickle-minded for me. Please.

    @ Phil Manila

    1) Unless, the impeachment charges are amended. Back to square one.

    Well I don’t care how long it takes. What matters most is the evidences they will present to the Impeachment Court. At the end of the day, the Senator-judges will decide if the respondent is guilty or not.

  32. @ sarah

    “Well, I don’t care how long it takes…At the end of the day, the Senator-judges will decide if the respondent is guilty or not.”

    Yes, doesn’t everybody here and our aunts know that?

    I was trying to say that there might be some adjustments, however painful, to be made by whoever is calling the shots in order to win:

    1. Change the prosecution line-up: get more capable Rep-prosecutors/private lawyers.

    2. Amend the impeachment charges.

    Senator Enrile already gave some heads-up: a few, substantive witnesses will be enough; not the 100 being contemplated to connect the dots. 🙂

    Otherwise, the whole nation will be dragged into a prolonged, lose-lose situation.

  33. @ Phil Manila

    1) I was trying to say that there might be some adjustments, however painful, to be made by whoever is calling the shots in order to win:

    I’M AWARE there might be some “adjustments” in the coming days of the trial as amending the articles of Impeachment, streamlining the presentation of evidences, regulating the introduction of witnesses, etc. If the decision of the Senator-judges will be in accordance with the Rules of Court, then the Prosecution will have no choice but to COMPLY. As long as the court proceeds LIBERALLY as suggested by Senator Miriam, then I have NO OBJECTION. Crystal?

    2) Otherwise, the whole nation will be dragged into a prolonged, lose-lose situation.

    That’s only your opinion. As long as the Senator-judges remain impartial, the defense lawyers protect the respondent’s legal rights, and the prosecutors proceed with the presentation of evidences to unveil the TRUTH, the whole nation WINS. 🙂

  34. “As long as the Senator-judges remain impartial,…and the prosecutors proceed with the presentation of evidences to unveil the TRUTH…”

    That’s wishful thinking on your part.

    I know that you know that the impeachment is a political process (quasi), with junior politicians as Prosecutors and senior pols as Judges, all hungry for Media; and Media hungry for Political favors, etc.

    I think you a have a good legal mind but a reality check is in order.

    KISS. Keep It Simple, Sarah! 🙂

  35. @ Phil Manila

    1) That’s wishful thinking on your part.

    I think the more appropriate term is “optimism”.

    2) I know that you know that the impeachment is a political process (quasi), with junior politicians as Prosecutors and senior pols as Judges, all hungry for Media; and Media hungry for Political favors, etc.

    Yes, and I think most Filipinos are also aware of the presence of undesirable elements in our society as unscrupulous politicians, envelop-mental journalists, Machiavellian justices, etc. But hey, there still remain a number of honest public servants so let’s not generalized.

    3) I think you a have a good legal mind but a reality check is in order.

    Thanks. In my opinion, “reality check” is the opportunity of knowing what’s the truth and what’s deception; what’s constitutional and what’s not; and who’s honest and who’s not. And that depends on one’s IMPARTIAL discretion.

    4) KISS. Keep It Simple, Sarah! 🙂

    Nice acronym twist. 🙂

  36. I see here that the entire article 2 of impeachment hinges on the perfectly legal but supposedly flawed, self-serving, etc. SC interpretation of the public nature of SALNs, at least according to Sarah. Subsequent development says otherwise actually, but for the point I will make, let me go with this first.

    We have here a law with a loophole that for some moral or what-have-you criteria is unacceptable. Now, this loophole has been, gasp!, “exploited” by the SC. What should the we the citizens do?

    First, let’s be aware that the SC is the highest authority in just one of the co-equal branches of government. In this instance, we could find recourse to the Legislative. What would be the best way the Legislative can remedy this loophole in the law?

    Before I answer that let’s see what the present dispensation opted to do:

    1. Include this exploitation of a loophole as part of the articles of impeachment on the Chief Justice.
    2. Use the Senate Impeachment Court to force said Chief Justice to reveal his SALN. And his ITR, and his…
    3. The impeachment trial may or may not convict said Chief Justice, but at least he will be made as an example.
    4. Repeat with other recalcitrant SC justices.

    On the other hand, here’s the solution I’m thinking:

    1. Amend the law to remove the loophole.

    Behold, transparency has been restored in the Law!

    While we’re at it, pass the Freedom of Information Act.

