#cjontrial

[crookedvision]

[kineticperpetual-blog]

The CJ Issue

It has been my habit to watch Corona's trials these past weeks since I got nothin' to do. Actually, I'm initially for CJ's conviction. ☺☺ Well, when he got convicted due to the 20 votes, I felt happy and proud! Since I knew nothing about the issue, I sided with the majority. I believed that CJ was (errrr) guilty and blameworthy. Hahahaha! 

When I discovered that my social science teacher was bursting in anger when he found out that Corona was convicted, I paused for a moment and read backgrounder articles about the "real" issue. Hmmm, I was partly moved 'coz indeed, it was a "lame" accusation, a trap for Corona. If I were a bad guy (HAHA) and if I hated him so much, I may consider checking what aspects is he vulnerable for legal attack (pardon my poor organization of thoughts huhu .___.).. and this discrepancies/irregularities/inconsistencies in his SALN is just the perfect weapon.

Actually, it was indeed a pretty valid accusation. They have a point! Here's an excerpt from the writings of Maynigo:

After the revisions and careful analysis, I made the following observations:

The law requires the declaration of the acquisition costs of all real properties. CJ Corona FAILED to report the said costs.

The law requires the declaration of ALL Cash on Hand and in Bank. It does not exclude foreign currency accounts. Bank testimonies prove the existence of a dollar account owned by CJ Corona. Even if the dollar account only has $1 or $700,000, he should have declared it. CJ Corona FAILED to do it.

He purchased a land in 1992 and a condo in 1997 both by installment. CJ Corona FAILED to declare them in his 2002 SALN as property-owned and if still not fully paid, as loan/mortgage payable.

For 2003, I computed: a Total Asset (Fixed and Current Asset) Discrepancy of P20837720; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P16758800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P4078920.

For 2004, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P24426651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P16758800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P24426651.82.

For 2005, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P32526651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P32526651.82.

For 2006, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P30526651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P30526651.82.

For 2007, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P39635782.35; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P39635782.35.

For 2008, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P33626651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P23768800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P33626651.82.

BUT, according to Section 17 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, which, I guess, is the reason why Corona didn't declare those million dollar accounts in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN):

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

My attention was caught by the words "as provided by law". 

I personally blame the media for its biased reporting. Mehehe it's because if you're unaware of the real issue you'll really think Corona's a super corrupt politician/smuggler/etc. CJ has his fault, but the media "exaggerated" it to the nth level. CJ committed a sin. He really deserves to be convicted but he's not a very bad person. We don't know the real story. After all, I personally believe that the senators still made a "good" decision although their speeches were full of premature election campaigns. Jeeez, I just don't understand the politics of this country anymr. *sigh*

[ecelines]

There goes the 16th vote. Corona is convicted. We have won back the values our nation has been fighting for in the last 44 days but we have lost the sanctity and legality of our courts.

ecelines (May 29, 2012) 

[pwnofaderivative]

Dapat.

Disclaimer: Heto ang naisip ko kanina habang nasa jeep ako. 'Yan tuloy lumagpas ako at napunta sa Masinag ng hindi sinasadya. Tinitigan pa ako ni manong tsuper kasi kulang daw ang binayad ko, kulang katulad ng binabayad ng ibang tao kapag nagbabayad sila kasabay ng pagbaba nila ng jeep. Wala akong sinabi, tinitigan ko rin siya. To return the favor. Hehe. At stream-of-consciousness ang pagsusulat ko, so expectedly may grammatical errors diyan somewhere.

-----

When you come to office at around nine in the morning, even if you are expected to come in at eight o'clock sharp, no questions asked, you are reprimanded. If you do it again and again, almost expectedly, you will be fired from the office by your higher-up. It is the law; it is the process of the system to check itself of errors and correct it without discrimination. It is the line of command, you being checked by your superior, and the latter being checked by his superior, and so on. This information is guised in the organizational chart present in any office. This information, however, begs the question: if you are the highest-up, who is your superior? Relating it to the issue, if you are the president, the highest in the executive branch, or the senate president, the highest in the legislative branch, or the chief justice, the highest in the judicial branch, who is your highest-up?

This, I believe, is where the term "impeachable officers" comes in. When the system checks itself and corrects the errors it finds, one must recognize that however a man is the highest in his order, the system will still believe that he is but a part of it. We are not talking here that the system is either the executive, the legislative or the judiciary; those three are all under one system. This system I do not know what to call, as I am not a lawyer; I am but a layman who, as lawyers are guided by law and shall therefore execute his matters while being mindful of law, is mindful of logic and shall do likewise matters in a logical manner. Impeachment is a manner of seeking and checking for errors amongst the highest-ups of each of its limbs, being the three powers of the state. I know that a president can never be booted out of the office by his cronies, likewise in the other sectors; that is why impeachment is made. It likened to a pal touching his pal's shoulder while whispering, "psst, parang mali 'yang ginagawa mo." It is where someone powerful is checked by somebody equally powerful as the former is, rightfully trying and judging the same if needed. I want to believe that this is the essence of the power vested to the Senate. Senate is the people, and the people you see on your television sets are but the people's representatives, no more. 

Now, on to the two points.

First: it is wrong to look at it and liken it to the case of the court translator. If you do not know, this court translator failed to place her market stall as an asset, thus she was fired from her office. The procedure is correct, yes, but it does not apply to the CJ. I believe that the judiciary's rules regarding that applies to anybody except to its highest-up, for that power does not belong to the judiciary per se. That power is vested on the system. Impeachment is the only manner of trying and judging the CJ. That is why I believe the aforementioned case is never relevant. They should not have pointed at it and held it as if it is true.

Second and the most special: failure to place the exact (repeat, exact) amount on your SALN is not an impeachable offense (I would like to thank Madam Defensor-Santiago for lecturing me regarding this; I can somehow feel that her words, though heavy, are directed to laymen who can understand law though not lawyers). How is an error committed that is worthy of reprimand as the law dictates a high crime? How is the placement of a meager fraction of the real amount in his SALN tantamount to a culpable violation of the constitution (repeat, constitution)? If a law states that if he commits an error he can correct it, then by all means he must; the promise of correcting it is reason enough for belief of honest mistake and for him to be given time to do good on the next execution of his SALN. I believe it is not a high crime, unless there is something to it. Is the money not placed on his SALN from wrongdoings? Did he steal? If he did not, or if the evidences either says no or there is not enough evidence, then I believe it is not a high crime. In no way is the wealth proven to be ill-gotten as evidenced by proper papers and such. Or, if there are glimpses right there, it is not enough to convict the man that he did steal money.

Like what Madam Defensor Santiago said, the preponderance is there but it is not overwhelming.

[sagiscor]

It is finished. It is time to let the former Chief Justice and his family take up their legal defenses as private individuals before regular courts. It is left for everyone else to act with dignity and respect for the verdict, move on and discharge our duties of citizenship, and continue building our country towards the vision of the framers of the twenty-five year old 1987 Constitution. Today, our Constitution visibly reigns.

Prof. Diane Desierto

[michalcantara-blog]

What kepy me busy while watching #CJontrial yesterday (Taken with instagram)