Corona May Face New Impeachment Case
By MARIO B. CASAYURAN and ROLLY T. CARANDANG
MANILA, Philippines - Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr. said yesterday that the probe conducted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on Chief Justice Renato C. Corona’s alleged secret dollar accounts violates the Bank Secrecy Act, a law that requires the formal consent of the depositor to have a bank account unlocked.
“They did it. The law here was violated. Why did they investigate it when there is a no predicate crime as required by law? That is a requisite. The release of information (on bank accounts) requires a court order,” Marcos said.
“Is this a new doctrine? A new system that on the basis of a complaint that the Ombudsman can already gain the information from the AMLC and can publicize that information?” he asked.
“The Ombudsman is not a judge. She is a prosecutor. She is a glorified fiscal for the government. They got around the AMLC. They got around the foreign currency deposit law (Bank Secrecy Act),” Marcos added.
As this developed, Corona could face another impeachment charge in December if the Senate declares him innocent of the three impeachment charges leveled against him by the House of Representatives.
This was elicited yesterday by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago from Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales who testified in yesterday’s trial that her office could file another round of impeachment charges, if warranted, against Corona if he is cleared by the Senate impeachment court.
Morales also testified that Corona made significant deposits, specifically in 2004 and 2007, and had huge withdrawals during the time he was impeached.
Reacting to Morales earlier testimony, Senate President Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada said that the revelation of Ombudsman Morales of Corona’s dollar accounts before the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, based on the AMLC report, without the prescribed court order sets a dangerous precedent that could be used by any administration to terrorize its political foes.
“It would be a dangerous precedent because those who are hostile to this (Aquino) administration or any administration for that matter… the Ombudsman can just ask the AMLC about bank accounts of personalities (and publicize them),” told the Manila Bulletin before the Senate resumed its regular plenary session after holding last Monday its 37th day of trying the case of the impeached Chief Justice.
Estrada, nevertheless, conceded that the Ombudsman has vast powers and could get evidence against anyone complained of even from the AMLC.
“The AMLC can give data on request of the Ombudsman. It is in the law. I interpret it that way,” he added.
Despite this development, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he is not inclined to issue a subpoena against the AMLC unless parties involved make a request.
In last Monday’s trial, Morales testified that, based on the complaint of 10 persons who alleged that Corona had an accumulated secret $10-million bank account, she asked the help of the AMLC to look into the foreign currency deposit (FCD) of Corona.
Morales said she had asked the cooperation of the Commission on Audit (CoA) to help her understand Corona’s FCD – $12 million deposited with five banks from 2003 to 2011.
The Senate, by a 13-10 vote last February, decided to respect the temporary restraining order (TRO) of the Supreme Court based on a petition of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSB).
The PSB maintained that it should not be forced by the Senate to reveal Corona’s FCD because this is violative of the Bank Secrecy Act. This law requires a formal consent of the depositor allowing authorities to have access to his dollar deposit.
Asked if the Morales revelation, as allowed by Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, would make the TRO of the High Tribunal moot, Marcos replied: “Ganoon na nga (it seems that way).”
“There is supposed to be bank secrecy on FCD. It is supposed to be absolute but somehow that has been pierced,” Marcos said.
Asked if there were laws bypassed and that the Monday revelation by Morales of the Corona dollar account appeared alarming as it could be used as a political tool, Marcos replied: “Yes, it could be abused.”
As the senatorial and presidential elections appear in the horizon, Marcos said anybody could just file a complaint with the Ombudsman and will investigate anyone.
“That seems to be a slow test for the beginning of an investigation and the acquisition of those (bank) files,” he said.
Queried whether the evidence submitted by Morales could be considered inadmissible, Marcos said “this is what the defense was trying to say but what the SP (Senate President) usually does is a liberal interpretation and let the senator-judges decide what to do.
“But even if we say it is not admissible, nasabi na (it has already been revealed) and so it remains in our consciousness,” he added.
Asked whether there is a conspiracy out to get Corona’s head, Marcos replied that ‘’certainly there are forces that are coming together to make sure that the Chief Justice is impeached and it is not surprising that the government is not working to oust the Chief Justice.”
But Rep. Sonny Angara, one of prosecution spokesmen, criticized the defense for trying to insinuate that the Ombudsman was part of a conspiracy to remove Corona from office.
“Maybe this is an attempt to gain sympathy for the Chief Justice but I guess they failed miserably before the public based on the reactions in social media,” Angara said.
Angara said the testimony of the country’s top graft buster “could very well serve as the final nail on Corona’s coffin.”
Morales Backed
Despite questions on the bank account revelation, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. justified the testimony of Morales, saying the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any government official who commits serious misconduct while performing duties.
In a press briefing yesterday at the Senate, Belmonte, along House Majory Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales III, cited Republic Act 6770, which states that the Ombudsman has the power “to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.”
The House leaders issued the statement in view of many questions from various quarters questioning Morales’ move.
“She [Morales] cannot file any criminal case against an impeachable official but she is tasked by the Constitution to recommend an impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives,” Gonzales said.
Belmonte said documents obtained from the Ombudsman showed that the Chief Justice’s income was grossly disproportionate with his assets and bank accounts.
He reiterated that since the start of the impeachment trial, the prosecution was able to establish solid evidence against Corona, particularly in the aspect of non-disclosure of statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
Belmonte said the testimony of Morales only confirmed their earlier findings that indeed Corona has huge peso and dollar accounts.
Asked about the documents presented by Morales, Belmonte said a representative from the Office of the Ombudsman delivered copies of the documents to his house last Friday, since the offices at the House of Representatives are closed that day.
“It was a report of the committee tasked by the Ombudsman to investigate… Parang naging lifestyle check na rin, including bank documents, registers of deeds, mga ganoon,” he said.
Meanwhile, Malacañang said the Chief Justice must answer squarely the allegations of huge dollar deposits rather than resort to diversionary rhetoric.
Deputy presidential spokeswoman Abigail Valte said the testimony of Morales on the 82 dollar accounts of Corona was “more or less a kaleidoscope of truth,” rejecting Corona’s claims they were lantern of lies. (With a report Genalyn D. Kabiling)
“They did it. The law here was violated. Why did they investigate it when there is a no predicate crime as required by law? That is a requisite. The release of information (on bank accounts) requires a court order,” Marcos said.
“Is this a new doctrine? A new system that on the basis of a complaint that the Ombudsman can already gain the information from the AMLC and can publicize that information?” he asked.
“The Ombudsman is not a judge. She is a prosecutor. She is a glorified fiscal for the government. They got around the AMLC. They got around the foreign currency deposit law (Bank Secrecy Act),” Marcos added.
As this developed, Corona could face another impeachment charge in December if the Senate declares him innocent of the three impeachment charges leveled against him by the House of Representatives.
This was elicited yesterday by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago from Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales who testified in yesterday’s trial that her office could file another round of impeachment charges, if warranted, against Corona if he is cleared by the Senate impeachment court.
Morales also testified that Corona made significant deposits, specifically in 2004 and 2007, and had huge withdrawals during the time he was impeached.
Reacting to Morales earlier testimony, Senate President Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada said that the revelation of Ombudsman Morales of Corona’s dollar accounts before the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, based on the AMLC report, without the prescribed court order sets a dangerous precedent that could be used by any administration to terrorize its political foes.
“It would be a dangerous precedent because those who are hostile to this (Aquino) administration or any administration for that matter… the Ombudsman can just ask the AMLC about bank accounts of personalities (and publicize them),” told the Manila Bulletin before the Senate resumed its regular plenary session after holding last Monday its 37th day of trying the case of the impeached Chief Justice.
Estrada, nevertheless, conceded that the Ombudsman has vast powers and could get evidence against anyone complained of even from the AMLC.
“The AMLC can give data on request of the Ombudsman. It is in the law. I interpret it that way,” he added.
Despite this development, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he is not inclined to issue a subpoena against the AMLC unless parties involved make a request.
