The Vote of the Senate President

7/28/2019 The Vote of the Senate President

1/7

The vote of the Senate PresidentHON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

On Article II of the Articles of Impeachment against Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona

In the entire course of this impeachment trial, I have faced many difficult challenges to

my own and the Court's collective wisdom, our sense of justice and fairness, the delicatebalancing act we must perform to ensure that we do not stray from the strictures of theConstitution, the law and our rules.

This trial began and unfolded against the backdrop of a highly charged and emotionalatmosphere, acrimonious debate in and outside the confines of this Court, and a deeppolitical fissure which threatened the stability of our democratic institutions.

But the impact of the many events that transpired since December 12 last year to thisvery day, taken altogether, cannot compare to the sense of heaviness that I feel at this

very moment.

The culmination of this national drama is at hand, and the time has come for me torender judgment on the person before whom I took my Oath of Office as a Senator ofthe Republic...no less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona.

The Respondent Chief Justice and his family understandably feel deeply hurt, painedand aggrieved.

As a lawyer, I must confess that I was personally frustrated by the loose and hastycrafting and preparation that characterized the presentation of the charges contained in

the Articles of Impeachment. It seemed that the case was being built up only after thecharges were actually filed. The repeated recourse to this Court's compulsory processesto obtain evidence which normally should have formed the factual basis of the chargesin the first place further burdened and, at times, taxed the patience of this Court.

We have witnessed with disdain the indiscriminate, deliberate and illegal machinationsof some parties who have been less than forthright with this Court in presentingdubiously procured and misleading documents which were spread to the mediaobviously to influence this Court's and the public's opinion.

The letter of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority which contained, asan attachment, a list of 45 properties supposedly owned by the Respondent ChiefJustice, was fed to the media even before we could begin the actual trial of this case.

Even before the Hon. Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio Morales, was called to testifybefore this Court, her letter to the Chief Justice requiring him to explain in 72 hours analleged aggregate amount of US$10M in several dollar accounts was leaked to themedia right before the resumption of this trial last May 7.


2/7

We have sternly cautioned against unethical and unprofessional conduct, the penchantto engage in trial by publicity, to use the media to disseminate and advance so called"information" or "evidence", to provoke and disrespect this Court and its members, andto irresponsibly hurl disparaging insinuations and accusations.

We have tried to impress upon everyone who may be similarly motivated and inclinedto test our will that this Court means serious business and would not succumb to norallow such underhanded tactics and gimmickry to deter us from our task.

Prudence and justice dictate that in determining the guilt or innocence of the ChiefJustice, we must try our best to confine ourselves to the pieces of testimonial anddocumentary evidence that have been presented to this Court, to pass upon theirrelevance, and to measure and weigh their value in the light of the charges before us.

After all the accusations levelled against the Chief Justice - eight (8) charges in all

comprising the Articles of Impeachment - the Prosecution chose to present evidenceonly on three Articles (Articles II, III and VII), and abruptly rested its case.

I have always believed that of these three, the case for the Prosecution and the Defensewill rise or fall on Article II, which is the subject of this vote.

This Court, at one point, had extensive discussions and differences of opinion, to besure, regarding the charge contained in Paragraph 2.4 of Article II that the Chief Justicewas "suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assetsof high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits".

We ruled to disallow the introduction of evidence in support of Par. 2.4 which, to thisday, I strongly maintain was an invalid charge, it being based on mere "suspicion", onso-called "reports", rather than on factual allegations.

The Defense and the Chief Justice himself somehow revived this issue of the nature ofhis assets by introducing evidence to prove that his income and assets were legitimate,and by testimony to show how he and his wife had saved and invested these savings inforeign currency over so many decades.

I wish to reiterate, for the record, that the Chief Justice does not stand accused of having

amassed any ill-gotten wealth before this Impeachment Court.

Paragraph 2.2 of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment accuses the Respondent ChiefJustice of failing to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worthas required by the Constitution.

I submit that the Chief Justice had justifiable and legal grounds to rely on the SupremeCourt's procedural and policy guidelines governing such disclosures as embodied in a


3/7

Resolution promulgated way back in 1989 when the Respondent was not yet a Memberof the Supreme Court.

Under the said guidelines, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, who is therepository of the SALN's submitted by all the Members of the Supreme Court, may

furnish copies of the SALN's in his or her custody to any person upon request, andupon showing that there is a legitimate reason for the same.

The Constitution, in Article XI, Sec. 17, states that "in the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions andother constitutional offices, and offices of the armed forces with general or flag rank, thedeclaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law".

R.A. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials andEmployees, recognizes the public's right to information on the assets, liabilities, net

worth, financial and business interests of public servants. But it likewise declares itunlawful for any person "to obtain or use the same for purposes contrary to morals orpublic policy or for any commercial purpose other than by news and communicationsmedia for dissemination to the general public".

Whether the said guidelines violate the letter and spirit of R.A. 6713 and the principle ofpublic accountability is not for this Court to pass upon. I grant that the Chief Justicebelieved in good faith that after periodically filing his sworn Statement of Assets,Liabilities and Net Worth, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court were sufficientto allow the Clerk of Court to comply with the Constitution and the law.

We cannot ignore the fact that the failure or refusal, particularly of public officials inhigh government positions, to provide the public or the media with copies of theSALN's, continues to be a raging issue to this day. In fact, some, if not most of themembers of the Prosecution panel itself, the Members of the Supreme Court, membersof Congress and other high officials of the government have been challenged by mediaorganizations to make their SALN's available to the public and to the media.

Paragraph 2.3 of Article II further accuses the Respondent Chief Justice, based on"reports", of not including some properties in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, andnet worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

The Prosecution, based on the list it procured from the LRA, claims that the ChiefJustice owned and failed to fully disclose in his SALN 45 real estate assets. Based on theevidence, I am convinced that the Defense has presented credible evidence to refute thischarge and to explain the exclusion in the Respondent Chief Justice's SALN's of certainproperties which have either been sold or legally transferred, properties which are


4/7

actually owned by his children and/or third parties, and properties which were neverowned by the Respondent in the first place.

I am likewise convinced that the Defense has sufficiently established that there was noill intention on the part of the Respondent to understate or misrepresent the value of his

real properties.

Proceeding now to the most significant charge involving the non-disclosure of theRespondent Chief Justice's cash assets, the Ombudsman, at the instance of the Defense,testified with a presentation of a report from the Anti-Money Laundering Council(AMLC), showing 82 bank accounts allegedly belonging to the Respondent.

She further testified that based on her analysis of the report, aided by the Commissionon Audit, the Chief Justice had cash assets in the examined bank accounts of anywherefrom US$10 Million to US$ 12 Million.

Even if we grant the existence of these 82 accounts, the amount of depositscorresponding to each of these could not just easily, fairly or logically be summed up toarrive at exactly how much cash assets or deposits, in actuality and in totality, theRespondent Chief Justice had or has at any given point in time.

Hence, the Ombudsman's reference to a "transactional balance" of about US$12 Millionshould not mislead this Court in its appreciation of the facts.

Regrettably, both the Prosecution and the Defense panels decided not to present theconcerned bank officers or the AMLC to ascertain the veracity of the data allegedly

provided by the AMLC to the Office of the Ombudsman, despite the Respondent'ssubmission to this Court of a written waiver to cause the opening of all his bankaccounts. Laudable as this belated act on the part of the Respondent Chief Justice maybe, it would have served him better if he had just presented bank documents asevidence to either confirm or refute the documents showing his bank transactions aspresented by the Ombudsman. It has not escaped this Presiding Officer that initially,last May 22nd to be exact, before he walked out of the halls of this Court, the ChiefJustice signed the said waiver in open court but made the release of the sameconditional, that is, after all the 188 signatories to the Articles of Impeachment andSenator-Judge Franklin Drilon have signed a similar waiver. It was only during the

hearing last May 25 that the Chief Justice decided to submit the waiver to the Courtwithout any conditions.

Moreover, even as the Chief Justice had full access to his own bank accounts and all theopportunity to introduce evidence to disprove the data, findings and analysis presentedby the Ombudsman or the report of the AMLC, the Defense did not introduce any suchevidence.


5/7

As it is, the Impeachment Court could only rely on the documents supplied by theOmbudsman which show the Respondent's bank transactions but which do not showthe actual bank balances of Respondent's bank accounts.

Instead, the Defense presented the Chief Justice himself as its last witness and pleaded

for the Court's permission to allow the Respondent to deliver an "opening statement".

This Court, out of courtesy to the Chief Justice, decided to extend its understanding andto exercise liberality in granting the request.

The long narration, where the Chief Justice touched on a wide range of issues,assertions of facts, accusations, opinions and personal sentiments, which theRespondent said he found necessary to narrate in order to clear his and his family'sname, was later adopted by the Defense as the direct testimony of the Respondent. TheProsecution, on the other hand, waived its right to cross-examine the Chief Justice,

provided the Defense would not conduct any further direct examination.

Nevertheless, the Respondent Chief Justice testified and admitted, in answer toquestions from a member of this Court, that he had around P80 Million in 3 Pesoaccounts and US$2.4 Million in 4 US Dollar accounts, but that he had purposely notdeclared these assets for 2 reasons: (1) That his Peso accounts represented "co-mingledfunds", and (2) That he was not required to report or declare his foreign currencydeposits in his SALN because they were absolutely confidential under R.A. 6426.