    Now it will be easier to investigate. Impeachment and other litigation will be easier since the evidence is easily available.

    But of course this is the Philippines.

  37. Nice article but pretty much biased. I agree that the prosecution doesn’t really know how what to do or how to present evidences during the trial. But let’s not forget why the impeachment proceded in the first place.

    When Corona accepted the position it was already tainted. He’s a midnight appointee plain and simple. It was deemed legal only because the SC says so, they interpreted the constitution different than most of us understand it. one thing that Corona doesn’t have is delicadeza, kapalan na lang talaga ng mukha. this was never an attack to the judiciary branch but just to Corona. Just imagine if he turned down the position…

    1. Riddle me this: you point out that the impeachment proceeded because Corona is a midnight appointee of the Evil One and all that jazz, something that can be “established” back in the middle of 2010, but the whole impeachment drive started at the end of 2011. Why? It has been shown that impeachment can breeze through the House at insane speed and evidence can be gathered as the trial progresses. We can then be actually having this trial a year ago. Why only now?

    2. @avidreader

      When Corona accepted the position it was already tainted. He’s a midnight appointee plain and simple.

      The fact that CJ Corona is going through the process of impeachment means that his position is legit. Notice how PNoy himself cannot do anything about it? SC Justices can only be removed by impeachment.

      Like I said in my previous article:

      “…it was the Philippines’ Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) that “unanimously” agreed to start nominations prior to the 2010 elections for the replacement of the country’s outgoing Chief Justice Reynato Puno. And they did so citing Section 4(1), Article 8 of the constitution – which mandates that a Supreme Court vacancy should be filled within 90 days once the position remains vacant.

      In a news item published in February of 2010, it was shown that even constitutional experts had no problem with GMA appointing the new judge:

      A group of constitutionalists has no qualms about President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointing the next chief justice despite a constitutional provision supposedly prohibiting it two months before an election.

      Members of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) even want the Supreme Court to compel the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body that screens nominees to vacant judicial posts, to submit its shortlist to President Arroyo.

      In a 20-page petition, Philconsa, through its president Manuel Lazaro, said the election ban in the Constitution covers only appointments in the executive department and not in the judiciary.

      The group pointed out that the only restriction cited by the Constitution is that the president must appoint from the list submitted by the JBC.

      The bottom line is, the issue about appointing a new SC judge has been resolved in early 2010 even before GMA chose Renato Corona. It turns out that GMA was even compelled to pick a new judge by the JBC out of an urgent need to do so because “historical events dictated the post should be vacant no more than a day”. Here’s what the SC had to say about the controversy at that time:

      The SC said there is no provision in the Constitution providing for designation of a temporary chief justice during the vacancy because the post is crucial during election period since the high court acts as the final arbiter under the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).

      And…

      The SC, however, gave weight to the argument of the Solicitor General stressing the importance of the chief justice post saying historical events dictated the post should be vacant no more than a day.

      When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Associate Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day. When Yap retired on July 1, 1988, then Associate Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed the same day.

      When Fernan effectively resigned on Dec. 7, 1991, Senior Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day. When Narvasa retired on Nov. 29, 1998, Senior Justice Hilario Davide Jr. was sworn into office the following morning.

      When Davide retired on Dec. 19, 2005, Senior Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed to succeed the following day.

      Lastly, when Panganiban retired on Dec. 6, 2006, incumbent Chief Justice Reynato Puno took his oath on midnight of Dec. 7, 2006.

      Whether one agrees with the Supreme Court’s final decision or not, one thing is for sure, Chief Justice Corona has been taking all these attacks on his personal integrity like a real gentleman. The record shows that during the height of the debate surrounding GMA’s move to appoint a new SC judge in early 2010, Chief Justice Corona who was at that time, still a Associate Justice together with fellow nominee, Antonio Carpio opted not to join the voting on the issue citing that “it will have effects on them”.

    3. @avidreader

      You only want to linger on that point but fail to realize the facts that happened leading to it and those directly their after.

      JBC ruling and SC saying it was legal.

      First and foremost, it wasn’t GMA that named the nominees for CJ, it was JBC.

      Second, now PNOY said (or through his spokesman) that THEY are looking for the replacement. Um… I don’t know about you but I never once heard of the news that they were the JBC authorized to look for appointees of CJ position.

      See you say midnight appointee and all that jazz and blame it all on one person. Well PNOY is actually doing something he shouldn’t be doing, because he is in fact preempting the actions to be done by the JBC.

      Anyway, I wish only for removal of double standard in your case.

      1. For almost two years, Corona was being treated as the CJ so they should just drop this claim that he is a “midnight appointee”. Even constitutional expert, Fr Bernas finally accepted the decision of the JBC because of the need to have a CJ in the event of a dispute during election.

      2. @Sphynx

        Some people will latch on to anything just to get their way. Midnight appointment daw ba? Well for almost two years, PNoy did not do anything to remove Corona. The fact that Corona was impeached and being tried in the Senate court as per the constitution means that his position has been accepted as legit. Otherwise, they can just tell him to get out of the SC building…haha.

        Just imagine if there was an election dispute and the Chief Justice position was vacant? In fact, there are still some people who are saying that the 2010 election was rigged because of the mysterious problems encountered using the computers from Smartmatic. The case is still with the SC, actually. If that complaint finally gains momentum, who would you want sitting in the CJ position? A PNoy appointed one would definitely have conflict of interest.

        Sana mag-isip naman ang iba dyan. Tsk tsk.

  38. FYI, Chief Justices Claudio Teehankee, Pedro Yap, Marcelo Fernan, Andres Narvasa, Hilario Davide, Jr., Artemio Panganiban, and Reynato Puno were ALL APPOINTED LEGALLY and in accordance with the CONSTITUTION. They were NOT appointed near or immediately after presidential election nor days or weeks before the end of President’s term, so no one could accuse them as midnight appointees. But Chief Justice Corona was a DIFFERENT case. He was appointed just days after the 2010 presidential elections and weeks before the end of Gloria’s term.

    Now let’s review what the Constitution says regarding appointments…

    Article VII. Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

    The Constitution is written in PLAIN ENGLISH. It’s very EASY to UNDERSTAND. So how come the former President Arroyo could have FAILED to recognize her executive decision as midnight appointment? And how come the former Associate Justice Corona could have FAILED to abide by the Constitution when he accepted his appointment as Chief Justice?

    And speaking of recent developments, the Corona defense camp had recently ADMITTED there were indeed INACCURACIES in Corona’s SALNs. But they still have the nerve to say Corona was, “Not really lying”? It’s like they’re saying, Corona was INACCURATE but not a LIAR. What an OXYMORON.

    1. “ADMITTED there were indeed INACCURACIES in Corona’s SALNs…It’s like they’re saying, Corona was INACCURATE but not a LIAR.”

      Yes, but the Senator-Judges were asking the prosecutors, if inaccurate SALNs was a HIGH CRIME, i.e. an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

      While watching the impeachment proceedings, I got this funny feeling that many Senators were kind of treating the matter lightly. Maybe, many of them also submitted inaccurate SALNs. .

      They flock together, don’t they? 🙂

      1. 1. Yes, but the Senator-Judges were asking the prosecutors, if inaccurate SALNs was a HIGH CRIME, i.e. an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

        NOT YET but “inaccurate” SALNs may lead to the discovery of other impeachable offenses as TAX EVASION and ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH. And come to think of it. If a public official CANNOT even fill up a SALN form TRUTHFULLY, TIMELY and ACCURATELY, what more can a CHIEF JUSTICE do in the government beyond his INACCURATE SALN? It’s worth thinking, isn’t it?

        2. While watching the impeachment proceedings, I got this funny feeling that many Senators were kind of treating the matter lightly. Maybe, many of them also submitted inaccurate SALNs.

        Some senators maybe treating the matter “lightly” but others take them seriously.

        3. They flock together, don’t they?
        I just hope 2/3 of them don’t flock with birds that lay rotten eggs. If you know what I mean. 🙂

        1. “NOT YET but “inaccurate” SALNs may lead to the discovery of other impeachable offenses as TAX EVASION and ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.”

          I don’t think the congressional prosecutors really made serious spadework. Because IF substantial data gathering and analyses, both documentary and testimony, were undertaken, then the Articles of Impeachment would have been more precise and direct to the point, thus avoiding ‘fishing expeditions’ and innuendos.

          I believe part of the problem is that the Philippine House of Representatives does not have a congressional research service comparable to what the U.S. have, that is, composed of researchers, experts, and resource persons independent of the Executive Branch. I think many congressional research here are ‘outsourced’ to outside law firms.

          Haste makes waste, doesn’t it? 🙂

        2. @sarah

          Well, would you actually find it odd that the senators actually have to ask about SALN protocol? This just means that there is no real standard established, which is what can be used in court to aid in defense.

          I mean seriously, is there even a lecture or seminars for this for all government employees and officials to attend so they know what they need to put there?

          Once this trial is over, they should put something like that in place so that no one is ignorant of how it should be filled up and then you can not use the “did not know” card.

          But seriously, what goes about if we do fish for more and more things from CJ? I mean, why don’t we just move on instead of even bothering to try and get his bank accounts? It’s not even part of the complaint anymore. So just stop it prosecution and move on to the next article and stop wasting time.

          They are pretty much trying to save face and don’t want to pull out articles they do not have any strong evidence to as suggested by Enrile, I mean WTF. If really all we are going to see it this type of display of evidence, well, it’s a mere twisting of facts and no absolute truth really.

          If impartiality was the real issue with the CJ, then focus on that, the others are just like shrapnel in the hopes that they may miss, the others may hit which is kind of silly and childish.

        3. @sarah

          Also, I am actually intrigued by Sen. Escudero/Arroyo’s inquiry. How much inaccuracy is too much (for lack of a better word)?

          Are we to base it monetary value? Say 500k, 1m, 2m, 10m? Or do we go about it percentage wise? 5%? 10%? 15%? 20%?

          I mean think about it, if we lay the grounds at just 500k, what happens with an inaccuracy for someone like Manny Villar where 500k could easily be spread out his SALN? If we then go about percentage (10%), then someone with just 500k NW will have problems with a 50k error.

          You can’t really have a hard and fast rule on this so what then is it going to be? Makes you think right?

          Oh and please, to anyone who would like to argue, don’t tell me “A basta, mali/inaccurate, itanggal na yan.”

          You haven’t even considered the fact of human error and human interpretation in the equation. I still believe zonal/assesed valuation is a justifiable input into the SALN because why the hell do we bother with it if we can’t use it legally?

    2. @ Phil Manila

      “I don’t think the congressional prosecutors really made serious spadework.”

      The prosecutors are SERIOUS enough. Let me remind you that they unlocked the Supreme Court’s steel vault and unearthed Corona’s dusty SALNs so that the public can scrutinize them. They exposed Corona’s Deeds of Sale and Transfer Certificate Titles which showed Corona’s ASSETS of multiple MULTI-MILLION PROPERTIES. They uncovered Corona’s ALPHA LIST which confirmed he had NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME except his SC salary. They found out from ITRs that Corona’s children had MINIMAL INCOME which proved their INCAPACITY TO PURCHASE their parents’ MULTI-MILLION PROPERTIES. They discovered that the license of Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. was REVOKED; and that both Mr. & Mrs. Corona were NOT SHAREHOLDERS of the said company which put DOUBT on Corona’s “cash advance” under LIABILITIES. Furthermore, with all the undeclared & undervalued items, delayed entries, omissions & inexplicable inclusions from Corona’s SALNs, the defense finally ADMITTED in public their respondent’s INACCURACIES. So now we all know why Corona FAILED TO DISCLOSE his SALNs.

      1. @ sarah,

        Yes sure, the Rep-Prosecutors seem to have accomplished some things but with a lot of help from their Senator-judges!

        My point is: the impeachment process could have moved forward much faster with better preparation.

        If you will remember the defense panel wanted a pre-trial conference to thresh out issues on procedures, presentation of evidence etc. among others, but the prosecutors refused.

        Pundits are calling the prosecutors: mga Prinsipe ng Sablay! 🙂

        1. @ Phil Manila

          1. Yes sure, the Rep-Prosecutors seem to have accomplished some things but with a lot of help from their Senator-judges!

          And the defense lawyers, too, had some “help from their Senator-judges” as well.

          2. If you will remember the defense panel wanted a pre-trial conference to thresh out issues on procedures, presentation of evidence etc. among others, but the prosecutors refused.

          “Pre-trial conference” was just a dilatory tactic. The Presiding Officer Enrile said the pretrial conference was no longer needed because issues on the impeachment procedures were already covered by existing rules. In short, the Impeachment Court DENIED the defense’s motion for a preliminary hearing FOR LACK OF MERIT.

