New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



View Poll Results: Senate's verdict on CJ

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Guilty!

    58 84.06%
  • Not Guilty

    9 13.04%
  • i couldn't care less

    2 2.90%
Page 345 of 421 FirstFirst ... 245295335341342343344345346347348349355395 ... LastLast
Results 3,441 to 3,450 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,270
    #3441
    a good commentary...

    from: The mystery of the Friday hearing

    The mystery of the Friday hearing

    By: Raul C. Pangalangan
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:03 pm | Saturday, May 26th, 2012

    (Editor’s Note: This is a weekly review of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. It aims to help the public appreciate the legal issues and enable them to be engaged more meaningfully in this historic process.)
    The mystery of the Friday hearing was why both parties were no longer interested to look at the bank accounts. But what is really perplexing is why the Senate itself could very well have opened the accounts—but balked. Either the senator-judges had already made up their minds, and there was no point prolonging the agony. Or the senator-judges knew that, in the final reckoning, it is not questions of fact that will decide this case but questions of law, morals or public policy.

    The prosecution says that its evidence is already complete. After all, Chief Justice Renato Corona himself has already confessed to the facts: he admitted that he held $2.4 million in four dollar accounts and P80 million in peso accounts. He admitted that he did not disclose the dollar accounts in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). For the prosecution, that makes an open-and-shut case. The law is clear, the facts indubitable. No guesswork needed. All we need is the straightforward application of the letter of the law.
    The defense says that the prosecution hasn’t proved anything. The wealth can be explained. The dollar accounts are from Corona’s savings from way back, while the peso accounts are commingled savings of several members of his family. He didn’t declare the dollar accounts in his SALN because the law provides that foreign currency deposits are “absolutely confidential.” He didn’t declare the funds earmarked for the Basa-Guidote heirs because they weren’t his.

    Defense has big problems

    There are big problems with the defense’s case. First, all the explanations that the assets had been legitimately acquired are irrelevant. The prosecution actually failed to charge the Chief Justice for ill-gotten wealth (for which they have been faulted) and indeed the Senate barred all evidence on that point. The only issue before the Senate is the nondisclosure in the SALN.
    Second, the defense is plain wrong when it argues that the SALN requirement itself allows exceptions “in accordance with law,” in this case, the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. There is simply no such exception. The SALN reporting obligation covers all assets, peso and dollar alike. The proffered distinction is totally contrived.

    Worse, to exempt dollar deposits from the SALN will defeat the law’s purpose altogether, and tear a giant hole in the net meant to catch grafters.

    The only way the defense can pull it off is for them to plead that the omissions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Perhaps that is why they took pains to show how the wealth was legitimately gotten. The defense can argue that nondisclosure is not mala in se (wrong in itself) but merely malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited). (For show biz buffs, this was Ellie’s first recitation answer in the movie, “Legally Blonde.”) The evil sought to be avoided is graft, while the SALN is merely one mode of enforcement. The root evil was never the subject of the proceedings, and mere mala prohibita cannot amount to an impeachable offense.

    On the other hand, the prosecution can argue that precisely, if it’s malum prohibitum, it doesn’t require intent. The omission is criminal in itself without having to show intent to conceal.

    Evidentiary problem

    On the other hand, if the prosecution insists on applying the law mechanically, they face equally mechanical evidentiary issues. The undeclared wealth is right now proved with the testimonies of two people: the Ombudsman ($12 million in 82 accounts) and the Chief Justice himself ($2.4 million in four accounts and P80 million in peso accounts). The prosecution itself has said that Corona’s statement is legally worthless and didn’t even bother to cross-examine. They are then left with the Ombudsman’s accounting but it’s too bad they chose not to open the actual bank statements.

    Senate reluctance

    The Senate itself wasn’t interested in hearing more facts. First, it refused Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s plea to subpoena the bank managers. Next, even after Chief Justice made his waiver absolute, the Senate President declared the Senate “not a producer of evidence, but only a hearer of facts” and would “merely take note of the waiver [but not] act on it.”