I disagree on both counts.

If, indeed, any of the Respondent's cash deposits were co-mingled with the fundsbelonging to other parties such as the Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI) or hischildren, the Respondent was still duty bound to declare these deposits in his SALN,they being admittedly under his name.

The evidence is devoid of any indication that the Chief Justice was holding these fundsin trust for or that they were actually beneficially owned by any one other than himselfor his wife.

Assuming that any part of such deposits in truth belonged to third parties, the

Respondent could have indicated such third-party funds as corresponding liabilities inhis SALN. That would have reflected his real net worth.

With all due respect, I believe that the Respondent Chief Justice's reliance on theabsolute confidentiality accorded to foreign currency deposits under Section 8 ofRepublic Act No. 6426 is grossly misplaced.


6/7

The Constitution, in Article XI, Sec. 17, provides that "A public officer or employeeshall, upon assumption of office and as often as may be required by law, submit adeclaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth. x x x "

Are we now to say that this Constitutional command is limited to a public official's

assets or deposits in local currency? If so, would we not be saying, in effect, that theConstitution allows something less than a full, honest and complete disclosure?

It bears noting that the prescribed form of the SALN quite simply requires publicofficers and employees to declare their assets, real and personal, the latter to includecash and bank deposits, bonds, etc. It does not require the public officer or employee toindicate whether or not he or she has foreign currency notes or deposits. Neither does itrequire details such as account numbers, account names, bank identity nor any branchaddress. All that it requires is a declaration of the total amount of the funds deposited inany bank account or accounts maintained by the public official or employee concerned.

Surely, the Chief Justice knows the equivalent value in local currency of his foreigncurrency deposits to be able to declare the same as part of his assets, especially since theaggregate amount of these foreign currency deposits, by his own account, amounts toUS$2.4 Million.

The non-disclosure of these deposits, in both local and foreign currency, wouldnaturally result in a corresponding distortion of the Chief Justice's real net worth.

Consistent with the position taken by this Court in the case filed by the PhilippineSavings Bank before the Supreme Court last February, pursuant to which the Supreme

Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, I maintain that the Constitutionalprinciple of public accountability overrides the absolute confidentiality of foreigncurrency deposits.

The provisions of R.A. 6426 cannot be interpreted as an exception to the unequivocalcommand and tenor of Article XI, Sec. 17, of the 1987 Constitution, and I regret that theHighest Magistrate of the land, no less, would think otherwise.

Section 8 of R.A. 6426 provides that except with the written permission of the depositor,"in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by

any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative orlegislative or any other entity whether public or private."

The so-called conflict of laws between R.A. Nos. 6713 and 6426 is more illusory thanreal. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 merely prohibits the examination, inquiry or lookinginto a foreign currency deposit account by an entity or person other than the depositorhimself. But there is nothing in R.A. No. 6426 which prohibits the depositor from


7/7

making a declaration on his own of such foreign currency funds, especially in this casewhere the Constitution mandates the depositor who is a public officer to declare allassets under oath.

Some have raised the question: Why should the Chief Justice be held accountable for an

offense which many, if not most others in Government are guilty of, perhaps even morethan he is? They say that hardly anyone declares his true net worth anyway.

Here lies what many have posited as a moral dilemma. I believe it is our duty to resolvethis "dilemma" in favor of upholding the law and sound public policy. If we were toagree with the Respondent that he was correct in not disclosing the value of his foreigncurrency deposits because they are absolutely confidential, can we ever expect anySALN to be filed by public officials from hereon to be more accurate and true than theyare today?

I am not oblivious to the possible political repercussions of the final verdict we arecalled upon to render today. I am deeply concerned that the people may just so easilyignore, forget, if not completely miss out, the hard lessons we all must learn from thisepisode, instead of grow and mature as citizens of a democratic nation.

Those whose intentions and motivations may be farthest from the lofty ideals of truthand justice are wont to feast upon this man's downfall should this Court render a guiltyverdict.

I am equally aware of the tremendous pressure weighing heavily upon all the membersof this Court as we had to come to a decision on this case, one way or the other.

But to render a just verdict according to my best lights and my own conscience is asacred duty that I have sworn to perform.

As one who has been through many personal upheavals through all of my 88 years, I,too, have been judged, often unfairly and harshly. But I have constantly held that thosewho face the judgment of imperfect and fallible mortals like us have recourse to thejudgment of history, and, ultimately, of God.

And so, with full trust that the Almighty will see us through the aftermath of this

chapter in our nation's history, I vote to hold the Chief Justice, Renato C. Corona,GUILTY as charged under Article II, Par. 2.3, and that his deliberate act of excludingsubstantial assets from his sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worthconstitutes a culpable violation of the Constitution.

Documents

The Vote of the Senate President