iluko.com - website a magustoan a pagpalpallailangan dagiti pada a nangisit ti sikona.

dap-ayan: sungsungbat

 

Skip Navigation LinksHome > Dap-ayan > Dap-ayan Responses



Pagsasaritaan a Topiko

The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona

makannigid
1/21/2012 8:22:00 AM

ania ti makunayo? political ngata daytuy wennu saan!


Sungsungbat/Komentario

Show ALL Comments  | Last 100  |
justine
1/21/2012 12:22:00 PM
Huh!? Apo makannigid, awan makunak ta diak matarusan daytoy topiko.
  Top   |  Bottom

makannigid
1/21/2012 12:52:00 PM
sorry..saan met gayam nga clear......daytoy ngamin ti nakitak ditoy yahoo philippines isu nga kasla komedya daytoy a trial ti kunak.



..The public was glued to their television screens or laptop monitors to watch the impeachment drama unfold.

(Un)surprisingly, the first week of the Chief Justice Renato Corona Jr.’s trial wasn’t all about drama at all—there were comic moments that probably made you say Politics: It’s indeed more fun in the Philippines. If you missed those, then read on:

Common sense?


President of the Philippine Senate Juan Ponce Enrile delivers his opening remarks at the …
When Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, said the impeachment trial procedure is similar to a criminal case, Prosecution lead Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas asked where that came from, Enrile have this to say: “This is the product of my own mind.”


Looooong break


Every time Enrile calls for a court recess, he would say: “The trial is suspended for one long minute.”

It is indeed long. Because only after five minutes or more would the trial resume.


Remedial classes needed?


When Rep. Elpidio Barzaga objected to the manner of Ret. Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas’ (lead defense counsel ) line of questioning to the prosecution’s witness, he used what he “learned” at the law school.


Cavite Representative Elpidio Barzaga Jr from the prosecution panel discusses a point …
“My objection, your honor, is that before a question should be propounded, the witness should be first permitted to answer the previous question. That’s very basic, your honor, and I learned that from my remedial law professor, who happens to be no less than the defense counsel!”

Cuevas was however quick to say: Maybe you were absent when I discussed that!

Oops, does someone need remedial classes? Barzaga was Cuevas’ former student on remedial law at the Far Eastern University. (How apt is that?)



Frenemies


Senator Franklin Drilon and former senator Francisco Tatad’s had a confrontation during a trial break.

Tatad: You’re beginning to sound like a prosecutor.

Drilon: What’s your problem? Eh ‘di ipa-disqualify mo ako!

Later when asked in separate interviews to comment on the confrontation, the two answered:

Tatad: I said that as a friend.

Drilon: I don’t want to talk about it. Maliit na bagay lang iyon. Let’s talk about the impeachment. Kaibigan ko naman ‘yun.


Sleeping on the job?


The House panel on the defense team’s allegation that the prosecution is getting what they want without having to do anything and by relying to the senators to the job for them:

Rep. Erin Tanada: Inggit lang sila.

Rep. Sonny Angara: Istrikto kasi si Presiding Officer Enrile noong yung abogado namin ang nagtatanong. Nung ang mga nagtanong eh yung mga senador, hindi na siya istrikto.

Tupas: At least nakuha na naming yung matagal na naming hinihingi. (Pertaining to Corona’s SALN)


‘Face’ of the trial


Prosecution may have more media exposure but the defense claim they at least have an eye candy.
Karen Jimeno (NPPA Images)


Lawyer Jose Roy: We want to talk to you (the media) too. We don’t want to keep Karen to ourselves. Karen is something to be shared. Pagdating sa ligawan sa publiko, si Karen na ang bahala dun. Malakas din ang pambato namin dyan.

Atty. Karen Jimeno, defense panel spokesperson, was tagged as the “stunner” of the impeachment trial.

Can't laugh

And if you’re laughing, watch out. Enrile already ruled, “No laughing in this court! (Pounds gavel.)”

..
  Top   |  Bottom

lintik
1/22/2012 7:10:00 AM
JPE's 'corona de gloria'
BABE'S EYE VIEW By Babe Romualdez (The Philippine Star) Updated January 22, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (0)


For a man who will be turning 88 this February 14, Juan Ponce Enrile is unquestionably at the highest point of his political career. JPE, as the Senate President is popularly known, is a man whose life has turned around so many times, and during the course of his colorful and storied career, he has proven to be the quintessential survivor — bouncing back just when it seemed it was over.

Most everyone is now familiar with the story of Juanito Furugganan — the boy from Cagayan who worked as a houseboy to put himself through school. The war brought him face to face with the father he had never known and gave him the name — Juan Ponce Enrile — that would figure prominently during critical moments in our nation’s history. The barrio kid’s circumstance was practically reversed, his formidable intellect coming to the fore when he graduated cum laude from Ateneo and obtained a law degree in UP as 1953 class salutatorian.

Manong Johnny, as many of us fondly call him, got a 91.7 percent rating for the 1954 bar exams with a perfect score of 100 percent in Commercial Law. He distinguished himself as a corporate and litigation lawyer, and began his career in government as Finance Undersecretary in 1966, followed by a stint as Customs Commissioner in 1968. He became Justice Secretary in 1970 and was eventually appointed as Secretary of National Defense — a post he held for over a decade.

JPE was one of the closest associates of Ferdinand Marcos during Martial Law and as Defense Secretary, he was at the height of his power — so powerful, in fact, that there were strong indications he was the “heir apparent” to Marcos. Manong Johnny could have assumed power for himself during EDSA I as head of a proposed revolutionary council but instead, he threw his support for Cory Aquino, perceived to be the real winner of the 1985 snap election.

They say life is a series of ups and downs, and at a certain point, Juan Ponce Enrile fell out of grace, reaching the lowest point of his career when Cory removed him as Defense Secretary after barely six months, having been implicated in the so-called “God Save the Queen” coup plot of November 1986. The August 1987 coup led by Gringo Honasan was more bloody, with 53 casualties and 200 wounded — including the then 27-year-old Noynoy who was on his way to Arlegui when rebel soldiers fired at his vehicle. Noynoy lost three of his bodyguards in the ensuing firefight and sustained five bullets — one of which is still lodged in his neck. Despite denying any involvement, Enrile was subsequently charged with “rebellion complexed with murder.”

To many political analysts, the consequent fall from Cory Aquino’s favor meant the end of Enrile’s career. But history was not through with him yet. Not only were the rebellion charges eventually dismissed, the son of Cagayan successfully ran as senator in 1987 and held his own despite being the lone opposition in the Senate at the time. And whether he ran as Congressman in his home province or as Senator, it was obvious that JPE had become recognized as a key political figure by many Filipinos.

In retrospect, it would seem rather ironic that JPE is now vested with the “unique” burden and responsibility to make the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona credible and believable — no matter the eventual outcome — to everyone, most especially the Filipino public. After all, this impeachment will have an impact not only on the political fortunes of so many players including President Noynoy Aquino himself but most importantly, it will help determine the direction and perhaps the future of this country. No doubt the Senate President — as head of the impeachment court — will have a difficult balancing act in maintaining the independence and credibility of the impeachment court while making sure that due process and the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution are also observed.

From what people have seen and heard so far, it would seem that JPE is in full control. Enrile has made it perfectly clear that he will conduct the proceedings with fairness and objectivity, assuring the public that the senators are neutral and are merely doing their jobs by clarifying certain points raised by both the prosecution and the defense. Even his opening statement resonated with the public — stressing that as jurors, it is their obligation to examine the facts and evidence and determine whether these sufficiently and convincingly support the charges against Corona.

He had issued a stern warning for everyone to cooperate and maintain order, reiterating his commitment and determination to see the whole thing through “all the way to its completion.” At this point in his life and at this stage in his political career, JPE knows he could very well afford to be thoroughly candid and straightforward — frankly replying that if the public thought the senators were being biased, then “they (the public) can punish us.”

A couple of years ago, we encouraged Manong Johnny to write his biography and the historical facts from his perspective, and we are happy to hear that he is down to the last two chapters. The timing could not be more opportune because once again, JPE finds himself at the cusp of a significant moment in our history. Who knows? This impeachment trial may be part of the last chapter and could very well be the “corona de gloria” — a Spanish phrase that when exactly translated means “crowning glory” — to cap the tumultuous and remarkable political career of Juan Ponce Enrile
  Top   |  Bottom

lintik
1/22/2012 11:05:00 PM
impeachment
By: Florin T. Hilbay
12:58 am | Monday, January 23rd, 2012 4share141 134
There is a fundamental flaw in the way the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona have so far been conducted, and it has nothing to do with the ability of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to manage the trial. He has proven himself impartial, authoritative, learned and credible. The problem lies with the assumption that these proceedings are akin to a criminal trial and must proceed as such.

The purpose of this impeachment is not to send Corona to jail, or forfeit unexplained or ill-gotten wealth; it is to determine whether the representatives of the people believe that he should be removed from office because he has betrayed public trust or culpably violated the Constitution. The theory of the Constitution is, because certain public officials rank so high in the affairs of the state, it is crucial that the body politic—the people—be able to trust these officials. Society will not gravely suffer if some paper pushers in the city hall are untrustworthy, but it definitely will if the chief justice or any other impeachable officer is. Trust and confidence in our leaders affect belief in the rule of law, the operations of the market, hope in the possibility of progress, and even the value of one’s citizenship. This is why, even if the president, chief justice or ombudsman are protected by a term of office, that guarantee can be breached once the people are convinced that their trust has been betrayed. This also explains why the power to impeach and remove is not lodged in judicial institutions, whose members are not chosen by the people, but in overtly political organs such as the House of Representatives and the Senate, whose members are directly voted by the people.

This understanding of the purpose of an impeachment gives us reasons why these proceedings should not be compared to a criminal trial, or in the words of a colleague, “judicialized.”

First. Judicialization disempowers our senators, most of whom are not lawyers. Our 12 non-lawyer senators may be both wise and shrewd, but the proceedings may as well be conducted in elvish to them. This is unfortunate as it prevents them from fully grasping the details of what is going on and severely impairs their ability to participate. The unnecessarily technical proceedings compel them to choose from among distasteful alternatives: risk embarrassment if they try to intervene, get a nosebleed if they seek to understand, or give up and zone out. How can they make that grave decision to acquit or convict in a case they find difficult to comprehend? How can they make an informed judgment when only their colleagues who happen to be lawyers can appreciate the texture of the technical arguments posed before them? Impeachment was never meant to be an affair among lawyers.

Second. Judicialization disempowers the people, whose opinion is the most potent constraint against arbitrary action by the impeachment tribunal. One sense of the word “political” when used to describe an impeachment is that our senator-judges are not checked by a judicial institution such as the Supreme Court but are instead constrained by the force of public opinion. Precisely because it is the people who will ultimately judge our senator-judges, it is imperative that the people be able to understand this trial without submitting themselves to the mercy of so-called legal experts. The first week of trial indubitably shows that the attention of the public was diverted from the merits of the case to the undeniable brilliance and wit of former Justice Serafin Cuevas, the difficulties of the prosecution panel, and the star quality of Representatives Miro Quimbo and Sonny Angara, and defense spokesperson Karen Jimeno. What is the point of a national coverage of these proceedings when anchors are forced to ask their lawyer-guests “who won?” because they are unsure about their own assessments? The ideal impeachment proceeding is one that is covered by the media with minimal assistance from lawyers.

Third. Judicialization undermines the power of the Senate. The resort to technical rules of judicial proceedings makes any action of the impeachment tribunal vulnerable to judicial intervention. Justice Cuevas’ repeated invocation of jurisprudence, precedent and law are not empty incantations borne out of long practice in the judicial trenches; they lay the foundation for a possible claim that because the Senate was not able to comply with the strictures of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence, it had committed grave abuse of discretion which can be corrected by the Supreme Court. The Senate must therefore be wary of being blindsided into accepting the possibility of judicial intervention in a proceeding fully entrusted by the Constitution to the political branches of government.

It is important to emphasize that an impeachment proceeding need not be conducted as a criminal trial and that the use of judicialized procedures is not the only way to establish facts. The task is to ascertain whether the allegations against Corona are true or false, and the best way to do this is by rationalizing the proceedings to ensure that the judges will be in the best position to use practical reason to sift through the layers of claims of either party. Corona’s lawyers should of course be allowed by the Senate to use all reasonable defenses to question the relevance, materiality or weight of evidence, but these can be done within the confines of a set of procedures that are efficient, understandable and fair. Otherwise, we might soon find ourselves the biggest fans of Cuevas, but nonetheless abysmally ignorant of the truth or falsity of the charges against his esteemed client.

Florin T. Hilbay teaches Constitutional Law and Legal Philosophy at the UP College of Law. He is also the director of the Institute of Government and Law Reform of the UP Law Center.

  Top   |  Bottom

Balangkantis
1/25/2012 9:11:00 AM
..Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who is also acting as presiding officer of the impeachment court, on Tuesday said he is willing to vacate his post after the the prosecution panel requested for a more “liberal” court.

Before adjourning Day 5's proceedings on the Chief Justice's impeachment trial, Enrile said: “Handa akong ibigay ang upuang ito sa kung sinumang may gusto. So ordered.”

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, chief public prosecutor, earlier asked the impeachment court for flexibility in applying rules. “Flexibility to the point that we will be able to elicit evidence from witness,” Tupas said.

Enrile then asked Tupas, “Are you suggesting we should allow misleading questions and hearsay evidence? Are you suggesting that we relax the best evidence rule?”

“No, we are not. It's just giving flexibility to the prosecution,” Tupas responded.

But the presiding officer hit the prosecution panel for being unprepared for the trial.

“I want to be candid with you. You had time to marshal your evidence. I assume you had assembled evidence for each article,” Enrile said.

“Hindi ako hukom. Ako ay inatasan lang ng batas na maging presiding officer. Sabihin niyo kung paano ako magiging liberal,” he added.

Tupas, however, failed to cite rules on how the court could be flexible and backed down saying they "submit to the wisdom of the honorable court."

Enrile continued with his speech stressing, “Wala akong kinikilingan sa kasong ito. Wala akong kinikilalang dapat pagsilibihan kundi ang bansa. Hindi ako gagawa ng pasya na hindi makatarungan.”

Meanwhile, Senator-judge Manuel Villar commended Enrile’s performance as presiding officer.

“Bilang beterano sa impeachment, hindi natin mapapaligaya ang lahat ng panig. Mahirap ang ating ginagampanan ngayon. Ako'y humahanga sa inyong paghawak,” Villar said.

..
  Top   |  Bottom

Crispolo
1/25/2012 3:27:00 PM
ka lintik, mayat dayta impaskil mo dita ngato. Daytoy lakay Cuevas ket kanayon nga ag lecture everytime he raises an objection. Nu siak ni lakay Ankwan Enrile, I would tell him to shut up everytime he starts lecturing, bwi hihihi! He knows (Cuevas) that his client is guilty on all the charges and he is trying to find loopholes and technicalities.

Impeachment is NOT a judicial trial solely based on evidence. To the contrary, impeacment is a political process and the Senate sits as a court during impeachment trial. It is a political body deliberating on what are properly considered as a political offenses. Ngamin, our system or methods of appointment and removal of high ranking government officials are political. Daytoy ti layman's term ken dayta impaskil ni apo lintik dita ngato.


  Top   |  Bottom

Patrick A. Gapusan
1/25/2012 7:09:00 PM
Uray idi damok ti agbotos, daydi dios ti alwad na nga apo Quirino, he was accused of using government funds to renovate the Palace and purchase furnitures for Malacanang. Charges were dismissed by congressional committee due to lack of factual and legal basis.

Magsaysay died in a plane crash before he could be accused of something....

Garcia was accused of...of...of...'can't remember (simru manen tay panagkabaw, yordz).

Macapagal was accused of illegally importing rice to build public support in an election, illegally dismissing public officials, using the military to intimidate political opposition. A Congressional committee dismissed all charges.

Marcos was accused of graft, economic plunder, unexplained wealth, granting monopolies to croonies, and other crimes. National assembly commitee dismissed the charges for unsupported conclusions.

Cory Aquino was accused by congress for graft and violating the constitution. Charges were rejected due to lack of evidence.

Estrada was accused of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, etc. The trial was aborted after the prosecution walked out from the impeachment procedings. This led to the EDSA revolution and the downfall of Estrada.

Arroyo was accused in '05, '06, '07, and '08 impeachment complains for different imputations, specially attempting lying, cheating and stealing during the 2004 presidential election against opposition FPJ. All impeachment cases failed due to absence of 1/3 vote from members of Congress.


Impeached officials:

President Estrada - Trial aborted.

Ombudsman Merci Gutierez - chickened out, resigned prior to trial.

Chief Justice Corona - He have big balls. Trial ongoing. Charges might as well be dropped due to cluster-fuck created by the ignorance on impeachment proceedings of rusty prosecutors . Seems like the Defense is better prepared....
  Top   |  Bottom

MR.DOLL PIT
1/25/2012 10:30:00 PM
the heck with the prosecutors, especially Cong. Tupas. Nagkakalat siya sa trial, he cannot even articulate his arguments!!!
  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
1/26/2012 1:45:00 AM
apong makannigid umaynak man met idtoy kortem......!
he he he hi hi hi..... panay met aapong ti adda idtoy.... (kasla ken apong ko)
basta agdengdengngegak latta koman ngem iyarasaasko man ken ni angkel pat: matuloy man wenno saan daytoy a pannakausig ni corona ket addadtan a nakitamin nga agtutubo a dayta a tao ket saan a nasayaat ti panagserbina a susueldoan mi nga addadtoy pilipinas ta ulbod ken agpabpabaknang laeng ti aramidna.......!
:-(
:-(
  Top   |  Bottom

justine
1/26/2012 5:46:00 PM
Uray siak ngarud Ate Vilma, nadlawko met a panay senior citizens ti sumarsarungkar ditoy abong ni apong Makannigid, hi hi hi. Ate V, awan pay napaneknekan ti impeachment court a kinaulbod wemmo di nasayaat a panagserbi ni Corona. Kasta met a awan pammaneknek a ti kinabaknangda ket ill-gotten wealth. Diay met di na panag-file ti ITR idi 2002-2010 ket ligal, ta as a member of the Alpha List, he is not obligated by the BIR to file.

Nakapuntos manen ni Corona gapu iti panag-walkout ti Ilocos Norte Representative a miembro ti prosecution, ni Rudy Farinas. Hi hi hi. The Prosecution is starting to fall apart and the Lead Prosecutor Topak...oops sorry, Tupas kunak koma, is really getting frustrated.

Ate Vilma, pls extend my regards to our Apong!
  Top   |  Bottom

Balangkantis
1/26/2012 11:20:00 PM
..After yet another heated argument with the prosecution team on Thursday, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s blood pressure shot up and was advised to leave early and rest at home.

Tom Tolibas, Santiago's media relations officer, said the senator’s blood pressure read 180/90. He said Santiago will return on Monday for the trial.

When the proceedings began, the senator-judge was irked by the prosecution’s failure to answer her directly.

“Just answer yes or no! I am tired of hearing your voice!” Santiago said to private prosecutor Atty. Arthur Lim. She asked Lim if the prosecution is charging Chief Justice Renato Corona under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

A further scolding

Santiago further scolded the private prosecutor for arguing with her and even threatened to bar Lim from appearing in court.

“How dare you raise questions to my authority? Don't overstep yourself! You cannot engage in a discussion with me! I am the judge here!” she yelled.

Santiago was absent during the first week of the impeachment trial because of her hypertension.

When she returned on Tuesday, the senator-judge stressed the need to hasten the proceedings and repeatedly hit the prosecution panel for “wasting the time” of the court.

Farinas ‘walks out’

Meanwhile, Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, member of prosecution panel, reportedly walked out of the trial and told his colleagues, “Bahala na kayo diyan!”

