Impeachment against CJ Corona..

[niky]

Unfortunately for Mirian, there is already a precedent in which people choosing "favorable interpretations" to get out of registering assets to the SALN got removed from office. So there is a precedent.

[Gerbo]

Unfortunately for Mirian, there is already a precedent in which people choosing "favorable interpretations" to get out of registering assets to the SALN got removed from office. So there is a precedent.

Yes. The court interpreter, the BIR official, etc.

The point is... if you do not want your finances to get scrutinized, do not join government.

FDCL vs SALN Law. Ano mas matimbang. IMO, once you are a public official you're bound to show all your financial dealings.

Remove him from office. Walang moral ascendancy na. If CJ won, then its high heavens for corrupt public officials.

[ecneret]

^

malamang... pero sana guilty!

[LeBRONghini6]

And I think the powerpoint presented by Farinas sealed the deal for the Prosec.

[Altis6453]

I voted guilty but read what brenda has to say:

SENATOR MIRIAM: "Not reporting those deposits in his SALN is NOT an impeachable offense...."

“An impeachable offense means that there has been such grave violation of the Constitution that the public official should not stay one minute longer in his post since he would have been proved to be a liar, a thief, or a fraud. In the present case, there are genuine issues of law involved. Since there are pending issues there is no behavioral ethic to guide the public officer. It’s the duty of Congress to amend either the SALN law or the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. So these doubts could be raised, but the ambiguity of the law should not be held against any person affected by it. It’s only natural that a person will choose an interpretation most favorable to him.”

Besides, in determining if an official who omitted some items in the SALN committed an impeachable offense, “motive and intent are crucial,” Santiago said.

“If there was no motive, no intent and no crime has been committed, and no impeachable crime has been committed, so you wait for the prosecution to disprove all these legal presumptions,” she said.

For someone who styles herself as an expert in Constitutional Law, Brenda has a weird and twisted view of what constitutes an impeachable offense. There's absolutely no way you can justify non-disclosure in the SALN because the Constitution itself mandates that all public officers should disclose their assets, liabilities and net worth. Ambiguity? The only ambiguity here is why these public officials are insisting on absolute confidentiality when they know full well that joining government would require their ownership of property open to scrutiny.

[Retz]

kung ma acquit man si cheap justice haharap siya sa panibagong impeachment complaint sa darating na desymbre.

[Retz]

nabalitaan niyo na ung $3.25M alleged CJ withdrawal last december 2011?

[chua_riwap]

*******dp********

[chua_riwap]

i don't know if i got it right.

totoo ba, na pwede pang i-appeal sa SC yung senate verdict kung hindi favorable kay CJ yung hatol?

WTF!

[explorer]

nabalitaan niyo na ung $3.25M alleged CJ withdrawal last december 2011?

eto yung story....

from: CJ withdrew $3.25 M last December

CJ withdrew $3.25 M last December: report

by Iris Gonzales, The Philippine Star
Posted at 05/27/2012 11:54 AM | Updated as of 05/27/2012 11:58 AM


MANILA, Philippines - The prosecution panel is expected to stress tomorrow that Chief Justice Renato Corona withdrew at least $3.25 million deposits from Dec. 12, 2011, the day he was impeached, to Dec. 22, 2011, contrary to what he claimed on Friday that he held only $2.4 million deposits.

The withdrawal records form part of the 17-page report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on Corona’s peso and dollar accounts which Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales earlier presented to the impeachment court.

Corona’s dollar withdrawal records from Dec. 12 to Dec. 22, 2011 are as follows: $135,359 on Dec. 12 from PSBank-Katipunan; $418,193 on Dec. 12 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands-San Francisco del Monte; $401,658 million on Dec. 13 from Allied Bank-Kamias; $769,681 on Dec. 15 from PSBank-Katipunan; $487,998 on Dec. 19 from Allied Bank-Kamias; $687,433 on Dec. 19 from BPI Investment Management Inc.; and $350,000 on Dec. 22 from PSBank.

Documents also showed that the $487,998 he withdrew on Dec. 19 was either in the form of a manager’s check or telegraphic transfer, while the $350,000, which he withdrew on Dec. 22 was transmitted to an account outside the country.

