Saturday, January 21, 2012

An overview.

So this is my brief opinion regarding the Impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. In fact, the first chief justice to try for an impeachment due to the following grounds: a) betrayal of public trust b) failure to disclose to the public his SALN as required under Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution c) graft and corruption d) betrayal of public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of former President Gloria Arroyo and her husband in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution.


Highlights during the Impeachment Trial:

Day 1: Senator-Judge Cayetano made an appeal to amend the ruling vs summoning Corona family. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile puts it to vote.

Day 2: The Prosecution panel was unprepared to present the very Article 2 they themselves offered they preferred to present.

Day 3: Evidence inaction by the Prosecution team. Ultimate grammar lecture showdown between Sen. Enrile and Rep. Tupaz.

   TUPAZ: Mr. President, did you mean for the witness to consult the defense lawyers?
   ENRILE: No, I said for the defense to consult the respondent for the witness, do you know what respondent means??


(Hahaha! Manong Johnny, you are soooo, so GENIUS! And, cute as hell. Had Senator Miriam Santiago was there and present at the trial, I bet it would be more an awesome and coolest show for a trial ever!! lol )

Day 4: The Clerk of Court as directed by Sen. Drilon presented to the impeachment court the SALN of Chief Justice Corona. 


SO THIS IS THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT:


Article 2's argument is that, the failure of Corona to disclose his SALN (Statement of Assets and Liabilities Network) was a case of violation of Constitution and therefore, betrayal of public trust. TAKE NOTE, it was not an allegation of his accumulation of wealth but his failure to disclose his SALN. Unfortunately, the prosecution themselves showed before the public and the impeachment court that Chief Justice Corona had regularly filing his SALN. So, what's the case if he's regularly doing it? The problem with the prosecution is, they want to convict CJ in the case of ill-gotten wealth. WHERE in fact their complaint was on his failure to disclose his SALN.


Ibig sabihin, kinasuhan mo ako ng hindi ko pagdeklara ng SALN ko tapos gusto mo akong madiin sa kasong ill-gotten wealth? This is technically wrong which the defense lawyers objected. If the defense lawyers will not object on this technically wrong way of convicting their client, then, what is the purpose of their existence?


And, when the clerk of court submitted to the Senate the SALN on Day 4 of the Impeachment Trial, that was the end of Article 2. Ultimately, the question here is, did CJ Corona fail to submit his SALN? The answer? NO. He did not fail. He submitted his SALN. End of story. Move on na. Article 1 na tayo or 6? Seriously. What's wrong with these people?!!!!!

1 comment: