Opinion, Manila Standard Today
Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona came to the Senate
impeachment court yesterday to speak in his own defense, but he
unexpectedly turned the tables on Malacañang and his accusers by asking
them what evil he has done to deserve not only the present trial but
also the sustained vilification against him and his family the past five
months.
The senator-judges listened in reverential silence as the chief
justice gave his statement to the court. The crowd, which had melted
away after the first few days of the trial, had returned, filling the
gallery to the rafters. All eyes were on the chief justice. As far as
they could see, Corona was the only one who stood accused. But after
listening to him, it became clear he had shifted the burden on the
Aquino government.
Corona gave three reasons for Malacañang’s determined campaign to
convict and destroy him. He said President Benigno Aquino III could
not forgive him for the Supreme Court decision awarding Hacienda Luisita
to the farmers whose ancestors had owned it from the very beginning.
Second, the President wanted to gain full control of the three branches
of government. Third, Mr. Aquino appears to have fallen captive to the
communist Left, whose designs on the government could only be
facilitated if the Judiciary were destroyed.
Corona’s appearance brought the trial to its highest, or next highest
point. But it was not yet “the moment of truth,” contrary to what one
banner headline said. The moment of truth is when the bullfighter and
the bull face each other inside the bullring for the kill. That will
come when the senator judges finally decide: Guilty, or Not Guilty,
or—in the words of Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter at the Clinton
trial—“Not Proven.” However, it may have turned the tide of public
opinion, and that of the court.
Until yesterday, Corona seemed to be facing a terribly uphill fight.
That was partly because matters that had nothing to do with the
Articles of Impeachment had been permitted to enter the domain of the
court. Malacañang has exerted no effort to make its intervention in the
case discreet; the big stories attacking Corona were coming not
necessarily from the prosecution but many times from Malacañang
spokesmen, and from the President himself. Corona could not even get
legal relief from the Supreme Court.
After Corona was impeached by 188 congressmen who signed the
impeachment complaint at Malacañang’s bidding without reading the eight
Articles of Impeachment, five petitions were filed with the Supreme
Court seeking to restrain the Senate from hearing the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. This became six when Corona’s lawyers added their own
petition.
But led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the Senate said it
was not answerable to the Supreme Court for its decisions, and warned
the High Court against intervening. And the court apparently took the
Senate’s word for it.
But hardly any trial day passed without the senator-judges lecturing
the prosecution. After 26 trial days, the prosecution rested its case
after dropping five of the eight articles. Of the remaining three,
Article II appeared to be the strongest; it alleged Corona’s failure to
disclose all his assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth. But the court could not say if violation of the SALN law was
an impeachable crime. Article II also failed to allege “ill-gotten
wealth” or graft and corruption, so the court enjoined the panel not to
try to raise that charge or to dig into Corona’s alleged dollar bank
accounts, whose secrecy is absolute.
Still, on February 17, some party-list and civil society politicians
asked the Ombudsman to investigate Corona for his alleged failure to
include certain bank deposits in his SALN. The Ombudsman readily
obliged, even though the same charge was already being heard at the
trial. Then on April 20, while the trial was on recess, the Ombudsman
ordered Corona to explain “within 72 hours” alleged bank accounts in his
name and dollar deposits purportedly amounting to $10 million.
Corona challenged his accusers and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales
to substantiate their accusations. Thereafter he would take the stand
himself, he said. Thus, on May 7, Morales astounded the trial with a
Powerpoint presentation of Corona’s alleged dollar banking transactions
from 82 accounts, admittedly obtained illegally from the Anti-Money
Laundering Council, without a court order, as required by law, and
without verifying the information herself.
Yesterday was Corona’s turn to make his own Powerpoint presentation and to expose Morales’ presentation as deceptive and false.
Having heard both sides, the senator-judges must now decide whether
the charges against Corona are impeachable, and have been proven, and
whether he is to be judged on the basis of those charges, or on the
basis of something else. Should he be acquitted because he has done no
manifest harm to the nation, or should he be convicted because he has
offended and continues to offend the President?
----------
It is said that the mind is like a parachute, it only functions when it is open. But being open-minded still doesn't always guarantee fairness in how one sees things because the mind is also like a camera. And like a camera, the mind's appreciation is always limited only to what perspective it chooses to focus on. And just as buttons and controls on the camera are used to adjust the photo to desired result, similarly, personal biases tend to affect how things are appreciated to suit preference -- be it for or against the object or subject.
