the walkout #cj trial

23 May 2012

ang saya na sana.  it was good, in fairness, to hear his version of the stories that the yellow media had long been spinning, and his own powerpoint claiming just a handful of dollar accounts.  and when he signed that waiver, napa-wow ako, when he challenged drilon and the 188 reps who impeached him to waive theirs too, napahalakhak at palakpak ako, way to go!  but then he stood up and walked out, WTF, and all hell broke loose!

my take is, corona never intended to face cross-examination, he intended to walk out, as he did, once he was done with his statement.  if enrile had not ordered the lockdown that prevented him from leaving the building, i doubt that we would have seen him again.  but enrile was quick to the draw, and so corona was forced to plead illness, and play it sick, wheelchair and all, and tila nagkatotoo tuloy.  the melodrama continues.

but even if he were feeling all right, magugulat ako kung um-appear pa siya uli after that shocking show of disrespect for the senate impeachment court, which was like giving the finger to the senator-judges.  were he to return, it would be to a hostile court, for certain.

i was looking forward pa naman to hearing where the large dollar deposits on significant dates came from.  i guess we’ll never know.  ted te may be right, that corona will take the battle to the supreme court and ask for a restraining order against a senate vote.

the senate will not be stopped, of course, and more and more it looks like a corona conviction coming up.

21 Responses to the walkout #cj trial

  1. May 23, 2012 at 7:21 am

    He never intended to be cross-examined kasi nga takot syang ma-scrutinize lahat ng sinabi nya. Remember, for all intents and pruposes he has admitted that AMLC report was correct, and that he didn’tdeclare his dollar earnings in his SALN (using a Marcos decree meant to protect marcos loot as an excuse; anong klase yan?!).

    There’s a difference between Ombudsman’s PowerPoint and Corona’s. Yung sa OMB may basis. Yung kay Corona, walang basis. Claims lang nya. Di ba?

    • May 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm

      except that exaggerated yung 82 accounts, like the 45 properties, like the 8 articles. consistent lang, no? puro na pare-down, 3 articles, 5 properties, 4 dollar accts… that i thought were all defensible… well until he walked out.

      • May 23, 2012 at 10:55 pm
        manuelbuencamino

        Teka Angela.

        The Ombudsman, if you care to read the transcripts, actually said some of those accounts may be closed. She said she did not know the status of those accounts because she was basing her testimony on the AMLC report which was simply tracking the flow of money in and out of Corona’s various accounts.

        Now Corona never denied that those accounts existed at one time or another nor that those transactions occurred. All he did was demonstrate that those 82 accounts were collapsed into 3 or 4 accounts.

        Mukhang nadala ka din sa hocus-pocus ni Corona.

        You can go to http://unofficialtranscripts.wordpress.com/ and read both Corona’s statement and the testimony of Ombudsman Carpio Morales.

        • May 23, 2012 at 11:02 pm

          true, about the ombudsman’s testimony, and the dollar accounts. di naman ako nadala, skeptical pa rin, that’s why i was looking fwd to cross-exam.

          • May 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm
            manuelbuencamino

            And that’s why Corona walked out

  2. May 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    with the enunciation of the ‘cuevas’ doctrine – that bank secrecy exempts $ deposits from the saln disclosure requirement, the impeachment case has or will have to come full circle to the lis mota of the tro on the banks. how absolute is the secrecy of $ deposits?

    best guess: a balancing of interests test may settle it. on one hand, depositors have a right to privacy. on the other hand, the public has a right to know and a right to transparency and accountability of public officers.

    it ought to be easy to resolve. both are rights under the constitution, but the public’s right to know should prevail over the right to privacy.

    ratio: public office is a public trust. besides, if a person values his privacy that much, he need not be a public figure.

    • May 23, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      agree. public office is public trust. wag tumakbo for public office kung may itinatago na, o magtatago ng, unexplained wealth.

    • May 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm
      manuelbuencamino

      Orlando,

      A lawyer pointed out, “the requirement to publicly declare an official’s net worth is an explicit command of the Constitution. It is provided in section 17 Article XI….The absolute confidentiality of dollar deposit is a private privilege created not by the Constitution but by a mere statute, a creation of national legislation. It is Republic Act No. 6426. This statutory privilege is a valid one, but to extend its statutory force as qualifying or making an exception to the mandate of the Constitution is a basic error. Exceptions to provisions of the Constitution can only be made also by the Constitution and not by a mere statute….It is clear that a CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of a public officer is so fundamental such that it cannot be circumscribed, qualified , superseded or rendered ineffective or nugatory by a mere STATUTORY PRIVILEGE. Anything that is protective of public interest for the paramount good must prevail over private privileges merely providing personal protections. In this case, duty must win over privilege.”

      Read in http://www.interaksyon.com/article/32679/corona-testimony-duty—vs–privilege

  3. May 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    so now defense counsel is saying that corona is willing to testify. really? parang if so, it’s only because counsel has prevailed upon him to do so, maybe under pain of abandonment by counsel, haha.

    • May 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm

      nah. it is improper for counsel to abandon a client.

      it’s not a weder-weder thing. walang iwanan.

  4. May 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm
    ricelander

    He seems to sense a conviction anyway. On account of undeclared dollar deposits. A gray area, there is yet no clear jurisprudence on the matter, the Senate judges could be convinced to convict on this ground. He has already admitted it: he has dollar accounts, and he has not declared them on his SALN. There. The waiver he signed and the dare were simply to illustrate his point that his non-declaration is not illegal as it is indeed the practice. Somehow, he puts his accusers on the spot, highlights their own hypocrisy, but that is all. Is there any point for him to explain any further?

    • May 23, 2012 at 7:17 pm

      true. he put his accusers on the spot, but with media like ours… who, instead of calling them out, give the accusers air time to scoff and sneer that they’re not the ones on trial. hypocrites nga.

      • May 24, 2012 at 8:58 am
        ricelander

        “Is hypocrisy a crime!” cried one anti-Corona commenter on one comment thread.

        I was floored. Hahaha.

        Moralists are a curious lot. They impose high standards on other people yet they seem genuinely boggled why they should be held accountable by the same yardstick.

      • May 24, 2012 at 9:09 am
        ricelander

        In any case, they have a ground to convict. All the undecided need is a legitimate basis, and some very convincing incentives. Problema lang it could backfire big time. ‘Yun ang dilemma. What if after this some “little lady” too showed up in some dark corners with “bank documents” in brown envelope of dollar deposits of (drum rolls please) _________________, hehehe please furnish the name.

        Oh by the way, does the President have dollar accounts too and are they declared in his SALN?

    • May 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm
      manuelbuencamino

      Corona will be acquitted. He has enough senators on his side. The guardians of corruption are legion.

      • May 23, 2012 at 11:46 pm

        you think? hmm. coming from you, napaisip naman ako.

        • May 24, 2012 at 3:58 am
          manuelbuencamino

          Angela,

          But I hope I’m wrong.

      • May 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        You think so? I’m guessing he’ll be convicted. Especially after the walk-out drama.

  5. May 24, 2012 at 12:12 am

    The accused agreed to present his evidences, provided the judge and the accusers prove their innocence first. Is this the brand of justice we deserve from the SC?

    One thing is for sure, he managed to upstage lady gaga with his stunt.

    • May 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm
      manuelbuencamino

      Ironickme,

      Lady Gaga is a performance artist. Corona is a con artist.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>