Senate won’t subpoena PCIJ execs to testify in Corona trial
The Senate impeachment court is not inclined to grant a request from lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona for the issuance of subpoena for executives of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ).
“I will not act on it,” Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Enrile said yesterday, referring to the request.
The defense panel wanted PCIJ executive Malou Mangahas and other staff members to testify on alleged incomplete or erroneous entries in the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of some officials in the Aquino administration.
“I don’t know what they want. Why do we have to subpoena PCIJ? What does it have to do with the impeachment?” Enrile asked.
But Enrile said the impeachment court will be happy to hear from Mangahas in case she offers to testify.
The PCIJ recently ran articles about the SALNS of other government officials at about the same time Corona’s lawyers were defending his erroneous entries in his SALN.
“But those people are not under impeachment. If I have violated the law or the Constitution then I’m open to be charged. But my case has nothing to do with the case pending in the Senate,” Enrile said.
“So what if we have the same thing? Then that means we all violated the Constitution? Now, let the Justice department file cases against all of us, then we have to defend ourselves,” he said.
The prosecution panel, meanwhile, argued that the number of properties Corona owns is not material to the impeachment charges against him.
“Whether they are 45, as we initially thought and before it went down to 21, or just five, which is the number admitted by the Chief Justice, is immaterial,” prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said.
“What is material and relevant is his nondisclosure and concealment of his assets. It takes only one undeclared property like a condo unit for us to establish betrayal of public trust, an impeachable offense. Meaning, one form of falsity is enough to convict him,” he said.
He said the prosecution has clearly shown that Corona did not declare at least three condominium units in Global City, Taguig and Makati in his SALN for the years during which they were acquired.
“He also did not declare P31 million in bank deposits, aside from an undetermined amount of dollars in five accounts with Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank),” he stressed.
On Tuesday and yesterday, Corona’s lawyers tried to disprove the initial prosecution claim that their client and his family owned a total of 45 properties in Taguig, Makati, Marikina, Quezon City, and Parañaque.
Prosecutors said they have shown proof that the Coronas are the owners of 21 properties.
Defense lawyers said they would prove that the Chief Justice only has five real estate assets, as he declared in his 2010 SALN.
These included a condo unit at The Columns on Ayala Avenue in Makati, which is an Ayala Land project. The unit was acquired in late 2004 for P3.6 million.
The defense tried to justify why Corona reported the Ayala Avenue penthouse unit only in his 2010 SALN by introducing a witness who testified that the Coronas fully paid for their condo in October 2004, but they had complaints about it and accepted it only on Aug. 12, 2009.
The prosecution and several senator-judges, including Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who is presiding over Corona’s trial, said the Chief Justice should have declared the Ayala condo beginning in 2004.
Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, another prosecution spokesman, said Corona failed to disclose two more condo units in his SALN for the years during which they were acquired.
“They bought a unit at Bonifacio Ridge in Global City, Taguig in 2005 for more than P9 million and a 303-square meter penthouse in Bellagio Tower One also in Global City in 2009 for P14.5 million, but these were declared only in the 2010 SALN,” he said.
“The Chief Justice did not disclose his condos, and when he finally reported them, he undervalued them because he could not justify his acquisition with his salary and his allowances,” he said.
Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada described the Coronas’ three Global City and Makati condo units as “magical properties.”
“They were acquired years earlier but they magically appeared in CJ Corona’s SALN only in 2010. These, together with his undeclared peso and dollar bank deposits, are the ones at issue in his trial, not the 45 properties that have been linked to him and his family by the Land Registration Authority (LRA),” he said.
He said there was no deception on the part of the prosecution when it attached the LRA listing to its request for subpoena since the list “was a public document and regularity was presumed on the part of those who made it, they being public officers.”
He said Corona “continues to hide his dollar deposits despite his promises to open them up for scrutiny by the prosecution and the impeachment court.”
“But even if he turns his back on his word, it is clear that he owns an undetermined amount of dollars in five accounts with PSBank as testified to by bank president Pascual Garcia III,” he added.
Not impeachable
At the House of Representatives, minority lawmakers said omissions in Corona’s SALN do not justify his impeachment.
“The law is perfectly clear on this: A public official may use his own discretion in reporting his assets under a choice of different methods - among them the assessed valuation for tax purposes, the fair market value, and the acquisition cost,” the opposition lawmakers said in a joint statement. The group also scored the way the Aquino administration “takes liberties with the truth.”
The lawmakers noted that no less than Civil Service Commission chairman Francisco Duque has stated that disclosure of acquisition cost is not required under the current SALN format.
“So how can the prosecution ask us to believe that such nondisclosure by the Chief Justice rises to the level of ‘treason and other high crimes’?” the minority bloc said.
“To add insult to injury, our colleagues from the House majority who sit on the prosecution panel now want the Chief Justice to step down even if he is acquitted, on the laughable grounds that he is already ‘ damaged goods.’ To our minds, this is just like a rape victim being told by her attacker that she should forget about getting mar- ried anymore because she’s already ‘damaged goods’,” it said.