Palace backs Senate call for Corona to testify

Malacañang expressed support yesterday for the proposal of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to Chief Justice Renato Corona to appear before the Senate impeachment court and defend himself.

“It will be better if Mr. Corona testifies so he could finally answer the charges point by point as he had repeatedly promised in his speeches,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda had earlier dared Corona to testify before the impeachment court as suggested by Enrile. Lacierda maintained that the House of Representatives’ prosecution team had presented strong evidence to convict Corona.

He cited the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNS) of Corona, which only the Chief Justice and his wife could explain.

The Palace is confident that the Senate impeachment court would convict Corona based on the discrepancies in his SALN and the actual list of properties and bank accounts of the Chief Justice.

“For instance, in Article 2 ( of the impeachment complaint), this is a question of his SALN, we’re wondering who can testify on that point because this is a SALN that is prepared supposedly by Chief Justice Corona and/or his wife. It would be preferable for him to shed light on how he prepared the SALN, why the SALN was filled up in that manner. And the only person we believe who can really testify as to the substance of the SALN would be the Chief Justice. Certainly it would be good for the public to know and he also said that in due time, he will come out and explain SALN. Maybe it’s time,” Lacierda said.

He said they would agree with anything to help the truth come out and that it would be a way to determine the credibility of the SALNS of the Chief Justice.

Lacierda said that with regard to Article 7, the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on the travel ban against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo was a matter of public record. SC Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in her dissenting opinion, indicated that Corona made it appear that the TRO was immediately effective and Arroyo could leave when the conditions set for her had not yet been met.

“Obviously the Chief Justice can also testify to that if he wants but it’s based on the decision. Since he’s the respondent, it is his every right or upon the advice of his lawyers whether to appear or not. It is subject to the counsel of the lawyers if it is wise for him to testify. Would it bring more damage if he does testify? But, as far as we’re concerned, it would be best for the country to see Chief Justice Corona testify,” Lacierda said.

Lacierda said it is now time for the defense panel to prove the innocence of the Chief Justice because based on Article 2, “enough properties have been uncovered which are not listed in the SALN; enough peso deposits were uncovered which were beyond the reported peso deposits in SALN.”

“The presumption of ill-gotten wealth has shifted to them and so it is now their burden or their charge to prove that the wealth acquired by Chief Justice Corona was not ill-gotten,” Lacierda said.

Lacierda said they were confident that the Senate as an impeachment court would accept the evidence submitted by the prosecution.

“The evidence in Article 2 were provided by – and I’m referring specifically to the account numbers; I’m referring specifically to the deposits, the yearend balances – these disclosures were by made by Philippine Savings Bank president, Mr. Pascual Garcia (III). So there is no reason for, we believe, the defense to throw out this evidence,” Lacierda said.

“It is understandable that the defense is trying to throw out the peso deposits primarily because this is a thing that really is hurting the Chief Justice – the unexplained incomes, the deposits, and properties which were uncovered far beyond what was reported in the SALN,” he said.

Lacierda said it was unfortunate that the bulk of the evidence and testimonies for Article 3 on the SC’S flip-flopping on its decisions had been thrown out by the Senate President while parts of it were withdrawn by the prosecution.

“In Article 7, it’s a matter of public record on the decision, on the deliberations that happened in the Supreme Court. It’s up to the Senate to consider the dissenting opinion of Justice (Maria Lourdes) Sereno. It’s a matter of public record. What was really uncovered was Article 2 and, as I’ve stated before, there is sufficient evidence in Article 2 to warrant a conviction,” Lacierda said.

But Article 7 was also strong, Lacierda said, as “we believe that the dissenting opinion” of Sereno was what really happened in deliberations of the Supreme Court.

Article 7 also sought to establish Corona’s partiality toward Arroyo.

“But that’s part of due process. We have to listen to the defense. Any plausible defense that they can come up with is part of the obligation of the senator-judges and part of the trial also to listen to the defense,” Lacierda said. “If they ( defense) fail to overcome the presumption of ill-gotten wealth then, obviously, the defense would have failed in that regard,” he said.

Lacierda said the administration has no Plan B in case the impeachment court acquits Corona and they would not want to talk about it at this point.

“The evidence, we believe, is strong. We have looked also at the possible defense that they may raise. What have they raised as a possible defense? The Basa- Guidote Enterprise (as source of Corona’s unreported accounts). Basa-guidote they earned what? P34 million. That’s still

short of the total amount properties and also the total peso deposits. What other defense they can raise?” Lacierda said.

Lacierda also refused to say how an acquittal could weaken Aquino.

“There was no people power thing. I don’t know where that came from in the first place. The President also says that he sees a conviction,” Lacierda said.

House bloc also wants CJ

Lawmakers who impeached Corona also backed the suggestion of Enrile to Corona to testify in his impeachment trial.

The House bloc comprising the 188 signatories to the impeachment complaint against Corona said that, “like most Filipinos monitoring the seven-week-old court proceeding, its members want to hear the Chief Justice rebut the charges against him, most especially the one pertaining to his fudged asset declarations and his dollar accounts at the branch of the Philippine Savings Bank along Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City.”

“It will certainly be more interesting if the Chief Justice himself, rather than his hotshot lawyers, answers our charges in Articles 2, 3 and 7 that weave the narrative of his lack of integrity, probity and independence – qualities required of the head of the judiciary – that warrant his immediate eviction from the Supreme Court,” Movement 188 said in a statement.

“We are most interested to hear him explain on the witness stand the gross discrepancy of P81 million between his real properties and bank deposits estimated at P104 million combined and the P22.93million worth of assets he declared in his 2010 SALN,” it said.

Movement 188 said that Corona’s personal appearance before the impeachment court would be “a splendid opportunity for him to make good his defense team’s promise that the Chief Justice himself would – to quote his lawyer Jose Roy III – provide details on his dollar accounts in ‘due course’.”

“His (Corona) presence before the impeachment court would enable him to personally explain the truth behind reports that on top of his treasure trove stashed in nine peso accounts at Psbank-katipunan, he also has $700,000 and $300,000 deposits in two of his five dollar accounts at this branch,” it said.

It noted that the prosecution has correctly reserved its right to continue its presentation on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint if and when the SC lifts the temporary restraining order (TRO) it had issued to stop the impeachment court from examining Corona’s five dollar accounts at Psbank.