VP Binay: Target of Corona trial

Jejomar Binay Jr. is the political target of President Aquino and the Liberal Party’s imperious blitzkrieg to remove Chief Justice Renato Corona from the Supreme Court, sources close to the Vice President claimed.

“Everyone knows that the trial is a power game that has nothing to do with an anti-corruption crusade,” one source said. “If Corona is taken out and (senior Associate Justice Antonio) Carpio becomes chief justice, and with the rest of the justices terrorized, may laban si Mar maging vice president soon,” he said.

Startling as the claim may seem, the facts supporting it are unassailable.

Alleging massive cheating by Binay, vice presidential candidate Mar Roxas filed an electoral protest in July 2010 with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Roxas alleges that Binay’s lead over him of 730,000 votes would have been wiped out and he would have won by a landslide if the optical-scan counting machines had not voided 3 million of his votes.  The PET has already secured the ballots in the areas where Roxas claims he was cheated, and its pre-hearing investigations are underway.

The PET – many have forgotten – is the Supreme Court chaired by Chief Justice Corona.

If Aquino gets to control the high court, which he will if Corona is taken out, and with the rest of the justices frightened either by the prospect of their own impeachment or media demonization, he controls the PET, which would fast-track Roxas’ protest, declare him the winner, and proclaim him the Republic’s vice president.

To prepare public opinion for this, the Ombudsman, assisted by a new member of the Commission on Audit, would hurl a flurry of graft cases against Binay to demonize him.  This is the real reason, they said, why Aquino’s forces removed Ombudsman Mereditas Gutierrez and replaced her with his favorite justice, Conchita Carpio-Morales. Morales is a cousin of Justice Carpio, and the law firm he founded, now the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo & Angangco, is Roxas’ counsel for his electoral protest.

Told that no presidential or vice presidential protest has ever been won, my source replied: “But never has an administration dared to take out a Chief Justice, and even more justices if they don’t toe its line.”

The very recent case of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo bolsters fears that the regime can browbeat justices to submission. Despite Corona’s ongoing trial, the House of Representatives’ justice committee still rushed Del Castillo’s impeachment February 7. Two days later, the embattled Del Castillo voted with Carpio and with Aquino’s three appointees – Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe – for the Senate to scrutinize Corona’s dollar accounts.

Watch the impeachment trial and it is the four Liberal Party senators who unabashedly want to prove Corona guilty, even assisting bungling prosecutors.

Check out the people in the campaign to take out Corona, and it is a Liberal Party production:  from party chairman Aquino to vice chairman Franklin Drilon who has been accused of practically being a prosecutor in the trial, to executive vice president Feliciano Belmonte, speaker of the House of Representatives that filed the complaint, to Niel Tupas Jr. head of the prosecution panel, down to the prosecutors’ belligerent spokespersons.

This is not because of the party’s servility to Aquino, but because its future depends entirely on party president Roxas becoming vice president soon, which will be his jumping board for the 2016 presidency. But already, Roxas has been marginalized, with Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and his gang having blocked his bid to be a high-profile presidential chief of staff, and maneuvering him instead into the labyrinthine and corruption-ridden Department of Transportation and Communications. When transport prices soar, and they will, Roxas will be the most unpopular Cabinet member.

The Liberal Party’s golden age was, ironically, when Diosdado Macapagal, the father of Gloria Arroyo whom it has been crucifying, won the presidency in 1961. After Macapagal, it has been downhill for five decades to near-extinction, losing consistently in presidential and vice presidential elections, and winning very few seats in Congress.

It has not been able to produce political leaders with gravitas who could be presidential timber. Even the new generation of Liberals are hardly poster boys for a holier-than-thou party: P50-million-mansion-owner Tupas Jr., the obnoxious prosecution spokesman Miro Quimbo, tainted by the alleged Globe Asiatique property scam; former deputy customs chief Reynaldo Umali, caught lying with his fictitious “small-lady-informant” yarn.