Camille Mathay, daughter of Fariñas, went to Twitter to explain her father’s action. “Dad was disappointed because he wanted to argue but was stopped. He has been wanting to take the stand,” she tweeted.

“If you won't let him talk, why keep him there? Haynaku!!!!!!!” she added.

Nevertheless, Fariñas returned to the session hall after several minutes.

..
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
1/27/2012 7:02:00 AM
NAHAYBLAD kano ni Miriam. Daytoy, naggapu iti maysa nga gayyem:


No, Art Lim is not liable for Lady Miriam's stratospheric blood pressure, for the following reasons:
1. He did not provoke the lady, she is.prone
to hysterics whenever she sees debonair
and handsome gentlemen of substance
like Art Lim.
2. When she espied Art Lim dignified,
imposing and with an aura of authority
and sangfroid behind the prosecutor's
podium, deja vu enveloped her senses
and she recalled their UP law days when
Art Lim, devastatingly handsome,
champion debater on campus, ignored
the coquettish glances directed towards
him by a plain-looking Ilongga who spoke
Tagalog with a Visayan accent. "Hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
3. She was not wearing her eyeglasses and
thought Art Lim was the late Professor
Bienvenido Ambion, who arrived three
hours late for their appointment.
4. She deemed it proper to practice her
judicial histrionics that day, in
preparation for her role in trying Syrian
President Bashar Assad in the International Criminal Court.
5. She knows gentlemen of substance don't
make patol to women's stream of irate
invectives dahil mga badingski lang ang
nakipagtaktakan at sabunutan sa ating
mga frail ladies, who are made to be loved
and not assaulted, verbally or otherwise.
Nobody takes our beloved Miriam's outbursts seriously, really. Hence, this irreverent, facetious article. Hehehe.


  Top   |  Bottom

Lakay Flor
1/29/2012 4:24:00 PM
drama la amin dagita. palubosandanto met laeng ni Corona ta agkukumpadreda ngarud. kaasipay ni pinoy nga gabayad ti buis a paggappuan ti gastusenda nga aghurado.
  Top   |  Bottom

Palsiit
1/30/2012 8:55:00 AM
agpaysonsa. kastansa lattan. Kinnudkod ti bukot.Inton nabudo ta bukotmo ,kudkudandakanto met.
  Top   |  Bottom

makannigid
2/1/2012 9:21:00 AM
ost of the Senator-judges lost their patience on Day 10 of the impeachment trial, as the prosecution failed to show the relevance of their evidence with the articles of impeachment.

The prosecution presented on Wednesday lawyer Benito Cataran, Director of the Company Registration and Monitoring Department of Security and Exchange Commission, to testify that it was improbable for Chief Justice Renato Corona to get a cash advance from his wife’s company whose license had been revoked.

After a lengthy direct examination on Cataran, the senator-judges grilled the prosecution on the relevance of his testimonies.

“Walang relevance kung buhay ang corporation o hindi. Kahit patay na ang corporation, you can still get money. If the point of this is to prove na patay na ang corporation, we're wasting our time,” Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said.

Cataran said SEC revoked the certificate of registration of Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc., company of Corona’s wife, Cristina, in 2003 after it failed to submit documents required by the commission for several years.

The chief justice disclosed an P11-million liability on his 2003 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

“There could have been no transaction made with Corona because the corporate franchise had been revoked,” Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali said.

However, Retired Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel, countered Umali’s claims saying that a company is still capable of doing business activities even if its license has been revoked.

The witness however said that when the license is revoked, the corporation is dissolved.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, negated the statement.

“You can revoke BGEI's registration but you can't kill that corporation. Only government or stockholders can make it die,” Enrile stressed.

“I think you’re misinterpreting the corporation law. I’m sorry to tell you but I’m teaching you corporation law,” Enrile said, irked.

Senator Pia Cayetano also complained to the prosecution, “Is it your intention to prove that exchange of money did not take place? If not, this is futile.”

Umali responded that they wanted to show that Corona's cash advance from BGEI was “fictitious.”

Even the usually quiet Senator Lito Lapid asked the prosecution the point of it all.

“Ibig sabihin sa dinami-dami ng tanong niyo kanina, ilang oras na tayo dito, iyan lang ang gusto niyo palabasin?” said Lapid, who spoke for the first time 10 days into the trial.

“Marami pa po. We're trying to figure out where the P11 million came from. This is unexplained wealth,” Umali said.

The court, however, prohibited the prosecution from presenting evidence pertaining to Corona's ill-gotten wealth.

“If you’re not sure with your evidence, please do not present it,” Senator Joker Arroyo told the prosecution.

..
  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
2/3/2012 1:06:00 AM
heyy.....! naglaingdan no ti saanna a panangkita iti SALN na idi pinirmaanna ket maannugot la a bassit a biddut.....!
no mabalin a kasta ket awanton ti makolekta a buis ta puro biddut ton ti aramiden da angkel pat, apong leo, kdpy....!
naimbag pay kaniak idi nagabsenak idi agbasbasaak pay nga inbagak nga agsakit ngipenko ngem bday gayam ni apong ket tumulongak nga agisagana.... he he he hi hi hi....
  Top   |  Bottom

bom bom
2/3/2012 5:12:00 PM
OKinanan! IBUs manin ti kuartan ti PIlipinas! AWan mit lat napingtasin a program ti kinna na nga Philippine government. PRisidinti, FUndador, TONgristan, LIe Justices, PUro kayo amin manin a CORRUPT! awanin ti saan! Lightning bolt koma laingin ti strike kiniayo maninin. LItzi!
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
2/7/2012 7:44:00 AM
Lakay Flor and Palsiit were out golfing one day. At the hole in front of them there were two women who were moving slowly and taking a very long time. Lakay flor told Palsiit to go tell the ladies to hurry up.

Palsiit started to walk over to the women, but then quickly turned around and walked back.

"I can't go over there," said Palsiit .

"Well, why not?" asked Lakay flor

"Well, one of those women is my wife and the other is my mistress," replied Palsiit.

"Fine, I'll go" and Lakay Flor walked towards the women.

Lakay Flor returned with a very weird look on his face, "small world."


  Top   |  Bottom

isabella
2/7/2012 8:22:00 AM
Good one, Ms Cirenia! Hi hi hi!! It's a small world? Na-impeach da Palsiit ken Lakay Flor.

Let me guess why the weird look; Lakay Flor saw his wife (Palsiit's mistress) golfing with his mistress (Palsiit's wife)! Hi hi hi!
  Top   |  Bottom

Lakay Flor
2/9/2012 4:20:00 PM
lola sirena este cirenia.....ni tatang isabella ti na-impitz ta naduktalan tay boy prenna nga hapon nga puta met gayam nga bakla daytuy tatang isabella.
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
2/17/2012 8:05:00 PM
IMPATULOD TI MAYSA NGA GAYYEM.


BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC, ESTE, MARITAL TRUST
>>
>>by Say No To Greed on Sunday, February 12, 2012
> at 12:55pm ·
>>
>>Chief Justice Renato Corona wants to project
> the image that he is a loving husband to his wife, Cristina. The fact
> is, the Chief Justice has not only betrayed the public trust but most
> importantly, has betrayed his marital vow.
>>
>>If the Chief
> Justice is man enough, He should admit the fact that he has a
> long-standing romantic relationship with a gentle lady named EVA with
> whom the Chief Justice has two (2) illegitimate sons. EVA also hails
> from Batangas and had her education from Assumption College just like
> his wife Cristina who also graduated earlier from the same
> school.
>>
>>For Chief Justice Renato C. Corona not to mention
> his children with EVA as if they do not exist at all, is the highest
> form of ignominy and immorality that he can commit not only against his
> legitimate wife and family but against his oath as the highest
> magistrate of the land.
>>
>>An inquiry into his relationship
> with EVA and his illegitimate children in connection with the on-going
> impeachment trial becomes extremely necessary in the light of the
> properties given by the Chief Justice to them. EVA, who has previously
> undergone a heart bypass operation, is known not to have worked from the
> time she had this romantic liaison with the Chief Justice nor does she
> have any known business of her own and yet, EVA is luxuriously living in
> the United States, together with her two (2) illegitimate children with
> the good Chief Justice.
>>
>>The SALN of CJ Corona does not
> indicate any such properties.
>>
>>And the reason for the
> frequent trips of CJ Corona to the United States, the latest of which
> was late last year, was to visit EVA and his children with her. That CJ
> Corona could afford to support the kind of luxurious lifestyle of EVA
> and her children in the U.S. is certainly for the Chief Justice to
> explain considering his small salary.
>>
>>A simple
> investigation on the identity and circumstances of EVA can easily be
> done by a simple inquisition in Batangas as well as from the classmates,
> relatives and friends of EVA and of CJ Corona.
>>
>>I know these
> facts because EVA is a relative of mine and it pains me immensely to see
> the Chief Justice professing his love for Cristina on nationwide
> television when he has confessed to my relative that he loves her far
> more than his wife. In fact, the Chief Justice made EVA believe that he
> was already separated from his wife Cristina. This probably explains why
> for the longest time, the Chief Justice has not reported in his SALN the
> fact of Cristina's working in government and the fact that Cristina has
> not signed the SALNs as his wife.
>>
>>Betrayal of public trust?
> This is a small matter than what the Chief Justice has done to his wife
> and family which constitutes the highest form of immoral act - BETRAYAL
> OF MARITAL TRUST.
>>
>>Real name of CJ Corona's girlfriend - Eva
> Auria; She hails from Rosario, Batangas; She graduated from Assumption
> College (not from Maryknoll College) She has two (2) sons with CJ Corona
> who are now in their teens; She is residing now in the United States. CJ
> Corona's wife, Cristina, knows about the elicit relationship of her
> husband with Eva. To know more about the details on Eva, a simple
> investigation of Eva's background in Rosario Batangas and Assumption
> College would elicit the necessary informations. Eva has plenty of
> properties in the US. They keep secret the exact address.
> The bagman of CJ Corona (who facilitates the transfer of funds from
> Corona to Eva is "Abet" who is a relative by affinity of Eva, being
> married to a stepsister of Eva. (The wife of Abet has the same
> mother as Eva but different Fathers). The biggest delivery to Eva
> involves the bribe money given by the Aguirres of Banco
> Filipino.
>>
>>If the bank accounts of CJ Corona and his wife
> are opened, it will not be a surprise to see a running balance of not
> less than P200M. The bribe from the owner of the previously closed
> alone was a whopping P200M. And most money went to Eva through the
> Assistance of Abet.
>>
>>The sons of Corona carry the name of
> the mother. But CJ Corona has openly recognized Ate Eva's sons as
> his. A simple search at the NSO using "Renato C. Corona" would readily
> reveal this. For a time, when Eva was still in the Philippines,
> Renato and Eva lived as husband and wife. In fact, all our
> relatives in Rosario, Batangas and in the United States, knew the
> long-standing relationship. We all thought that Renato was already
> separated from Cristina. Some of Renato's relatives in Tanuan,
> Batangas where he hailed from, know about this relationship. Some
> friends of Renato have seen the 2 sons and have been their
> ninongs. All our relatives thought really that Renato will never
> deny his relationship with Ate Eva. Sana hindi nya gagawin iyon
> kasi kawawa sya at ang mga bata.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Asia
> International Travel Corporation
>>2/F Sagittarius Building III
>>H.
> V. de la Costa Street, Salcedo Village
>>Makati, Philippines
>>Tel.
> No. 63 2 812-4464 63 2 818-2264 or 65
>>Mobile No. 63 917
> 5376592
>>
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
2/17/2012 8:11:00 PM
Forwarded message ----------
>>From: William M. Esposo
>>Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at
> 7:06 AM
>>Subject: Betrayal of public, este, marital
> trust
  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
2/18/2012 1:34:00 AM
he he he hi hi hi.... maipagpannakkelka apong leo.... sapay koma ta saanka pay nga agkalbo wenno pumuraw amin ta buokmo.....
kopia ek daytoy ket ipatulodko kadagiti amin a gagagyyemko ken ibagak nga isendda met kadagiti gagayywmda ....!
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
2/18/2012 11:23:00 PM
Copies of Corona's controversial PSB Signture Cards are circulating in the banking offices. The one I saw consisted of:
a) Signature Cards containing a list of his deposit accounts

b) Customers Information Sheet with the Katipunan Branch indicated on it.

c) Copy of Corona's Passport


obviously concerned citizens have xeroxed and circulated the same. I do not discount the possibility that what Rep. Unali anf Banal are saying (small lady and slipped under the gate) are true.



Possible sources:
1) PSB Katipunan Branch employees (likely because of the Customers Information Sheet and Passport)

2) PSB Internal Auditors (possible, but not likely)

3) External Auditors (unlikely)

4) PSB Central Clearing Office of PSB (possible but not likely)

5) BSP Auditors (possible but not likely)


The other Signature Card was for Corona's son-in-law's account but the specimen signatures are the same as that appearing in Corona's bank accounts). This may prove that Corona is the one making deposits/withdrawals from the account. The name of Corona also appears in the account name.



If this is really the account of the son in law, the specimen signature of the account holder must be taken as well as that of the representative or agent. Furthermore the account name should state "in-law's name" plus the word "by" or "ITF" Corona. But such qualifications are absent



The deposit Account Numbers also contain data concerning:
i) Branch code (where the account was opened)
ii) Type of account (US Dollar ba or Peso)

  Top   |  Bottom

alexis castro
2/19/2012 11:03:00 PM
Apo makannigid, naimbag a malem mo. Ken kasta metten kadakayo gagayyem nga adda ditoy a panait.

Pudno iti kuna ni Vilma. Nagsayaat man ta adda dagitoy nga inposteyo ditoy Apo Leo ta maammuanmi met a nakapkapsut ti radarna.

Dagitoy laengen a banag ket awanen iti panagpiar tayo ken ni Apo Corona.

Isu a kanunongak dagiti ad-adu a kakabsat a rebbengna laeng a masuktan ti kasta a tao tapno naan-annayas ti pannakaipataray dagiti plano ni apo Pnoy a para iti panagbaliw ti langa toy inatayo a Pinas ken naragragsak tayo met laeng nga agarapaap para kadagiti ipatpateg tayo ditoy a biag.

Mabuhay tayong lahat...
  Top   |  Bottom

Ken H. Oagayen
2/22/2012 10:30:00 AM
Ti impeachment wenno iti pannakausig ti maatap nga aramid ti maysa nga agserserbi iti Gobyerno, saan laeng a maikkat wenno madusa no napaneknekan ti dakes nga aramidna, no di ket isu iti panakalukais dagiti inululesanna a madi nga aramid ken iti pannakaibabainna.Ta no bilang saan a dusaen dagiti senadores nga mang-ukom kenkuana, urayta naibukaisen ken naammuanen iti sangapagilian ket uray no agtuloy nga agserbi, awanen serserbina.

Kasla ken apo pasado presidente Bill Clinton iti Amerika, nalukaisan a minolmolan ni monica lewinski datay panibabna. Saan a a naikkat a presidente ta datay panangmolmol ni ms. monica datay ladayna ni presidente clinton ket saan nga impeachable offense, private sexperience laeng kano-:). Ngem ni apo Korona,adda met imposte ni angkel leo a saan laeng kano a betrayal of public trust ngem adda pay kano betrayal of wedding/marital trust/vow-:) baw kunami a tribo-:)
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
2/25/2012 9:56:00 PM
Omissions in SALN
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer8:46 pm | Saturday, February 25th, 2012 5share190 174
Article II of the impeachment complaint charges Chief Justice Renato Corona with failure to include “some of [his] properties” in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. If proven, what is the penalty for such omissions? So readers ask.

Dismissal from service. In Rabe vs Flores (May 14, 1997), the Supreme Court en banc unanimously dismissed from the service—with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leaves and with prejudice to reemployment—a Regional Trial Court (RTC) interpreter for dishonesty and for failure to disclose in her SALNs her business interest, which was “a stall in the market.”

The Supreme Court held: “Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the ‘obligation’ of an employee to submit a sworn statement as the ‘public has a right to know’ the employee’s assets, liabilities and net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that ‘(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’”

In Concerned Taxpayer vs Doblada (June 8, 2005), an RTC sheriff was dismissed for “his failure to declare a true and detailed SALN” for several years. “There were discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions in his SALNs, consisting of properties and business interests acquired but which were declared in his SALNs only two or more years later.”

Accuracy of entries required. Flores vs Montemayor (June 8, 2011) reiterated the penalty of dismissal for the respondent’s unjustified failure to declare “two expensive cars” in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs. Ruled the Supreme Court:

“Pursuant to Section 11, paragraph (b) of RA No. 6713, any violation of the law ‘proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’ Respondent’s deliberate attempt to evade the mandatory disclosure of all assets acquired … was evident when he first claimed that the vehicles were lumped under the entry ‘Machineries/Equipment’ or still mortgaged, and later averred that these were already sold by the end of the year covered and the proceeds already spent.

“Under this scheme, respondent would have acquired as many assets never to be declared at any time. Such act erodes the function of requiring accuracy of entries in the [SALN], which must be a true and detailed statement. It undermines the [SALN] as ‘the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government’ through which ‘the public [is] able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official, [as] a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.’”

In Pleyto vs PNP-CIDG (Nov. 23, 2007), “petitioner was negligent for failing … to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests … and for relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein.” Here, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s negligence was “only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead or deceive on his part … his SALNs actually disclose[d] the full extent of his assets … and his wife had other business interests.” Hence, the penalty imposed was only suspension for six months, without pay, not dismissal. Since petitioner had already retired, an amount equivalent to six months’ pay was “forfeited from his retirement benefits.”

In OCA vs Usman (Oct. 19, 2011), the Supreme Court imposed only a fine of P5,000 even if the “respondent clearly violated (Sec. 7, RA 3019 and Sec. 8, RA 6713) when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008.” It seems that failure to disclose assets, when proven to show dishonesty, is more severely penalized than the failure to file the SALN.

Integrity, uprightness. Indeed, Ombudsman vs. Peliño (April 14, 2008) held: “Under the laws governing civil service, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. This ideal standard ensures that only those of known probity, competence and integrity are called to the challenge of public service. It is understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.”

In sum, the penalty for the failure to disclose assets is dismissal if such omissions amount to dishonesty and are not due to clerical errors done in good faith. Otherwise, it is suspension. To stress, the Supreme Court decided the above administrative cases on the basis of strict legality. For impeachment cases, the Senate, after hearing the parties, has a wider policy discretion to decide whether the respondent is still fit and qualified to remain as the highest magistrate of the land.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com


  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
2/26/2012 12:53:00 AM
saankon a kayat iti agpanunot pay iti ad-adu.... makaanayen dagitoy inlanad ni apong leo tapno ipalikuddan ti tugawna ket no agpursar pay laeng nga agtugaw ket madalupisak ton a kasla gako..... he he he hi hi hi...!
  Top   |  Bottom

justine
2/28/2012 6:06:00 PM
Apo makannigid, nainpluensaan sa ketdi ti INC massive gathering ti impeachment trial....? Asideg ngamin manen ti eleksion....impakita laeng ti INC ti pigsa iti panagkaykaysa da tapno ibotos ti kayat ni Manalo a mangabak iti eleksion.

Prosecution surprisingly rested its case against Corona, confident it presented enough evidence to convict him of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the constitution. Prosecution scrapped Articles 1,4,5,6 & 8 of the impeachment complaints. Napabutngan sa ket ti prosecutionen, apo?

It's the defense's turn to disprove the impeachment complaints against Corona. If I'm not mistaken, Cuevas, chief defense counsel, is a respected member of INC. Adda pagsasao idiay ballasiw ti taaw, "It's not what you know, it's who you blow!"
  Top   |  Bottom

Ken H. Oagayen
2/28/2012 7:16:00 PM
Makaamon dagiti ukom a senador no kunada a nadalus ni Corona.Kas iti salaysayko a dua klase ti kararag: Kararag a saan a madusa iti nagbasol ken kararag a madusa iti nagbasol.Asinno ti denggenda?Kasta met daytoy a pasamak ita ket bunga met laeng ti basol.Saan a napaadda daytoy a basol, no dagiti agkunkuna a makaDios a tattao ket saanda nagaramid koma iti linoloko, ita ania ti naganab iti pagiliantayo?
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
3/2/2012 7:05:00 PM
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Philippine Judicial Academy
PHILJA Fax/Electronic Alerts


Issue 08-07

July 2008



Judge: Unbecoming Conduct



Judicial decorum requires judges to be temperate in their language at all times. They must refrain from inflammatory, excessively rhetoric or vile language. They should be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech; exhibit that temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint; and be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons who come to their courts.



Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to lawyers. Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges should be patient and courteous to lawyers especially the inexperienced. They should avoid the attitude that the litigants are made for the courts instead of the courts for the litigants.



In Juan dela Cruz v. Carretas, the Supreme Court held that a judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers who appear in his sala commits an impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the people’s faith in the Judiciary, x x x ; that it is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, x x x; that a judge must at all times be temperate in his language; x x x and that equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice. A judge should always keep his passion guarded. He can never allow it to run loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words. x x x



Respondent judge’s refusal to consider the motion to quash the Writ of Replevin, repeated interruption of the lawyers and utterance of “shut up”, “that’s baloney” “how dare you say that the court is wrong”, “what kind of a lawyer are you?”, and “the problem with you people is you do not use your heads” are undignified and very unbecoming of a judge.



Together with his other offense of gross ignorance of the law for which he was found guilty as charged, respondent judge was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-instatement or appointment to any public office including GOCC. (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017, June 19, 2008)



Judge: Gross Ignorance of the Law



The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws and the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country’s natural resources.



Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277, punishes the possession of forest products without the required legal documents and Section 68-A states that the DENR Secretary or his duly authorized representative may order the confiscation of any forest product illegally cut, gathered, removed, possessed or abandoned.



The forest products possessed by NMC Container Lines, Inc. without the required legal documents were seized by the DENR pursuant to its authority and adjudicated in favor of the government.



While the seized forest products were in the possession of the DENR, a Certain Roger Edma filed before respondent judge a complaint dated March 16, 2005 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Replevin ordering the DENR to deliver to him the confiscated forest products, and on March 29, 2005 respondent judge issued a Writ of Replevin ordering his Sheriff to take possession of the forest products.



Respondent judge should have dismissed the Replevin suit outright for three (3) reasons; first, under the Doctrine of exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies. Second, under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. Third, the forest products are already in custodia legis, hence, cannot be the subject of Replevin. There was a violation of the Forestry Code and the DENR seized the forest products in accordance with law. In Calub v. CA, the Supreme Court held that properties lawfully seized by the DENR cannot be the subject of replevin.



The Supreme Court after considering the previous cases filed against respondent for which he was penalized, dismissed him for gross ignorance of the law with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office including GOCC. (A.M. No. RTJ 06-2017, June 19, 2008)



Judge: Unbecoming Conduct, Harassment



In Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. 04-1538, October 22, 2004, the Supreme Court stressed that in Administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish a respondent’s malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, i.e. that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required; that the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties and that if a respondent judge or employee should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.



Complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove his charges that respondent judge employed duress or any form of harassment when the latter called him up to inquire why respondent’s mail was misdelivered by complainant, a postman.



The case against respondent judge was dismissed. (A.M. RTJ – 08-2118, June 26, 2008)



Judge: simple misconduct; undue delay in rendering orders



The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that failure to act on a case for a considerable length of time demonstrates lack of dedication to one’s work and is administratively sanctionable.



Section 5 Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides that judges shall perform all judicial duties efficiently and with reasonable promptness.



In its report, the Office of Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of undue delay in resolving two motions. Also, respondent failed to act on a civil case for a considerable length of time.



For simple misconduct and undue delay in rendering orders, respondent judge was fined Php20, 000.00 and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely (A.M. No. RTJ -07-2035, June 12, 2008).



Judge; Undue delay in rendering an Order



The Constitution requires all lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within three months from the time said matter is submitted for decision or resolution. The New Code of Judicial Conduct in Canon 6, Section 5, also mandates judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.



These rules are in recognition of the right of every person to the speedy disposition of their cases.



Respondent judge admitted that he incurred delay in resolving complainant’s urgent motion to declare all defendants in default. He explained that he is handling two branches, each receiving the same number of cases, one of which is a special commercial court.



The Supreme Court, however, held that additional assignments cannot excuse him from liability. If the caseload of a judge prevents the disposition of cases within the reglementary period, he should ask the Supreme Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose the cases involved. This, respondent failed to do.



The Court, however, considered the mitigating circumstance of heavy caseload and additional court assignment in favor of respondent. Hence, he was fined the amount of Php10, 000.00 for undue delay in rendering an order with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. (A.M. No. RTJ-07, 2067, June 18, 2008)



Judge; Gross Ignorance of the law; Violation of Supreme Court Directives



Section 17 (a) of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any Regional Trial judge or Municipal trial judge, or Municipal Circuit Trial judge in the province, city or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail maybe filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit-trial judge therein.



The criminal case complainant filed against the accused was pending before the RTC of Santiago City and the judge thereat issued the Warrant of Arrest and the accused was arrested by virtue of that warrant.



Following the Rule, the bail must be filed with the RTC of Santiago City where the case is pending; or with the RTC of San Mateo if the accused was arrested thereof.



From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent judge lacked authority to approve the bail and order the release of the accused.



More, respondent judge disrespected the Supreme Court by repeatedly refusing to comment on the complaint against him. Court Resolutions directing judges to comment on administrative complaints are not mere requests. Judges are duty-bound to obey them fully and promptly.



For gross ignorance of the law and violation of Supreme Court directives, the Supreme Court dismissed respondent judge from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office including GOCC. (A.M. No. RTJ-67-1682, June 19, 2008)



Judge: Gross Ignorance of the Law



Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the preliminary conference should be conducted after arraignment and prior to trial. This procedure was not followed by the respondent judge who conducted the preliminary conference before the arraignment which gave rise to the charge of ignorance of the law against him.



The Supreme Court however, stressed that for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous but must also be established to have been done with bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some similar motive. The record is wanting in any showing that respondent was moved by wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct in setting the preliminary conference before the accused was arraigned. Complainant failed to substantiate any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose that may have been present at the time the mistaken procedure was carried out by the respondent.



Moreover, the fact that a judge failed to follow a rule of procedure would not automatically warrant a conclusion that he is liable for gross ignorance. What is significant is whether the subject order, decision or actuation of the judge unreasonably defeated the very purpose of the law or rule under consideration and unfairly prejudiced the cause of the litigants.



The foregoing, notwithstanding, the Supreme Court strongly reiterates that incumbent judges should relentlessly be mindful that the Rules on Summary Procedure were issued for the purpose of achieving an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases and were espoused primarily to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of their cases. The case against the respondent judge was dismissed. (A.M. No. MTJ-07-1686, June 12, 2008)



Judge: Gross Ignorance of the Law



Section 5 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of fact and the law supporting his action, together with the records of the case which shall include the (a) Warrant - if the arrest is by virtue of a Warrant; (b) the Affidavits, Counter-Affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order of his release; (d) the transcript of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation ; and (e) the order of cancellation of the bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.



The said rule requires the judge who conducts the preliminary investigation to submit his resolution within ten (10) days after preliminary investigation and that his resolution should state the findings of facts and the law in support thereof.



Respondent judge transmitted his resolution of the case for qualified theft against complainant to the provincial prosecutor three (3) months after the preliminary investigation, not ten (10) days as required by the rule. Worse, he did not state in his resolution the findings of fact and the law supporting his action. The Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposed on him a fine of Php 25, 000.00 with stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1703, June 17, 20 08)



Sheriff: Grave misconduct



The authority of a sheriff is broad but it is not boundless. In the enforcement of judgments and judicial orders, a sheriff as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. He must know what is inherently right and wrong and must discharge his duties with prudence and caution. Moreover, he must, at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties.



Respondent disregarded the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court in Section 10 of Rule 141, when he entered into a contract with complainant for the hauling service in the execution of the writ without complying with the standard procedure of estimation of expenses.



Section 10 of Rule 141 provides that the sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges, shall be paid by the interested party in an amount estimated by the sheriff subject to the approval of the court.



Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court ex-officio sheriff who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.



Respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct for which he was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government including government-owned or controlled corporation. He was further directed to pay complainant actual damages in the amount of P14,000.00. (A.M. No. P-08-2454, May 7, 2008)




Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy
Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera

Head, Research and Linkages Office
Prof. Sedfrey M. Candelaria


Editors
Dean Eulogia M. Cueva Atty. Orlando B. Cariño

Editorial Assistants Staff
Atty. Amelia T. Guillamun
Nennette G. Zaldivar
Rodrigo G. Javier

The PHILJA Fax/Electronic Alerts is issued monthly by the Research and Linkages Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy with offices at the
3rd Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Taft Avenue, Manila. Tel No. (02)552-9518; Telefax; (02)552-9526 E-mail address: research_philja@yahoo.com. For e-library: www.supremecourt.gov.ph link to e-library
  Top   |  Bottom

bom bom
3/4/2012 5:35:00 PM
PUro LAglag kin TUturpi digita okininada nga agda igta impeachment. IBusinda manin ta kuarta manin ni JUan de la CRuz, just for fun digita okininada nga PRosecutor kit awan mit laing-laingda manin. LAing-laing mit ni CRazy MIriam! Kek kek kek!

  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
3/5/2012 3:23:00 AM
he he he hi hi hi bravo kuya bom bom.....
uray la makakaisbon da meryam ken coronan ngem aginlalaing ken agintuturedda laengen.....
kuna kuna deyta a meryam nga awan hell kitno addan isuna idta hell ti konsensianan. narigatnan a mailemmeng ti pannakaabakna.... aglalaoken ti saksakwenna tapno makalubanna laeng ti kigtotna iti deyta nga insermon ni apo padi....
no saan a madalupisak deyta a corona ket apanak idta soprim kort ta uborek isuna..... hmp....! suronkon.....!
  Top   |  Bottom

LJ-
3/5/2012 9:36:00 PM
makibasaak man appo... Awan pay makunak ita- urayek pay a malpas ti bista. Ta ngamin no ita a tyempo, kurang pay dagiti datos tapno makabukelak met iti nanumo a panirigan.
  Top   |  Bottom

bom bom
3/6/2012 5:25:00 PM
ADda ka mit APo LJ nga MUse ILuko.com, nga kastang unay BEautiful na, nga arim-arimin ni APo MArvin AKosta nga ingdiak matarus-tarusan ti poem na manin nga tada igdiay SArrat, nga relative ni MArcos nga CO...t! KEk kek kek!
  Top   |  Bottom

probinsiano
3/6/2012 7:13:00 PM
boom boom, saan nga basol ni apo Marvin Acosta nu armin armin na ni LJ ken saan na pay a basol nu saan tayo matarus-tarusan dagiti poem na. Ti problema ket adda kadatayo nga readers, uray siak ket makagura nak pay nu saan ko nga matarusan dagita poems nga dadduma. The other issue nga imbagam ket taga Sarrat ken relative na ni Macoy nga kurakot; all these allegeations are all beyond his control. Ibagam to man kaniak nu makasapul ka ti on-line Ilocano school ditoy website ta ag enroll nak met and I hope I can improve my Ilocano gramar. Uray sika ket masapul mo met gayyem! kek kek kek!
  Top   |  Bottom

LJ-
3/6/2012 9:53:00 PM
wen apo bom bom ken apo probinsyano, nailiwanak man met ditoy aykom, nabayagen a diak naisarsar-ong ditoy ngamin. Kumusta kayo appo a nadanonko,:-). Interesadoak man a makabasa kadagiti kapanunotanyo maipapan kadaytoy impeachment trial.
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
3/7/2012 6:52:00 AM
Subject: Petition to Reject Miriam
Reply-To: Deni


From Business World - Greg Macabenta's column
March 7, 2012


I’m reproducing a petition that is now circulating online, addressed to the International Criminal Court, urging the court to reconsider the election of Defensor-Santiago as a judge. I understand that some very prominent personalities and organizations are signing the petition.

--------------------------------------------------------

To the Honorable Administrators and Officials of the International Criminal Court:

We have taken the liberty of writing to you on behalf of concerned Filipino organizations and individuals in the Philippines and overseas who subscribe to and actively advocate the goal of competent, honest and progressive governance of our homeland, the Philippines.

We are respectfully bringing to your attention a serious matter that affects the image and reputation of the Philippines and, potentially, the image and reputation of the International Criminal Court.

As an independent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and as a court committed to the observance of the highest standards of fairness and due process, we respectfully assume that you require those you have elected to your roster of judges to meet the most stringent standards.

In addition to mastery of international jurisprudence and forensic skills, we assume that you also require a sound mind, emotional and psychological stability, unsullied integrity and incorruptibility, as well as patience, civility and impeccable decorum.

We submit that a person who is emotionally or psychologically unstable, prone to fits of uncontrollable rage, lacking in patience and empathy, ruthless with the feelings of fellow human beings, bereft of civility and uncaring about decorum does not deserve a place in your honorable court.

We further submit that an individual who has admitted to having publicly lied and who has demonstrated partiality, prejudice, lack of principles and questionable integrity as a public official does not deserve to be a judge, much less a judge of the International Criminal Court.

In this regard, we regret to inform you that such an undeserving individual has been elected to the International Criminal Court, in a lapse of good judgment on the part of the government of the Republic of the Philippines.

We are referring to Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a member of the Philippine Senate, who has been elected to the International Criminal Court and is shortly scheduled to take her oath of office.

We are bringing this matter to your attention for fear that you may construe her uncivilized behavior and her loose ethics as epitomizing the Filipino people. While, ironically, it should be a source of pride for Filipinos to have one of our own elected to your honorable court, we are embarrassed by the ill-considered nomination of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Far from representing the best of us, she typifies the worst. We fear that her presence in the International Court of Justice will make us the laughing stock of the world.

While it is entirely your prerogative to determine how to deal with Senator Defensor-Santiago, in light of these revelations, we respectfully submit that the onus will also be on your collective heads should she, as a judge of the International Criminal Court, display the kind of boorish and bizarre behavior that has been her trademark in the Philippine Senate and in other public fora.

We, therefore, respectfully submit that a reconsideration of her election to and her rejection from the International Criminal Court is called for.

In support of our contention, we are attaching various media reports and online commentaries on the vulgarity, total lack of civility and decorum, emotional instability and lack of integrity of Senator Defensor-Santiago.

__._,_.___
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
3/7/2012 7:09:00 PM
Chief Justice Corona interviewd by Arnold Clavio in Unang Hirit. He says:
1. Insists he is not a midnight appointee.
2. "Tao" din lang naman syang nasasaktan by the name calling. He has been called a lot of names, insulting names daw...
3. Explains SALN. It is mere black propaganda. Will prove that the SALN accusation is all a lie. There are no discrepancies in his SALN.
4. There is a ...professional group conducting a demolition job against him.
5. Open to personally appearing before the impeachment court, depending on advise of his lawyers.
6. Denies gun-toting, -pointing incident as alleged by one Anna Basa, his wife's relative.
7. Withdrew deposits from bank (PSB Katipunan?) on day of impeachment after they lost confidence on the bank, suspecting a "leak."
8. The SC never dissuaded AJ Cereno from taking the witness stand. Cereno personally withdrew from making such appearance before the impeachment court.
9. Denies allegations of extra-martial affair
10. Will explain dollar account
11. Hacienda Luisita is the be-all and end-all of the impeachment complaint
12. Will not, never resign
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
3/10/2012 6:38:00 AM
BY :PETER WALLACE/MANILA STANDARD TODAY

The impeachment case is not about law, it is about human decency. It is about correct behavior. It is about the fundamental decency of a person, his adherence to Christian beliefs and the mores of society.

Mr. Corona failed these fundamentals the day he accepted a clearly unacceptable “midnight appointment“. It doesn’t matter if it was constitutional or not, it matters only that it was a wrong thing to do. You obviously don’t accept an appointment by someone leaving office. You must have the decency to wait for the incoming leader to make appointments. You particularly do so if you are to assume the highest position of honesty, morality, and probity in the nation.

The eight articles of impeachment are purely supplemental to this. And already Corona has failed this test. It’s not about how much money he maybe has, and certainly not about how that information was acquired. It’s about honesty. The bank documents may be found to have been illegally obtained and hence not acceptable in a court of law, but this is not a court of law, it’s a court of public opinion. That opinion based on these documents is that he’s guilty of, at the very least, perjury. He did not declare those accounts in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and those bank accounts undeniably do exist, it’s that simple. There is also no question that he has more assets than were declared in his SALN. It doesn’t matter if it was 45 or 25 or even five apartments. They weren’t listed in his SALN. He also has dollar accounts, that’s confirmed. How much is in them is irrelevant. The existence of these was not mentioned in his SALN. An honest mistake is not acceptable as shown by previous decisions on public servants dismissed for far less than is being accused now. I hope the defense lawyers can recognize that. Whether Corona is legally guilty of something can be brought up separately in a court of law. And more rigorous standards can be imposed there.

So the prosecution is weak and the defense strong. So what, this is not about the ability of lawyers, it’s about inherent honesty of a man, of the nation’s Chief Justice.

It doesn’t matter if the information is admissible or not. This is not a court of law determining legal guilt, it is a questioning of a man’s fitness to hold a high office that demands the highest levels of honesty and integrity. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary, the preponderance of evidence is more than enough. We are talking about the character of a man who, more than anyone else, must meet the highest standards of decency. There’s more than enough evidence to say he’s failed to meet the high standards required of a Chief Justice. This is a court to determine the truth of the character of a man. The senators have a responsibility to the Filipino people, to the Philippine nation. This transcends adherence to strict legal niceties.

Incidentally, I completely fail to understand why if you find unexplained wealth you can’t look into it because it wasn’t in the articles of impeachment, that it was a “fishing expedition”. How else do you catch big fish except by going fishing. If it’s uncovered during the proceedings of the trial, as this was, of course you look into it.

This is only the second impeachment trial ever, it is unique in itself and cannot be treated as court cases normally would be. The banks have acknowledged he has more money than he reported. That’s a fact. That’s sufficient reason to declare him guilty. His SALN was false. The defense counsels are first and foremost Filipinos, only secondarily lawyers. They should be concerned about what’s the best for the welfare of their country. A man of now questioned ethics should not be Chief Justice, the doubts alone are sufficient. And 70 percent of a group I surveyed agree.

A chief justice is next to a bishop in the depth of character he must have ? far greater than us mere mortals. Corona does not meet the high standards demanded of the position.

He should do the decent thing and resign.

But if the trial continues to its end whatever the outcome, I can’t imagine how he can remain as chief justice. It would certainly put the Supreme Court in a continually questionable position.

***

How can you respect a legal system that puts murderers into jail for only a maximum of four years ? 21 years after the crime! My sailing buddy, Romy Villa, died of a broken heart after these b*stards hazed his son to death. My heart goes out to Gerry, his mother, for the anguish she must be suffering at such injustice. Now there’s another hazing death, will these murderers practice law for 21 years too
  Top   |  Bottom

isabella
3/10/2012 7:15:00 AM
Dua nga aldaw kalpasan ti 2010 election and one month before GMA's term expired, Corona was appointed Chief Justice. There was no law broken when Corona accepted his appointment as Chief Justice. GMA did the right move to fill the vacant position when R. Puno reached the mandatory retirement age.
  Top   |  Bottom

Ken H. Oagayen
3/13/2012 3:43:00 PM
Sakbay nga ibuksilak dagiti kunak, saanko nga idaydayaw ti bagik ken uray asinno.Idi napadasak iti nagjury idi dist. court ken Federal court dioty batogko . Impaganetget ti Judge a no bilang adda umay taga media nga aginterview maipanggep ti kaso, kaemenmi dagiti bibigmi, madama man ti kaso wenno malpas, malaksid no adda pammalubos.

Ni apo cj Corona a hepe ti Supreme Court, ammotayon a naimpeach ket madaman a maususig iti senado, ngem napan nagpa interview iti media ket imbaganan ti kaykayatna nga ibaga maipanggep ti kasona ken dadduma pay.No man pay adda wayawayana nga agpainterview, iti biangko saankoma a rumbeng ta isuna ket isu ti hepe ti Korte Suprema ken madama a maus usig iti impeachment court.Kasanon no ti maysa a tao ket naidarum, ket mapan met agpainterview iti media, ket ag ala corona, nasayaatto ngata, wenno saanto ngata nga ungtan ti hues?No pudno dagiti kunkunana, ayunak dagiti kunada a nga iti impeachment court iti pangibaanna tapno agkari a pudno dagiti baliksenna.Saanko nga ukomen isuna, ngem ti makitak, saanen a maysa a hepe ti korte suprema no di ket kasla maysan nga ampang a babae a saan nga umiso a lugar iti pag ngakngak ngakanna.Kasnala inaminen a saanen nga isuna ti hepe iti Korte Suprema.
  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
3/14/2012 1:29:00 AM
kuya ken, nagasat kayo ta addan padasyo iti korte isu nga ammoyo dgiti tumutop wenno alagaden dagiitoy a maus-usig.
iti ar-aramiden ni corona ket am-ammangawna laengen ta uray no ammonan a saan a tumutop ket aramidennan ta awan metten iti sabali pay a maaramidanna. kas laengen iti kunana nga aglusulos ngem iti kondision a kukuana amin dagiti naurnongna.......! kasta kadin ti kayatna itan a linteg....!?

he he he mayatak kuya iti kunayo a kinataona itan......!
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
3/14/2012 7:34:00 AM
By Rene Ciria-Cruz
6:37 pm | Wednesday, March 7th, 2012
3 share83 75
VATICAN CITY (L’Osservatore Romano)—A Catholic priest accidentally sent a residential area of Afterlife reeling in fear and confusion when he consigned a Philippine senator to Hell for publicly insulting prosecutors in the impeachment of the country’s top jurist.
Father CatalinoArevalo declared in a homily that Sen. Miriam Santiago deserved “the fires of Hell” for calling prosecutors fools for their mishandling of their accusations. The priest’s pronouncement immediately sent shivers to residents of the Hellfire and Brimstone neighborhoods of Hell.
“We’re okay with the eternal scorching and scalding, but adding nonstop, high-decibel diatribes to that would be intolerable,” complained Lucrezia Borgia, who hurriedly packed her exotic poisons to evacuate to a truly violent but quieter neighborhood, Circle Seven.
Panicked residents like Borgia learned of the looming crisis triggered by Santiago’s possible arrival when the piped-in music system abruptly stopped playing “Unchained Melody” and began airing ominous choral passages from “Carmina Burana,” which were made famous by horror movies.
Legions of fallen angels, including incubi and succubi, were seen scampering to emergency posts to await further orders. Three-headed hellhounds closed the famous Tunnel of White Light, which will remain shut until further notice. Extra units of disembodied Nephilim guards were posted to make sure Santiago does not arrive before the neighborhood’s evacuation is completed.
Satan shocked
In a hastily called press conference, Hell’s president, Satan, expressed shock and dismay and criticized Fr. Arevalo’s “unilateral and egregious judgment.” Satan told reporters who were standing knee-deep in excrement that short-listing Sen. Santiago for Hell was cruel and unusual punishment.
“Jesus Christ! Can’t this priest see people here are suffering enough already? It’s just not fair to them. She’s the last thing we need,” hissed the old devil, who fidgeted and nervously chewed his barbed tail.
The outspoken Philippine senator added to the confusion when in response to Fr. Arevalo she confidently declared, “There is no Hell as a geographical place,” which made demons pinch themselves frantically to confirm their existence.
Satan explained that he was simply not prepared for the sharp-tongued senator to take up residence in his realm. “I pray to God that we be spared the logistical requirements of her arrival here. Where will I get a megazillion earplugs to protect my citizens’ eardrums?”
Satan also defended his lack of preparation, arguing that Sloth was clearly in his job description. “And the prospect of being scolded again and again by Senator Santiago would be too damaging to my self-esteem, and you know I must maintain a certain amount of Pride to be worthy of my name.”
Asked if he was just scared there was not room enough in Hell for the both of them, Satan became extremely irritated and sidestepped the question. He excoriated the reporters instead.
“The mainstream media’s effort to quote unquote demonize Senator Santiago is grossly unfair to demons. The MSM is gratuitously tainting our already bad name.”
Before Satan retreated into the Inner Mouth of Hell, which reporters thought was just a big pothole on EDSA courtesy of the Department of Public Works, he clarified that he did not have the power to determine any government official’s ultimate fate, contrary to popular belief.
“I can’t stop Ms. Santiago or any Filipino public official. Let’s make one thing clear, people. I’m just the Prince of Darkness, not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”
Some prominent hell-raisers, however, disagreed with Satan’s “overreaction” to Santiago’s pending sentence and saw economic potential to her coming.
“I foresee a spike in the number of masochists looking for entertainment, ditto for sadists—Miriam is going to be in great demand,” predicted Dante Alighieri, CEO of Infernal Tours and Cruises, Inc.
Alighieri added, “Satan shouldn’t worry too much about the logistics of Santiago’s permanent residency.”
“Three words,” he explained. “Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.” Alighieri believed Santiago would cause little trouble if the accommodations made her feel welcome.
“Give her a nice new suite, say, in the Eighth Circle, Malebolge, for narcissists, with state-of-the-art voice monitors so she could hear herself talk all the time.”
St. Peter cautious
Aftershocks of the crisis in Hellfire corner Brimstone were felt in the Upper Reaches of firmament.
According to unconfirmed reports, Saint Peter has ordered new deadbolts and sophisticated combination locks for the Pearly Gate. A top cherubim guarding Eden disclosed that he heard Saint Peter issue a warning.
“With these Filipino senators you can never be too careful,” said the old saint, gently stroking his… rooster.
“Most of them are lawyers and some are even fond of being the Devil’s Advocate. If you’re not careful, their tangled interpretations of Biblical tenets can spin your head around —and boom, one is slipping through our Gate before you know it.”
Saint Peter cautioned his celestial jurors that Sen. Santiago has a master’s degree in theology. “If anyone can sneak through the eye of a needle, it’s a lawyer with a real graduate degree to boot, not one of those made-up ones from the University of Santo Tomas.”
Jiggling his keys, the top saint asked Angel Gabriel if egress to the Kingdom was securely shut and that all cherubs, seraphs, ophanim and archangels have been properly briefed so they would not mistake Senator Santiago for someone who should be let in.
“Don’t worry, my dear master,” Gabriel replied, “it will be a cold day in Hell before that happens.”
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
3/14/2012 8:31:00 PM
MANILA, Philippines -- It is the defense panel's turn to prove the innocence of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

But 3 trial days have passed, and Corona's lawyers have done little to clarify his side.

From "irrelevant" witnesses to perplexing statements, here are 5 issues the defense has contradicted itself on.

#1 Evidence relating to Article 2.4

The biggest confusion the lawyers of the Chief Justice have created is a result of their apparent decision to now address Article 2.4 of the impeachment complaint, which deals with Corona's alleged ill-gotten wealth.

The defense has insisted since the first week of the trial that Article 2.4 should be dropped, since it does not fall within the prosecution's main allegation that Corona failed to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).

The impeachment court eventually sided with the defense and prohibited the presentation of evidence relating to ill-gotten wealth.

Yet, the defense has introduced 3 witnesses to talk about the source of the Chief Justice's wealth.


Chief Judicial Staff Officer Araceli Bayuga, Senate Electoral Tribunal Secretary Irene Guevarra, and Girlie Salarda of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal were all called to testify on the allowances received by the Chief Justice.

When asked by senator-judges what the purpose of presenting Bayuga was, lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas replied that "it will explain the other alleged deficiencies brought about by the evidence of the prosecution, that he could not have acquired this amount of properties because his income does not justify the acquisition thereof."

Senator-judge Antonio Trillanes IV asked, "You are actually reviving article 2.4, is that the case?" Cuevas gave a vague answer by saying that was Trillanes' personal assessment.

The witnesses however testified that allowances cannot be used for personal expenses - disproving Cuevas' purpose in presenting them.

#2 Befuddling Vicente

When defense witness Demetrio Vicente took the stand last Tuesday, March 13, he was meant to prove that the Marikina property owned by the Corona couple was actually his.

Instead he left the court with more questions than answers.

Vicente said he bought the property in 1990. But it was listed in Corona's SALN in 1992 as a donation.

Vicente said he has been paying for all taxes of the property since 1990. But it is still Corona's wife's name that is listed in all tax declarations. And the deed of absolute sale, while in Vicente's name, was notarized by an unlicensed lawyer.

Vicente told the court he paid P509,985.00 for the property in 1990, and the real estate tax of P2,594.88. But he did not insist on the transfer of the title to his name as he supposedly could not afford the P2,599.92 needed for transfer tax.

"Imbis po na si Mr. Vicente ay nakapgdala ng masmalinaw na explanation, lalo pang tila lumabo yung usapan kung nagkaroon ba talaga ng paglipat ng property (Instead of Mr Vicente shedding light on the issue, it only created further confusion on whether the property was transferred or not)," said prosecution spokesperson Romero Quimbo.

If anything, the defense witness seemed to have helped the prosecution.

#3 Deed of sale vs transfer

The defense argues that the non-disclosure of the Marikina property in Corona's SALNs (other than in his 1992 SALN), is due to the fact that Vicente had already signed the absolute deed of sale of the property as early as 1990.

Thus, on this basis, it was no longer theirs.

However, the defense, in earlier arguing why Corona did not include his Columns property in Makati in his SALNs, said it was because he had only signed the absolute deed of sale in 2004, but had not yet taken possession of it.

The Columns property was not declared in his 2005 SALNs.

The defense appears to contradict itself on what point it believes a property should be declared. Is the basis the deed of sale, possession, or convenience?

#4 No more talk on verified complaint

On Day 27 - the first day the defense was scheduled to present evidence contesting the charges against Corona - his counsels sparked a discussion with the court on the validity of the impeachment complaint.

They argued it was railroaded by lawmakers who did not have time to read its contents before signing it, hence it is invalid.

Presiding officer and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, along with other senator-judges, all agreed it was too late to raise such a complaint. The prosecutors had already rested their case after all, and they maintained the senate impeachment court had jurisdiction over the complaint after it had been verified by the House of Representatives.

The defense was then allowed to present its witness, Navotas Rep Tobias Tiangco, after Cuevas promised the court that Tiangco would not testify regarding the complaint's validity.

Yet Tiangco's whole testimony revolved around the rushed complaint and how he didn't believe it had probable cause - in effect saying the complaint was defective.

#5 Foreign accounts, please

After much debate regarding the legality of opening the Chief Justice's Philippine Savings Bank dollar accounts, the impeachment court decided to respect the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court barring its examination.

But in a press conference on February 12, Corona's counsels promised the public that they would open them in due time.

"Bubuksan n'ya lahat 'yan dahil hindi n'ya ninakaw 'yan... Relax lang kayo, Ginoong Pangulo (He will open all his accounts because it is not stolen money... Relax, Mr. President)," defense counsel Dennis Manalo said in the press conference, reading off a statement.

In a media blitz last March 7, Corona himself said he would explain the dollar accounts and need not sign a waiver. "Di na kailangan i-waive eh. Kasi ako na mismo magpapaliwanag eh. Di ko naman maipapaliwanag yun ng hindi ko bubuksan eh (There's no need for me to waive it. Because I myself will explain them. Obviously, I won't be able to explain it if I don't open it)," he told GMA 7.

On Wednesday, senator-judges reminded the defense of their promise, to which Cuevas replied hesitantly.

"Well I have not yet concretely and positively arrived at the ultimate conclusion," said the lead counsel. "That will depend on the progress of the proceedings and the nature of our evidence."

If never revealed, it would probably be the most significant contradiction of all. - Rappler.com



THE RAPPLER BY NATASHYA GUTIERREZ 3/14/12
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
3/17/2012 4:23:00 PM
For every Filipino to know....


OPINION
Expulsion by SALN
CITIZEN Y By Yoly Villanueva-Ong (The Philippine Star) Updated February 28, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (10)



There is a famous vintage political ad that featured then presidential aspirant Richard Nixon flashing a cheesy smile and pointing a finger. It had one line of copy:Would you buy a used car from this man? The American voters decided NO, and placed their trust on tyro, President John F. Kennedy.Richard Nixon’s shifty-eyes and 5 o’clock shadow doomed him as being as untrustworthy as a used car salesman. When he was given a second stab at the Oval Office in 1968, the Watergate scandal forced him out eventually, this time with a stigma that history cannot forgive.Imagine today’s version of that 1960 ad with Renato Corona as the poster boy. A single question: Would you trust this man to judge your case? This time, there’s more than the snake-eyed crooked smile and bloated cheeks, to intuit the man’s integrity. This time, there are records that don’t add up no matter how much alleged discounts and inheritance the Coronas claim. The income plus other sources of funds just doesn’t match the actual wealth and assets accumulated.Former banker and finance official, Norberto Nazareno, did the math and presented the reconstructed SALN of CJ Corona as of 2010 at the Truth Forum last February 21. He began by painstakingly recreating the SALN based on the original document, Alpha list, CARs (Certificate Authorizing Registration) and Bank deposits. He summarized the data under three columns: Reconstructed, Reported and Difference.Real Property as of 2010:
Property in
Millions Reconstructed Reported Difference
Land (1970) 7.14M 7.14M 0.0
Marikina Heights 0.51M ——— 0.51M
Land McKinley Taguig
6.20M ———- 6.20M
Burgundy, QC 2.76M 0.921M 1.84M
+ Parking lot 0.45M ———- 0.45
Columns, Makati 3.591M 1.210M 2.38
Bonifacio Ridge (Global City, Taguig) 9.14M 2.37M 6.79
Bellagio One Condominium
14.51M 6.80M 7.71
Total Real Property
P44.32M 18.44 25.88

Cash/Personal Property as of Dec. 31, 2010.
In Millions
Reconstructed Reported Difference
Cash/ Investment 3.5M 3.5M 0.0
PSBank as of Dec. 31, 2010 19.73M ——- 19.73M
BPI as of Dec. 31, 2010
12.02M ———- 12.02M
Cash from sale of La Vista and
26.00M ——— 26.00M
Ayala Heights Palms Club 0.70M ———- 0.70
Jewelry 1.0M 1.0M 0.0
Total Personal Property 62.95 4.5 58.45M

Assets and net worth of CJ Corona:
In Millions Reconstructed Reported Difference
Assets 107.27 22.94 84.43
Liabilities ——— ——— ———
Net Worth 107.27 22.94 84.43

Subsequently, various corrections were made to reconcile the wide gap between what was discovered and reported. Assuming these adjustments were true, the difference in Corona’s net worth would still be a whopping P37.53M. Furthermore, a historical examination of his SALNs showed consistent incongruity with what was reported versus actual. The divergence ballooned from P3.7M in 2002 to a monstrous P84.3M in 2010.Corona also seems to have a nasty habit of forgetting to report numerous properties/assets —17 unreported:1. 2002 - Burgundy condo & parking slot, P2.758M and P450T, total value P3.208M (reported 2003 only)2. 2002 - Marikina Heights, value P510T (claimed long sold)3. 2003 - The Columns, value P3.589M (reported 2010 only)4. 2005 - Bonifacio Ridge, value P9,159M (reported 2010 only)5. 2005 - Bank Balance BPI, value P149T (all unreported - same from previous year’s cash position)6. 2006 - Bank Balance BPI, value P153T (lower cash position than previous year)7. 2007 - Bank Balance PSB, value P5M 8. 2007 - Bank Balance BPI, value P5.069M 9. 2008 - Mckinley lot, value P6.196M (claimed owned by daughter)10. 2008 - Bank Balance BPI, value P1,525M11. 2009 - Bellagio One, value P14.059M (declared only in 2010)12. 2009 - Bank Balance PSB, value P8.5M13. 2009 - Bank Balance BPI, P618T14. 2009 - Palms Country Club shares, value P700T (not reported)15. 2010 - Bank Balance PSB, value P19.720M16. 2010 - Bank Balance BPI, value P12.024M17. 2010 - Proceeds from sale of Ayala Heights & La Vista, total value P26MFive underdeclared properties documented in their respective years:1. 2003 - Burgundy Condo, declared at P921T vs. acquisition value P2.758M2. 2003 - La Vista lot, declared at P3M vs. acquisition value of P11M3. 2010 - Columns Condo, declared at P1.210M vs. acquisition value of P3.588M4. 2010 - Bonifacio Ridge, declared at P2.369M vs. acquisition value of P9.159M5. 2010 - Bellagio One, declared at P6.8M vs. acquisition value of P14.510MAdditional bank deposits in PSB and BPI as testifed by the bank president and the branch manager respectively add up to another P31.75M in cash balances. This does not include the P36M deposits that were hastily withdrawn on the same day Corona was impeached. And no one has seen the foreign currency accounts reportedly around US$700K. For perspective, Corona’s salary as Chief Justice, a midnight appointment made only last May 2010 is Grade 32: P46,200/month including COLA (Cost of Living Allowance).No matter how hard the Defense team obstructs, objects and oppresses the witnesses. Or how badly the Prosecution team bungles, blunders and botches up the case—the numbers are defiantly unmovable. So should Corona remain CJ?At the open forum of a Philippine Constitutional Association meeting, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, opined that failure to disclose to the public a SALN — or Impeachment Article 2 — was not an impeachable offense. “It seems that the law itself does not consider it grave because it allows the declarant to correct mistakes…It’s not in the same class as treason and bribery covered by culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,” which implied deliberate intent.Non-disclosure of SALN per se might not be a heinous crime. But beyond the legality, isn’t the burning question one of integrity, honesty and propriety required of a Chief Justice? Being a man of the cloth (as well as Lulli's Tito Joaquin), Bernas might condone Corona’s P84M unexplained wealth, 17 undeclared and 5 undervalued properties through the years. Could those have been manna from heaven? But Filipinos are less forgiving as verified by Corona’s plummeting trust rating. Indeed even with blind faith, who could trust this man to head the Court of Last Resort?
* * *
  Top   |  Bottom

Ken H. Oagayen
3/18/2012 7:14:00 PM
Baeten dagiti naibutaktak nga anomalya nga aramid ti Hepe Korte Suprema nga isu koma ti ulidan iti kinalinteg, ngem isu metten ti ulidan iti kinikillo nga aramid.Ngem saan met a datayo iti mangeddeng kenkuana.

Kastay naukan iti salaysayko nga adda dua klase ti Kararag.Kararag dagiti maka Corona ; apo saan a nagbasol ni apomi a Corona, saanna laeng nga imbaga a pudno dagiti kinabkanangna.Dagiti mamati a nagbasol ni Corona, apo saan a rumbeng nga agtuloy a Hepe ti Korte, ta saan pagwadan iti kinasayaat ngem pagwadan iti kinakillo.
  Top   |  Bottom

Ken H. Oagayen
3/18/2012 7:15:00 PM
kastay nakunak iti salaysayko , kunak koma-:) sori...
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
3/21/2012 7:28:00 AM
An Open Letter to Sister Flory Basa

Last night, I posted in an online Inquirer article an open letter to Sister Flory Basa, aunt of Cristina Roco Corona. Almost as soon as hit the Save button, comments poured in, and people started sharing and re-posting the letter in different blogs and sharing sites. I even found a Cebuano translation of the letter just today. Although there were a few negative reactions, majority of those who commented were very supportive. I guess a lot of people share the same sentiments as I have.

I am sharing the letter in its original form, and some of the links to sites where it has been re-posted so you would be able to read both the good and not so good reactions.

Dear Sister Flory,

I almost gave up on the impeachment process. I thought it was going nowhere. The defense team was succeeding in their suppression of evidences. The prosecution was fumbling all over the place. Some Senator-Judges were openly showing their dogged resolve to literally look the other way as the impeached pretender to the position of Chief Justice trampled on the very basic tenets of integrity and honesty. Like you, I had left it to the Good Lord to do justice in His own time.

But then your family, most especially you, came along. God indeed works in mysterious ways! The lawyers of Mr Corona and their misguided followers have done and will continue to do everything to discredit you, short of calling you a lying senile and disgruntled relative who wants more money. I saw your interview on TV, and you have that serenity about you. It is a peace of mind and soul that only true forgiveness can bring about. But you also have that resoluteness in your voice – firm, truthful and honest. You said charity made you forgive the Coronas, but truth and justice compels you to speak up and let the people confront the truth about Mr Renato Corona.

God has not only been good to you, He has shown even more compassion to us the Filipino people. While a lot of people your age would have been beset with illnesses of both body and mind, you have been blest with good health and a mind still so sharp and lucid. It is not so for no reason, I am sure. When the battle seemed lost, you came forth like a shining star to remind us not to lose hope. God allowed you to outlive your siblings so that the truth may be proclaimed in all its brutal glory, and not in the convoluted version being peddled to us by those who seek to block our nation’s search for justice.

Thank you for your courage in proclaiming the truth. Mr Corona might have succeeded in having his character flaws overlooked by the Judicial and Bar Council when he was planted by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the Supreme Court. He might have pushed his luck too far when he got his minions in the SC to legitimize his midnight appointment. I do not think he will be able to shut out the flames of truth that you now so resolutely hold in your hands. While they have everything to lose and will do anything and everything to cover up their lies, you only have your faith in God and his abiding fidelity to his promise that His justice will be supreme over all human frailties.

If it is not too much to ask, we will be forever grateful if you will do us a great favour – please take the witness stand. Please tell this nation how this man who claims the exalted position of Chief Justice as his unalienable right has done injustice to his own kin for more than 30 years. Please tell our Senators, who have been vested by our sovereign will with power in order to protect our nation’s interest, how the same power when wielded by someone who do not have the probity, integrity and moral uprightness not to be drowned by it can abuse the same to inflict harm on the very people he is supposed to serve and protect. You, who are old and weak, you whose only weapon is the truth, can teach our power-tripping Senators a most valuable lesson in humility and fairness.

I know it might be too much to ask from a frail, 90 year old servant of the Lord. But the stakes are too high – our future and those of the generations to come. If we allow this travesty to pass, we would have sold our souls to the devil. What are we teaching to our children? That as long as you can justify it in the rules of court, it is okay to be to be dishonest? That it is okay to do wrong as long as you can win it in court? That it is okay to do away with morals and the sense of what is right and what is wrong as long as there are good lawyers that you can pay to twist the facts and suppress the truth? Is this what we want for our country? Please say it isn’t so Sister Flory. For your family’s and for our country’s sake, please say it isn’t so.

And before I end this rather long letter, I would like to assure you that in case you do decide to take the witness stand and if Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago dare try to scare you off with her histrionics and self-serving plaudits to her perceived superior intelligence, and God forbids that something bad happens to you, I will march on the street even if I should do it by my lonesome self, and demand that God open up the ocean and swallow the entire Senate and everyone else who have dragged this country into the dark abyss.God is with you. We are with you. All right thinking Filipinos should be with you. Let us not stay in the dark. You have the light. Lead us to our redemption as a nation. God Bless you Sister Flory.

Sincerely,

Den
  Top   |  Bottom

bom bom
3/26/2012 6:23:00 PM
PUro corrupt da amin digita, kinnada kikdi!
  Top   |  Bottom

otiang
4/8/2012 4:43:00 PM
bom bom 1: "How did you get that bruise on your arm?"

BOM BOM 2: "I ate some Easter candy."

bom bom 1: "Eating Easter candy won't give you a bruise."

BOM BOM 2: "It will if it's your big brother's candy!"

  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
4/16/2012 2:28:00 PM
A farmer in Alabama was driving across a bridge in his pickup truck
when he noticed a man standing on the rail of the bridge ready to jump to
his death in the river below.

The farmer stopped his truck, ran up to the man and said, "Hey, why
are you doing this?" The man replied, "Well, I have nothing to live for."
The farmer replied, "Well, think of your wife and children!" The jumper
replied, "I have no wife or children."

"Well, then think of your mother and father!" The man replied, "Mom
and Dad passed on many years back." The Alabama man then said, "Well, think
of General Robert E. Lee!"

The would-be jumper replied, "Who?" With that the farmer said, "Jump
you damn Yankee, jump!"

  Top   |  Bottom

Mr. Teksas
4/19/2012 4:32:00 PM
awanen dayta nga impitsment.....@!
  Top   |  Bottom

Ray Raquel
4/19/2012 6:42:00 PM
AWanin APo TExas ta puro da mit amin nga ma-impeach KOma digita OKininada!
  Top   |  Bottom

isabella
4/28/2012 7:21:00 AM
I agree with Bombom and Mr. Texas a makapasugel pay ketdin ti agbuya/agbasa iti damag maipanggep iti impeachment trial ni Corona.

MIss RAy RAquel, I have this weird feeling that BOmbom is your twin brother... YOu have the same writing style. KEk kek kek!
  Top   |  Bottom

BORIS
4/28/2012 8:20:00 AM
Isabella, agboypren da Ray ken ni Bom Bom. saanko nga ammo no sino ti babae ken sino ti lalakwe.
  Top   |  Bottom

otiang
5/3/2012 8:13:00 PM
Paddy and Mick were walking along a street in Romford, a town just
outside London .

Paddy looked in one of the shop windows and saw a sign that
caught his eye. The sign read,

"Suits £5.00 each, Shirts £2.00 each, trousers £2.50 per pair."


Paddy said to his pal, "Mick look at the prices! We could buy a whole
lot of dose and when we get back to Ireland we could make a fortune.


Now when we go in you stay quiet,okay? Let me do all da talking ‘cause
if they hear our accents, they might think we’re thickos from Ireland and try to screw us. I'll put on my best English accent.”

“Roight y'are Paddy, I'll keep me mouth shut, so I will. You do all
da business” said Mick.
They go in and Paddy said in a posh voice,"Hello my good man. I'll
take 50 suits at £5.00 each,100 shirts at £2..00 each, and 50 pairs of
trousers at £2.50 each. I'll back up me truck ready to load ‘em on, so I will."

The owner of the shop said quietly, "You're from Ireland , aren't
you?"

"Well yes," said a surprised Paddy. "What gave it away?"






The owner replied, "This is a dry-cleaners."

  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
5/14/2012 3:31:00 PM
ti gayam sueldo ni Chief Justice Corona ket Dollar, direct deposit pay.
  Top   |  Bottom

Apo ni Bukaneg
5/19/2012 6:26:00 PM
There’s The Rub
Thank God for Conchita Carpio Morales

By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Thursday, May 17th, 2012


Thank God for Conchita Carpio Morales. It’s a sea change from the days of Merceditas Gutierrez where the ombudsman existed to make sure that no venal, corrupt or piratical public official would ever be brought to justice. Or threatened by it. One is tempted to add, “public official who is an ally of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,” but that is really superfluous. Even non-allies of Arroyo could count on stealing with impunity from the Ombudsman’s sheer ineptitude.

Though of course the coddling of allies was more patent and reached ludicrous lengths. The case of Mega Pacific winning the bid to computerize elections was classic in that respect. The case, which cost government P3 billion, was brought before the ombudsman who ruled after apparently much investigation that it was a crime without a criminal!

In one fell swoop, Morales has changed the image of the ombudsman, courtesy of her appearance in the impeachment court. Finally we have someone who is dedicated to her work. Finally we have someone who is scrupulous about her research. Finally we have someone who knows what she’s doing. P-Noy’s anticorruption campaign has just gotten a face, and that is Morales. If Renato Corona is finally found guilty as sin, as Morales should leave the senator-judges in little doubt about, it will owe a great deal to her. If P-Noy’s crusade to rid this spot of earth of its dregs, as Morales should leave the public in little doubt about, it will owe a great deal to her.
By now the defense lawyers must be banging their heads against the wall wondering what madness persuaded them to trot out Morales as a witness, hostile or not. She has been devastating—against them.
What were they thinking? They could browbeat her into submission or to a state of frazzled nerves? They could run circles around her with their vaunted prowess, or long years of experience, in trial lawyering? They could make her rethink her position and wonder if she hadn’t really fudged her numbers?

Well, none of the above happened. As the defense should have expected. She wasn’t a justice for nothing and answered questions in a composed and assured way. In her testimony, she recounted how she had acted on the complaints against Corona with scrupulous care, knowing that complaints against public officials were a dime-a-dozen. She had consulted with other government offices, as was the mandate of the ombudsman, particularly with the Anti-Money Laundering Council, which had supplied her with the figures. She had then gotten the help of the Commission on Audit to make a graphic presentation, tracing the flow of dollars in and out of Corona’s 82 accounts.

It was a model of how to go about preparing a case.
The sensation you got from watching Serafin Cuevas trying to rattle her was exactly that, someone banging his head against a wall.

In one hilarious moment, though I doubt Cuevas found it so; Morales even corrected him for presuming that you needed a bankbook to deposit and withdraw money in and from a bank so that the transaction would be recorded in it. The Ombudsman gave him to understand that times had changed, that all you now needed for it was an ATM card. She even proceeded to show him how it was done.

In the end Cuevas was reduced to trying to punch holes in her testimony by demanding to know if she bothered to check the veracity of the information AMLC gave her. Which she answered by saying that there was no reason to doubt the information; you could presume that the source, being the natural authority on the subject, supplied accurate data. A thing Bautista of the prosecution corroborated by citing two laws that commended it: information from such sources could stand as evidence.

In any case, as Morales pointed, how could you check AMLC’s figures short of asking the banks which the law proscribed, as Cuevas himself had reminded her the day before? It was the next best thing, but it was as best as they came.

You truly have to wonder what madness persuaded the defense lawyers to shoot themselves in the head by subpoenaing Morales. The religious will probably cite Divine Providence; the more secular, a case of the best-laid plots of mice and men oft going astray.

Whatever their plot was, they have produced the opposite effect, laying a corona before Corona’s coffin. Morales was unshakeable.

Whatever doubts the public might have harbored about Corona’s guilt, she has dispelled them.
Her testimony has boxed him in, limiting his options. Does he go on to appear before the impeachment court anyway? Armed with what? Short of allowing the court access to his dollar accounts to show either that they are no longer active or that they do not contain the sums the Ombudsman alleges, what else can he do to refute the charges against him?

In the end, what Morales has done is to simplify the equation. Being well-versed in law herself, she has neutralized the defense’s tendency to reduce everything to a technical level and raised the discussion to a substantial one.

After her testimony, the questions of whether or not the impeachment court may pry on Corona’s foreign currency deposits, whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the chief justice, whether or not, as Miriam Santiago dwelled bombastically and interminably on last Tuesday, the Ombudsman may investigate Corona only with a view to another impeachment—all these have become irrelevant.

The only question left in the mind of the public, if not indeed in those of the senator-judges, is: Mr. Corona, do you or do you not have $10, or $12, million in the banks?

Answer the question.

That is how things now stand.

Thank God for Conchita Carpio Morales!
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
5/22/2012 2:57:00 PM
Everything but the truth

by Dean Tony La Viña Posted on 05/23/2012 12:47 AM | Updated 05/23/2012 1:06 AM

81Dean Tony La ViñaI had hoped that Chief Justice Renato Corona would provide clear answers to the questions raised by this 5-month-long impeachment process. In fact, I wrote a column in the Manila Standard entitled, “Nothing but the truth,” where I listed the questions I hope he would truthfully answer.

I was, like many Filipinos, in the end, terribly let down. The truth demands stringent rigor, a burden enough to break lesser men. The Supreme Court carries a heavy responsibility as the adjudicator of the truth in the cases it hears. What we saw of the Chief Justice on Tuesday, May 22, fails to live up to the demands of that rigor and responsibility. Instead of hearing nothing but the truth, we heard everything but the truth.

The day’s proceedings, featuring the Chief Justice’s testimony, certainly proved to be the most dramatic – yet drama, equally certainly, cannot and will not prove anyone’s case to the members of the Senate impeachment court. Most especially true after Corona’s sudden and abrupt walkout from the Senate chamber. This, right after he submitted a voluntary waiver on his foreign bank accounts, conditional on the 188 congressmen, who signed the impeachment complaint against him, doing the same.

Later, Corona, through his defense panel, would offer the explanation that he had suffered a bout of hypoglycemia, as a result of the day’s pressures and insufficient food intake. Nonetheless, the episode earned the ire of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who had been very liberal in allowing Corona up to 3 hours for an opening statement – unusual in such proceedings, but still granted out of respect for the Chief Justice and a desire to get to the bottom of things.

I supported that decision of allowing the Chief Justice to talk as long as he did and I resented those who, on Twitter and Facebook, ridiculed and insulted the Chief Justice while listening to his statement.

Cruelty on Corona

One thing that had always made me uncomfortable with this impeachment process is the lynch mob mentality against Corona that I often sensed in these past months. The self-righteousness of many has been depressing. As I write, I follow social media and see the incredible personal cruelty inflicted on the Chief Justice and his family, even as he is brought to the hospital. This part of us, I do not like. We really must learn to exact accountability without this mentality, self-righteousness, and cruelty.

I also did not like the railroading of the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. And while not worried about President Aquino becoming a dictator or controlling the Supreme Court (his personality and history make this unlikely), and certainly rejecting the accusation that the Hacienda Luisita case motivated impeachment, I was worried about precedent and how a future president could use his or her powers to go after an impeachable official.

That is why, even in the face of criticism by many friends, I have consistently called for due process and defended the right of the Chief Justice to a good and competent defense. That has not changed in spite of what happened Tuesday.

Drama aside (and it should be set aside), the verdict on this impeachment trial rests on whether the evidence provided by the prosecution and defense on the Articles of Impeachment, can answer one simple question: given all the evidence, does he deserve to remain as the country’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

I originally intended not to answer this question. After all, I am not a senator-judge elected by the people to render a verdict on impeachment after exhaustive study of the evidence. However, after what I heard, I have decided to make my position known, if only to help move the process forward. And I share this opinion, not out of passion or prejudice, but from a rational evaluation based on the Chief Justice’s behavior during his testimony on Tuesday.

If anything else, with his words and acts in the impeachment court, Renato Corona clearly does not demonstrate the strength of character we need in a person who sits in the Supreme Court, and most especially so as the primus inter pares (first among equals) in the highest court.

Why he fails

First, because he made the assumption that he did not need to declare his dollar assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) due to bank confidentiality laws. Those laws have a purpose but they were not intended to shield wrongdoing or be an excuse for not doing one’s positive duty as a public official.

Even considering his assertion that he didn’t have the 82 accounts alleged in Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales’ testimony, his 4 accounts should still have been fully disclosed. This admission, in turn, he made worse by making his waiver conditional, thus making it appear like he were trying to deflect attention from himself.

No public official, especially in high office, can make that assumption which Corona claimed. To accept his argument is to negate our laws on the accountability of public officials. For me, the mere failure of the Chief Justice to disclose any of his assets in his SALNs is sufficient grounds for conviction under Article II of the impeachment complaint – not just because it violates the Constitution, but also because his high position demands equally high responsibility.

The Constitution’s intentions were to require public officials to be transparent and accountable by example, not merely on demand or by convenience. It is not about whether a public official’s wealth was ill-gotten or not; it’s not about the presumption of innocence; it is about setting a good example and demonstrating good faith to the Filipino people.

Chief Justice Corona’s assumption that foreign currency accounts should not be disclosed sets a bad example and precedent to all other public officials. His excuse defeats the purpose of the SALN, if some assets can remain undisclosed in the name of privacy. This assumption, this attitude, is arrogant and condescending, at the very least. It also sets one’s self above the law, and demeans the Constitution’s intentions for accountability.

We cannot afford such assumptions and such attitudes – and the men who carry them – in high office. As fellow lawyer Joan de Venecia posted on Facebook: “CJ says he didn't declare his dollars in his SALN because they are, by law, absolutely confidential. I’m sorry, but this is, in my opinion, a disingenuous misreading of the law. That kind of interpretation subverts the very essence of the sacrosanct Constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust.” For this interpretation to come from the Chief Justice of the Philippines is simply unacceptable.

Relinquish the post

My views do not just rest on Corona’s error of assumption, though. His “walkout” showed a careless disdain for the impeachment process, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court and his own health and well-being. Even if we were to admit that his actions were provoked by the physical and biological effects of hypoglycemia, then this makes my worries for the office of the Chief Justice justifiably worse.

Mens sana in corpore sano: a sound mind in a sound body. Just as a soldier must keep himself in tiptop shape, so should have Corona prepared himself, mind and body, for the rigors of his testimony. I do not say this uncharitably: a confident, healthy Corona could have made some difference in the opinions of the undecided senator-judges, as well as the public.

With Tuesday’s events, I now find it necessary to call on Renato Corona to resign and voluntarily relinquish the position of chief justice. I believe that he certainly is culpable under Article II, given his absolute failure, now admitted, to disclose his dollar accounts in his SALN.

The clarity of conviction would be appreciated, yet I feel that resignation would be better, as it would spare all – Corona, his defense team and supporters, the prosecution, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Filipino people – from further pain, and keep all this from getting worse. This impeachment has been handled admirably and professionally thus far, especially by the Senate and its presiding officer, but I don’t wish to see it derailed by a vicious battle among all parties that would take its toll, on Corona’s and the country’s well-being.

Resignation or not, there will be no evasion of accountability – as criminal proceedings should be pursued through the Ombudsman, if warranted by the evidence. Whether by impeachment or by criminal complaint, exacting accountability from Renato Corona, as of all public officials, is a process that deserves integrity and respect.

Indeed, it would do the country good if all of us, including the critics and supporters of the Chief Justice – come together now and act, without fear and anger, with charity, and in accordance with the truth that sets us free. – Rappler.com

  Top   |  Bottom

vilma reyes
5/23/2012 5:26:00 AM
angkel leo daytoy inkargam a naudi ket magustuak ti linaon na.

sapay koma ngarud ta ti sumukatto a CJ ket saanton a kas Kaniada....!
  Top   |  Bottom

Apo ni Bukaneg
5/26/2012 9:06:00 PM
Corona faces conviction
By Ellen Tordesillas, Contributor | The Inbox – Thu, May 24, 2012


The walkout by Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona sealed his fate: he will be convicted.

During his three-hour narration, where he didn't mince words against those he perceived was maligning him including President Aquino, whom he scornfully referred to as " hacienderong Pangulo" , he kept on complaining about his detractors undermining the rule law and bastardizing due process.

"Binababoy nila ang proseso ng Saligang Batas para yurakan ang aking mga karapatan," he said.

As chief justice, Corona should be the embodiment of the rule of law. His office enforces judicial code of conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. He knows that a witness, which he was on May 22, does not leave the witness stand without being discharged by the Presiding judge.

Yet, acting imperial, he declared: "And now, the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to be excused." He left the witness stand and walked out of the courtroom. He didn't wait to be excused.
If the Chief Justice trampled on simple rules of court, how then can he demand obedience to it from those that come under the jurisdiction of the Court? If he arrogantly committed contempt of court, one wonders what other laws did he arrogantly violated.

Even before his May 22 appearance at his own impeachment trial, sources said Malacañang already has enough votes (at least 16 out of 23 senators) to convict him. Corona is lucky if he gets four or five (he needs eight senators to block his conviction) sympathetic senators.
Since Tuesday, he was confined at the Medical City where he was under observation "for possible heart attack." His chief legal counsel, Serafin Cuevas, said Corona will be at the Senate today despite his doctors' orders. The Chief Justice has signed a waiver freeing his doctors from any liability in case anything happens to him while at the trial.

Enrile set the oral arguments for both prosecution and defense panels on Monday. After that, the senator-judges will vote to either acquit or convict Corona, the first chief justice to be subjected to this judgment.

How will the voting be done?

Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials adopted by the Senate for the Corona impeachment states: " The trial of all the articles of impeachment shall be completed before the Senators vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the vote shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of said articles by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment of conviction, and a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.

"A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order."

There will be no motion for reconsideration.

I'm not a lawyer but I suppose once he is convicted, Corona would have to be removed not only from his post as chief justice but as justice of the Supreme Court.

Those who want to see him be punished further can file charges against him before the Ombudsman. Civil society groups like that of Harvey Keh would not have to rely on Mr or Ms Anonymous for evidence against Corona. The records of the impeachment trial would be a rich source of materials for cases they can file against him.

They can charge him with perjury and violation of Republic Act 6713, the law that establishes the code of conduct for public officials and employees. If they can prove that his wealth is ill-gotten, despite his declaration that all his money were earned honestly, they can file appropriate charges with the Ombudsman.

***

Romeo Solina wrote me to dispute Corona's statement that they do not employ a house help.

I'm publishing this so that the Coronas can counter-dispute, if they want to.

Here what Corona said: "Simpleng buhay at tahanan lamang—hindi man kami gumagamit ng aircon sapagka't napakadali po naming magkasakit sa lamig. Simpleng pagkain lamang ang kinakain namin sa bahay, at sa maniwala "po kayo at sa hindi, kami po ay walang katulong sa bahay.

At, iyan ang sinasabi kong katotohan sa inyo. Ganoon kasimple po ang aming pamumuhay na paminsan-minsan lamang na may dumadating na naglilinis ng aming bahay o nagplaplantsa ng aming damit. "

Here's a portion of Solina's letter: "We have a 'katulong' with us for several years now. We took her after she worked with the Coronas. That was when Corona was still working with then President Arroyo. She said she was supposed to work in the canteen being run by Mrs. Corona near a school in Vito Cruz, but had to stay in the residence of the Coronas.

She committed a blunder — by spilling something on a guest and was berated by Corona himself — and she had to resign.

"When I heard Corona's statement "wala kaming katulong" (to impress the public that he lives simply) I asked Tess, our own katulong what the situation was several years ago. She said that while she was assigned to serve at the canteen, there were three maids for the household — a cook, a laundress, and a cleaner. All of them slept in the house, but were not allowed much free time.
  Top   |  Bottom

Eduardo Padaoan
5/28/2012 10:59:00 AM
Iti palengke (tiendaan) naka-bill board: BAWAL TI AGPAPAINOM TI ARAK DITOY OALENGKE. Mun. Ordinance No. 010010 Series 19___ forgotten. Multa 1000 pesos - first offense; 5000 pesos - second offense; cancellation of permit - third offense.

Naidanon kenni mayor nga ni Anton agpapainom ket masapul a mamulta. Ngem nag-apela ni Anton. "Saandak koman a multaen Apo Mayor ta agtungtungpalak metten ti linteg."

"Ngem agpapainomka kano Anton. Adda testigos," kuna ni Mayor.

"Ladingitek Apo Mayor ngem ti kinapudno laeng ti ibagak. Saanakon nga agpapainom. Wen, idi nagpapainomak ket itan saanakon nga agpapainom uray apankayo aginbistiga ita ket no makitayo nga agpapainomak ita ket ikkatenyon ti lisensia ti tindaanko." (He he he nagdakkel ti differencena ti nagpapainom ken agpapainom).

Isu nga no ibaga ti maysa a tao nga awan kuartana idiay banko. Pudno unay ta inruarnan idi kalman.
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
5/29/2012 8:19:00 AM
NALPASEN. GUILTY. 20 - GUILTY; 3 - NOT GUILTY. JOKER ARROYO, MIRIAM SANTIAGO, BONGBONG MARCOS - NOT GUILTY.
  Top   |  Bottom

isabella
5/29/2012 11:37:00 AM
Asinno ngata ti kasukat ni Corona nga ipatugaw ni PNoy a sumaruno a Thief inJustice??
  Top   |  Bottom

Palsiit
5/29/2012 1:25:00 PM
Makadismaya iti aquital a disisyon dagiti tallo nga senator judges.Makapipikel a makasemsem.Nalawag met unayen a kanunonganda iti kinaulbod. Sapay ket no ti sirmatak agsublinsa wenno makapatubo tay manen ti maysa nga nasirib iti amianan. Ngem appunayen ta nadismayaak nga nakangek iti palawagna.Imbagana nga masapul nga agannadtayo iti disisyon.Iti panagkunak isu ti saan nga nagannad.
  Top   |  Bottom

Crispolo
5/30/2012 5:50:00 PM
Apo Palsiit, mamatiak nu ni congressman Farinas, maysa a member ti prosecution panel ti ibagbagam nga maysa nga nasirib ti amianan. Nu ni Bongbong Marcos, I personally think that he does not have the integrity to work for Filipino people. Uray pay diay Inang na ken diay kabsat na nga gobernador are only figures, as far as I am concerned. The only thing they have are their names, wealth and power. Wealth and power come hand in hand, and their wealth ket dagidiay titaktakaw da nga naggapu ti gobierno ken tattao.
  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
5/30/2012 10:47:00 PM
By DAN AMOSIN May 30, 2012 10:38pm
259 20Email3ShareThis283

President Aquino's appointment of the next chief justice of the Supreme Court will set the tone for an independent judiciary.

Whether he likes it or not, his next appointee will be suspected of being beholden to him, no matter whom he or she may be. To obviate this predicament, it is of utmost importance that the president restore the seniority tradition followed by presidents in the appointment of the chief justice, with the infamous exception of Gloria Arroyo's appointment of Renato Corona.

That is, Aquino must appoint the most senior among incumbent justices as the next chief justice. Even President Erap, for all his shortcomings, followed the tradition by appointing Hilario Davide, then the most senior justice, as chief justice. This seniority tradition has served the Supreme Court well, if we are to judge by the high esteem with which chief justices have been held even during the days of the conjugal dictatorship.

And rightly so, because the seniority tradition, inter alia, has resulted in the following advantages: 1) It insulates the position of chief justice from political jockeying among the nominees vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council, or their patrons;

2) The mechanism for succession is based on tradition, and not on subjective preferences. Hence, the natural suspicion that there was a quid-pro-quo arrangement sub rosa between the president and his appointee is truncated, if not minimized. The chief justice is thus invested with an aura akin to that of Caesar's wife in that there is never any penumbra of a doubt as to how he got the position;

3) Even under Civil Service rules, the next-in-rank rule is followed in the promotion of public officials to vacant positions, so as to prevent favoritism by the appointing authority, maintain professionalism and prevent demoralization in the organization. It is now up to President Aquino to restore the faith of the people in the judiciary by restoring the seniority tradition in his appointment of the next chief justice.

Gloria Arroyo trivialized this age-old tradition which had served our judiciary well. And look what happened because of her myopic, selfish actions. The Supreme Court, on account of the perceived partiality of her appointee, among other laments, was plunged into a nadir of obloquy and disrespect this nation had never experienced before, culminating in the unprecedented spectacle of impeachment of the chief justice.

PNoy, by reviving the seniority tradition, will henceforth be judged as a statesman by history, because he would be restoring the independence of the chief justice. Future presidents will think twice before disregarding it again. If, on the other hand, he disregards this tradition, he is no better than GMA. He will be following and institutionalizing a bad precedent set forth by a bad president. Sad to say, he will become the monster he detests. We urge our beloved Pnoy to do right by the judiciary. The nation expects no less.

Dan Amosin is a practicing lawyer in California and a faculty member of the University of the East in Manila l980 to l986; l979 graduate of the UP College of Law; former senior editor of The Philippine Collegian l975-l976.
  Top   |  Bottom

Apo ni Bukaneg
5/31/2012 9:02:00 PM
Editorial

HIS OWN WORST WITNESS

Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:00 pm | Tuesday, May 29th, 2012


To a question posed by Sen. Franklin Drilon about his assets, Renato Corona curiously responded that he did not understand certain financial matters: “Pardon me, hindi po ako nakakaintindi ng asset-debit na yan.”

Call him the incredible shrinking Chief Justice. Every time he emerged from his sanctum sanctorum at the Supreme Court and addressed the public, one thing was progressively and inevitably confirmed: He was a letdown. Supposedly the embodiment of the majesty and authority of the Philippine judicial system and ultimate arbiter of truth and fairness in legal affairs, he came off, instead, as a small—and small-minded—man.

The nation’s highest magistrate turned out to be a man given to gutter language, melodramatic flourishes, a shockingly self-serving appreciation of the law, and, worst of all, a facility for lying.

Take that statement he gave Drilon, that whatever omissions his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth might show, it was all because he is a simple man unversed in the ways of accounting.

This, from someone who had also bragged at his impeachment trial, by way of explaining his millions in undisclosed peso and dollar deposits, that he was a “matagumpay na abogado” before he entered public service.

And that successful career in law included, among others, a long stint as an officer in the tax and corporate counseling divisions of SyCip, Gorres, Velayo—the Philippines’ largest accounting firm; 17 years as lecturer in commercial, taxation and corporate law in his alma mater, the Ateneo School of Law; several years as one of the top officers of a commercial bank; an MBA again from Ateneo, and a master of laws degree, focusing on the regulation of financial institutions, from Harvard University.

Given that all such information has long been public knowledge, one wonders at Corona’s mindset. What on earth was he thinking, testifying so brazenly to such patent, and easily verifiable, untruths even as he was under oath on the witness stand? Such ease in double-talk must have taken years of practice.

In the end, Corona’s attempt at passing himself off as a simpleton to duck the requirements of the law he was sworn to uphold only reaffirmed how undeserving he is of the august position he holds, which isn’t called “primus inter pares”—first above all—for nothing.

Even his now much touted “unconditional” waiver, brandished by his supporters as proof of his honesty and good faith, had to be pried out of him after the dead-end humiliation of his walkout from the court, which saw the unprecedented sight of the Senate President sternly lecturing the Chief Justice on the fine points of court decorum.

Cut the drama, the appeal to emotion and the grand invocation of a “moment of truth,” and what the public got with his original non-waiver waiver was a cheap smoke-and-mirrors act that, in its primary version—before his chastened return to the court two days later—basically tried to pull a fast one over the country.

Had Corona comported himself with dignity and nobility in facing the charges against him, perhaps the public would have regarded his case with greater sympathy. But his piddling, uninspiring performance before the court, consisting of a meandering narrative of sordid family feuds, extra-spartan living (“wala kaming hilig sa mamahaling bagay”—this, despite official records of posh condominium units in his name and Supreme Court reimbursements of pricey meals and purchases), and alleged government vendetta against his person, was a revealing window into the psyche of a Chief Justice who interpreted the law with a self-serving bent and wasn’t above resorting to dishonesty and lame-faced excuses (what Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas aptly termed “palusot” in the prosecution’s closing argument) to try to get away with it.

These are not the actions of an honest, upright person—and what misfortune for the country that they happen to be the prevailing behavior of the one man mandated to guard the truth and seek justice for every Filipino. Though his case appeared to rise and fall on clear-cut legal issues, he himself wrote finis to his so-called “calvary” with his peevish, devious, manipulative defense of himself, in ways that disgraced and vastly diminished his position.

The Chief Justice was, in the end, the worst witness against himself. The tale he told, to quote a certain dramatist wise to the follies of men like Corona, was one “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
  Top   |  Bottom

makannigid
6/1/2012 12:02:00 AM
ala nalpasen ti drama, na-impeach ni Corona ket agyamanak kadakayo amin nga immay nangibinglay ti kapanunotanna.
  Top   |  Bottom

Hector Turcuato
6/2/2012 8:09:00 AM
Umayko man met ipaskil daytoy napalabasak a salaysay iti maysa a magazine.

Gapu Ta Daytoy ti Linteg (38)
Ni Hues Joven F. Costales (Ret.)

