MERGED: All About the Corona Impeachment

[lespaulibanez]

---

Interesting facts about corona.
Unlike corona's SALN which raises a lot of debate over legality, below facts, (PDI writers opinion not included) raises no debate on legality.

It concerns the personality & character of the chief justice of the Philippines. Honesty.

Unsa inyo makasulti ani.

Full text on: Justice weeps | Inquirer Opinion

quote...
“Our lives and home are simple. We don’t even use the air conditioner because we become easily ill in the cold. The food we eat in our home is simple. Believe it or not, we do not have maids at home.” In 43 years, he said, he has never purchased large properties or expensive properties. All of our money is in cash.”

His defense team has admitted to Corona’s ownership of five high-end properties—in Bellagio, Bonifacio Ridge, The Columns, Xavierville and Burgundy Condominiums—an admission that Corona himself supported last Tuesday. Perhaps the Chief Justice has a different definition of what counts as expensive, and it is a definition that he does not share with the rest of the Philippine population. Yet even if the properties are ignored, this same simple man with a simple life also spends more than P15,362.37 for a meal with his wife at Century Tsukiji restaurant, up to P24,000 each for a pair of barong Tagalog purchased at Rustan’s, and a hundred thousand for the purchase of Christmas gifts. A Rappler.com investigative report details these purchases, as well as the fact that all of these and many others were reimbursed by the Supreme Court. It is difficult to construe a shirt that costs more than a semester’s college tuition as simple, but perhaps the Chief Justice was merely attempting to uphold the image of the Supreme Court in his choice of atelier.
unquote...

[lespaulibanez]

3 man klase tawo diri bay, Ang uban nga nagtuo nga KAWATAN gyod si CORONA and uban nagtuo nga BUANG o PSYCHO gyod c Pnoy og ang uban nga gatan aw lang sa inyo Kombate...Hala padayun...

I don't believe nga KAWATAN si corona. Unsa may iyang kawaton? He is not a politician, dili man siya usa ka elective official. Imho i believe he has his wrongdoings, but definitely does not qualify to be called A THIEF.
In much the same way that I also don't believe nga BUANG o PSYCHO c PNoy. He is a politician, an elective official.

[lespaulibanez]

Mere Omission on SALN is not impeachable offense. FCDA Law prevails over SALN Law coz it is a special law which is more ''powerful'' than general law when there is conflicting each other. The FCDA is absolute confidentiality and no conflict with constitution itself coz of there is ''as provided by law'' on Sec. 17 of Article 11 of Constitution

I conclude that CJ is not guilty.

'torney you maybe interested reading the below previous cases/Supreme Court decisions re: SALN, although they were not impeached as their ranks are way below that of cj corona.
In the below mentioned Rabe vs Flores (May 14, 1997), it involves Flores being a market stall owner not declaring her market stall asset.


quote..
With Due Respect
Omissions in SALN
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
8:46 pm | Saturday, February 25th, 2012

Article II of the impeachment complaint charges Chief Justice Renato Corona with failure to include “some of [his] properties” in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. If proven, what is the penalty for such omissions? So readers ask.

Dismissal from service. In Rabe vs Flores (May 14, 1997), the Supreme Court en banc unanimously dismissed from the service—with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leaves and with prejudice to reemployment—a Regional Trial Court (RTC) interpreter for dishonesty and for failure to disclose in her SALNs her business interest, which was “a stall in the market.”

The Supreme Court held: “Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the ‘obligation’ of an employee to submit a sworn statement as the ‘public has a right to know’ the employee’s assets, liabilities and net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that ‘(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’”

In Concerned Taxpayer vs Doblada (June 8, 2005), an RTC sheriff was dismissed for “his failure to declare a true and detailed SALN” for several years. “There were discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions in his SALNs, consisting of properties and business interests acquired but which were declared in his SALNs only two or more years later.”

Accuracy of entries required. Flores vs Montemayor (June 8, 2011) reiterated the penalty of dismissal for the respondent’s unjustified failure to declare “two expensive cars” in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs. Ruled the Supreme Court:

“Pursuant to Section 11, paragraph (b) of RA No. 6713, any violation of the law ‘proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’ Respondent’s deliberate attempt to evade the mandatory disclosure of all assets acquired … was evident when he first claimed that the vehicles were lumped under the entry ‘Machineries/Equipment’ or still mortgaged, and later averred that these were already sold by the end of the year covered and the proceeds already spent.

“Under this scheme, respondent would have acquired as many assets never to be declared at any time. Such act erodes the function of requiring accuracy of entries in the [SALN], which must be a true and detailed statement. It undermines the [SALN] as ‘the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government’ through which ‘the public [is] able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official, [as] a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.’”

In Pleyto vs PNP-CIDG (Nov. 23, 2007), “petitioner was negligent for failing … to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests … and for relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein.” Here, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s negligence was “only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead or deceive on his part … his SALNs actually disclose[d] the full extent of his assets … and his wife had other business interests.” Hence, the penalty imposed was only suspension for six months, without pay, not dismissal. Since petitioner had already retired, an amount equivalent to six months’ pay was “forfeited from his retirement benefits.”

In OCA vs Usman (Oct. 19, 2011), the Supreme Court imposed only a fine of P5,000 even if the “respondent clearly violated (Sec. 7, RA 3019 and Sec. 8, RA 6713) when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008.” It seems that failure to disclose assets, when proven to show dishonesty, is more severely penalized than the failure to file the SALN.

Integrity, uprightness. Indeed, Ombudsman vs. Peliño (April 14, 200 held: “Under the laws governing civil service, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. This ideal standard ensures that only those of known probity, competence and integrity are called to the challenge of public service. It is understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.”

In sum, the penalty for the failure to disclose assets is dismissal if such omissions amount to dishonesty and are not due to clerical errors done in good faith. Otherwise, it is suspension. To stress, the Supreme Court decided the above administrative cases on the basis of strict legality. For impeachment cases, the Senate, after hearing the parties, has a wider policy discretion to decide whether the respondent is still fit and qualified to remain as the highest magistrate of the land.
unquote...

[lespaulibanez]

Why is miriam today floating such an idea when in fact the presiding judge JPE has already previously said the penalty for conviction is removal from office?

quote...
Santiago, a constitutionalist who will serve as a judge on the International Criminal Court after the impeachment trial, floated what she considered a “middle ground” should the Senate convict Corona.

“We don’t necessarily have to impose a penalty of removal. If we find the defendant guilty, we can go as far as removal but that implies therefore that we can go to a lower penalty, which is reprimand. That’s the language of the Constitution,” she explained. “We can simply reprimand him and allow him to remain in office.”

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, previously rejected Santiago’s position, maintaining that the penalty for conviction is removal from office.
unquote...

[adornado]

'torney you maybe interested reading the below previous cases/Supreme Court decisions re: SALN, although they were not impeached as their ranks are way below that of cj corona.
In the below mentioned Rabe vs Flores (May 14, 1997), it involves Flores being a market stall owner not declaring her market stall asset.


quote..
With Due Respect
Omissions in SALN
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
8:46 pm | Saturday, February 25th, 2012

Article II of the impeachment complaint charges Chief Justice Renato Corona with failure to include “some of [his] properties” in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. If proven, what is the penalty for such omissions? So readers ask.

Dismissal from service. In Rabe vs Flores (May 14, 1997), the Supreme Court en banc unanimously dismissed from the service—with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leaves and with prejudice to reemployment—a Regional Trial Court (RTC) interpreter for dishonesty and for failure to disclose in her SALNs her business interest, which was “a stall in the market.”

The Supreme Court held: “Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the ‘obligation’ of an employee to submit a sworn statement as the ‘public has a right to know’ the employee’s assets, liabilities and net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that ‘(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’”

In Concerned Taxpayer vs Doblada (June 8, 2005), an RTC sheriff was dismissed for “his failure to declare a true and detailed SALN” for several years. “There were discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions in his SALNs, consisting of properties and business interests acquired but which were declared in his SALNs only two or more years later.”

Accuracy of entries required. Flores vs Montemayor (June 8, 2011) reiterated the penalty of dismissal for the respondent’s unjustified failure to declare “two expensive cars” in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs. Ruled the Supreme Court:

“Pursuant to Section 11, paragraph (b) of RA No. 6713, any violation of the law ‘proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.’ Respondent’s deliberate attempt to evade the mandatory disclosure of all assets acquired … was evident when he first claimed that the vehicles were lumped under the entry ‘Machineries/Equipment’ or still mortgaged, and later averred that these were already sold by the end of the year covered and the proceeds already spent.

