CJ Corona; Walking on Thin Ice.

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.