Ita a basbasaenyo daytoy, mabalin nga impaulogen dagiti Senador-Hues ti pangngeddengda. Ngem nasayaat met no maamuantayo ti adda iti likudan ti kaso.
Kas maysa a nagpapaay a Piskal iti 23 a tawen ken nag-RTC Judge iti 15 a tawen, palubusandak man a mangibinsabinsa iti nakaidaruman ni Kangatuan a Hues ti Korte Suprema ti Filipinas, ni Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
Ti balikas nga “impeach” isu tay tignay a maipakat iti nagbasol a nangato nga opisial gobierno gapu iti di mayannatup a panagserbina iti saadna. Ti “impeachment,” isu met daytay proseso a maaramid no talaga a maikkat wenno saan ti naidarum. Ti met “impeachment court” ti mangbista iti kaso ket dagiti kamengna, isu dagiti amin a senador a makunkuna met a Senador-Hues.
Idi Disiembre 12, 2011, 188 kadagiti 284 a kameng ti kamara wenno House of Representaives ti kas kapardas ti kimat a nangyuli iti Artikulo ti impeachment (pannakasensura) iti Senado tapno tamingen ti Senado. Malaksid iti agdama a Chief Justice ti Filipinas, nayuli met ti kastoy a kaso ken ni Presidente Joseph Estrada idi 2001 ngem naputed ta nagrebolusion a nakaikatanna.
Kastoy met laeng a kaso ti nayuli kontra ken ni dati nga Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez idi 2011 ngem pinili ni Gutierrez ti nagretiro ket saanen a naituloy ti kaso kontra kenkuana. Mabalin met koma a tinulad ni Chief Justice Corona ti inaramid ni Gutierrez tapno naisardengen ti impeachment kontra kenkuana.
Ngem saan.
Ania dagiti walo a nakaidaruman ni CJ Corona? Dagitoyda:
Article 1. Betrayal of public trust, gapu kadagiti kunada a desisionna a kankanayon a mangpabpabor ken dati a Presidente Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo manipud pay idi mahistrado pay laeng agingga iti nadutokan a Chief Justice idi Mayo 12, 2010, idinto a nailanad iti Article 7, Section 15 ti Konstitusion a maiparit nga agdutok ti Presidente dua a bulan sakbay ti eleksion.
Article 2. Culpable violation of the Constitution ken betrayal of public trust, gapu idi dina panangidatag iti Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) a kas ibilbilin ti 1987 Constitution.
Article 3. Culpable violation of the Constitution ken betrayal of public trust, gapu iti maatap a pannakapaay ni Corona a makagun-od ken mangipakat kadagiti kualipikasion ti maysa a kameng ti hudikatura a kas ibagbaga ti Article 8, Section 7 ti Konstitusion. Nailanad sadiay ti kastoy: “a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.” Ngem iti biang ni Corona, nagbalbaliw dagiti desisionna maipanggep iti sumagmamano a kontrobersial a kaso ken nadutokan pay ti asawana iti maysa a takem iti gobierno.
Article 4. Betrayal of public trust ken/wenno culpable violation of the Constitution, kalpasan a dina inikkan iti importansia ti “principle of separation of powers” idi ipaulogna ti “status quo ante order” kontra iti House of Representatives a mainaig iti impeachment case contra ken ni agpapaay idi nga Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
Article 5. Betrayal of public trust, kalpasan a dina inikkan iti importansia ti “principles of res judicata” wenno “immutability of final judgments” idi anamonganna ti pannakabukel ti 16 a baro a siudad tapno mapaboran ti maysa a politiko ken ti pannakapagbalin ti Dinagat Island a kas maysa a probinsia.
Article 6. Betrayal of public trust, idi mangbukel ni Corona iti Ethics Committee tapno maimbestigar ni Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo gapu iti pannakapabasolna iti plagarismo idinto a sakup koma ti House of Representatives.
Article 7. Betrayal of public trust, gapu iti pangipalubosna iti ballasiw-taaw ni dati a Presidente Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ken ti asawa daytoy a ni Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo babaen ti panangipaulogna iti temporary restraining order (TRO) iti watchlist order ti Department of Justice (DOJ).
Article 8. Betrayal of public trust ken graft and corruption gapu iti questionable a pannakausar ti judiciary development fund (JDF) manipud iti docket fees ken dagiti special allowances para iti judiciary (SAJ).
Ita, kasano met ti panagtrabaho ti impeachment court? mabalin a saludsudenyo. Sabali daytoy impeachment court no maidilig iti regular a Korte. Iti panagbista dagiti regular a Korte a kas iti Municipal Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals ken uray pay ti Supreme Court, adda dagitay masurot a linteg a maipanggep iti panagbista (‘tay kunatayo a Rules of Court). Adda ‘tay kunamin a: “Dura lex sed lex.” Ti linteg, linteg. Uray asino ti daldalapusenna.
Ngem ti proseso ti impeachment, maibasura ti sursurutenmmi a paglintegan. T kayat dagiti Senador-Hues ti masurot. Ita, kadakami, ti testigo mabalin met a pagsaludsudan ti hues ngem mabiit laeng, saan a kas kaatiddog ti panagsaludsod dagiti Senador-Hues. Adda pay maysa nga oras.
Iti regular a korte, malagipko nga adda pay idi inungtan ti Korte Suprema nga RTC Judge ta at-atiddog met ti panagsaludsodna ngem dagitay abogado. Ngem ti impeachment trial, uray mano nga oras mabalin latta. Isuda ti at-atiddog panagsalusodda.
Maysa pay, iti regular a korte, ti hues saanna a pagsaludsudan wenno i-cross examine ti prosecutor; ngem dagiti Senado-Hues, mabalinda a pagsaludsudan dagiti abogado ti agsumbangir a partido. Mapaliiw pay nga isuda pay ketdin ti agsaludsod kadagiti saan a nasaludsod ti atorni ket ania pay, mairuar ti saan koma a rebbengna a sungbatan ti testigo.
Kasano met ti panagdesision dagiti Senador-Hues? No dadduma, adda marisna a politika a saan ket nga agsadag iti ebidensia ti pangibasaranda iti panagbutos. T Sabali a pannao, ti la kaykayatda. Kinnadua ngarud. Numero ti importante.
Duapulo ket tallo (23) amin dagiti senador. Dua nga apagkatlo (2/3) a butos ti kasapulan tapno matinnag wenno maikkat ti korona ni Chief Justice wenno 16 amin a butos. Kasapulan met ti di nababbaba ngem 8 a butos tapno agtalinaed ti korona iti ulo ti maidarum.
Ania met ti dusa a maikeddeng, kunayo? No ikeddeng dagiti Senado-Hues a nagbasol ti naidarum, maikkat iti puesto wenno maungtan (reprimand) laeng. Saan a maibalud. No saan a, ket maabsuelto.
Ala, innak ngarud amirisen dagiti ebidensia a naiparangen- ngem ita a basbasaenyo daytoy, mabalin nga impaulogen dagiti Senador-Hues ti desisionda iti daytoy a kaso. Ngem nasayaat met no maamuantayo ti adda iti likudan ti kaso, di ngamin?
EBIDENSIA TI PROSECUSION Idi nagtestigo ti Commissioner ti Bureau of Internal Revenue a ni Kim Hernarez, imparangna dagiti dokumento nga indatag ni CJ Corona maipanggep kadagiti sanikuana, daga, deposito iti banko, kdp. Wenno ‘tay linaon ti SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) a tinawen nga idatdatag dagiti adda ti gobierno tapno makita no kasanot’ kaadu ti sanikuada. Adu kano ti rebbengna a mailanad dita ngem saan kano nga inlatak ti Chief Justice.
Iti met testimonia ti Presidente ti Philippine Saving’s Bank a ni Pascual Garcia ken ni Branch Manager Annabelle Tiongson, kunada a dagiti polmunario a nakaisuratan dagiti deposito ni CJ Corona iti bankoda. Adda kano kasla palsipikasion a naaramid. Adda pay ‘tay linteg a mangiparit a mangsukisok iti deposito, nangruna no dollar, no awan ti naisurat a permiso ti akindeposito (wen, sagudayen dayta ti R.A. 1405 wenno Bank Secrecy Law.
Idi nagtestigo ni Administrador ti Land Registration Administration Eulalio Diaz maipanggep kadagiti amin a titulo ti daga ni CJ Corona, napaneknekan ‘diay 45 a nakalista a sanikua ni CJ Corona, lima laeng met gayam ti husto a kukuana.
Idi nagtestigo pay ti maysa a kongresista, adda kano naawatna manipud iti “bassit a babai” (little lady) a maysa a dakkel a sobrenga isu ti nakaikabilan dagiti deposito ti banko ni CJ Corona. Kasta met ni Congresman Banal a nakaawat met iti kasta met laeng a documento a nakalipit iti ruanganda a landok idiay balayda.
Nagtestigo met dagiti pannakabagi dagiti Register of Deeds ti sumagmamano a siudad a nagsaadan dagiti dagdaga kano ni CJ Corona, ken adda pay dagiti sabsabali a testigo nga imparang ti prosecution.
Nagserra ti panagiparang ti prosecution kadagiti testigona idi Pebrero 28, 2012, ket imbabawida ti 5 a darum a kas iti Artikulo 1, 4, 5, 6, ken 8 (kitaenyo ti listaantayo).
Idi Marso 12, 2012, nangrugi met a nagiparang iti ebidensia ni CJ Corona.
EBIDENSIA NI CJ CORONA Ti umuna a nagtestigo ket ni kongresista ti Navotas Tobias Tiangco. Imbagana a di nagpirma iti darum ta nakapsut dagiti ebidensia kontra iti Chief Justice.
Idi met nagtestigo ni Demetrio Vicente, impalawagna nga adda sumagmamano a parsela a daga a ginatangna ken ni CJ ken iti asawana a pagnanaedanna itan.
Nagpalawag met ni Arceli Bayuga (Cash and Disbursement Division Head) ken da Irene Guevarra ken Girlie Salarda maipanggep iti sueldo ken allowances ni CJ Corona sakbay a nag-Chief Justice. Ni nag-Mayor Joselito Atienza ti Manila, impalawagna met nga adda inlako ti siudad iti asawa ni CJ Corona ken kakabagianna nga agbalor iti 34-million a pisos ket dayta, saanna a kuarta ta kuarta ti korporasion a pakaikamangan ni Mrs. Corona.
Idi naiparang ni Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, imparangna dagiti report manipud ti Anti-Money Laundering team (AMLA) maipanggep kadagiti deposito ni CJ a doliar kadagiti nadumaduma a banko A dagitay a report, dina ammo no adda autoridadda a nangsukimat kadagitoy iti banko ta adda met linteg a mangiparit iti dayta.
Tallo a nagdarum idiay opisina ti Ombudsman ti nagtestigo pay a kunada a dagiti dokumento a naikabil iti darumda ket naseroksda manipud ti proseso ti impeachment court nga awan husto wenno naan-anay a pangibasaranda iti darumda. Maysa kadagiti nagdarum ti nagkuna nga adda naawatna a documento manipud ti di am-ammo (anonymous person) ket napanna inted iti opisina ni Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile. Inungtan ni Enrile daytoy.
Uppat pay manipud ti Registry of Deeds ti nagtestigo maipanggep kadagiti daga a napainagan ken Corona.
Ti maudi a nagpalawag ket ti mismo a maidardarum. Impatengtengna a dagiti a dagiti nadumaduma a darum, puro kinaulbod, partuat, panagibales, kdp.
Impalawagna a saggaysa babaen ti atiddog a palawagna iti sango dagiti madaydayaw a Senador-Hues ken kiniddawna a ti konsensiada ti usarenda; saan koma a ti nakaikawaranda a partido politikal tapno di madadael ti maysa a tao a nadalus ken napudno iti panagserbina iti hudikatura nga isu pay met ti maudi a papanan dagiti umili maipanggep iti kalinteganda iti Konstitusion. Kinastigona pay ti Presidente gapu iti kunana a panangpabpabasol ti Presidente kenkuana a nangidaulo iti pannakaabak ti kaso ti Hacienda Luisita a kukua ti kabagian ti Presidente ket kayat ti Presidente a maikkat a Chief Justice tapno maaramid ti Presidente ti amin a kayatna.
PANAGAMIRIS Idi 1805, idiay America, kapigsaan ken kadakkelan a pagilian iti lubong, indarum ni Prsidente Thomas Jefferson ni U.S. Supreme Court Associate Samuel Chase a dinutokan ni Presidente ti America John Adams idi dandanin malpas ti terminona a presidente. Sakbayna, konkontraen ni Chase ni Jefferson. Naabsuelto ni Justice Chase. Iti Sabali a pannao, nangabak ni Chase.
Ditoy Filipinas, ania ngata met ti banag ti kapudotan a kaso nga intay pay laeng naimatangan?
No siak laeng a maysa, kalpasan ti panangragupko kadagiti ebidensia nga imparang ti prosekusion, kas kakapuy ti tao nga addaan iti leukemia ti pruebada. Awan napaneknekanda uray maysa kadagiti walo a darum numan pay inadmitirda a ti lima a darum, ikkatendan ket tallo laengen ti ituloyda. Kas iti record ti banko, maiparit a mairuar nga awan a pammalubos ti nagdeposito ken awan bilin ti korte. Diay met naggapuanna a “bassit a babai” nga inawat ti natakneng nga agpanpanday-linteg, dina la sinaludsuden no ania ti nagyan iti brown nga envelope wenno inammo ti nagan ti babai? Ubbaw dayta a rason.
Kasta met nga ubbaw ti rason ‘diay maysa pay a Kongresista nga innalana kano a nakasipigpit idiay ayan ti ruanganda a landok ti ebidensia nga imparangna. Kinalastog dayta para iti madaydayaw Kongresista. Kasta lattan ti panangawatna iti ania man a nakalipit a dakkel nga envelope? Namak pay no ‘tay kunada a “letter bomb” dayta a bumtak no lukatam? Daytoy nga ebidensia, isu ‘tay kunami a “prutas ti nasabidongan a kayo” ket ngarud, awan serserbina.
Diay kunkunada a 45 a parsela ti daga ni Chief Justice, puro parbo. Panangdadael ta ti nagtestigo a taga-LRA, asideg a kadua ni Presidente Nonoy. Lima met laeng gayam. ‘Diay deposito a sangapulo wenno sangapulo ket dua a million a doliar a nakadeposito kadagiti nadumaduma a banko nga addaan iti 84 nga accounts, parbo met.
Para kaniak, kunak manen, no luktak ti ebidensia ti prosekusion, ubbaw, nakapuy, kasla papel a nakatakder ket no puyotam, matuang nga itayab ti angina. Maabsuelto, no masurot a husto ti linteg.
Kunak ngarud a ti korona ti maidardarum ket agtalinaed iti ulona. Ngem iti sabali a bangir, mabalin met a matinnag a kasla nalungsot a bunga ti kaimito.
Kastoy ngamin. Dagiti Senador-Hues taoda met laeng. Ammoda met ti agibales, ti mangirurumen. No dadduma, awan riknada. Uray tao a nalinteg ken nasayaat no dida kayat, mabalinda nga iserrek iti wangawangan ti tanem. Nangnangruna unay no politika ti pagsasaritaan, uray pay kabsat, nagannak, kasinsin ken asideg unay a pagayam, awan kinnaduaan no agkasunganida iti partido.
Ita ngarud, uray pay ammo ti maysa a Senador-Hues nga awan basol ti maidardarum, napigsa ti puersa ti partidona a surotenna. No sentensiaam, kunada surotenna. Maysa pay: kasanon no adda “under the table”? Di la ammo.
Dagiti Senado-Hues, 23 amin, 16 ti mangsukdal iti korona ni CJ Corona, 8 met ti mangikanawa. Ti prosecution, kunana nga adda kano maalada a kasta a nunero, 16. Ngem ti depensa, ibagana met nga adda 8. Dayta ti dakkel a saludsod.
Ala, sapay koma ngarud ta uray ania ti pangngedeng dagiti Senado-Hues, addanto la talna, kappia ken progreso ditoy pagiliantayo.
  Top   |  Bottom

Hector Turcuato
6/2/2012 8:38:00 AM
Balbaliak man nga ipaskil ket ne, nagsusukot metten.

Gapu Ta Daytoy ti Linteg (38)
Ni Hues Joven F. Costales (Ret.)

Ita a basbasaenyo daytoy, mabalin nga impaulogen dagiti Senador-Hues ti pangngeddengda. Ngem nasayaat met no maamuantayo ti adda iti likudan ti kaso.

Kas maysa a nagpapaay a Piskal iti 23 a tawen ken nag-RTC Judge iti 15 a tawen, palubusandak man a mangibinsabinsa iti nakaidaruman ni Kangatuan a Hues ti Korte Suprema ti Filipinas, ni Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Ti balikas nga “impeach” isu tay tignay a maipakat iti nagbasol a nangato nga opisial gobierno gapu iti di mayannatup a panagserbina iti saadna. Ti “impeachment,” isu met daytay proseso a maaramid no talaga a maikkat wenno saan ti naidarum. Ti met “impeachment court” ti mangbista iti kaso ket dagiti kamengna, isu dagiti amin a senador a makunkuna met a Senador-Hues.

Idi Disiembre 12, 2011, 188 kadagiti 284 a kameng ti kamara wenno House of Representaives ti kas kapardas ti kimat a nangyuli iti Artikulo ti impeachment (pannakasensura) iti Senado tapno tamingen ti Senado. Malaksid iti agdama a Chief Justice ti Filipinas, nayuli met ti kastoy a kaso ken ni Presidente Joseph Estrada idi 2001 ngem naputed ta nagrebolusion a nakaikatanna.

Kastoy met laeng a kaso ti nayuli kontra ken ni dati nga Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez idi 2011 ngem pinili ni Gutierrez ti nagretiro ket saanen a naituloy ti kaso kontra kenkuana. Mabalin met koma a tinulad ni Chief Justice Corona ti inaramid ni Gutierrez tapno naisardengen ti impeachment kontra kenkuana.

Ngem saan.
Ania dagiti walo a nakaidaruman ni CJ Corona? Dagitoyda:
Article 1. Betrayal of public trust, gapu kadagiti kunada a desisionna a kankanayon a mangpabpabor ken dati a Presidente Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo manipud pay idi mahistrado pay laeng agingga iti nadutokan a Chief Justice idi Mayo 12, 2010, idinto a nailanad iti Article 7, Section 15 ti Konstitusion a maiparit nga agdutok ti Presidente dua a bulan sakbay ti eleksion.

Article 2. Culpable violation of the Constitution ken betrayal of public trust, gapu idi dina panangidatag iti Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) a kas ibilbilin ti 1987 Constitution.

Article 3. Culpable violation of the Constitution ken betrayal of public trust, gapu iti maatap a pannakapaay ni Corona a makagun-od ken mangipakat kadagiti kualipikasion ti maysa a kameng ti hudikatura a kas ibagbaga ti Article 8, Section 7 ti Konstitusion. Nailanad sadiay ti kastoy: “a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.” Ngem iti biang ni Corona, nagbalbaliw dagiti desisionna maipanggep iti sumagmamano a kontrobersial a kaso ken nadutokan pay ti asawana iti maysa a takem iti gobierno.

Article 4. Betrayal of public trust ken/wenno culpable violation of the Constitution, kalpasan a dina inikkan iti importansia ti “principle of separation of powers” idi ipaulogna ti “status quo ante order” kontra iti House of Representatives a mainaig iti impeachment case contra ken ni agpapaay idi nga Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Article 5. Betrayal of public trust, kalpasan a dina inikkan iti importansia ti “principles of res judicata” wenno “immutability of final judgments” idi anamonganna ti pannakabukel ti 16 a baro a siudad tapno mapaboran ti maysa a politiko ken ti pannakapagbalin ti Dinagat Island a kas maysa a probinsia.

Article 6. Betrayal of public trust, idi mangbukel ni Corona iti Ethics Committee tapno maimbestigar ni Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo gapu iti pannakapabasolna iti plagarismo idinto a sakup koma ti House of Representatives.

Article 7. Betrayal of public trust, gapu iti pangipalubosna iti ballasiw-taaw ni dati a Presidente Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ken ti asawa daytoy a ni Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo babaen ti panangipaulogna iti temporary restraining order (TRO) iti watchlist order ti Department of Justice (DOJ).

Article 8. Betrayal of public trust ken graft and corruption gapu iti questionable a pannakausar ti judiciary development fund (JDF) manipud iti docket fees ken dagiti special allowances para iti judiciary (SAJ).
Ita, kasano met ti panagtrabaho ti impeachment court? mabalin a saludsudenyo. Sabali daytoy impeachment court no maidilig iti regular a Korte. Iti panagbista dagiti regular a Korte a kas iti Municipal Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals ken uray pay ti Supreme Court, adda dagitay masurot a linteg a maipanggep iti panagbista (‘tay kunatayo a Rules of Court). Adda ‘tay kunamin a: “Dura lex sed lex.” Ti linteg, linteg. Uray asino ti daldalapusenna.
Ngem ti proseso ti impeachment, maibasura ti sursurutenmmi a paglintegan. T kayat dagiti Senador-Hues ti masurot. Ita, kadakami, ti testigo mabalin met a pagsaludsudan ti hues ngem mabiit laeng, saan a kas kaatiddog ti panagsaludsod dagiti Senador-Hues. Adda pay maysa nga oras.

Iti regular a korte, malagipko nga adda pay idi inungtan ti Korte Suprema nga RTC Judge ta at-atiddog met ti panagsaludsodna ngem dagitay abogado. Ngem ti impeachment trial, uray mano nga oras mabalin latta. Isuda ti at-atiddog panagsalusodda.

Maysa pay, iti regular a korte, ti hues saanna a pagsaludsudan wenno i-cross examine ti prosecutor; ngem dagiti Senado-Hues, mabalinda a pagsaludsudan dagiti abogado ti agsumbangir a partido. Mapaliiw pay nga isuda pay ketdin ti agsaludsod kadagiti saan a nasaludsod ti atorni ket ania pay, mairuar ti saan koma a rebbengna a sungbatan ti testigo.

Kasano met ti panagdesision dagiti Senador-Hues? No dadduma, adda marisna a politika a saan ket nga agsadag iti ebidensia ti pangibasaranda iti panagbutos. Iti Sabali a pannao, ti la kaykayatda. Kinnadua ngarud. Numero ti importante.

Duapulo ket tallo (23) amin dagiti senador. Dua nga apagkatlo (2/3) a butos ti kasapulan tapno matinnag wenno maikkat ti korona ni Chief Justice wenno 16 amin a butos. Kasapulan met ti di nababbaba ngem 8 a butos tapno agtalinaed ti korona iti ulo ti maidarum.
Ania met ti dusa a maikeddeng, kunayo? No ikeddeng dagiti Senado-Hues a nagbasol ti naidarum, maikkat iti puesto wenno maungtan (reprimand) laeng. Saan a maibalud. No saan a, ket maabsuelto.
Ala, innak ngarud amirisen dagiti ebidensia a naiparangen- ngem ita a basbasaenyo daytoy, mabalin nga impaulogen dagiti Senador-Hues ti desisionda iti daytoy a kaso. Ngem nasayaat met no maamuantayo ti adda iti likudan ti kaso, di ngamin?

EBIDENSIA TI PROSECUSION Idi nagtestigo ti Commissioner ti Bureau of Internal Revenue a ni Kim Hernarez, imparangna dagiti dokumento nga indatag ni CJ Corona maipanggep kadagiti sanikuana, daga, deposito iti banko, kdp.

Wenno ‘tay linaon ti SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) a tinawen nga idatdatag dagiti adda ti gobierno tapno makita no kasanot’ kaadu ti sanikuada. Adu kano ti rebbengna a mailanad dita ngem saan kano nga inlatak ti Chief Justice.

Iti met testimonia ti Presidente ti Philippine Saving’s Bank a ni Pascual Garcia ken ni Branch Manager Annabelle Tiongson, kunada a dagiti polmunario a nakaisuratan dagiti deposito ni CJ Corona iti bankoda. Adda kano kasla palsipikasion a naaramid. Adda pay ‘tay linteg a mangiparit a mangsukisok iti deposito, nangruna no dollar, no awan ti naisurat a permiso ti akindeposito (wen, sagudayen dayta ti R.A. 1405 wenno Bank Secrecy Law.

Idi nagtestigo ni Administrador ti Land Registration Administration Eulalio Diaz maipanggep kadagiti amin a titulo ti daga ni CJ Corona, napaneknekan ‘diay 45 a nakalista a sanikua ni CJ Corona, lima laeng met gayam ti husto a kukuana.

Idi nagtestigo pay ti maysa a kongresista, adda kano naawatna manipud iti “bassit a babai” (little lady) a maysa a dakkel a sobre nga isu ti nakaikabilan dagiti deposito ti banko ni CJ Corona. Kasta met ni Congresman Banal a nakaawat met iti kasta met laeng a documento a nakalipit iti ruanganda a landok idiay balayda.

Nagtestigo met dagiti pannakabagi dagiti Register of Deeds ti sumagmamano a siudad a nagsaadan dagiti dagdaga kano ni CJ Corona, ken adda pay dagiti sabsabali a testigo nga imparang ti prosecution.

Nagserra ti panagiparang ti prosecution kadagiti testigona idi Pebrero 28, 2012, ket imbabawida ti 5 a darum a kas iti Artikulo 1, 4, 5, 6, ken 8 (kitaenyo ti listaantayo).

Idi Marso 12, 2012, nangrugi met a nagiparang iti ebidensia ni CJ Corona.

EBIDENSIA NI CJ CORONA Ti umuna a nagtestigo ket ni kongresista ti Navotas Tobias Tiangco. Imbagana a di nagpirma iti darum ta nakapsut dagiti ebidensia kontra iti Chief Justice.

Idi met nagtestigo ni Demetrio Vicente, impalawagna nga adda sumagmamano a parsela a daga a ginatangna ken ni CJ ken iti asawana a pagnanaedanna itan.

Nagpalawag met ni Arceli Bayuga (Cash and Disbursement Division Head) ken da Irene Guevarra ken Girlie Salarda maipanggep iti sueldo ken allowances ni CJ Corona sakbay a nag-Chief Justice. Ni nag-Mayor Joselito Atienza ti Manila, impalawagna met nga adda inlako ti siudad iti asawa ni CJ Corona ken kakabagianna nga agbalor iti 34-million a pisos ket dayta, saanna a kuarta ta kuarta ti korporasion a pakaikamangan ni Mrs. Corona.

Idi naiparang ni Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, imparangna dagiti report manipud ti Anti-Money Laundering team (AMLA) maipanggep kadagiti deposito ni CJ a doliar kadagiti nadumaduma a banko A dagitay a report, dina ammo no adda autoridadda a nangsukimat kadagitoy iti banko ta adda met linteg a mangiparit iti dayta.

Tallo a nagdarum idiay opisina ti Ombudsman ti nagtestigo pay a kunada a dagiti dokumento a naikabil iti darumda ket naseroksda manipud ti proseso ti impeachment court nga awan husto wenno naan-anay a pangibasaranda iti darumda. Maysa kadagiti nagdarum ti nagkuna nga adda naawatna a documento manipud ti di am-ammo (anonymous person) ket napanna inted iti opisina ni Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile. Inungtan ni Enrile daytoy.

Uppat pay manipud ti Registry of Deeds ti nagtestigo maipanggep kadagiti daga a napainagan ken Corona.

Ti maudi a nagpalawag ket ti mismo a maidardarum. Impatengtengna a dagiti a dagiti nadumaduma a darum, puro kinaulbod, partuat, panagibales, kdp.
Impalawagna a saggaysa babaen ti atiddog a palawagna iti sango dagiti madaydayaw a Senador-Hues ken kiniddawna a ti konsensiada ti usarenda; saan koma a ti nakaikawaranda a partido politikal tapno di madadael ti maysa a tao a nadalus ken napudno iti panagserbina iti hudikatura nga isu pay met ti maudi a papanan dagiti umili maipanggep iti kalinteganda iti Konstitusion. Kinastigona pay ti Presidente gapu iti kunana a panangpabpabasol ti Presidente kenkuana a nangidaulo iti pannakaabak ti kaso ti Hacienda Luisita a kukua ti kabagian ti Presidente ket kayat ti Presidente a maikkat a Chief Justice tapno maaramid ti Presidente ti amin a kayatna.

PANAGAMIRIS Idi 1805, idiay America, kapigsaan ken kadakkelan a pagilian iti lubong, indarum ni Prsidente Thomas Jefferson ni U.S. Supreme Court Associate Samuel Chase a dinutokan ni Presidente ti America John Adams idi dandanin malpas ti terminona a presidente. Sakbayna, konkontraen ni Chase ni Jefferson. Naabsuelto ni Justice Chase. Iti Sabali a pannao, nangabak ni Chase.

Ditoy Filipinas, ania ngata met ti banag ti kapudotan a kaso nga intay pay laeng naimatangan?

No siak laeng a maysa, kalpasan ti panangragupko kadagiti ebidensia nga imparang ti prosekusion, kas kakapuy ti tao nga addaan iti leukemia ti pruebada. Awan napaneknekanda uray maysa kadagiti walo a darum numan pay inadmitirda a ti lima a darum, ikkatendan ket tallo laengen ti ituloyda. Kas iti record ti banko, maiparit a mairuar nga awan a pammalubos ti nagdeposito ken awan bilin ti korte. Diay met naggapuanna a “bassit a babai” nga inawat ti natakneng nga agpanpanday-linteg, dina la sinaludsuden no ania ti nagyan iti brown nga envelope wenno inammo ti nagan ti babai? Ubbaw dayta a rason.

Kasta met nga ubbaw ti rason ‘diay maysa pay a Kongresista nga innalana kano a nakasipigpit idiay ayan ti ruanganda a landok ti ebidensia nga imparangna. Kinalastog dayta para iti madaydayaw Kongresista. Kasta lattan ti panangawatna iti ania man a nakalipit a dakkel nga envelope? Namak pay no ‘tay kunada a “letter bomb” dayta a bumtak no lukatam? Daytoy nga ebidensia, isu ‘tay kunami a “prutas ti nasabidongan a kayo” ket ngarud, awan serserbina.

Diay kunkunada a 45 a parsela ti daga ni Chief Justice, puro parbo. Panangdadael ta ti nagtestigo a taga-LRA, asideg a kadua ni Presidente Nonoy. Lima met laeng gayam. ‘Diay deposito a sangapulo wenno sangapulo ket dua a million a doliar a nakadeposito kadagiti nadumaduma a banko nga addaan iti 84 nga accounts, parbo met.

Para kaniak, kunak manen, no luktak ti ebidensia ti prosekusion, ubbaw, nakapuy, kasla papel a nakatakder ket no puyotam, matuang nga itayab ti angina. Maabsuelto, no masurot a husto ti linteg.
Kunak ngarud a ti korona ti maidardarum ket agtalinaed iti ulona. Ngem iti sabali a bangir, mabalin met a matinnag a kasla nalungsot a bunga ti kaimito.

Kastoy ngamin. Dagiti Senador-Hues taoda met laeng. Ammoda met ti agibales, ti mangirurumen. No dadduma, awan riknada. Uray tao a nalinteg ken nasayaat no dida kayat, mabalinda nga iserrek iti wangawangan ti tanem. Nangnangruna unay no politika ti pagsasaritaan, uray pay kabsat, nagannak, kasinsin ken asideg unay a pagayam, awan kinnaduaan no agkasunganida iti partido.

Ita ngarud, uray pay ammo ti maysa a Senador-Hues nga awan basol ti maidardarum, napigsa ti puersa ti partidona a surotenna. No sentensiaam, kunada surotenna. Maysa pay: kasanon no adda “under the table”? Di la ammo.

Dagiti Senado-Hues, 23 amin, 16 ti mangsukdal iti korona ni CJ Corona, 8 met ti mangikanawa. Ti prosecution, kunana nga adda kano maalada a kasta a nunero, 16. Ngem ti depensa, ibagana met nga adda 8. Dayta ti dakkel a saludsod.

Ala, sapay koma ngarud ta uray ania ti pangngedeng dagiti Senado-Hues, addanto la talna, kappia ken progreso ditoy pagiliantayo.

  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
6/8/2012 8:58:00 AM
The best candidate for chief justice
By: Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer10:49 pm | Friday, June 8th, 2012 shareNew 3
Note to the Reader: I was out of the country from May 16 to May 31, hence no columns during that period. I promise to deal with important events that took place in that span—particularly the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona—after I have read all the documents.

With the conviction and removal of Chief Justice Renato Corona from office, attention has turned to the choice of his successor. Who should be the next chief justice?

As far as I am concerned, the Judicial and Bar Council, which is charged with the responsibility of submitting to the President a short list of three nominees from which he will make his choice, needn’t look farther than the end of its nose, at least as far as the best candidate is concerned: Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

I take this position notwithstanding fears and accusations that: (1) while Carpio was in private practice, he and/or his firm—also known as “The Firm”—were buying judges and their decisions, and that he is still very closely associated with it; (2) that Carpio, while in government (he served as legal counsel for the Ramos administration) was on the take; (3) that Carpio was actually behind the campaign to oust Corona, “his enemy,” from office; and (4) that he is President Aquino’s man, just as Corona was known as President Gloria Arroyo’s man.

The first set of accusations most probably has bases, if only because one can count on one’s fingers and toes (and maybe not even get to the toes), the law firms who do not engage in this practice; it is an open secret that this is SOP. So if Carpio is to be excluded from consideration as chief justice on this count, so will practically everybody else, alas. What is important is that the records will show that he has, since he took his oath as an associate justice, recused himself from any case where his former law firm is involved.

The second set of accusations, upon further investigation, does not seem to have any basis in fact. In one example that was given to me of his alleged corruption (the PEA-Amari case), it turns out that as a Supreme Court justice, his decision was to declare the PEA-Amari contract null and void. At the same time, a senior government official during that period, whom I consider unimpeachable, tells me that in every case that her agency brought to Carpio for an opinion, it was given only after careful study and hearing of both sides; he never came to the table just to look for justifications for an opinion already arrived at.

The third set of accusations I tend to dismiss entirely, the accuser apparently being Corona himself, whose testimony, unhappily, may be impeachable.

And the final set of accusations has to be pure speculation. I can think of no reason Carpio should be at the President’s beck and call. In any case, Carpio’s performance in the Supreme Court is proof positive that he is his own man. He ruled against the PEA-Amari deal, which was forged by the Ramos administration, which he served, and he has either been the ponente in cases where the Arroyo administration was ruled against, or dissented in cases where the ruling was in favor of Arroyo. It was Arroyo who appointed Carpio to the Supreme Court. Sources (credible) tell me that if a total accounting is to be made, his opinions have been 55-45 against Arroyo. Maybe Marites Vitug should be consulted on this one.

In any case, a young lawyer whose opinion on Carpio I asked may have encapsulized the issue of where he stands in one sentence: “Everyone always thinks he is on the other side.” Meaning, he cannot be pigeonholed. His loyalty seems to be to the law, rather than to people. As it should be.

The fears/accusations against Carpio having been dispensed with, let us now turn to what his actual performance has been in the Supreme Court. Reader, please understand where I am coming from. I do not consider myself to be Justice Carpio’s friend, or even a close acquaintance. Our acquaintance is of the most casual; I know his wife only slightly (although she is my sorority sister). I was in fact initially not positively disposed toward him, having heard all the juicy rumors about the (Carpio) Villaraza law firm (which, by the way, rumors have it, has been displaced by Executive Secretary Jojo Ochoa’s law firm, where, even more deliciously, Bongbong Marcos’ wife is supposed to be a partner).

But I have read his opinions, whether majority or dissenting, in a number of cases which I followed closely because of their importance to either the Philippine economy or its polity. And I have come away deeply impressed by the clarity and logic of his thinking, the solidity of his arguments, the homework he so obviously has done. No strain to credulity, no mental gymnastics, no decision-first-justification-later.

Moreover, as Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government puts it, “He is consistently on the right side of environmental social justice and public accountability cases.” Some of these opinions I have written about, and I invite the Readers to refresh their memories—from people’s initiative to Radstock, to Koko Pimentel, to La Bugal and mining, to martial law.

But wait. A chief justice also has to be an excellent administrator. Does Carpio have what it takes? Just ask the Supreme Court staff how he has handled the administrative tasks assigned to him. Accomplished. Soonest.

And the latest proof, of course, is how, in his first meeting en banc as acting chief justice, he led the high court in reversing its stance on the disclosure of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

What are we waiting for?


  Top   |  Bottom

Leo Beligan
6/13/2012 7:48:00 AM
CJ Puno usurped JBC functions

Details Published on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 00:00 Written by AMADO P. MACASAET
1 114 11ShareThis131 By A Web design Company
‘There is clear wisdom in picking one who is already in the Court. It need not necessarily be Carpio. He is not salivating for it.’

Whoever forced, coerced or threatened former Chief Justice Reynato to retire – not really retire but resign -- before he reached 70 years in May 2010?

The effect of this act as the rape of the Constitutional prohibition against appointment to the judiciary 60 days before the national elections.

Mr. Puno was supposed to retire on May 17 2010, the day he became 70. He did not wait that long to leave the Court. But before he resigned, he convened the Judicial and Bar Council clearly to allow Gloria Arroyo to find the name of second most senior Associate Justice Renato Corona in the short list of nominees. She forthwith appointed Corona but not before the Supreme Court ruled that such appointment may be allowed during the prohibited period.

By his early retirement Chief Justice Puno forced the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, a sad chapter in our judicial history which could not have happened had he retired on his birthday, a required by the law.

The other most important factor that directly relates to the willingness of Corona to accept a midnight appointment was his desire to accept the post. If he had any respect for the Constitution. Corona “could have declined the appointment and argue that honoring the Charter is the only duty of a member of the Court. The position of Chief Justice is a mere incident. It had to be obtained or given according to the Constitution, and not violating it.

Corona would have made a hero of himself by refusing the appointment. He could have told his peers that while their decision to violate the Constitution became part of the law of the land, he would not lend himself to the violation.

That was farthest from his mind. After all, Chief Justice Puno had already paved the way for his appointment. Gloria wanted it. Corona was bent on getting it.

The trio of Gloria Arroyo, Chief Justice Puno and Renato Corona had it all planned. The majority of the Supreme Court would rule as it did that Gloria Arroyo may make the appointment at a time when Benigno Aquino, the presidential candidate in the 2010 elections had clearly won the election.

The lame duck President Gloria Arroyo grabbed the powers of a newly elected President while he was waiting to be sworn in. The Supreme Court made a ruling allowing her to usurp that power.

Never has the Fundamental Law of the land been so blatantly violated. In fact, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the pontente of the case, practically abolished the Judicial and Bar Council when he declared that Gloria Arroyo may make an appointment to the Supreme Court without a nomination from the JBC.

Following that argument, Chief Justice Puno did not have to convene the JBC to select candidates for the position he would leave by resignation.

That declaration or ruling showed how determined Gloria Arroyo was in appointing her ward, Renato Corona.

Personally, I do not believe that Puno wanted to retire before his term expired.

There must have been irresistible considerations for leaving the Court before his time was up. Nobody except Puno and Mrs. Arroyo can shed light on this.

It is hard to fathom what was dangled to CJ Puno to resign. If he had resigned at the age of 70, after the May 10 national elections, the most senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio would have succeeded him in an acting capacity.

Carpio would not definitely convene the JBC since Benigno Aquino III had already won the elections.

A lame duck president cannot make an appointment. Gloria’s father, the late President Diosdado Macapagal was supported by the Supreme Court when he refused to recognize then Finance Secretary Dominador Aytona who was appointed by the lame duck President Carlos P. Garcia two days before Macapagal was to assume office as newly elected President.

Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales had publicly declared that they too would love to become head of the Court but they would accept the appointment only from the newly elected president.

The statements supported their dissent against the ruling of Bersamin. They expressed their dissatisfaction over the usurpation of the authority of a lame duck president to appoint the Chief Justice.

Gloria, Puno and Corona had their way. However, in the end, justice triumphed when the impeachment court ousted Corona.

It should not matter to anyone, including the present members of the Court, who the President appoints to succeed Corona. The right to appoint exclusively his although there is clear wisdom in picking one who is already in the Court.

It need not necessarily be Carpio. He is not salivating for it.

***

Email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
  Top   |  Bottom

abigail
6/25/2012 8:36:00 AM
A mother took her five-year-old son with her to the bank on a busy lunchtime. They got behind a very fat woman wearing a business suit complete with pager. As they waited patiently, the little boy said loudly, "Gee, she's fat!" The mother bent down and whispered in the little boy's ear to be quiet. A couple of minutes passed by and the little boy spread his hands as far as they would go and announced, "I'll bet her behind is this wide." The fat woman turns around and glares at the little boy. The mother gave him a good telling off, and told him to be quiet. After a brief lull, the large woman reached the front of the line. Just then her pager began to emit a beep, beep, beep. The little boy yells out, "Run for your life, she's backing up!"
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
7/11/2012 3:23:00 PM
Subject: DAGITI NASAYAAT KEN DAKES A PECHA



1. Saan a nasayaat a pinagmula ta nakudidit,castsa met ti panagtagilaco ta saan a mapaadu ti pirak.
2. Nasayaat a pinagrubuat ti mapan ti adayo, nasayaat a pinagmula kadagito bukbukel.
3. Nasayaat a ibabalay iti balay a baro, ngem dakes a isasaclang kadagiti agtuturay ta naunget.
4. Dakes a pinagmula ngem nasayaat a pannacaiyanac ta nagas
5. Saan a nasayaat a pinagmula ta narasay ti bulong na casta met kadagiti agviaje.
6. Nasayaat a pinagmula, ngem dakes a pinagviaje ta awan ti matubo.
7. Nasayaat a pinagmula ken kasta met a nasayaat s ibabalay.
8. Nasayaat a pannacaiyanac ti tao, ken casta met a nasayaat a igagatang ti animal.
9. Dakes a ipapan ti masakit, dakes met a pinagmula
10. Dakes a panagirugi ti trabajo, casta met ti tao a maiyanak ta adu ti peggadna.
11. Nasayaat a pinaglagda ti balay.
12. Nasayaat a panakisao kadagiti pangasawaan.
13. Dakes a pinagmula to aplaten, dakes met a isasaclang iti agturay.
14. Nasayaat a panagirugi ti trabajo.
15. Nasayaat a pinagrubuat a mapan ti adayo a daga ta no saan mo a sinaan ti Apo a Dios awan ti peggad.
16. Nasayaat a pinagmula ta nabaludbod.
17. Nasayaat a panagirugi iti agpanggep a mangasawa.
18. Nasayaat a panagirugi iti trabajo.
19. Nasayaat a panggapuan wenno panagirugi nga agsursuro casta met dagitianimal ta na natuloc da.
20. Nasayaat a panangili ken panagcomercio.
21. Dakes a pinagmula ken dakes a pinagpuros kadagiti bungbunga.
22. Makasadsadut a panagirugi ti trabajo ta mabayag a malpas.
23. Nasayaat a pannacaiyanac, panagcasar ken igagatang ti animal.
24. Nasayaat a panaggatang iti comercio.


25. Dakes a pannacaiyanac ti tao ta pagraranudan da, ngem no lalaki ti maiyanac nasayaat, dakes met a
pinagmula..
26. Nasayaat a pinagtagilaco ken dadduma pay a iwayat nga aramiden.
27. Nasayaat a pinagmula.
28. Nasayaat a panagirugi ti trabajo ta madaras a malpas ken nasayaat met a pinagmula.
29.
30.Dakes a panagirugi iti trabajo.
31. Dakes a panagmula ngem nasayaat a panagtagilaco iti comercio.


PAKITAAN ITI INALDAW ITI MAKABULAN


1. Mamatiac itti Dios Ama &n bsp; 15. cadagiti natay
2. a macabalin amin 16. immuli sadi langit
3. Namarsua iti langit ken daga 17. agtug-tugaw
4. Mamatiac ken Jesucristo 18. iti makanawan
5. a bugbubtong a anak na 19. ti Dios Ama
6. Ni Apo tayo a timmao 20. agsublinto sadiay
7. Iti Espiritu Santo 21. nga umay mangucom
8. Inyanac ni Virgen Maria &nb sp; 22. cadagiti nabiag ken natay
9. Tinutuoc 23. mamatiac met iti Espiritu Santo
10. idi pinagturay ni Poncio Pilato 24. patiec met ti Iglesia Catolica
11. nailansa iti crus 25. adda met pagraranudan dagiti Sasantos
12. natay ket inkali 26. ket adda panmacawan iti basol
13. immulog sadi langit 27. adda panagungar ti lasag
14. nagungar iti maikatlo nga aldaw 28. ket addanto met biag nga agnanayon
29. nga awan ingana
30. amin Jesus.
  Top   |  Bottom

cirenia
7/21/2012 4:24:00 PM
While working for an organization that delivers lunches to elderly shut-ins, I used to take my four-year-old daughter on my afternoon rounds. She was unfailingly intrigued by the various appliances of old age, particularly the canes, walkers and wheelchairs. One day I found her staring at a pair of false teeth soaking in a glass. As I braced myself for the inevitable barrage of questions, she merely turned and whispered, "The tooth fairy will never believe this."


  Top   |  Bottom

Show ALL Comments  | Last 100  |


Sumungbat

Ag-Loginka pay nga umuna Kailian sakbay nga agposteka.





Disclaimer

All communications made available as part of this forum and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication and not of ILUKO.COM (unless ILUKO.COM is specifically identified as the author of the communication).

ILUKO.COM does not certify, endorse, verify, edit or review the contents of any communication posted to these forums. ILUKO.COM makes no warranty of any kind, express or implied, with regard to the posted communications or information contained therein. ILUKO.COM is not responsible for defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any author posting to this forum.

ILUKO.COM reserves the right to remove any postings from this forum at its discretion; this reservation creates no affirmative duty in ILUKO.COM, and failure to exercise this power shall not subject ILUKO.COM to any liability of any sort. Persons posting to this forum hereby agree to abide by all applicable laws both National and International and to accept legal responsibility for the contents of their communications.

Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.

If you participate in a discussion, you are responsible for ensuring that any material you post to ILUKO.COM (text, images, or other multimedia content) does not violate or infringe upon the copyright, patent, trademark or any other personal or proprietary rights of any third party, and is posted with the permission of the owner of such rights.