corona to testify #cj trial

08 May 2012

it was senator jinggoy estrada who addressed defense counsel yesterday and strongly urged that chief justice renato corona testify, the sooner the better, so we can all get to the truth and not waste time, or something to that effect.  he cited his father, president joseph estrada, who in 2001 was willing, waiting, to testify at his trial, he had nothing to hide.

we all know what happened to erap.  before he could take the witness stand, the prosecution walked out and edsa dos erupted.  even then, i was suspicious of the walk-out.  the testimonies were just beginning to get really interesting – naungkat na ang disappearance ni bubby dacer, ang kaso ni hubert webb, ang milun-milyong kinita ng isang senator-judge sa bw shares, at kung anoano pa.  what else might have been revealed had the trial continued, had the president told all, let the chips fall where they may, as in, laglagan blues.  and what if, after he had told all, we had seen that he was the least guilty pala.

so what’s in it for corona.  it would seem he’s feeling confident that he can prove the $10M accounts to be bogus.  if so, tapos na ang boksing; the president, the prosecution, and the media vultures eat crow.

but it does seem like everyone who’s anti-corona – including the president and the ombudsman – are convinced that the chief justice has hidden, unexplained wealth that must have been illegally acquired, or he would have declared it, and how else does a judge get so rich if not by accepting bribes (in exchange for favorable decisions) from, among others, gma and cohorts maybe?

again, what would be in it for corona?  at least ma-e-explain niya ang circumstances behind the hidden wealth?  he’s the least guilty?  or at best, he won’t go down alone?  at hindi lang si gma ang maaaring ilaglag?  o baka rin, he’s been offered an ex-deal he can’t refuse, as in, testify against gma and he can keep the $10M?  or maybe he’s being promised immunity from suit, like we-know-who?  i smell a rat.

10 Responses to corona to testify #cj trial

  1. May 8, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    Elena Lemi

    With the ongoing impeachment trial,the defense make a bigger hole for CJ. Another thing is before he goes to the witness stand his lawyer, Atty Roy asked the IC to subpoena Ombudsman Morales & others. That was the condition
    It remains to be seen if CJ will testify in the IC. It might be another scheme from the defense to stall the trial. It might be a trick from the defense. We really don’t know.
    The most appropriate thing to do by the senate is to ipen the dollar accounts of CJ.

    • May 8, 2012 at 11:28 pm

      the court quickly pounced on the defense call to subpoena morales and hontiveros and others who have alleged that dollar bank account. ang bilis nangyari, nakakagulat. or maybe i’ve just turned suspicious of them all dahil puro nagmamadaling matapos ang trial para makapangampanya na nang puspusan for 2013.

      • May 8, 2012 at 11:34 pm
        Elena Lemi

        Sa tingin ko mas malalim ito. You know how sly is CJ.

  2. May 8, 2012 at 11:51 pm
    manuelbuencamino

    Angela,

    That $10M is not from a single account. Media drew that conclusion based on excerpts from the letter of Carpio Morales to Corona. Fact is the only thing we can be sure of is only the Ombudsman, Corona, and the Inquirer have seen that letter. We can guess who else might have seen it.

    I think the amount reported represents the total transactions in Corona’s various foreign currency accounts. So Corona can then say, “See, I told you I don’t have $10M in deposits.” But that would not answer why he never declared his foreign currency accounts. Furthermore, the prosecution and the senators might ask him to explain his foreign currency transactions in detail. So there’s that danger.

    From the way the defense is going I think they will admit that Corona failed to declare his SALN as required by law but they will argue (1) the mis-declarations were honest mistakes; (2) the law allows SALNs to be remedied so the proper course of action is to correct the mis-declared SALNs and not to impeach Corona; and/or (3) repeated mis-declarations of SALN do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

    Kaya panay ang media offensive ni Corona. Ang kaso niya ay sa SALNs. Kailangan maibenta niya sa senators at sa public na walong kaso yun mag mis-declare repeatedly ng SALN ang chief justice. Ang prosecution at Malacanan naman ang media offensive ay ipagpilitan na malaking kaso ang mag mis-declare ng SALNs lalo na kung chief justice ka.

    • May 9, 2012 at 12:09 am

      manuel, was listening kanina ba yon o kagabi to dean amado valdez saying na parang mahina yung kaso abt undeclared monies kung pesos lang, even if parang he has no gastos, ipon lang nang ipon ng suweldo. i gather that undeclared dollar accounts/transactions would make the case stronger.

      • May 9, 2012 at 12:38 am
        manuelbuencamino

        Angela,

        Exactly. Kaya nag TRO ang SC sa Senaddo sa pagbukas ng foreign currency accounts ni Corona. Kasi malaki ang sabit niya pag yun ang lumabas.

        Ang problema ay hindi yata nakita ni Corona na magkakaroon ng complaints na isasampa sa ombudsman at ang ombudsman ay uungkatin ang foreign currency accounts niya. Eh walang TRO sa ombudsman at may waiver pang pirma si Corona sa SALN so walang hadlang sa imbestigasyon ng ombudsman.

        Sa tingin ko hindi naisip ni corona ang imbestigasyon ng ombudsman kasi nung panahon ni merci gutierrez she refused to investigate GMA citing her immunity and her being an impeachable official. Akala siguro ni Corona sasakay yun bagong ombudsman sa ganung klaseng argumento. Kaya kita mo ngayon ipinagpipilitan ni corona na wala daw jurisdiction ang ombudsman sa kanya at bawal daw siyang imbestigahan. But there’s a difference between investigating and filing a case. Yun una pwedeng gawin ng ombudsman, yung huli pwede lang niyang gawin after ma-impeach si Corona.

        Kapag hindi napaliwanag ni Corona yun dollars niya, sa tingin ko pati yun mga kakampi niyang senador ay mahihirapan i-justify ang acquittal vote nila.

    • May 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm
      baycas

      Form

      Jurisprudence tells us that SALNs can be corrected as to its FORMAL defects only upon the review of the heads of office or a Committee designated by heads of office.

      Substance

      SUBSTANCIAL defects such as untruth (lie of commission) and/or concealment (lie of omission) may constitute simple or gross negligence, dishonesty, perjury, or falsification of documents. The penalty will depend on the gravity of the offense and mitigating circumstances.

      Impeachable or not?

      The HOR alleges, the Senate tries.

      Statutory construction of “betrayal of public trust” may just be a guide. The present Senate Impeachment Court [sic] will do a precedent-setting interpretation of the 1987 Constitution on what an impeachable offense constitutes.

    • May 12, 2012 at 6:18 am

      Exactly my thoughts, too!

  3. May 9, 2012 at 12:49 am
    Elena Lemi

    So do you mean wala nang lusot si Corona? With his pesos accounts lang di na niya malusutan. Good if he will be convicted.

  4. May 9, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Based on the result of independent media surveys, it is a foregone conclusion that the “court of public opinion” has already convicted Corona as committing the offense of betrayal of public trust and therefore,qualified to be Impeached within the legal parameters envisioned in our 1987 Constitution. To me, the present Impeachment-Senate Court, has no alternative but to follow the political will of the people who have given them the sole power to remove Constitutional mandated officials from their seat. So Elena, di na pwedeng mag-palusot and mag-delaying tactics ang defense panel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago