Corona convicted

With 19 votes cast so far, 16 members of the Senate sitting as the impeachment court have convicted Chief Justice Renato Corona for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Philippine Constitution.

The following senators voted to convict Corona:

Edgardo Angara
Alan Peter Cayetano
Pia Cayetano
Franklin Drilon
Francis Escudero

Jinggoy Estrada

Teofisto Guingona III

Gregorio Honasan II

Panfilo Lacson

Lito Lapid

Loren Legarda
Sergio Osmeña III
Francis Pangilinan
Aqulino "Koko" Pimentel III
Ralph Recto
Ramon Bong Revilla Jr.

Meanwhile, the following lawmakers voted to acquit the chief justice:

Joker Arroyo

Miriam Defensor-Santiago
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

As of posting time, other senators have yet to cast their votes: Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Vicente Sotto III, Antonio Trillanes IV and Manuel Villar.

The verdict came at the end of a grueling five-month trial that captivated the nation, with

scenes of dramatic flare-ups and surprising revelations spicing up weekday television

viewing and Internet livestreaming for media watchers.

Corona’s conviction is likely to be seen as a triumph for President Benigno

Aquino III, who has never fully recognized his appointment as chief justice by then-

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo a few weeks before she stepped down in 2010.

Aquino’s allies at the lower house impeached Corona in December last year by virtue

of Section 3 (1), Article XI in the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the House of

Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. A

total of 188 legislators signed the articles of impeachment against Corona.

The case was immediately transmitted to the Senate, which has the sole power to try and

decide all cases of impeachment under Section 3 (6) of the Constitution. A two-thirds

vote from the Senate, in this case 16 out of its 23 members, is needed to convict any

impeachable official.

According to the charter, “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further

than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the

Philippines.”

Background on the senator-judges

The defense panel had earlier asked Drilon and Angara to inhibit from the trial, citing

bias and alleged conflict of interest, but both senators refused to heed the request.

Drilon, Pangilinan, Recto, and Guingona are members of the administration's Liberal

Party, which is headed by Aquino.

Osmeña and Escudero, although independent, are also known supporters of the

administration. On the other hand, Trillanes owes his freedom to the President for

granting him amnesty and obtained his freedom from years of detention.

The terms of Angara, Arroyo, Lacson, Pangilinan, and Villar are also expiring next year,

but they cannot seek reelection as they are already on their second terms.

Escudero, Legarda, Pimentel, Trillanes, Cayetano, and Honasan are expected to seek re-

election next year, when their terms expire.

(Click here to see the personalities involved in the impeachment trial)

The impeachment complaint

The House of Representatives impeached Corona last December 12 for alleged graft and

corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust.

The Articles of Impeachment were transmitted the following day to the Senate, which

convened as an impeachment court on December 14.

The impeachment trial began last January 16, when the Senate began hearing evidence on

the following Articles of Impeachment:

Article I: Partiality of Corona to Mrs. Arroyo in Supreme Court decisions

Article II: Non-disclosure of properties in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and

net worth or SALN

Article III: Lack of probity, integrity, and independence in the FASAP vs. PAL case

Article IV: Irregularities in the issuance of the status quo ante order on the impeachment

proceedings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez

Article V: Gerrymandering in the creation of 16 new cities and the declaration of Dinagat

Island as a province)

Article VI: Improper investigation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo’s plagiarism

case

Article VII: Irregularities in the issuance of a temporary restraining order for Mrs. Arroyo

during her attempt to leave the country last November

Article VIII: Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and

Special Allowance for the Judiciary

However, the prosecution team later decided to rest its case and drop Articles I, IV, V,

VI, and VIII.

According to the Senate impeachment rules, the senators shall vote on each of the

Articles of Impeachment. If the vote of two-thirds of all the members is sustained on any

of the articles, then the accused shall be convicted.

Corona’s properties: From 45 to 21 to five

Much of the trial revolved around Article II, which accuses Corona of failing to publicly

and properly disclose the extent of his assets in his SALN.

The prosecutors asked the Senate to subpoena members of the Corona family in

connection with 45 pieces of real estate in the cities of Makati, Parañaque, Marikina,

Taguig, and in Quezon City.

However, the prosecution team later denied claiming that Corona owned 45 properties,

saying the figure was merely based on a list provided by the Land Registration Authority.

In the formal offer of evidence, the prosecution accused Corona of owning 21 properties,

and said many of these are not declared in his SALN.

But the defense team and Corona maintained that he only owns five properties, and all

are declared in his SALN. His lawyers also presented witnesses to prove that the other 15

properties have been sold or are actually owned by other people.

The 'small lady' and Corona's bank accounts

The prosecution team also asked the Senate to subpoena documentary evidence in

connection with Corona's alleged undeclared dollar accounts.

They made the request after Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, one of the prosecutors,

claimed that a “small lady” handed over records from the Philippine Savings Bank

(PSBank) that supposedly showed Corona having $700,000 in deposits.

However, the manager of PSBank-Katipunan said the records were fake and did not

come from them. She also revealed that Quezon City Rep. Jorge Banal, a member of the

prosecution’s secretariat, had asked for her help in authenticating the same documents.

The controversy prompted PSBank to seek the help of the high court in preventing the

Senate from examining the dollar accounts, citing Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign

Currency Deposit Act. The SC issued a temporary restraining order that the Senate voted

to follow, putting a lid on Corona’s dollar records.

Ombudsman's testimony

When the trial resumed this month after the congressional recess, the issue on the dollar

accounts was revived when Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales asked the chief justice

to respond to complaints from civil society groups and explain how he managed to

accumulate millions of dollars despite his modest government salary.

Saying the move was part of a well-orchestrated plan to discredit Corona, defense

lawyers asked the Senate to summon Morales to the witness stand. The move appears

to have backfired, with Morales presenting a report from the Anti-Money Laundering

Council that showed at least $10 million in transactional balances in 82 dollar accounts of

Corona.

Last week, Corona branded the Ombudsman a liar when he finally took the witness stand,

but he did admit having four dollar accounts containing around $2.4 million. He said

the money came from dollar investments that grew over the years, and explained that he

did not declare the cash in his SALN because it is covered by the secrecy clause in the

Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

Corona also admitted that he has P80 million in three peso accounts, which he also did

not declare because they were commingled funds from his mother and his children.

Copies of Corona’s SALNs from 2003 to 2011 showed that he only declared between

P2.5 million to P3.5 million in cash assets.

(Click here for a summary of the evidence presented during the impeachment trial)

Drama in the courtroom

For most viewers, however, the trial will be remembered for its dramatic scenes. And no

doubt, many of them will feature Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, whose tirades often

livened up the boring proceedings.

There was Harvey Keh of the Kaya Natin! Movement, whom she admonished for

giving Enrile an envelope containing Corona's alleged bank records from unverified and

anonymous sources.

Santiago also had a run-in with Vitaliano Aguirre II, a former private prosecutor, who

covered his ears in full view of the public while the senator was speaking at the trial.

And then there was the side show involving the long-running conflict between Corona's

wife Cristina and her relatives on the Basa side. The family feud came to public attention

after the chief justice declared an P11-million loan from the Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc

in his SALN.

Last week, the Corona family was seen on live television reconciling with the Basa in a

tearful display of hugs and kisses.

But the most controversial scene in the trial was the surprising sight of Corona abruptly

rising from the witness stand and walking out of the Senate session hall without the

court's permission after delivering his three-hour testimony last week.

Corona’s lawyers attributed the hasty departure to a bout of hypoglycemia, and the chief

justice was brought to the Medical City after his appearance at the Senate.

Three days later, Corona returned and apologized to the Senate, and the defense team

rested its case.

Click here for a comprehensive timeline of the Corona trial.

source: gmanetwork.com