Scope and Delimitation

Over the week, the impeachment proceedings on the inclusion or exclusion of the paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the second article of impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona. The defense claims these paragraphs should not be included in the article because they have nothing to do with the alleged failure of the chief justice to disclose his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth to the public. The senate, sitting as the impeachment court, spent extensive time to discuss the matter and even required both the prosecution and the defense to submit memorandum to defend whether to include or exclude last paragraphs of the second article. Yesterday, the impeachment court ruled to allow the presentation of evidence pertaining to paragraph 2.3 but not to 2.4.

According to Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor -Santiago suggested the articles of impeachment be amended to avoid confusion but the Representative Angara, one of the spokespersons of the prosecution said there is no need for amendment of the impeachment complaint. Senate-President Juan Ponce Enrile, who sitting as the presiding officer of the impeachment court, is not in favor of amending of the impeachment complaint because it has to be returned to the House of Representatives which would raise another concern about the question on the initiation of the impeachment. Under the constitution, all impeachable official can be only impeached once every year.

Question would arise from ordinary citizens regarding the content of the disputed paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4. Is the defense panel correct that these paragraphs are incoherent to rest of the second article? The press briefings of the defense and the prosecution revolve on these paragraphs when I was in the senate yesterday to cover the proceedings as a Journalism student. I was able to search the whole Article II of the impeachment complaint on The PCIJ Blog by the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism and posted it here on my blog.

ARTICLE II

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

2.1. It is provided for in Art. XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution that “a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. ”

2.2. Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.

2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in Taguig. Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?

On a quick reading, mostly I would follow the school of thought of the defense and the Senator-Judge Defensor-Santiago. Indeed paragraph 2.4 does not belong to Article II and should be in a separate article. The speedy impeachment against the chief justice by the House of Representatives was questioned by Allan Paguia and even by the camp Renato Corona. I went back to the newspaper compilation I have.

According to the banner story of The Philippine Star, in December 13, 2011, the day after Chief Justice Corona was impeached members of the ruling coalition convened in a caucus at past 3 p.m. and 7:40 p.m., Deputy Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella ordered the house secretary to transmit the impeachment complaint to the Senate. There were 188 congressmen signed the eight-article impeachment complaint, which is almost double of the 94 signatories or one-thirds of the House required for transmittal.

Have you ever wonder if indeed all 188 representatives read the 57 page how come no one notice that the Article II was faulty drafted? 

Ill-prepared to prove ill-gotten wealth?

Yesterday the Senate sitting as Impeachment Court ruled against introduction for paragraph 2.4 of the articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. Paragraph 2.4 states that the respondent, Chief Justice Corona, is “suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth”. The memorandum submitted last Tuesday by the defense panel to the impeachment Court last Tuesday claim paragraph 2.4 is “irrelevant, improper and violative of (Chief Justice) Corona’s constitutional rights”

The defence is partly victorious in caucus held yesterday morning because the impeachment court favored the prosecution in its decision to allow the latter to present evidences for paragraph 2.3. Paragraph 3 of the Second Article of Impeachment accused Chief Justice Corona for not including some of his properties in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN). The defense requested to delete from the record any and all of the evidence presented by the prosecution pertaining to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 due to lack of ultimate facts.

Defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III said the entire discussion on Article II shall revolve around the presentation of Corona’s SALN. He said that the prosecution team is trying to amend the second article without the required promulgation of the entire House of Representatives. He added that the prosecution is conducting the determination of the probable cause along with the impeachment proceedings. He added loopholes of the rushed impeachment articles are being revealed while the case is being heard in the impeachment court. 

On the other hand the house prosecution panel claimed that evidences,such as Income Tax Return and bank records could not be obtained without existence of a valid circumstance identified by the law such as when an impeachment case was filed. In return the prosecution castigated the defense for turning the proceedings into a game of technicality. They cite the then Associate Justice Renato Corona’s decision on Marcos’s ill-gotten wealth saying that “  (Supreme) Court has seen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities that merely serve to delay or impede judicious resolution. In that decision, Corona cited Alonso vs. Villlamayor, “A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.”