Aquino is the first Liberal to win the presidency since Macapagal, but this was due neither to his personality nor to the Liberal’s political prowess, but because of mass hysteria that Cory Aquino’s spirit lives in his son’s body. A Roxas win would have ensured a new, post-Aquino golden age for the Liberal Party. But he lost, and the Liberals are now trying to move mountains to reverse his defeat, with Corona’s impeachment as the most crucial phase of that campaign.

As in all major historical events, Corona’s trial has its economic element (to get P10 billion for Hacienda Luisita) and its political dimension (to get Roxas to be vice president). There is also a personal facet to it.
Corona’s term – if he is not taken out – ends October 2018. For senior Associate Justice Carpio, who was appointed by Arroyo five months before Corona, the scenario is sheer psychological torture. He will spend seven maddening years seeing his rival preside over the Court, and when he becomes chief justice, it will be for only one year, as he retires October 2019.

E-mail: tiglao.inquirer@gmail.com.

Corona Trial

‘Fake’ bank documents snag Corona trial

MANILA, Philippines – The debate over the authenticity of the photocopy of bank records allegedly owned by Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) snagged Corona’s impeachment trial Wednesday.

Two officials from the Philippine Savings Bank reiterated that there were discrepancies between the document attached by the prosecution team to its supplemental request for subpoena for Corona’s PS Bank accounts and the original records of the bank, and both claimed that these were “fake”.

The long discussion over the alleged “fake” documents arose after Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada asked Annabelle Tiongson, PS Bank Katipunan branch manager, if the documents marked as Annex A, attached to the prosecution team’s request for subpoena were faithful reproductions of the original bank documents.

“They are not the same. It’s fake,” Tiongson said, reiterating her statement in Monday’s hearing.

Estrada then asked how the photocopies could be “fake” since PS Bank President Pascual Garcia, also speaking under oath, had confirmed the existence of the account numbers indicated in the document.

Tiongson said that the account numbers may have come from other sources like when a client would write his or her account number behind cheques or when banks tellers do so.

However, Estrada said he was not convinced and stated his belief that the document presented by the prosecution was indeed a “faithful reproduction of the original.”

Senator Franklin Drilon asked how Tiongson could say that the photocopied document was a fake. The witness said that she compared the document with the original bank copies and noticed some differences. When asked for the specific differences, Tiongson said: “There were entries in the original that were not in the photocopy and there were entries in the photocopy that were not on the original.”

She said that the alleged falsification of the document did not happen in their branch. Tiongson added that she only became the branch manager of the PS Bank in 2010. Corona’s accounts were made in 2008 and 2009.

Drilon then asked Tiongson to bring the original bank documents so that the so-called differences between the original and the photocopied document presented by the prosecution could be seen.

Tiongson said the documents were pulled out of their branch upon the order of their bank president following the subpoena issued by the Senate.

Drilon slammed Tiongson’s excuse saying that it was “lame”.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile criticized the prosecution, yet again, for presenting evidence of “questionable nature.”

“I am not accusing anybody but I feel that the requesting party knew very well that the source of the material was of questionable nature. In fact, the mere knowledge that the source was anonymous should have given the prosecution the caution to scrutinize the document before they presented it to this court as a basis for compulsory process,” Enrile told the prosecution.

“They cannot pass the bat to this honorable court because in our system of adversarial proceeding, it is the obligation, the duty of the parties seeking the assistance of this court to make sure that the request is valid in every respect and more so in the case of the prosecution when the matter under consideration of the court involves a prejudice on the liberty or right of a party,” the Senate President added.

In response, lead prosecutor Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. said: “Ms. Tiongson say it seems fake and there is a repercussion whether as a result of the authenticity or not of the documents, there are grave consequences. To us, the best evidence is the document itself and at the very least, the witness here should bring the document.”

The prosecution team’s Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo Umali said that he received the identification and specimen signature cards of Corona’s bank accounts from a certain “small lady”.

Drilon also asked Tiongson to bring specimen signatures and identify the bank officers who approved the opening of Corona’s accounts with numbers 089121020122 and 089121021681 which were opened march 4, 2010 and September 1, 2010, respectively. The second bank account had an initial deposit of roughly P7 million.

PS Bank’s legal counsel initially refused the request saying that by bringing the documents in question, they would be violating the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court barring the impeachment court from issuing a subpoena for Corona’s five foreign currency accounts.

However, Drilon reiterated that the Senate would uphold the high court’s TRO and would not ask about the foreign accounts. He added that the witness may even cover the document if it would show details about the foreign currency deposits.

Enrile said that the original documents need to be presented so that the senator-judges may have a clear appraisal of the “differences” that Tiongson claimed to have seen with the photocopy presented by the prosecution.

Amid the confusion and debate on the authenticity of the documents, Senator Joker Arroyo asked: “A false document is a false document. If this is found to be a false document, what happens?”

Senator Enrile responded that this is to “be fair to everyone.”

He added that if the documents in question were proven to be fake, then the court would be able to determine the extent of the forgery and decide whether they would take out the document from the proceedings.

The impeachment court will also decide on whether disciplinary measures would be imposed on the prosecution if the documents would be proven to be falsified.

Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero clarified the confusion with the prosecution and asked them to continue presenting evidence on the main case at hand.

“We’re not trying to pull a fast one on you. Just a reminder to the prosecution, they are your witnesses. Bear in mind that this is a matter of the impeachment court but not on the case anymore. We can perhaps proceed with the evidence of the prosecution on the main case at hand,” Escudero said.

Tiongson is expected to return to the witness stand Thursday to present the documents requested by the senator-judges.

Corona Trial

Senate resumes Corona trial, tackles Santiago motion vs subpoena of bank records

MANILA, Philippines – Nineteen senators showed up in the Senate on Tuesday, the 13th day of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona since it started last January 16.

Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile banged the gavel to signal the start of proceeding at around 2:00 p.m.
As of posting time, senators are discussing the motion for reconsideration filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on the decision by the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, to subpoena the ban records of Corona.

Corona Trial

Young lawyer stands ground in Corona trial

Private prosecutor Joseph Joemer Perez stood his ground before defense counsel Serafin Cuevas and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for an hour or so at the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Observers noted it was the first time in the first eight days of the trial that a prosecutor was not “eaten alive” by the defense.

Perez, 31, was assigned to directly examine prosecution witness Giovanni Ng, finance director of Megaworld Corp. on the supposed properties of Corona and his wife Cristina that the Chief Justice had allegedly failed to declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Despite the objections raised by Cuevas, a former Supreme Court Justice and justice secretary, Perez spoke firmly and without hesitation as he asserted the relevance of the questions he posed to the witness.

Perez, a valedictorian and cum laude of the University of the Philippines College of Law in 2004, was querying Ng about the P14.5-million penthouse at The Bellagio in Taguig City allegedly owned by Corona when Cuevas launched a barrage of objections.

At one point, Ng told the impeachment court that a Bellagio penthouse unit would be considered prime property as it had a sweeping view of the Manila Golf Course and is only affordable to individuals belonging to the A-B class.

“That unit bought by the spouses Renato and Cristina Corona, is it a penthouse or an ordinary unit?” asked Perez, who placed eighth in the bar examinations.

“No basis, your honor,” Cuevas interjected, addressing Senate President Enrile. “There were no previous questions relative to the character of the property to be testified,” he said.

“Let the witness just answer,” Enrile replied. “Let’s see how it is relevant or material.”

When Perez asked Ng about the number of bedrooms, Cuevas again intervened, saying Ng was “incompetent” to comment.

“Lay the basis (for the question),” Enrile challenged Perez, prompting the prosecutor to rephrase his question.
“Are you familiar with basic characteristics of this penthouse,” he asked Ng.

“Very leading, your honor,” Cuevas protested.

“Your honor,” Perez replied. “Precisely I am asking…”

Enrile ordered him to continue.

“Are you familiar with the basic characteristics or layout of this property,” he asked again.

“This is precisely the same question, your honor,” Cuevas barked, “that, we have been objecting to and we were sustained by the court. There is no basis here, not even any showing.”

“Actually, your honor, the objection was overruled,” Perez noted confidently.

The exchange exasperated Enrile who turned to Ng. “Witness,” the Senate President asked. “Are you familiar with the penthouse? Have you been there?”

“No, Sir,” Ng said hesitantly.

“Objection sustained,” Enrile said, siding with Cuevas.

Rephrasing his question, Perez asked Ng: “Do you know how many floors there are?”

“Immaterial, your honor,” Cuevas butted in. “And unless you can show the materiality…”

“Let the witness answer,” Enrile cut him.

The Bellagio has 38 floors and that Corona’s penthouse is on 38th  floor, Ng said.

“Is The Bellagio I still under construction or already completed,” Perez asked.

“Your honor, the witness now being made to testify on personal knowledge and there is no basis…” Cuevas protested anew.

“If he knows, let the witness go ahead,” Enrile said, banging his gavel.

Ng replied that Bellagio I, the building where Corona’s penthouse is located, was completed sometime between 2008 and 2009.

“Can we ask the witness to speak louder,” Cuevas asked.  “I’m having a hard time…”

“Yes, please,” Enrile agreed. “I’m also having a hard time (listening).”

“Kindly articulate your vowels and your consonants,” he asked Ng.

At this point, Perez asked Ng whether the P14.5 million that Corona allegedly paid for the penthouse was a regular or discounted price.

“No basis, your honor,” Cuevas butted in.

“Your honor, precisely I’m asking the witness…” Perez was about to explain.

“With the kind indulgence of the honorable court,” Cuevas began. “I thought the witness was being made to testify solely on basis of the documents he had produced…”

“No,” Enrile said. “But (Perez) is asking whether there is a discount…”

“But this is now a question which elicits an answer based on the personal knowledge of the witness,” Cuevas explained. “There is no predicate…”

“Wait a minute,” Enrile butted in. “My understanding is that this witness as presented as finance officer of the corporation and is in charge of sale (and) contracts dealing with sale. Therefore he must know the prices of units being sold.”

Enrile banged his gavel again.

Before Ng gave an answer, he said that his information about discounts given to clients came from the marketing department that he consulted upon receiving the impeachment court’s subpoena.
“Based on what I was told, for long payment terms that reach an average of four years…” the witness said.
“Wait a minute,” Enrile cut in. “What you’re saying is based on knowledge or info of another. Sustain objection! He is giving hearsay and I sustain the objection!”

Perez asked Enrile to reconsider. “Yes, but he will testify giving hearsay evidence and that is prohibited here,” Enrile asserted.

“Your honor, we will invoke the independently relevant tool. So, at the very least, your honor,” Perez pleaded. “Explain,” the Senate President told the young lawyer.

“It is independently relevant to know what is the information given to this witness with respect to the regular selling price of this particular…” Perez said.

“Qualify the witness so he would be competent,” the Senate President ordered.

Cuevas raised his hand again. “There is no question as to the conversation (that took) place between this witness and (the marketing department). But as to the accuracy of what was stated or transmitted, we do not object. But what we are objecting (to) is the nature of the testimony,” he said.

“I will allow the answer,” Enrile said firmly.

Perez was about to ask Ng again about the information from marketing when Cuevas interjected anew.
“Again, your honor, it’s very clear,” the former Supreme Court justice said objecting.

“There has already been a ruling, your honor,” Perez said, defending his question.

“Counsel for defense,” an amused Enrile addressed Cuevas,  “let us allow the counsel for prosecution to proceed.”

“Submitted, your honor,” Cuevas replied chuckling.

Corona Trial