    That is correct but it wasn’t always his position. Recall that the Senate subpoenaed witnesses on its own before, when they were incensed at confidential bank documents being leaked to the Senate, and they summoned several witnesses sua sponte (on their own accord). Even defense counsel Serafin Cuevas wondered, “Whose witness is this?” The rules assume that a witness has to be offered by a party (exactly what Enrile now says), but earlier everyone was saying that the impeachment was sui generis anyway.

    Monday’s oral arguments

    The purpose of Monday’s oral argument is to help the judges make up their minds by weaving together the facts with the legal arguments. The past 42 hearing days were evidentiary; it played the detective’s whodunit game. Monday’s hearing is a different ball game. In it, the parties marshal their facts and frame their theory of the case.

    And then the senators vote. Each article of impeachment will be voted on separately. Each senator will be called individually to state his vote and may explain briefly.

    The oral argument is superfluous if the judges have already decided, or will not decide on the basis of the merits of the case anyway. But it can be decisive if the senator-judges realize that sound reasoning is necessary to make their verdict just.
    Last edited by explorer; May 27th, 2012 at 03:34 PM.

  2. Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,438
    #3442
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow

    If he were to be impeached he is bar from holding any govt position forever.

    Then ombudsman can file criminal case against him after the impeachment.
    impeachment is quick bec there is public pressure. Kung regular trial criminal case, that's his territory bec he is the supreme court. anong ilalaban ng Morales dyan once the Senate is out. Mga de-kalidad na abugado kaya hawak niya and of course those in the judiciary who sympathize with him. and like any other hi-profile trial, maybe it'll take 20 years. By that he has spent all the money na naitago Nya over 160M and the generation of that time don't care anymore, tayo ba do we care sa mga kaso nun 90s.

  3. Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,438
    #3443
    Quote Originally Posted by explorer
    a good commentary...

    from: The mystery of the Friday hearing
    only made all of that blameable. why are dollar accounts protected by secrecy laws. Who ratified the laws - the senate.

    if the senate decides on public policy then their role as lawmakers are useless.


    and what about commingled accounts? Is it illegal for public official to do such? eh isa-isahin mo ang senators, and lawyers and even Pnoy's govt, I think they all engage in such. Kung ako nga ka-joint account ko parents ko eh, it's the simplest application of that commingled Term.

    it's Catch22. it's just a reflection of what the senate is, they had too much time making laws and when nagkasubukan, the laws will just be pitted against each other.

    it only showed na dapat maging parliamentary na Lang tayo eh.

  4. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21,346
    #3444
    sabi ni atty. bayani agbayani, confident daw sila na ma-cquit si cj.
    atty. manikis must be very happy to hear this.......

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    10,808
    #3445
    Quote Originally Posted by pop3corn View Post
    only made all of that blameable. why are dollar accounts protected by secrecy laws. Who ratified the laws - the senate.

    if the senate decides on public policy then their role as lawmakers are useless.

    panahon pa ni Ferdinand Marcos yung law, passed in the 1970's martial law Batasan Pambansa rubber stamp parliament. huwag mo sisihin yung gobyerno ngayon.

  6. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,270
    #3446
    Quote Originally Posted by yebo View Post
    panahon pa ni Ferdinand Marcos yung law, passed in the 1970's martial law Batasan Pambansa rubber stamp parliament. huwag mo sisihin yung gobyerno ngayon.
    and actually there was no upper chamber (called the senate) of the parliament during martial law...the batasang pambansa was a uni-chamber rubber stamp parliament even the supreme court at that time existed to please marcos and his tuta.

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21,346
    #3447
    What do you think would be the Senate's verdict on Corona's impeachment trial?
    Cast your vote now......

  8. Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    21,656
    #3448
    Brader, walang poll....
    Pero para sa'kin, guilty siya. Masyadong madaming butas yung mga pinagsasasabi niya. And kung hindi talaga siya guilty, bakit kelangan pa nung madramang acting na ginawa niya.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #3449
    kung ma acquit man si cheap justice haharap siya sa panibagong impeachment complaint sa darating na desymbre.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #3450
    Sir gh, paki edit at lagyan ng poll.

Impeachment against CJ Corona..