“Under this scheme, respondent would have acquired as many assets never to be declared at any time. Such act erodes the function of requiring accuracy of entries in the [SALN], which must be a true and detailed statement. It undermines the [SALN] as ‘the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government’ through which ‘the public [is] able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official, [as] a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.’”

In Pleyto vs PNP-CIDG (Nov. 23, 2007), “petitioner was negligent for failing … to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests … and for relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein.” Here, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s negligence was “only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead or deceive on his part … his SALNs actually disclose[d] the full extent of his assets … and his wife had other business interests.” Hence, the penalty imposed was only suspension for six months, without pay, not dismissal. Since petitioner had already retired, an amount equivalent to six months’ pay was “forfeited from his retirement benefits.”

In OCA vs Usman (Oct. 19, 2011), the Supreme Court imposed only a fine of P5,000 even if the “respondent clearly violated (Sec. 7, RA 3019 and Sec. 8, RA 6713) when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008.” It seems that failure to disclose assets, when proven to show dishonesty, is more severely penalized than the failure to file the SALN.

Integrity, uprightness. Indeed, Ombudsman vs. Peliño (April 14, 200 held: “Under the laws governing civil service, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. This ideal standard ensures that only those of known probity, competence and integrity are called to the challenge of public service. It is understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.”

In sum, the penalty for the failure to disclose assets is dismissal if such omissions amount to dishonesty and are not due to clerical errors done in good faith. Otherwise, it is suspension. To stress, the Supreme Court decided the above administrative cases on the basis of strict legality. For impeachment cases, the Senate, after hearing the parties, has a wider policy discretion to decide whether the respondent is still fit and qualified to remain as the highest magistrate of the land.
unquote...

This is what i always had said again and again at the earlier part of this thread, the CJ will be impeached due to its SALN discrepancies, Article 2 of the impeachment complaint—failure of the Chief Justice to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, but not as thief... a victim of one's desire for revenge because of the loss of HL property..

Think of this, how much does a senator, or a congressman, and much more the president PNoy, spend for his election campaign? More than 500 milion pesos, to say the least. How much has Corona deposited in peso and dollar accounts? Not even near those figures. And the biggest hypocrisy of it all - why are these politicians place Corona on pillory block when all of them are cheats and thieves - wasting all those monies to buy them a seat in the government to steal back their election expenses and enrich themselves.

But the yellow fanatics are glossing over this fact. Just as hypocrite as their president and congressmen.

[estor_boot]

^^ Yup, we got one who got the balls to be transparent by signing a waver so his financials can be examined. On the other hand there are 185+1 big one who can even take up the challenge. Add their boss to that. Scared of the truth, I guess...

the balls? lels
where are the balls when he only signed the waiver knowing that it would be immaterial already? where are the balls when he signed the waiver only after his enemies has rested their case? where are the balls when he did nothing when PSBank seeked intervention from his turf not to open his dollar accounts? yeah, balls. lelssssssss

[estor_boot]

This is what i always had said again and again at the earlier part of this thread, the CJ will be impeached due to its SALN discrepancies, Article 2 of the impeachment complaint—failure of the Chief Justice to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, but not as thief... a victim of one's desire for revenge because of the loss of HL property..

Think of this, how much does a senator, or a congressman, and much more the president PNoy, spend for his election campaign? More than 500 milion pesos, to say the least. How much has Corona deposited in peso and dollar accounts? Not even near those figures. And the biggest hypocrisy of it all - why are these politicians place Corona on pillory block when all of them are cheats and thieves - wasting all those monies to buy them a seat in the government to steal back their election expenses and enrich themselves.

But the yellow fanatics are glossing over this fact. Just as hypocrite as their president and congressmen.

seriously, what's the relation of election expenses and Corona's intentional undeclaration of assets in his SALN?

[lestat1116]

i dont think corona "stole". maybe he just used the money to buy the things he wants and charge it on SC. free pass

[CoolUkoy]

I hope maka-relate mga pro corona ani.kay grabe ra ba jud mangugat laban sa ilang amo.mo-ingon ra ba dayun nga walay basehan ang amlc report...

Totally irrelevant. Where was it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the money the CJ has was ill gotten?

[adornado]

Totally irrelevant. Where was it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the money the CJ has was ill gotten?

nothing, no credible evidence except exaggerrated lies sourced illegally from:
1) little ladies
2) anonymous entities
3) manufactured from government agencies