          3. Pundits are calling the prosecutors: mga Prinsipe ng Sablay!

          Do these “pundits” happen to be members of pop-alternative band? Anyway, the only non-honorific title I can remember now is given by Secretary De Lima to Chief Justice Corona – A WALKING CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. 🙂

        2. sarah:

          Point missed. Being a ‘walking constitutional violation’ is applied more on Laila de Lima more than Corona because she keeps on ignoring the law on preventing GMA’s departure.

          Yellow minds are always like that.

      2. @ sarah

        According to the Philippine Star, some Senator-Judges are asserting that the impeachment trial is “too costly” for the Filipino people. It seems the Senate’s budget for the trial is has been overshot.

        “Do these “pundits” happen to be members of pop-alternative band? ”

        Ano daw? Keep it sincere and straightforward. 🙂

  39. “I just hope 2/3 of them don’t flock with birds that lay rotten eggs.”

    So far, the only ANGRY BIRDS I observed were Senators Drilon, Osmena, Recto and possibly Pangilinan. I felt the others were understanding of, if not sympathetic to, the defense.

    Or just maybe, the rest are humming Ms. Sharon Cuneta’s song:

    “Tulak ng bibig, kabig ng dibdib.”

    1. “So far, the only ANGRY BIRDS I observed were Senators Drilon, Osmena, Recto and possibly Pangilinan. I felt the others were understanding of, if not sympathetic to, the defense.”

      So if they were “angry birds”, the pro-defense senator-judges are what – ARCHAEOPTERYX? We should find the IBONG ADARNA soon to complete this aviary. 🙂

  40. Sarah, you seem to have missed Ilda’s comment a few comments up about this “midnight appointee” issue you’d like to raise from the dead. Your quote of Article VII Section 15 won’t help you.

    An ignorant comment is not yet an bannable offense, but if a comment poster cannot even read and comprehend the comments of others, what more can this poster do in the blog comment page beyond showing his/her ignorance?

    1. FYI, I’d read Ilda’s rehashed article on Corona’s “midnight appointee” issue so no need for me to re-examine that recycled piece. After all her sympathetic account on the pseudo justification fabricated by the former President, including those of her allied forces acting as sock puppets, your “friend” once again FAILED to answer one essential question…

      Was Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice CONSTITUTIONAL?

      And the answer is short and simple – NO. 🙂

      1. Oh, suddenly you are the sole authority on the constitution.

        Very well, by the powers vested upon me as, by invoking thusly:

        if a comment poster cannot even read and comprehend the comments of others, what more can this poster do in the blog comment page beyond showing his/her ignorance?”

        which is irrefutable logic and clearly free of fallacy, I hereby unseat you from the position of sole constitutional authority and declare your previous rulings as null and void.

        1. 1. Oh, suddenly you are the sole authority on the constitution.

          Did I say I’m the “sole authority”? WRONG assumption.

          2. Very well, by the powers vested upon me by invoking thusly:

          Powers? You mean psychic or supernatural? And correct me if I’m wrong. I thought the right line should be – By the power vested in me…

          3. if a comment poster cannot even read and comprehend the comments of others, what more can this poster do in the blog comment page beyond showing his/her ignorance?”

          Was this citation one of the provisions of the Constitution? As far as my knowledge is concerned, NO constitutional law expert has ever invoked such reference from 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, 1973 Constitution, or even 1987 Constitution. Therefore, this excerpt is irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent.

          4. which is irrefutable logic and clearly free of fallacy…

          Says who? Oh, says you. Right. How pretentious.

          5. I hereby unseat you from the position of sole constitutional authority and declare your previous rulings as null and void.

          BRAVO! (pun intended)

        2. Oh my, you sure wielded sole and supreme authority when you
          said:

          blah blah rehashed blah blah pseudo blah blah sock puppets blah blah FAILED blah blah

          Was Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice CONSTITUTIONAL?

          And the answer is short and simple – NO.

          Also, I merely followed your brilliant logic you had posted earlier:

          If a public official CANNOT even fill up a SALN form TRUTHFULLY, TIMELY and ACCURATELY, what more can a CHIEF JUSTICE do in the government beyond his INACCURATE SALN? It’s worth thinking, isn’t it?

          So again, I say

          if a comment poster cannot even read and comprehend the comments of others, what more can this poster do in the blog comment page beyond showing his/her ignorance?

          I think I’ve found some more: show her wrong logic and prejudice.

  41. @ Sphynx

    1. I mean seriously, is there even a lecture or seminars for this for all government employees and officials to attend so they know what they need to put there?

    Do public officials and employees still need a lecture or seminar when there’s already IMPLEMENTING RULES OF RA 6713, specifically Rule VII on PUBLIC DISCLOSURE through SALN as promulgated by the Civil Service Commission?

    As I posted more than 2 weeks ago, follow this link please:
    http://excell.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/RA6713b.html

    2. Once this trial is over, they should put something like that in place so that no one is ignorant of how it should be filled up and then you can not use the “did not know” card.

    We need not wait for the trial to be over. There are already IMPLEMENTING RULES set by Civil Service Commission regarding the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. And among the 14 rules, there’s RULE VIII that details how to comply with the rule on PUBLIC DISCLOSURE through SALN. The standards are already “in place” so NO ONE can plead IGNORANCE, including Corona.

    3. You haven’t even considered the fact of human error and human interpretation in the equation.

    FYI, Chief Justice Corona was a TAX and CORPORATE LAWYER who once worked for two banks and for SGV & Company, the country’s largest auditing firm. And that one of his areas of specialization when he took up a Master of Laws degree in Harvard University was the regulation of CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. With his excellent credentials, it’s an INSULT to Corona to commit such “error” in filing his SALNs. Surely NO ONE thinks he’s that STUPID.

    4. I still believe zonal/assesed valuation is a justifiable input into the SALN because why the hell do we bother with it if we can’t use it legally?

    So far, no one is questioning Corona’s assessed value inputs. But he surely committed a deliberate act called OMISSION. Corona FAILED to input in his SALNs all the ACQUISTION COSTS of real properties from 2003 to 2011? How could a former tax and corporate lawyer forget that? But we all know that he was never diagnosed with amnesia, was he? If Corona had done acts of omission year after year, then it was certainly INTENTIONAL. And that is ground for both CRIMINAL and ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY.

    1. Funny, I’ve read these arguments before in this same comment section. And then I saw them demolished. But here they are shiny and new like a yellow zombie.

      1. That’s the miracle of recycling. Seriously, she thinks she knows everything about the impeachment and thinks that she is right and the rest of us are wrong. Never cast pearls before swine, so it’s we move on to other topics since were getting nowhere with this.

  42. SAD TO SAY, THE PROSECUTION PANEL OF SUPPOSED TO BE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS SEEMS TO BE REALLY INCOMPETENT… ASIDE FROM BEING UNPREPARED… KEEPS ON FISHING EVIDENCES… IN SHORT mga bobo… MARAMI PA SILANG KAKAINING SINAING NA BIGAS…

    I SUPPOSE HINDI NA MAKATULOG ANG PROSECUTION PANEL DAHIL SA MGA KATANGAHAN NILA SA PAGLILITIS… SAYANG PERA NATIN… SANA BINIGAY NA LANG SA CAGAYAN DE ORO VICTIMS… OR TO THE HOME FOR THE AGED… THAN SPENDING UNWISELY TO INCOMPETENT PEOPLE LIKE THOSE OF THE PROSECUTION.

    PAGNAGKAROON NG RALLY FOR PRO CJ CORONA , I WILL BE JOINING THEM…

    1. Sayang talaga ang pera ng bayan. And now they want to impeach another judge even while Corona’s trial is still ongoing. They are sick, indeed.

  43. Okay, I’ll just pack my bags and go abroad and have a family there. All you guys are saying is that it is understandable to suck the country dry. Anyway, we are all corrupt and that there is no point in making changes. The hell with our kids and their kids, and here’s hoping that they become Corona’s. Now, that is SICK indeed.

  44. this is obviously a black propaganda blog. it is corona who is being IMPEACHED! yung iba, e di kasohan din ninyo. but this impeachment is the Filipino’s manifestation na STOP NA ANG CORRUPTION, umpisahan sa supreme corrupt ang tanggalan!

    ano masasabi ninyo ngayon…

    corona MUST BE IMPEACHED!

    with the help of arroyo, he singlehandedly made the FILIPINO’s SUPREME COURT to a supreme corrupt institution…
    HE IS NOT ONLY A LIAR, HE IS A TRUE BLOODSUCKER like arroyo and their cohorts

    1. *sigh* Looks like we have another dumb yellow noytard that doesn’t realize that his dumbass prosecutor team is LOSING.

  45. mga pilipino, ngayon nyo po obserbahan ang magiging resulta ng pagkatanggal ni corona sa SC at kung sino ang isusunod nila. isang example lang si corona upang ipakita kung pano nila patatalsikin ang sino man na kontra sa kanila. tingin nyo ba ang mga senador ay nagdesisyon ayon sa alam nilang tama at para sa pilipino? tandaan po natin kung ano ang matunog sa mga tao ay un ang susundin nila kasi malapit na ang ELEKSYON! tamang tama madaling lokohin ang masa. hmmm sino ba ngaun ang tingin nila na malakas na makakalaban sa susunod na eleksyon? sino ba ang influencial na tao na pdeng kumontra sa kanilang mga gusto? tandaan nyo po, may mga govt institution nanaman na up for privitazation like govt hospitals! grabe lang ha pati pagamutan ng kawawang maralitang pilipino ibebenta pa sa pribadong tao! bantayan ang pagcor na billion ang kinikita kada buwan dahil may masamang plano ang mga ungas kunwari mag-mmediate lang para sa malaysian national na gustong bumili! GAGO!. mrt, lrt dont really know kung naibenta na pero may ungas na lintang unti unting gumagapang at gustong sipsipin ang pampublikong sakayan na ito. lahat ng sangay ng transportation, mapalupa, hangin at pandagat… alam mo kung sino ka… bkt mo pilitang pinagreresign lahat ng direktor ng mga ahensyang ito? para i-upo ang mga tuta mo at kumamal ng malaking halaga? tandaan nyo mga kababayan ang tunay na kinalalagyan ng malaking pera ay nagmumula sa transportasyon. mga pilipino…. sino ba talaga nagmamayari ng pilipinas? ang mga pilipino ba? aminin man natin o hindi mga hunghang ang karamihan sa pilipino. ako ay pilipino at proud ako na maging pilipino pero aminado ako na hunghang tayo madaling maloko at madaling dalhin ng sidhi ng damdamin. sa una palang nagtanong ba kayo sa inyong sarili kung bkt pinatay si ninoy? bkt naupo si cory? we celebreate the death of ninoy bcoz its started the edsa revolution but we should not! bcoz if ninoy was not killed, we could have been living in a better Philippines. he got killed becoz, ung mga ungas ay mawawalan ng pera at power at control over sa mga pilipino. they killed ninoy dahil hindi payag si ninoy sa magiging gusto nila na philippine dominance! they killed ninoy dahil hindi sila mapupunta sa kinaroroonan nila ngayon kundi nila gagawin iyon. Ngayon tanong ko…. totoo bang si marcos ang nagpapatay kay ninoy? Marcos respects ninoy kht magkalaban sila at kung gusto nya patayin si ninoy ay matagal na, hindi na nya hinintay na tumindi pa ang influence ni ninoy sa mga tao. kung involve si marcos who really knows? but for me… we should think… sino ba nag-benefit sa edsa revolution? sino ba ang kumamal ng malaking halaga at mga corporation? sino ba ang natalaga sa power? tignan nyo po ang mga sinasabing great leaders (politicians) at businessmen and women na naupo after ng revolution? ano ang relasyon nila kay marcos, aquino at kung sino pang involved sa drama? kung naging public servants sila for so many years… pano sila nakakamal ng pagkalaki laking yaman? pano napunta sa mga intsik ang malalaking kompanya ng pilipinas?

    Wala akong concrete proof of these things kaya nasa inyo na kung maniniwala kayo o hindi pero sana lang wag kayo padala sa dramang… “highskul lang ang inabot ko at ang desisyon ko ay para sa maralitang pilipinong tulad ko” come on…bilib nga ako sayo kasi ikaw lang ang highskul lvl na senador na nangurakot ng ilang milyon sa bayan mo at nung ndi ka na manalo sa lugar na iyon, dhl lam nila gawain mo, tumakbo ka sa senado at nanalo!!! hahahaha grabe lang talaga ka-gullible ang pinoy! malapit lang na ang eleksyon kaya kayo nagkakaganyan!!!

    haaaaays nakakapagod na… kayo na bahala magisip dahil ako pagod nang magisip.

    Godbless the Philippines!!

    It’s really more fun in the Philippines!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.