The chief justice announced that his wife will testify before the
impeachment court to give a supposed persuasive explanation of the 37 million
peso discrepancy in the chief justice’s SALN. As earlier posited, Cristina
contends that the amount represents the just compensation for the expropriation
of a real property owned by her family held in trust in favor of Cristina and
family by the chief justice. At any angle you look at it, it is a hard sell.
This simply defies logic and reason. First, it is of notice that
public officers are subject to scrutiny and lifestyle checks owing to the principle
of public service being a public trust, and related laws on graft and
corruption. This being the case, CJ knew he would be opening himself to
controversy if he allowed funds belonging
to others to be held in his name. Further, if that were so the case, why
did not Cristina simply hold it in her name?
If his defense on this issue is to be credible, he has to offer
better explanation than one so predictable and lame it can only elicit yawns
than excitement.
Defense Built on Quicksand
I feel sorry for the chief justice, but it is obvious he is
pinning his hopes of acquittal on technicalities. Much has been said about the
impeachment proceedings being sui generis, a class of its own, hence, not
liable for strictissimi juris application
of the rules of court and laws. Neither is it subject to beyond reasonable doubt quantum of proof as ruled upon by the
presiding justice under conformity of the court. These make the chief justice
feel like the world is closing in on him, which explains the defense’s frantic
objection to practically everything the prosecution offers in evidence.
·
They object to the presentation and admission of condominium
titles in CJ’s name arguing that these are irrelevant and immaterial as the
court has ruled against presentation of evidence if offered to prove ill-gotten
wealth, and that the issue is squarely on non-disclosure and non-filing of his
SALN.
·
They moved to exclude the bank records arguing that these are
unlawfully obtained invoking the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.
It is silly to parse on proses of the remaining charge in article
2; that is, non-disclosure and non-filing of SALN, in effect saying that under-declaration
of assets is out of the ambit of the charge of non-disclosure. You can sense
the desperation.
The principle of the fruit
of the poisonous tree is misplaced in this case as it only applies to the
State as when police makes seizures without warrant and outside of the
exclusion allowed by law as search incident to a lawful arrest. The intent of
the principle is to clip the enormous power of the State against a hapless
accused who stand to lose life, liberty, or property if the State is permitted unbridled
exercise of its police power.
It finds no application in this case again on the sui generis nature of the proceedings.
Finally, this is a public hearing aired on national television.
Regardless of technicalities and irregularities on how the evidences are
obtained, the public understands that CJ did not disclose all properties he
held in his name. Correspondingly, the only way he’ll get a pass for it is to
explain convincingly the circumstances leading to the discrepancies. Harping on
irregularity in the obtention of bank records does not erase the crooked
picture the events has portrayed of him.