An analysis of the 17-page AMLC report being prepared by the prosecution team during the weekend, which was presented to The STAR, also showed that Corona’s dollars started growing only in 2004, contrary to the chief magistrate’s claims that he had been accumulating dollars for the past 35 years.

The prosecution team’s analysis, conducted with the help of auditors tapped by the panel, showed that the excess of Corona’s dollar deposits over withdrawals – or the amount of dollars he held at the end of each year – amounted to only $60,105 in 2004 but climbed to $859,369 in 2005 and to $1.110 million in 2006.

From 2007 to 2011, the excess of fund inflows over outflows at the end of each year continued to increase.

Corona had $1.4 million at the end of 2007; $1.8 in 2008; $2.998 million in 2009; $2.662 million in 2010 and $1.043 million in 2011.

This would total to $11.9 million, the documents also showed.

The number could even be higher because the AMLA only has access to transactions in excess of $10,000.

During his testimony at the impeachment court on Friday, Corona called Morales’ testimony as a “web of lies” and strongly denied the Ombudsman’s claim that he held $10 million to $12 million in dollar deposits.

“It was more or less $2.4 million. That’s what we bought over the years,” Corona said, responding to a question by Senate Minority Leader Alan Cayetano.

During his testimony, Corona also said he started investing in foreign exchange in the 1960s when the exchange rate was P2 to $1.

However, according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the peso-dollar exchange rate hovered at around P3.90 to the dollar from 1963 to 1969 and not P2 to $1.

“The peso-dollar exchange rate hovered tightly at around P3.90 from 1963 to 1969 before devaluing to an average of P6.02 to the dollar in the 1970s,” according to data from the BSP, casting doubt on Corona’s claims on the build-up of the value of his dollar accounts.

Good faith won’t get CJ acquitted

As this developed, the prosecution said Corona’s claim of good faith in not declaring millions of bank deposits in his asset statements would not get him acquitted.

“CJ Corona’s defense is good faith, but we have shown that there was no good faith as there was concealment of enormous amount of wealth,” lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of Iloilo said.

He said the Constitution, which requires public officers to declare all their wealth in their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), should prevail over a law on foreign currency deposits, Republic Act 6426.

Corona justified his nondisclosure of his dollar deposits allegedly amounting to $2.4 million (more than P100 million) by claiming that RA 6426 exempts public officials and employees from reporting their foreign currency savings in their SALN.

Prosecution spokesman Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara of Aurora said the Chief Justice “admitted his offense” by confessing before the impeachment court that he has $2.4 million and P80 million in the bank and that he did not declare such deposits in his SALN.

“His admissions strengthened the prosecution’s case by filling out the details of what he failed to disclose in his SALN,” he said.

He said the impeachment court and the public would not buy Corona’s “alibi” that the law exempts public officers from disclosing their dollar deposits.

“Does he think the public is that gullible? He is the chief justice, he must be the best person to know the law,” he stressed.

He pointed out that aside from the 1987 Constitution, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard for Public Officials and Employees, a “later law” than the Marcos-era statute on foreign currency deposits, also requires government personnel to declare all their wealth.

Angara also said Corona’s defense of good faith is difficult to believe, recalling that early in the trial, the prosecution has shown a “pattern of concealment” of assets on the part of the Chief Justice.

“He was five years to six years late in including condominium units in Makati and Taguig in his SALN. For instance, he declared his Ayala Avenue, Makati condo only in his 2010 SALN, although this was fully paid for in November 2004,” he said.

Corona’s defense lawyers justified the “belated” disclosure by presenting witnesses who testified that Cristina Corona had complaints about the condominium units that took years to resolve.

Alibis

The Chief Justice also did not tell the impeachment court why he was late in reporting at least four condominium units.

Chief prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said Corona’s explanations on his nondisclosure of his bank deposits were “hard to believe and quite absurd.”

“How can he justify $2.4 million and P80 million in his name and only declare P3.5 million? He was holding P76.5 million for his children and family? That’s absurd,” Quimbo pointed out.

Another prosecution lawyer, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, said Corona sealed his fate with his admission that he did not declare his dollar and peso deposits in his SALN.

He said the Chief Justice tried to salvage the situation by presenting an unconditional waiver on the secrecy of his bank accounts.

He said the provision of the law on foreign currency deposits prohibiting the disclosure of such assets is addressed to the bank, not the depositor.

RA versus Constitution

Meanwhile, Malacañang said it would await the decision of the Senate on the impeachment case before moving to amend or not the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (FCDA) since many lawyers were of the opinion that it did not have any conflict with the Constitution.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Corona finally admitted what the impeachment court had wanted to find out by disclosing he owned $2.4 million in dollar deposits and P80 million in peso deposits acquired over many years.

He said while the Chief Justice used RA 6426 as justification to withhold information about his dollar accounts, he claimed his peso deposits were co-mingled and thus these need not be declared.

Lacierda said Corona reported in his 2010 SALN only P3.5 million in cash.

“The issues have been joined. Mr. Corona has become the best witness for the prosecution. He has proven, by his demeanor and his very own statements, the validity of the charges against him, and provided evidence more than sufficient to determine his fate,” he said.

Lacierda said that Corona, by his testimony, has proposed that a 1974 law is supreme over the requirements of the 1987 Constitution.

“He has made his legal legacy a ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for all officials who are plunderers and crooks. They will merely have to park their ill-gotten funds in foreign currency accounts to immunize themselves from the effects of our anti-graft laws,” he said.

Palace deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte said it would be best to wait for the result of the impeachment proceedings since many lawyers were of the opinion that Corona was wrong in assuming that a law could prevail over the Constitution in not declaring dollar accounts.

She said the principle of hierarchy of laws was clear even to first year law students.

She said the public must remember that FCDA was directed to the banks and not to depositors.

“The exception given was permission from the depositors. So obviously, it does not bar the depositor from talking about his own deposits. Because the exception is explicit – it empowers the depositor to sign a waiver to talk about his own deposits – so that law is not directed to the depositor himself but to the banks that handle and take care of the deposits,” she said.

Valte added there would only be different interpretations of the law if it was vague, but not “when it is as clear as the sunshine.”

“There is no need for interpretation. That is also a basic rule in the subject that we have called statutory construction,” she said.

The historic impeachment trial is now nearing its homestretch and is expected to resume on Monday with closing arguments to be presented by the prosecution and the defense panels.

The senator-judges are expected to vote either on Monday or Tuesday.

[Retz]

^

most likely yan gagawin ng defense team.

[explorer]

diabetic nga ba talaga si corona?

[chua_riwap]

^ ha-ha! when was that? panay ang kuha ng dessert ah.........

[hein]

What a #*$% LIAR, this Corona .

[explorer]

talagang sobrang liar 'tong thief justice na 'to....

from: Investing in dollars in the 60's? Not allowed, says expertt

MANILA, Philippines - There are two issues in Chief Justice Renato Corona's claim that he acquired dollar-denominated investments in the 1960's: he was a student then and the "black market" for dollars was not allowed under the monetary policy environment at the time.

When Corona took the witness stand at his impeachment trial for the second time on Friday, May 25, he reiterated his explanation last May 22 that he and his wife started investing in dollar accounts decades ago, enjoying windfalls when the peso grew weaker against the greenback.

Corona was explaining to the senator-judges that he parked a major portion of his wealth in investments that could be easily converted into cash -- P80 million in peso accounts and $2.4 million in dollar accounts -- largely due to his and his loved one's health-related issues.

In particular, he stressed that he chose to park most of his liquid assets in dollar-denominated investments -- not because these are covered by banking secrecy laws, as alleged by the prosecution lawyers -- but because he had long acquired and profited from them.

His account of when he exactly acquired these dollar assets, now worth multi-million, came in trickles. On May 22 and 25, he reiterated that he started investing in dollars in the 1960's. On his second day at the witness stand, he expounded that he merely traded with his friends the dollars, then a restricted currency, that were not returned to the central bank.

How he could set aside funds big enough to grow to a multi-million portfolio also remains unanswered since, based on the Supreme Court website, he was still a college student then.

Student in 1960s



Corona told the impeachment court on May 22 that he and his wife began investing their savings in foreign-denominated accounts in the 1968, when the peso-dollar exchange was at P2 peso for every $1. (Current ratio is around P43 to $1.)



"I was earning well that time, especially when I became a lawyer. We converted all our savings into US dollars," he narrated.

Corona finished college in 1970, which means he was still a student in the 1960s. After graduating, he held a full-time job in the office of the Executive Secretary in Malacañang while taking up evening classes at the Ateneo Law, according to the Supreme Court web site.

He has likewise said that he even had to take a student loan to be able to go to Harvard for his masters.

"Our decision to invest in dollars paid off since the exchange rate has since increased almost 7 times," he said in the vernacular. He cited how the peso-dollar exchange rate shot up to 6:1 after the 1969 presidential elections, when the peso currency devalued.

'Black market'

On May 25, the second time Corona took the witness stand, Sen. Frank Drilon pressed further how and when he started depositing his dollars in bank accounts.

Corona replied, "around 1972 or '73," then cited the restrictions in opening of bank accounts for dollar funds before a Monetary Board Circular 343 allowed it, and before the Foreign Currency Deposit Act was passed not long after.

The chief justice's succeeding accounts gave a hint that he was engaged in black market activities of the restricted currency.

"At the time, the businessmen...those who were earning dollars from their businesses have to surrender their dollars. But the ordinary people...[those] who travelled abroad didn't surrender excess dollars anymore. So if someone needed dollars, [we said] 'Do you want to buy, here buy ours'," Corona narrated in Filipino.

In the 1960s, free trade of the dollar currency was restricted by the central bank. He and his friends were supposed to surrender their excess foreign currencies upon their return to the country to the central bank, which was strict in limiting dollars held by citizens.

From 1949 to 1970, the central bank controlled the dollars held by Filipinos since the government wanted "to promote exports industries" and "limit imports," according to a paper from the central bank explaining the evolution of monetary policy in the country.

The existence of parallel or "black markets," particularly for US dollars, hurt this policy since it distorts the true picture of foreign exchange demand, supply, and price.

"The development of excess demand for foreign currency at the official rate gives an incentive to those who have an excess supply of foreign currency to sell it illegally at a price higher than the official rate," noted a paper on black markets in developing countries.

Regulated buying of dollars

The monetary policy environment in the 1960's restricted the free buying and selling of dollars since the country was under a "legislated rate" regime, explained lawyer Reynaldo Geronimo who has helped craft banking and investment laws.

There was an absence then of a gold standard, which dictated the supply, demand, as well as the value of the currencies in the country, Geronimo said.

At the time, most central banks could only sell dollars to its citizens based on the value of the physical gold that they had in their vaults. Thus, the Philippine central bank, in an effort to control inflation, had a tight grip on the supply, demand, as well as the price, of gold and dollars.

Part of these efforts was to legislate or peg the value of the peso against the dollar at 2:1.

"During those days, you cannot buy dollars just because you want to. There has to be a special reason, such as businessmen going for a trip abroad. You need allowance but you need to prove it. If you are studying abroad, you have to present admission documents, tuition fees, etcetera," Geronimo explained.

The fixed exchange rate regime involved "an extensive use of a myriad of administrative rules that were set to restrict access of Philippine residents and corporations to foreign currency," the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas further explained in its paper.

In 1974, however, the tight lid on the exchange rate was relaxed as part of efforts to attract foreign investors and kick-start growth of the fledging economy.

By passing the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (FCDA), there was a "legal stature" to a previous circular issued by the Central Bank's policy making body that had temporarily transformed the peso-dollar exchange rate regime from a fixed to a floating or market-driven one.

Secrecy of dollar deposits

Given the foreign investment-driven nature of the FCDA, the lawmakers then added the now-contentious secrecy provision.

Corona had cited the FCDA's secrecy provision for not including the balances of his dollar accounts -- which now stands at $2.4 million, according to him when he testified on May 25 -- in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN).

A key complaint for impeaching him is his failure to disclose his true wealth in his SALNs.

Geronimo reiterated that the FCDA was meant to attract foreign investors, and not to be an investment tool for citizens.

"Foreigners then were given this assurance of absolute secrecy since we were encouraging them to bring their money and park their dollars here. The FCDA [was passed] not to protect public officials who want to hide their money in dollar accounts," explained Geronimo who has helped in crafting several banking and investment laws.

However, it was not until decades later that the BSP eased all other restrictions in foreign exchange-related activities.

The BSP paper further explained that "Even after the floating rate system was adopted in 1970, it was not until late 1984 that the central bank stopped announcing a guiding rate and imposing a trading band…It was a decade hence yet before the watershed set of reforms was issued. In 1993, the BSP liberalized capital flows and implemented a comprehensive set of foreign exchange market reforms."

On May 25, after over 4 months into his impeachment trial, Corona signed a waiver allowing access to his bank accounts, including his dollar-denominated ones.

He reiterated that he only has $2.4 million in his 4 dollar accounts -- not $10 million in 82 accounts, as Ombudsman Conchita Morales earlier told the senator-judges.

How much he has in his bank accounts, however, is just a part of the main question: Should these have been disclosed in his SALNs?

[niky]

IMO, kung batas at batas lang ang pagbabasehan, malaki tsansa na ma-acquit.

While impeachment is a political process, the requirement for disclosure is a legal one. Based on the evidence, and the Chief Justice's own testimony, he is definitely guilty of non-disclosure, which has, as mentioned in other posts, resulted in the removal from office of other government employees.

Even if, by some miraculous chance, he escapes conviction, the evidence uncovered here can lay the groundwork for another impeachment complaint. Remember, they didn't charge him with graft... A perusal of the dollar accounts and cash flows compared to SC rulings can lay the groundwork for that... especially since the CJ has signed an unconditional waiver.

-

The big problem for the defense is that part of the evidence for the dollar deposits came straight from the horses mouth and their own witness from the Ombudsman. They could get some of the prosecution's evidence stricken in appeal to the SC, but not their own...



Shows a big misunderstanding of diabetes. Corona, from the drama in the courtroom last Tuesday, is on insulin.

When you're an insulin user, you can eat normal food, even desserts, because insulin helps in the digestion and regulation of sugars.

Other diabetics, like me, who are not insulin-dependent (yet), can't eat as many sweets.

[compact]

Wala daw silang housemaid... sino kaya naglalaba, plantsa, luto sa kanila? Si Mrs. Corona? tapos si CJ ang nag paplantsa..

Wala daw silang aircon sa bahay? Electric fan lang meron sila?

Believe it or not?

[Retz]

^

mag resign na lang sana siya.

[explorer]

eto isa pang kasinungalingan ni thief jusctice....

[Retz]

‘Conscience call’

Sen. Gregorio Honasan II, Drilon, Pangilinan and Pimentel held a different view.

Honasan said in a phone interview that Corona’s explanation was only his “legal, rational explanation.”
“Is this trial, political as it is, just all about legality and rationality?” Honasan said. “It’s about credibility. It’s about moral fitness. It’s about many other things.”

Honasan said: “He’s the highest magistrate of the highest court of the land. Do we impose higher standards on him, or do we not? He’s supposed to be the exemplar. His position should be morally, legally, ethically unassailable.”
In the end, Honasan said, he would make a “conscience call” on what is good for the country.

Higher standards

Drilon said: “An employee of the Supreme Court was dismissed for not including his [market] stall in his SALN, and we apply higher standards on the Chief Justice.”

Pangilinan cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that upheld the conviction of a former mayor for several counts of falsification of public records “for failing to disclose in his SALN for nine years that a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity was employed in the government.”

Pimentel said nondisclosure was impeachable “if the judge is convinced that the nondisclosure was meant to hide assets from the eyes of the public.”

But Pangilinan said he would study if the foreign currency deposits law was applicable to Corona’s case, and see if the law could be “harmonized” with the SALN law to achieve their respective purposes.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said in a phone interview that he found Corona “credible,” but the Chief Justice’s claim of confidentiality was “debatable.”

“If you have pesos, and you convert them into dollars, does that mean you would no longer declare them? That’s debatable,” he said.

Source: Corona