In last Monday’s trial, Morales testified that, based on the complaint of 10 persons who alleged that Corona had an accumulated secret $10-million bank account, she asked the help of the AMLC to look into the foreign currency deposit (FCD) of Corona.
Morales said she had asked the cooperation of the Commission on Audit (CoA) to help her understand Corona’s FCD – $12 million deposited with five banks from 2003 to 2011.
The Senate, by a 13-10 vote last February, decided to respect the temporary restraining order (TRO) of the Supreme Court based on a petition of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSB).
The PSB maintained that it should not be forced by the Senate to reveal Corona’s FCD because this is violative of the Bank Secrecy Act. This law requires a formal consent of the depositor allowing authorities to have access to his dollar deposit.
Asked if the Morales revelation, as allowed by Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, would make the TRO of the High Tribunal moot, Marcos replied: “Ganoon na nga (it seems that way).”
“There is supposed to be bank secrecy on FCD. It is supposed to be absolute but somehow that has been pierced,” Marcos said.
Asked if there were laws bypassed and that the Monday revelation by Morales of the Corona dollar account appeared alarming as it could be used as a political tool, Marcos replied: “Yes, it could be abused.”
As the senatorial and presidential elections appear in the horizon, Marcos said anybody could just file a complaint with the Ombudsman and will investigate anyone.
“That seems to be a slow test for the beginning of an investigation and the acquisition of those (bank) files,” he said.
Queried whether the evidence submitted by Morales could be considered inadmissible, Marcos said “this is what the defense was trying to say but what the SP (Senate President) usually does is a liberal interpretation and let the senator-judges decide what to do.
“But even if we say it is not admissible, nasabi na (it has already been revealed) and so it remains in our consciousness,” he added.
Asked whether there is a conspiracy out to get Corona’s head, Marcos replied that ‘’certainly there are forces that are coming together to make sure that the Chief Justice is impeached and it is not surprising that the government is not working to oust the Chief Justice.”
But Rep. Sonny Angara, one of prosecution spokesmen, criticized the defense for trying to insinuate that the Ombudsman was part of a conspiracy to remove Corona from office.
“Maybe this is an attempt to gain sympathy for the Chief Justice but I guess they failed miserably before the public based on the reactions in social media,” Angara said.
Angara said the testimony of the country’s top graft buster “could very well serve as the final nail on Corona’s coffin.”
Morales Backed
Despite questions on the bank account revelation, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. justified the testimony of Morales, saying the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any government official who commits serious misconduct while performing duties.
In a press briefing yesterday at the Senate, Belmonte, along House Majory Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales III, cited Republic Act 6770, which states that the Ombudsman has the power “to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.”
The House leaders issued the statement in view of many questions from various quarters questioning Morales’ move.
“She [Morales] cannot file any criminal case against an impeachable official but she is tasked by the Constitution to recommend an impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives,” Gonzales said.
Belmonte said documents obtained from the Ombudsman showed that the Chief Justice’s income was grossly disproportionate with his assets and bank accounts.
He reiterated that since the start of the impeachment trial, the prosecution was able to establish solid evidence against Corona, particularly in the aspect of non-disclosure of statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
Belmonte said the testimony of Morales only confirmed their earlier findings that indeed Corona has huge peso and dollar accounts.
Asked about the documents presented by Morales, Belmonte said a representative from the Office of the Ombudsman delivered copies of the documents to his house last Friday, since the offices at the House of Representatives are closed that day.
“It was a report of the committee tasked by the Ombudsman to investigate… Parang naging lifestyle check na rin, including bank documents, registers of deeds, mga ganoon,” he said.
Meanwhile, Malacañang said the Chief Justice must answer squarely the allegations of huge dollar deposits rather than resort to diversionary rhetoric.
Deputy presidential spokeswoman Abigail Valte said the testimony of Morales on the 82 dollar accounts of Corona was “more or less a kaleidoscope of truth,” rejecting Corona’s claims they were lantern of lies. (With a report Genalyn D. Kabiling)
