Read his formula for computing corruption
My exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Prosecutors in the impeachment trial might not know they have a document they can refer to when they present ITRs and SALNs as evidence. It’s a document written by someone who happens to be named Renato C. Corona.
The document is Chief Justice Corona’s landmark decision on July 15, 2003 turning over the Marcoses’ loot stashed in Swiss banks to the Philippine government.
In that document, CJ Corona made some interesting points:
- He said the burden of proof lies with the person being accused of having amassed such wealth.
- He also said the court should disregard technicalities thrown by the defendant’s side.
- And he said it was enough to compare a respondent’s SALNs (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) and ITRs (Income Tax Return) with the wealth in question to determine the latter’s illegal origin. If disclosed income and assets were far less than the questioned wealth, then the latter is ill-gotten.
CJ Corona showed how to connect the dots using the SALN and the ITR in his ruling entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. the Sandiganbayan and Ferdinand Marcos, as represented by his heirs: his wife Imelda and their children Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., Governor Imee Marcos, and Irene Marcos-Araneta.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona wrote how to compute for corruption in his landmark decision on the Marcoses' ill gotten wealth case. In this 2011 photo, CJ Corona sits beside Senator Bongbong Marcos
In his very exhaustive ruling on this civil forfeiture case, CJ Corona concretely showed:
- How to use SALNs and ITRs to compute for the total assets of the respondent
- Then how to determine the amount of alleged ill-gotten wealth in comparison to the defendant’s total assets
About the three things that struck me about CJ Corona’s ruling that could prove relevant to his ongoing impeachment trial:
First, CJ Corona had this to say about technicalities that simply delayed the trial. He wrote:
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.
Second, CJ Corona laid down the law insofar as proving what constitutes ill-gotten wealth. He wrote:
Section 2 of RA 1379 explicitly states that “whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. x x x”
The elements which must concur for this prima facie presumption to apply are:
(1) the offender is a public officer or employee;
(2)he must have acquired a considerable amount of money or property during his incumbency; and
(3)said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.
And third, while adhering to the constitutional right of any accused to be presumed innocent, CJ Corona placed the burden of proof, not on the prosecution but on the accused. In other words, it is the person being accused who has to prove he or she has no ill-gotten wealth.
Thus, CJ Corona wrote that the defendant must deny each allegation:
In their answer, respondents failed to specifically deny each and every allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the manner required by the rules. All they gave were stock answers like “they have no sufficient knowledge” or “they could not recall because it happened a long time ago,” and, as to Mrs. Marcos, “the funds were lawfully acquired,” without stating the basis of such assertions.
Section 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.[28]
The purpose of requiring respondents to make a specific denial is to make them disclose facts which will disprove the allegations of petitioner at the trial, together with the matters they rely upon in support of such denial. Our jurisdiction adheres to this rule to avoid and prevent unnecessary expenses and waste of time by compelling both parties to lay their cards on the table, thus reducing the controversy to its true terms. As explained in Alonso vs. Villamor,[29]
CJ Corona also wrote that a defendant should be required to state the ultimate facts surrounding the law, manner or mode of acquisition of the subject funds:
On the part of Mrs. Marcos, she claimed that the funds were lawfully acquired. However, she failed to particularly state the ultimate facts surrounding the lawful manner or mode of acquisition of the subject funds. Simply put, she merely stated in her answer with the other respondents that the funds were “lawfully acquired” without detailing how exactly these funds were supposedly acquired legally by them. Even in this case before us, her assertion that the funds were lawfully acquired remains bare and unaccompanied by any factual support which can prove, by the presentation of evidence at a hearing, that indeed the funds were acquired legitimately by the Marcos family.
Respondents’ denials in their answer at the Sandiganbayan were based on their alleged lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the petition.
It is true that one of the modes of specific denial under the rules is a denial through a statement that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material averment in the complaint. The question, however, is whether the kind of denial in respondents’ answer qualifies as the specific denial called for by the rules. We do not think so. In Morales vs. Court of Appeals,[30] this Court ruled that if an allegation directly and specifically charges a party with having done, performed or committed a particular act which the latter did not in fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and express denial must be made.
Here, despite the serious and specific allegations against them, the Marcoses responded by simply saying that they had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations. Such a general, self-serving claim of ignorance of the facts alleged in the petition for forfeiture was insufficient to raise an issue. Respondent Marcoses should have positively stated how it was that they were supposedly ignorant of the facts alleged.[31]
In addition, CJ Corona wrote that pleading memory lapse is not an adequate defense for respondents:
Since 1991, when the petition for forfeiture was first filed, up to the present, all respondents (Cong. Imelda, Gov. Imee and Sen. Bongbong) have offered are foxy responses like “lack of sufficient knowledge or lack of privity” or “they cannot recall because it happened a long time ago” or, as to Mrs. Marcos, “the funds were lawfully acquired.” But, whenever it suits them, they also claim ownership of 90% of the funds and allege that only 10% belongs to the Marcos estate. It has been an incredible charade from beginning to end.
CJ Corona’s formula for computing corruption
As I said at the beginning, CJ Corona – in this ruling – gave the formula for proving ill-gotten wealth.
Here’s how he arrived at his conclusion that the Marcoses amassed loot, without the court having to determine how they did it.
CJ Corona wrote:
That spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public officials during the time material to the instant case was never in dispute. Paragraph 4 of respondent Marcoses’ answer categorically admitted the allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition for forfeiture as to the personal circumstances of Ferdinand E. Marcos as a public official who served without interruption as Congressman, Senator, Senate President and President of the Republic of the Philippines from December 1, 1965 to February 25, 1986.[77] Likewise, respondents admitted in their answer the contents of paragraph 5 of the petition as to the personal circumstances of Imelda R. Marcos who once served as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa from 1978 to 1984 and as Metro Manila Governor, concurrently Minister of Human Settlements, from June 1976 to February 1986.[78]
Respondent Mrs. Marcos also admitted in paragraph 10 of her answer the allegations of paragraph 11 of the petition for forfeiture which referred to the accumulated salaries of respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.[79] The combined accumulated salaries of the Marcos couple were reflected in the Certification dated May 27, 1986 issued by then Minister of Budget and Management Alberto Romulo.[80] The Certification showed that, from 1966 to 1985, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had accumulated salaries in the amount of P1,570,000 and P718,750, respectively, or a total of P2,288,750:
Ferdinand E. Marcos, as President
1966-1976 at P60,000/year P660,000
1977-1984 at P100,000/year P800,000
1985 at P110,000/year 110,000P1,570,000
Imelda R. Marcos, as Minister
June 1976-1985 at P75,000/year – P718,000
In addition to their accumulated salaries from 1966 to 1985 are the Marcos couple’s combined salaries from January to February 1986 in the amount of P30,833.33. Hence, their total accumulated salaries amounted to P2,319,583.33. Converted to U.S. dollars on the basis of the corresponding peso-dollar exchange rates prevailing during the applicable period when said salaries were received, the total amount had an equivalent value of $304,372.43.
The dollar equivalent was arrived at by using the official annual rates of exchange of the Philippine peso and the US dollar from 1965 to 1985 as well as the official monthly rates of exchange in January and February 1986 issued by the Center for Statistical Information of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Use of Statement of Assets and Liabilities
CJ Corona wrote:
The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of respondents since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, from which their net worth could be determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive “any other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities”.[84] Likewise, under the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could “not receive during his tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.”[85] In fact, his management of businesses, like the administration of foundations to accumulate funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution:
CJ Corona demonstrated a mastery of financial analysis
[NOTE: those in boldface are mine]:
To back up his conclusion that the Marcoses accumulated assets worth $304,372.43, CJ Corona dissected President Ferdinand Marcos’ financial status.
He wrote:
11. At the outset, however, it must be pointed out that based on the Official Report of the Minister of Budget, the total salaries of former President Marcos as President form 1966 to 1976 was P60,000 a year and from 1977 to 1985, P100,000 a year; while that of the former First Lady, Imelda R. Marcos, as Minister of Human Settlements from June 1976 to February 22-25, 1986 was P75,000 a year xxx.
ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS LEGITIMATE INCOME
x x x
12. Based on available documents, the ITRs of the Marcoses for the years 1965-1975 were filed under Tax Identification No. 1365-055-1. For the years 1976 until 1984, the returns were filed under Tax Identification No. M 6221-J 1117-A-9.13. The data contained in the ITRs and Balance Sheet filed by the “Marcoses are summarized and attached to the reports in the following schedules:
Schedule A:
Schedule of Income (Annex “T” hereof);
Schedule B:
Schedule of Income Tax Paid (Annex “T-1” hereof);
Schedule C:
Schedule of Net Disposable Income (Annex “T-2” hereof);
Schedule D:
Schedule of Networth Analysis (Annex “T-3” hereof).14. As summarized in Schedule A (Annex “T” hereof), the Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or US$2,414,484.91 in total income over a period of 20 years from 1965 to 1984. The sources of income are as follows:
Official Salaries – P2,627,581.00 – 16.01%
Legal Practice – 11,109,836.00 – 67.71%
Farm Income – 149,700.00 – .91%
Others – 2,521,325.00 -15.37%
Total P16,408,442.00 -100.00%15. FM’s official salary pertains to his compensation as Senate President in 1965 in the amount of P15,935.00 and P1,420,000.00 as President of the Philippines during the period 1966 until 1984. On the other hand, Imelda reported salaries and allowances only for the years 1979 to 1984 in the amount of P1,191,646.00. The records indicate that the reported income came from her salary from the Ministry of Human Settlements and allowances from Food Terminal, Inc., National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, National Food Authority Council, Light Rail Transit Authority and Home Development Mutual Fund.
16. Of the P11,109,836.00 in reported income from legal practice, the amount of P10,649,836.00 or 96% represents “receivables from prior years” during the period 1967 up to 1984.
17. In the guise of reporting income using the cash method under Section 38 of the National Internal Revenue Code, FM made it appear that he had an extremely profitable legal practice before he became a President (FM being barred by law from practicing his law profession during his entire presidency) and that, incredibly, he was still receiving payments almost 20 years after. The only problem is that in his Balance Sheet attached to his 1965 ITR immediately preceeding his ascendancy to the presidency he did not show any Receivables from client at all, much less the P10,65-M that he decided to later recognize as income. There are no documents showing any withholding tax certificates. Likewise, there is nothing on record that will show any known Marcos client as he has no known law office. As previously stated, his networth was a mere P120,000.00 in December, 1965. The joint income tax returns of FM and Imelda cannot, therefore, conceal the skeletons of their kleptocracy.
18. FM reported a total of P2,521,325.00 as Other Income for the years 1972 up to 1976 which he referred to in his return as “Miscellaneous Items” and “Various Corporations.” There is no indication of any payor of the dividends or earnings.
19. Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda did not declare any income from any deposits and placements which are subject to a 5% withholding tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue attested that after a diligent search of pertinent records on file with the Records Division, they did not find any records involving the tax transactions of spouses Ferdinand and Imelda in Revenue Region No. 1, Baguio City, Revenue Region No.4A, Manila, Revenue Region No. 4B1, Quezon City and Revenue No. 8, Tacloban, Leyte. Likewise, the Office of the Revenue Collector of Batac. Further, BIR attested that no records were found on any filing of capital gains tax return involving spouses FM and Imelda covering the years 1960 to 1965.
20. In Schedule B, the taxable reported income over the twenty-year period was P14,463,595.00 which represents 88% of the gross income. The Marcoses paid income taxes totaling P8,233,296.00 or US$1,220,667.59. The business expenses in the amount of P861,748.00 represent expenses incurred for subscription, postage, stationeries and contributions while the other deductions in the amount of P567,097.00 represents interest charges, medicare fees, taxes and licenses. The total deductions in the amount of P1,994,845.00 represents 12% of the total gross income.
21. In Schedule C, the net cumulative disposable income amounts to P6,756,301.00 or US$980,709.77. This is the amount that represents that portion of the Marcoses income that is free for consumption, savings and investments. The amount is arrived at by adding back to the net income after tax the personal and additional exemptions for the years 1965-1984, as well as the tax-exempt salary of the President for the years 1966 until 1972.
22. Finally, the networth analysis in Schedule D, represents the total accumulated networth of spouses, Ferdinand and Imelda. Respondent’s Balance Sheet attached to their 1965 ITR, covering the year immediately preceding their ascendancy to the presidency, indicates an ending networth of P120,000.00 which FM declared as Library and Miscellaneous assets. In computing for the networth, the income approach was utilized. Under this approach, the beginning capital is increased or decreased, as the case may be, depending upon the income earned or loss incurred. Computations establish the total networth of spouses Ferdinand and Imelda, for the years 1965 until 1984 in the total amount of US$957,487.75, assuming the income from legal practice is real and valid x x x.
Thus, CJ Corona concluded that the Marcoses’ Net Worth was US$957,487.75 or under ONE MILLION DOLLARS. He then compared this amount to the US$356 million secreted by the Marcoses in five foundations which maintained various Swiss accounts.
CJ Corona wrote:
53. All the five (5) group accounts (maintained by Marcos foundations) in the over-all flow chart have a total balance of about Three Hundred Fifty Six Million Dollars ($356,000,000.00) as shown by Annex “R-5” hereto attached as integral part hereof.
Otherwise stated, petitioner presented enough evidence to convince us that the Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US $356 million representing the balance of the Swiss accounts of the five foundations, an amount way, way beyond their aggregate legitimate income of only US$304,372.43 during their incumbency as government officials.
Because of all these, CJ Corona ruled that -
In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said assets. Hence, the Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State in accordance with Section 6 of RA 1379…
You can read CJ Corona’s entire landmark ruling by clicking here.
___________________________
Related Stories
CJ Corona’s P11M ‘cash advance’
CJ Corona’s SALNs only declared his wife was in government post in 2007
Cash gifts & car plans – COA report shows what Corona’s wife did as a GMA appointee
Chief Justice Corona personally met with World Bank officials, bank documents show
Realty broker: Corona’s posh condo “a steal” at P14 million
CJ Corona’s condo is fully paid up, tax official confirms
Read related comment: Will he now walk his talk?
Actually there are two things in the SALN that Corona have intentionaly lied:
1. Cash Advance of 11 million (as specified in his SALN).
It’s proven that Mr and Mrs Corona are not officers in the company nor they are
stockholders of the company which alledgedly gave them the 11 million.
There is a big difference between cash advance and a loan.
A. CASH ADVANCES are given only to the OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES by an employer
for a short period of time with no inberest inviolved otherwise it is called a loan..
How could an outsider of the company got this amount money? Lie no.1.
B. The term CASH ADVANCE was used to avoid interest. This is if there is a record
of this CASH ADVANCE in the books of the Comapany. (so someone has to
see the books of the company if this is true. Baka kunyari lang ito. Alam niyo naman
na ang mga drug dealers ay bumibili ng winning sweepstake tickets para lang
maging legal ang perang nasa kamay nila.
C. Liquidation of the CASH ADVANCE- was there really a payment recieved by the
company as installment made by Corona as per his SALN? Again the prosecutors
would need to see the books to see the reflection of these transactions.
2. 9 MILLION worth of property paid in vertually cash, because although it has been paid
twice by check they were done in the same year of 2008.
A. Esguerra is insisting the witness as to when the property has been accepted
by Mrs Corona. Meaning to say if Mrs Corona accepted the property in 2010
the SALN of Corona is correct because the property was declared in 2010.
I think Esguerra thinks he can fool every body. No sir…
Here is the reason why he is fooling every filipino.
In 2008 Corona have cash of 9 million. He used this money to buy a property.
Therefore on his 2008 SALN you should have seen on the property column
his 9 million worth of property.
No 9 million on his cash column because he used it to buy the said property..
The SALN of Corona should have been filed this way but he intentionally did not, because according to Guerrero the property should ONLY be declared when it is actually accepted?
Which is year 2010?
My question is what happen to the 9 million cash that Corana have in his position in buying the property in 2008?
I am asking Guerrero the Power House, what do you want to declare in Coronas SALN in 2008? The Property or the cash? You cannot ignore them both do you?
If you don’t want to declare the property then declare the cash because according to you the sale has not been cosumated yet?
Either way it is a mis-declaration and betrayal of public trust. Dishonesty. Lie no. 2
no basis…wait ka lang.
In the title of Art. 2 of the AOI, 2.2, and 2.3, the QUESTION is:
“Did Corona publicly disclose his SALN?”
Obviously, “NO, he didn’t.” To connect the dots…
To Tupas et al:
Better call Vitug et al (those who requested for the CJ’s SALN) to the witness stand and ask her/them if she/they were given a copy of the CJ’s SALN she/they requested.
Leon Guerrero was dumbfounded and exasperated in the proceedings yesterday (Please watch the video or read articles on it somewhere out there.). It was on account of Cong. Umali’s “brilliance” as a lawyer.
Perhaps, we may help the honorable Senator-Judge…
In the title of Art. 2 of the AOI, and Paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, the QUESTION is:
“Did Corona publicly disclose his SALN?”
Obviously, “NO, he didn’t.”
It’s just now that we came to know Corona’s SALN. Leon Guerrero had only read it also this January 2012.
Now…
To Tupas, Umali, Barzaga, and others:
Better call Vitug (and those who requested for the CJ’s SALN) to the witness stand and ask her (them) if she (they) was (were) given a copy of the CJ’s SALN she (they) requested in the past.
This will connect the dots and Leon Guerrero will most likely understand that you have proven your allegations in Art. 2 of the AOI when Vitug et al will answer in the NEGATIVE.
One caveat though…if NO ONE really requested for the CJ’s SALN then this strategy will again crumble to the prosecutor’s faces.
I believe the requests for SALNs in the past were not specific to the CJ’s copy.
…Sayang, I’ve been toying pa naman sana with an idea on “constitutionality question” in line with the SALN issue…
Sa wakas, mayruong miyembro na may paninindigan sa House-Prosecution.
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.”
Source: Cathy C. Yamsuan Philippine Daily Inquirer 2:28 am | Tuesday, January 31st, 2012
Defense admits ‘inaccuracies’ in Corona SALN
“MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) – A member of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s defense team admitted Tuesday that there were “inaccuracies” in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) when he belatedly declared several real estate properties years after they were acquired.
“Former justice undersecretary Ramon Esguerra said the Chief Justice acquired a condo unit at Spanish Bay Tower, Bonifacio Ridge in 2005 and another condo unit at The Bellagio, Taguig in 2008 but only declared both properties in 2010. The Bonifacio Ridge property was purchased for P9 million; The Bellagio unit P14 million.”
SOURCE: David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 01/31/2012 11:20 AM | Updated as of 01/31/2012 12:05 PM
Of course, Corona was lying on his SALN but the defense may easily, conveniently deny it.
Nonetheless, that’s the problem when SALNs are kept from public scrutiny. There’s no way of rectifying the mistakes and, most importantly, there’s no way of learning a public official’s wrongdoings.
With Esguerra’s logic, Corona really COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Defense lawyer tactic now is DISTORT, DISTORT, DISTORT!
Esguerra is talking about corrective measure for SALN involving the same year yet he implies that corrective measure is applicable for SALN filed in previous years.
He is trying to disorient the public who are trying to learn about the cases or he is addressing Leon and Panday because that is 2 Senator votes at least.
Technically, Esguerra is resorting to cheating which is not surprising. The lead counsel Justice Cuevas was caught spinning a vicious story filled with LIes, that is why we have not heard from him in 2 days. Its Esguerra turn concocting stories and lies.
These lawyers have families to go home at night bringing home livelihood out of filthy lies. Poor children with immoral parent. Those squatters scavenging for living have higher moral values than them.
Mamaya sabihin ni Leon at Panday, “STOP NA, STOP NA, (nahuhuli tayo kung papaano magtago ng nakaw na yaman)!”
How would the clerk of court who reports to the CJSC tell his boss his SALN is not correct short of calling him a liar.
Exactly!
Only through PUBLIC DISCLOSURE will lawful “corrective action” take place.
Corona didn’t publicly disclose his SALN as can be attested to by Vitug (and/or PCIJ veterans?) with the numerous requests for it to be disclosed.
That’s culpable violation of the Constitution of a public official…a public official not considered mortal as administrative cases cannot be filed against him.
As “God” among his fellows in the Judiciary, violating the Constitution constitutes betrayal of public trust.
A LYING god will forever be SECRET and EXEMPTED from being checked. He will just be forever suspected because of his opacity and yet UNTOUCHABLE.
The LIES OF OMISSION was only made known by this impeachment trial…
And a Pro-Corona senator-judge says that Corona impeachment wasn’t warranted???
Oh, come on, you’re really a JOKE !!!
Source: Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News Posted at 02/06/2012 1:37 PM | Updated as of 02/06/2012 6:25 PM
@percy1007
Precisely.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court expects the highest magistrate to be more circumspect with his own SALN declaration.
WITH THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, if there was an iota of ‘doubt’ or inconsistencies with his SALNs, R Corona could have worked out his entries with his staff for mistakes, probity check and accuracy before OFFICIALLY lodging them. BUT NO, his Doctorate of Civil Law got the hold of him. He’s too perfect. Fingers crossing that his white lie(s) wouldn’t crop suspicion.
OF ALL PEOPLE IN GOV’T, especially in the JUDICIARY, the Chief Justice should be above board and reproach – a model of intellligence, due diligence and honesty. However, a SALN form alone – SIMPLE as it is, his SALNs are dubious, fret of errors, even his lawyers admit that there were “inaccuracies” in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) when he belatedly declared several real estate properties years after they were acquired..
I think it is fair to say that a single mistake can be overlooked as an innocent oversight, but for several years of dubious filing and elementary submissions are over the top! Not befitting a Summa Cum Laude graduate from UST and a fellow from Harvard University. I guess, it taught him to be a better LIAR.
A simple matter of form legibility, has become too complicated for a Chief Justice to accomplish. He is just downright DISHonest.
Now, his lawyer claims that “under the same procedure if after the examination of what was filed there seem to be errors or discrepancies, then he is allowed to make a correction. This is the provision of the rules and the regulation,” Cuevas said,“. PONENCIA? Then all his joint and single ‘Supreme’ Court decisions should be subject to review & corrections – if we borrow his lawyers’ malaise of comprehension.
———
Words of comfort from the genius himself.
“A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits.”
The author of that sage advice? Renato Corona. At his own trial, let him reap the wisdom of his own words.
Source: Editorial Wise words from Corona Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:37 pm | Tuesday, January 31st, 2012
Of course, Corona was lying on his SALN but the defense may easily, conveniently deny it.
Nonetheless, that’s the problem when SALNs are kept from public scrutiny. There’s no way of rectifying the mistakes and, most importantly, there’s no way of learning a public official’s wrongdoings.
With Esguerra’s logic, Corona COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Since a SALN is a sworned/notarized document, a person with GOOD INTENT will take time to ensure accuracy and truthfulness of his SALN. He would be expected to think of the properties he bought or acquired the prior year. If J Corona avers they only have very few properties, would it be hard to remember them? Nakalimutan niya kung ilan na condo nila? O kaya sa dami ng tinago, di nila masiguro kung ano nasa pangalan nila at ano nasa mga dummy.
I expect a Chief Justice to have unquestionable honesty and integrity so I will not have an iota of doubt when he renders a decision kahit na he reverses himself because I will believe in his judgment.
His defense counsels suppressing evidence to determine his fitness as a justice of the SC demonstrates J Corona is “afraid of the truth” and since he is, he has no right to stay longer in the Supreme Court. For a Supreme Court is mandated to determine and surface the truth and not to hide behind technicalities
Bonifacio Ridge 9 million purchased 2005
Bellagio 14 million purchased 2008
Both these properties were declared in the 2010 SALN of Corona. Esguerra’s defense here is that the title and the certificate of acceptance were issued in the subsequent years. That is why he persistently asked Besnar about the date of the acceptance.
Napakababao naman ng depensa nitong si Esguerra. Limang taon bago maissue ang title o kaya ang acceptance?
Ok payag na ako maski na baluktot ang reason.
Kung ayaw ni Corona na ipakita sa SALN ang property niya dahil sa wala pang titulo
na depensa nitong si Esguerra, dapat ito ang pinalitao sa SALN niya na dagdag sa cash position niya:
Cash on Hand/Bank 2005 9 million
Cash on Hand/Bank 2008 14 million
Ang ginawa nila hindi deniklara ang property noon 2005 at 2008 at hindi rin deniklara yong pera?
Ill-gotten wealth, unexplained wealth, ill-gotten CJ Position from ill-gotten Presidency…what else to prove? Pinas.. wake up.!!! Let’s get rid of the bad elements.. the instruments of corruptions, among us.. It’s so clear CJ is a living embodiment of corruption. Kawawang Pinas!!/usa
‘Corona got P10M discount for Bellagio condo’
“MANILA, Philippines (1st UPDATE) – Chief Justice Renato Corona got a P10 million discount for the purchase of a penthouse unit in The Bellagio in The Fort, Taguig City, one of the impeachment prosecutors said Monday.
“During Corona’s impeachment trial, private prosecutor Joseph Joemer Perez said he received information from Megaworld finance director Giovanni Ng that Corona received a P10 million discount for the 300-square-meter Bellagio property, which was purchased for P14 million.
“To be candid, the witness informed us that the chief justice received a 40% discount, or P10 million for the property. We believe this is highly material because it goes to the property in the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth,” he said after being questioned by Sen. Aquilino ‘Koko’ Pimentel III.
“Perez said the P10 million discount could fall under Article 2 of the Impeachment Complaint, which accuses Corona of failure to “truthfully” disclose his SALN.
“The prosecutor questioned Corona’s accepting the P10 million discount especially from a developer that might have pending cases before the SC.”
SOURCE: David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 01/30/2012 4:35 PM | Updated as of 01/30/2012 5:45 PM
‘Corona got P10M discount for Bellagio condo’
——FORMULA FOR CORONA ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH——-
Paging CPAs and Lawyers, and fellow commenters. High time to compare our notes with this one by FRANCIN CRUZ FOR ABS-CBNNEWS.COM,01/30/2012 6:05 PM
SOURCE: INFOGRAPHIC: Ill-gotten wealth according to Renato Corona
Honorable Senator-Judge Santiago,
Shouting in the Impeachment Court is perceived as loss of your control and un-senator like. It may always work in your house but absolutely not in public, more so infront of Filipino people who elected you to the Senate. Therefore, no more shouting in the court.
Please.
Source: ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 02/06/2012 2:31 PM | Updated as of 02/06/2012 6:23 PM
Madam M. Santiago, mag Skype na lang po kayo at para maka participate ho kayo sa Senate Impeachment. Kahit likuran ng mga prosekutor ang makita ninyo sa computer, para hindi tumaas ang presyon ninyo. Namimiss daw kayo ni N. Tupas at ng ibang Prosekutors. Kahit bosses lang, hindi na ninyo kailangang mag-attend ng personal.
Pupuwede na pu ang Skype. Puwede pa pu kayong maglnis ng kuko at naka PJs. Isang litrato lang pu nuong bata-bata pa kayo – puwede na. Ang mahalaga, iyong bosses ninyo ang marinig. (biro lang pu Madam M. Santiago. magandang exercise daw pu ang tumawa ng tumawa).
Sorry I it should read 320,000.00 income after tax and an accumulated income of 32,000,000.00 at the end of the year.
Waht I mean is, if you have a property of more that this you have an explanation to.
My apology.
I always see this word INCOME, DEBIT AND CREDIT with regards to SALN. Let me try to explain this SALN. Sombody there..correct me if I am wrong.
SALN is a legal requirement for all government officials and employee ONLY .
They have to declare what assets and liabilities they have on hand or in their position every year.
So, all they have to do is list all the assets they have (cash, properties, jewelries,cars,boats etc,etc) and also a list of liabilities.
Now they have to deduct the total of their liabilities (from the list) to the total of their assets (from the list) to arrive their net worth.
See how simple it is? Their is no DEBIT, CREDIT and INCOME involved in the calculation
of net worth. NET WORTH here is just the difference between assets and liabilities when it comes to SALN in the year of filing.
On the other hand, the NET WORTH of a Company, Partnership and sole proprietorship
is reflected on the so called BALANCE Sheet Statement. The increase/decrease on the net worth in the BALANCE SHEET is as the the result of the following:
1. The yearly results of the income or loss as reflected by their Profit and Loss Statement.
2. Injection of Capital by shares of stock.
3. Withdrawals ( Partnership and Sole Proprietorship)
Selling of Stocks by a share holder,
OTHER TOPIC
What is the connection of the ITR from the SALN? I will give you an example:
The ITR reflects your:
Gross Income say P 500,000.00
Less: allowable deduction -100,000.00
——————
Income before tax P 400,000.00
Income tax due ex say -80,000.00
—————–
Income after tax P 380,000.00
===========
Assuming that your income is constant over ten years, your accumulated income should read P 13,800,000.00 minus your living and other personal expenses.
To have properties of say 30 million stated in your SALN at the end of the above number of
years, you need a lot of explanations to do.
If you claim to have other income to support the 30 million property make sure the other income you are claiming to have is not taxable otherwise you will be in a much, much much bigger problem.
I do agree that the CJ’s SALN is having discrepancies. However, in the real sense, Assets is a word or a thing or something that was not properly define.
While it is true that ASSET is something that you owned or have in your possession, but that is not the whole truth. Instead, the real definition of an asset is something that you own that puts money into your pocket or bank account.
A LIABILITY is something that puts money out from your pocket or bank account.
For example a yacht, it can be both an asset and a liability.
It is a liability when and if the owner uses it or if it only in standby mode as you will have to do the maintenance which in this case the owner is spending money out from his pocket. It only becomes an Assets when the owner rent it out to a customer or a tourist who want to rent his yacht.
So same as the House for instance, it will become an asset when the owner rents it out as it will give the owner an income. But if the owner lives on that same house, it is the owner’s liability because the owner has no income coming the his own house.
the legal ramification of this decision penned down by CJ Corona is that he is already estopped. He is bound by the Estoppel Rule.. In other words, he cannot deny the statements he previously asserted as the truth.. He cannot also invoke technicalities to delay the proceedings as he himself declared that technicalities are frowned upon by the Court. As the Immortal Bard Shakespeare perspicaciously said, “Let your own discretion be your tutor, suit the action to the word, the word to the action..” Kudus Raissa for excellent work, the prosecution team lacks legal research training, even if they have the materials in their favor they do not seem to know what and how to argue. Certainly, they need you as a legal researcher..
Raïssa, YOU MIGHT BE SUMMONed or INVITEed TO SPEAK IN THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT FOR ARTICLE 7.
Prosecutors want justices, journalists summoned
“MANILA, Philippines – Prosecutors are now preparing to present their case on article 7 of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona. They want to subpoena several journalists, justices and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, among others, as witnesses.”
“… blogger Raissa Robles who they want to testify, among others, on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA;”
Source: Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNnews.com and RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 01/27/2012 12:17 PM |
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/27/12/prosecutors-want-justices-journalists-summoned
sige ms raissa go ka sa trial, dalhin mo lahat ang articles mo para malaman nila fresh from the document ang mga proof na nakalap mo. go go go. i will pray for you now and forever. makakatulong ka sa paglutas ng kasong ito. THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU, RAISSA.
Good day Ms. Raissa. your blog and article was cited by Mr. Jarius Bondoc today in his Philippine Star’s column “Gotcha”.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=64&articleId=771624
Thanks for telling me.
On JHMC, probably Jarius’ wife, Marissa, may be interviewed.
Thanks.
Good Day po uli. Mentioned din po pala kayo sa 24 Oras news kagabi. Congrats po and more power!!!!
Ted explains in Filipino Corona ruling on Marcos wealth…
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/01/26/12/ted-explains-filipino-corona-ruling-marcos-wealth
What a difference a phrase makes.
What is the difference between “unexplained wealth” and “ill-gotten wealth”? A lot, if you read RA 3019 and RA 7080.
Unexplained wealth is defined as:
So unexplained wealth, as stated in the case of Simplicio Berdon, enjoys a legal presumption. The burden shifts to the Defendant, to prove that he acquired the property legally.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/apr1989/gr_74225_1989.html
Note that Corona’s ponencia was about RA 1379, which is about unexplained wealth, not ill-gotten wealth.
Unexplained wealth is defined in RA 3019, which refers to RA 1379
But “ill-gotten wealth” is defined as follows:
There is no presumption here. “Ill-gotten wealth” is defined by the means with which it has been acquired, such as:
1) Misappropriating public funds
2) Receiving a commission or kickback
3) Illegal or fraudulent conversion of assets belonging to the National government
etc.
The prosecution has to prove that property was acquired by the means stated in the definition.
Article 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment states:
Diyos ko po. Pinahirapan mo naman ang sarili mo Niel Tupas. Had you stated “accumulating unexplained wealth” home free ka na with the SALN and ITR. But now, you need evidence to prove the means of acquisition stated in RA 7080.
In basketball, when your player is not performing well, you do not call for a substitution of the referee, or ask the referee to be more liberal. You substitute your player.
Ang galing.
UPDATE – wait a minute.
I was curious, so I did a phrase search of CJ Corona’s decision.
He mentioned the word “ill-gotten” 12 times
He only mentioned “unexplained wealth” 3 times
What doe this mean, in relation to your analysis?
Ditto…
@saxnviolins
Welcome back, my friend. I could not resist not posting when I read the very legalese, unexplained and illegal wealth?
There are only two sources of wealth, legal and Illegal.
Explained LEGAL WEALTH includes employment income including mandated commissions insurance and real estate agents, lobbyists and self employment; inheritance; donation and legal gambling/ lottery winnings, legal treasure hunters like famous Mel Fisher or fictional Indiana Jones.
If source is UNEXPLAINED WEALTH what would be the logical conclusion? Its ILLEGAL, sourced from bribe, corruption of government funds directly or illegal commission from bloated government projects, crime sources like illegal gambling of jueteng, theft, robbery, carnapping, kidnapping, smuggling, insurance fraud, ponzi scheme or scams and extortion.
What example of unexplained wealth could anyone think that is not illegal? None!
Corona himself could not distinguish the logical difference that led him to mix the wordings in his Marcos Ponencia because they are interchangeable, not only in usage but also in meaning.
@saxnviolins
Dont fall to the trap of claiming il-legal is different from ill-gotten! You are an erudite lawyer; not pilosopong Tasyo, different spelling so they have different meanings.
Happy ngayon si @Johnny.
Akala namin nasa overseas trip ka @Johnny?
Kaya bumalik si @saxnviolins.
@saxnviolins, nice to see and read your structured approach to legal definition, comparison and narration of subjects (e.g. “unexplained wealth” and “ill-gotten wealth”) that affects the Senate Impeachment today.
STATUTORY AND JURISPRUDENTIAL BARRIERS TO THE RECOVERY OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
Pls read from the link.
—–
Realistically, Art. II Par. 2.4 of the AOI most likely will not be considered if they continue to be strict in handling the defective complaint.
If ever the Impeachment Court will relax, connecting the dots will still be a burden on the prosecution before the burden will shift to the defense.
Kinda tall order…
In jurisprudence, the rule of law states that the latest decision of the SC on certain disputed matters becomes the latest rule of the land based on the interpretation of the justices. All the pertinent laws attributed to ill gotten or unexplained wealth are now ssuperseded by the interpreation of Corona in his Marcos Ponencia in 2003.
I am not a lawyer but do I understand Corona Ponencia is irrelevant and non binding to other cases like this impeachment article?
The laws you cited were before the Corona promulgation; unexplained or ill gotten wealth have been clarified by that decision practically molding them into one category or interconnected together with each other along with SALN.
Its understandable legal minds would quote all applicable laws but at then of the day the recent SC decision on interpretation of the laws takes precedence, unless Senate would disregard the new law created by Corona decision. That simple isn’t it, why complicate?
Everybody got familiarized with Marcos ill gotten wealth SC decision because of Raissa reporting that it could no longer be ignored thereby it should become the norm in the future.
Before gall bladder surgery was approached by long incision achieved by cutting on abdominal skin closed by large pieces of gauze; now its by band aid closing thru laparoscopic laser surgery, corollary to the Corona ponencia by simplifying the process. Every surgeon got familiarized with the procedure that is the norm now.
Same common sense cookie!
Enrile has already stated that ill gotten wealth is the end product, definitely what Corona meant in finality of his deccision.
“ill-gotten property” I find too ungrammatical. Why call it “ill?” It is not a “sick” property like a person or living thing. Lawmakers just makes it difficult to understand their so many complez definitions of words for meanings. “Unexplained wealth” is another. For every law, a different definition for the same subject matter. It just confuses an ordinary person and even lawyers and judges.A simple definition like “Any property, real or personal including stocks and other tangible items, stolen, acquired, possessed, secured, owned or other manner of acquisitions, permanent or otherwise, in violation of any civil, criminal or procedural laws or rules and regulations is UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY.”
@leona
You are correct, they are all unlawfully acquired property whether referred as ill gotten or unexplained.
@Mel
Yes I m in Vegas, trying to snoop on Marissa Lapid smuggling case, Just passed by their big house on North Buffalo Street that was placed on lien by the federal government last Friday as collateral for her smuggling case punishable by $500,000 fine and 10 yrs imprisonment
@saxnviolins is confusing people but he would not comment on the unexplained wealth”statement” that is also mentioned in his ill gotten wealth definition. interchangeable phrases that saxniviolins refused to elaborate after being caught in his own web of deceptive legalese tactics(Administrative provision of RA 3019). He also would not define PECUNIARY Benefits that he defined under ill gotten wealth because he could not interpret his own definition except to admit he was wrong.
Saxniviolins silence means he was deceiving people , the way he tried to deceive before and kept silent for a while because he was caught wrong in his own interpretation of laws he quoted, and he calls himself a lawyer.
@johnny lin
hey máte, nice of you to touch base.
the latest from PH.
Who wants retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas out of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona? The 83-year-old Cuevas, who has become a sort of a rock star because of his performance as lead defense counsel in the afternoon TV-radio spectacle before a nationwide audience, has revealed purported efforts by Malacañang to get him out just two weeks into the Senate trial. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/136379/palace-pressuring-me-to-quit%e2%80%93cuevas
Senator Santiago absent as impeachment trial resumes
Enrile eyes pre-trial in Corona case
As for Lapid’s big house on North Buffalo Street, are there any traces of the pocketed lahar fortunes up there?
take care.
Immediate retraction from Cuevas
Cuevas denies he was approached by Palace ‘emissary’
Has retired SC Justice Serafin Cuevas accidentally kicked his foot into his mouth?
Kayo ang maghusga.
Transcript of PDI interview with retired SC Justice Serafin Cuevas
“MANILA, Philippines—Here is the transcript of the interview Inquirer reporter Christian V. Esguerra had with retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas at the latter’s Makati office Friday night. This was the basis of a Phililippine Daily Inquirer story about Cuevas which appeared on Sunday, Jan. 29, 2012.
“Cuevas spoke largely in Filipino and this is retained in the transcript to ensure fidelity to his statements and avoid misinterpretation. The Inquirer questions are in bold letters.
“Cuevas on Monday denied that a lawyer with links to Malacañang had approached him, urging that he quit his role as lead counsel of Corona’s defense team.”
SOURCE: Philippine Daily Inquirer
7:11 pm | Monday, January 30th, 2012
Transcript of PDI interview with retired SC Justice Serafin Cuevas
Prosecution: Fraud examiner to connect dots in Corona’s SALN
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/68797/bir%E2%80%99s-top-lawyer-faces-graft-raps-over-lots-cars
Corona was citing the PCGG regulations, which use the phrase “ill-gotten wealth” . The PCGG regulations, define ill-gotten wealth with the same text as RA 7080:
The definition requires the element of method of acquisition. There is no such requirement in RA 1379, when a forfeiture case is filed. The administrative provision of RA 3019 (Section
actually uses the phrase “unexplained wealth” in relation to RA 1379, for purposes of dismissal. But the dismissal only comes after a forfeiture court has made a finding. One must first win a civil case, to enjoy the presumption, for purposes of dismissal.
Corona was deciding a case based on RA 1379, which requires a lower quantum of evidence; it enjoys the presumption declared in Simplicio Berdon. The reason for that is that forfeiture is a civil case, and only works the return of government property to the government.
So although the PCGG calls it “ill-gotten wealth”, and it presumably is, the filing of the forfeiture case under RA 1379 is what qualified it for the legal presumption laid down in the Simplicio Berdon case.
But when one uses the phrase “ill-gotten wealth” to impeach, one has to find some definition in law. And that phrase, twice (EO 1 of Cory and RA 7080) defined by law, includes the method of acquisition as part of the definition. So evidence of the method of acquisition must be introduced.
Tupas will have to introduce evidence of kickbacks, etc. Charge it to draftsmanship.
@saxnviolins
Review your own posting on definition: any gift, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit from a person or entity.
The deed of sale of Bellagio is a proof of pecuniary benefit. A discounted property is a form of pecuniary benefit. Look at RA 6713 under definition of gifts and public official. PECUNIARY has wide range of implication because it pertains to money of any kind including cents or pennies. A public official must not accept accept any pecuniary benefit in kind that could compromise the official’s position. Corona was handling Megaworld pending or resolved cases.
Proof of ill gotten wealth: monetary discount is pecuniary benefit received by CJ from Megaworld based on deed of absolute sale.
As I said before, even free meals of Corona from his wife who was pres and CEO, paid by CJH business expense is a form of pecuniary benefit if CJH has pending cases with SC. Having dinner together personally paid from spouse daily food allowance fringe benefit with CJH IS NOT Pecuniary benefit.
It might look complicated but actually simple when audited properly. The wife might not be thinking of propriety when she paid the meals. If paid from business expense account of CJH because she was trying to save her personal daily food allowance, only after the audit that the conflict of interest impropriety would be proven. By this time its too late for Mrs Corona to correct her company business charges.
We all know, both private and government expense accounts, there are official personal expenses which are employee fringe benefits and business which are company expenses, both usually enjoyed by president, CEO and chairman of the board of companies.
Tupas has only show proof the Bellagio brochures on the cost of condo and compare with the amount that Corona paid. Even a discount of one peso is pecuniary benefit. There is the proof of your own definition
@Sax,
But does this mean they still have to amend the articles then again go for the signing? (Medyo malabo sa akin yung part na yun kasi wala akong alam sa rules 
)
Splendid! Tiyak na Espada itong baraha mo – tuhog sila. Kay Cuevas kaya ano, Sotang Bastos?
@Baltazar, @saxnviolins, @johnny lin
Reading the comments and exchanges as above, one layman’s question:
What is good for the gander (G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003 – CJ Corona’s ponencia re RA 1379, unexplained wealth, not ill-gotten wealth), is it good for the goose (Senate Impeachment Case No. 002-2011 [Article 2, minus 2.4 ...ill‐gotten wealth])?
Is CJ Renato Corona’s ‘formula’ suitable for his own conviction?
Either by Yes or No answer, by what legal diction unexplained wealth or ill-gotten wealth?
Agyaman ak.
It is also logical to say that in any case where the wealth acquired cannot be explained, then the presumption is that the wealth is ill-gotten which could have been acquired by any of the means enumerated in R.A. 7080, specifically Item No. 6 of Section 1 (d) which is so broad an act.
Raissa, Your star is rising. Keep it up!
LOL.
What star?
The star that guides ordinary folks like me through the dark side of politics.
is it possible that the prosecutors will stop at article 2 and ask for a ruling right away so that they will not present the other articles of impeachment if the cj is convicted. but what will happen if cj is acquited, can they continue with the rest of the articles.
I’ll have to check that.
In my opinion, all of the 8 impeachable offenses will be discussed first. then they will vote on each of the eight. Sabi ni Senator Enrile, ” hindi gamitin sa Senado ang “it is not beyond reasonable doubts” because it is not a criminal case. The purpose of impeachment if convicted is just to drive out an impeachable officer from his office and that he can not be an employee again of the government forever.I do not exactly knew if it is 50% plus one or 2/3 para kailangan man convict an impeachable officer. Kahit isa lang convicted vote sa 8, puede ng mapatalsikk and impeachable officer. Hindi lahat sa 8 impeachable offenses
Bravo Miss Raissa!, you are a god-sent.
Pls. whisper that into the ears of Bishop Oscar Cruz.
Why Bishop Cruz? HE may not want to hear from him.
Are you talking about Archbishop TOWNCRIER?
ABS-CBN NEWS —-CORONA STIFLES RUMOR OF RESIGNATION
Senate must continue trial even if Corona resigns for the simple reason it is their constitutional duty under impeachment law.
Resignation is not allowed when Senate trial has convened, spelled in Article IX
They must finish trial by conviction even if Corona resigns.
The rumor was floated by own Corona camp to gauge public response and of course the senators who should not fall under this trap, lest they will be malign for cover up. Senate integrity at stake.
If he resigns, the trial will grind to a stop because the only objective of the trial is either to remove him from office or not.
The Ombudsman and BIR will take over any investigation.
Resignation,he will retain all his government benefits and ability to return to govt service.
Conviction aside from removal from office he also is disqualified from holding govt office under Article XI Section 3 (7) of Phil Constitution.
Only After Ombudsman conviction when benefits could be forfeited. Tax evasion since its a crime, not sure if benefits are forfeited.
There is a rule on resignation which was raised during Gutierrez but the consensusvwas trial did not commenceyet so she was allowed. Maybe someone could find the link on resignation while being impeached.
I don’t know much about lawyerly stuff, but if Corona is successfully impeached, will a criminal case be in the works after? I don’t feel it’s enough that he’s just booted from office. i feel he deserves jail time for his treachery vs the people.
Yes.
Lapid,s wife of $50,000 ? Nagtatanong lang ako kong ito na kaya ang mga perang ipinamumod ni GMA sa mga Senador. Kaya hanggang ngayon kampanti sila na mayroon silang senador na pikit matang aayonan si Corona?
Bakit ayaw padaanin sa bank to bank? Para hindi ma trace. Ngayon ,bilangin ninyo kung ilang beses nag abroad ang mga Arroyo. Same procedure..
Yan ang patakaran dahil alam nilang mga tanga ang mga pilipino. Kailangan pang mga amerikano pa ang makahuli.
Dapat dito pa lang magsimula mg mag-imbestiga ang mga ahensiya ng gobyerno kung talagang seryoso silang palitawin ang mg Corrupt. Saan galaing yan? Hindi na lkailangan ang SALN niyan. Nadiyan na eh.
@kurapbuster,
ano po kaya ang nangyari sa kaso ng mag-amang lapid tungkol sa income sa lahar?
pwede po kaya mai-post ni ma’am raissa ang saln ng mag-ama. curious lang kung gaano sila kayaman. baka may ill-gotten wealth din, maisabay na. hehehe.
naalala ko po kc yung napanood kong interview sa kanya ni abner mercado, nakakalula sa laki yung mansion nya sa gitna ng bukid. parang sumakay pa si abner sa golf cart para libutin ang kapaligiran ng bahay. at saka hindi man lang pinapasok yung bisita nya sa loob ng bahay.
If the Supreme Court did not file Alpha list for Corona from 2003 – 2005. There is a possibility that all supreme court justices from 2003 – 2005 did not have alpha list also. It means they did not pay taxes as no taxes were withheld.
That’s correct but who is responsible?
All I can say is that, this is the kind of practice of the magistrates during Arroyo’s time knowing that the PGMA will not do anything to harm them on the notion that they will not do anything to harm GMA.
VIZ A VIZ ika nga.
yes you are right. we have to think that they are too lawyer worked in the government subject to rules & regulation about filing SALN. Whew those are the remnants of the past administration…mga spoiled brats……
Yes Ben. It seemed to me that the BIR Chief said that although the alpha list had not been submitted for those years 2003-2005, the tax had in fact been paid by the Supreme Court to the BIR. Though I must say that although the english language of BIR Chief was otherwise very good, in this particular case it was not exactly 100% clear.
Hindi macha-charge ng tax evasion si Corona dahil covered siya ng tax code section 51.
Nakasaad na ang kanyang income at bayad sa tax sa sinasabi nilang alpha list na sina-submit ng supreme court taon taon sa BIR..
Lapid’s vote a toss up?
NEWS: Senator Lapid’s wife Marissa arrested in Las Vegas airport Jan 15 by Federal agents for smuggling charges of undeclared $50,000 last November. 2011. Transporting money above $10,000.00 internationally is an offense under money laundering law like the Euro generals in Russia.Here is another spouse with money problems. The Lapids have a house in Vegas in Summerlin area on why she goes there frequently.
Surprising how people would not use regular bank account transactions when they have successful business ventures? Marissa apparently is major owner of Generics pharmacy? Unless that amount was smuggled ill gotten wealth, AGAIN?
Senetor Lapid requested assistance of DFA to assist wife. The impeachment vote of Lapid is getting murky now.
USD 10,000 limit is unreasonably low and has not been increased in line with inflation .You can compare the stupid P10000 limit for carrying of Pesos in and out of Philippines.
TO ALL THOSE PRO CORONA/GMA BIBLE-PHILIACS
Here is the proof that Corona is the best example on ” He who is not without sin shall cast the first stone”
Check previous postings and identify them, he he he.
If we use that Bible phrase against CJ Corona, then it will be hard to cast the stones on him since it looks that nobody deserves to throw the first stone and CJ Corona will get out Scott free…Like probably why the Marcoses are still enjoying their questionable wealth. That is the very thing he has been doing against P’noy and other accusers that instead of standing answerable to all the issues, he is diverting the eyes to other issue not so relevant at a time.
A salaried income earner without filing annual income tax; is that tax evasion?
In the US non filing of tax every year of an income earner whether there is tax to be paid or not is an offense under the Revenue Code. The Rule is file ITR, the reason even retirees whose only income is Social Security benefits has to file tax return annually even if the tax due is zero.
The prosecutors has to ask KimHenares or they themselves show Revenue Code document stating that it is a criminal offense not to file annual ITR if there is income for the year, irregardless of tax due.
Why was Alpha list. Missing for so many years? Was the evidence obstructed?
The Alpha list was missing but it did not mean the justices did not receive salary nor there was no withholding taxes or GSIS contribution deducted from salary. Prosecution must prove the law by eliciting Henares testimony in eliciting the existence of a law, then accuse CORONA of wilful tax evasion which is not only betrayal of public trust but in fact because its tax evasion, a crime. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion for not reporting his true income. Corona’s on filing of tax is the same, not reporting true income, Capone by understating true income while Corona for not revealing true income.
From tax evadion, that could lead to proving ill gotten wealth by saying that taxes due to the government were kept to buy properties. Money due to the government was technically stolen and used to accumulate enormous wealth, therefore ill gotten. That will be followed by revealing all the wealth that were accumulated during the years of unfiled tax returns.
The key is NON FILING OF TAX RETURN ANNUALLY IS TAX EVASION.
National Internal Revenue Code Title X, Chapter II, Section 255 Failure to write/ file tax return is a crime punishable by fine of not less than 10,000 pesos and imprisonment.
Also under RA 7642 Sec 2. Sec 253 any person who wilfully attempts to evade or defeat any tax impose ……………. is punishable under this law of a fine not less than 30,000 pesos orimprisonment not less than 2-4 years.
Corona was alleged not filing income tax from 2002-2005.
It is the responsibility of the taxpayer to keep a record of his income and tax deductions for the year under RA 7642 Sec 2. Sec 253. Failure by the employer in issuing a W2 or witholding tax record for the year is not a reason not to file ITR.
Record keeping is the same for employed and self employed taxpayers. Simple for employed, complex for self employed.
Mrs. Corona apparently file ITR in 2003 but no recor of ITR on Justice Corona. RA 7697 Section 8, Husband and Wife Filing, might have been voilated on revealing sources of income.
Also RA 7697 section 14. Sec. 254 deals with amended provisions for not filing tax return.
sir johnny lin,
baka dito nga po siguro nakasaad yung BIR ruling na kapag tama na yung withholding tax na nabawas sa taxable income ng isang employee, di na kelangan mag file pa ng ITR. hindi ko lang po sigurado kung kelan ang effectivity nun. sa company po kc namin, every february nakaktanggap po kami ng certificate of compensation/payment/tax withheld mula sa HRD (bir form 2316) at nakasaad na dun yung tax due at tax withheld kaya pag pareho yung figures di na po kelangan mag file.
sa kaso po ni CJ, assume na po natin na nagkaroon ng bureaucratic delay lang sa pag submit ng alpha list. tiyak naman na natanggap nila yung sweldo nung mga taon na yun at assume din po natin na nabawas yung tamang withholding tax, so hindi na po kelangan niyang mag file ng ITR dahil may BIR ruling na po tungkol dun. sa palagay ko po, lusot siya sa tax evasion kung eto lang pagbabasehan.
pero kung yun lang ang pagbabasehan income nya, paano siya nakabili ng mga real properties na milyones? wala pang isang milyon yung kinikita nya sa loob ng isang taon, isang bakasyon lang nila sa abroad ubos kaagad yun. ibig sabihin meron siyang other source of income na undeclared na hindi binayaran ng tax, shoot sya sa tax evasion pag nagkataong hindi makapag-isip ng palusot si superlolo serafin and co.
pwede po kaya yun, wag ng talakayin yung ibang articles para matapos na, eto na lang ang pagbotohan kc malakas ang ebidensya.
psensya na po kung mahaba ang comment.
Tama ka Saudiboy, Basi sa tax code 51, Corona is not required to file an income tax return.
The supreme court annually submits the alpha list which is equivalent to W2 to BIR which contains the taxable income and the tax withheld by corona. So there is no tax evasion here.
In the year 2003 to 2005 the supreme court did not submit the alpha list to BIR. So, Corona cannot be held responsible for not filing his ITR because supreme court failed to file the alpha list.
@saudiboy,
Dapat ikonekta ng prosecution ang SALN at ang INCOME ni Corona. Pag nangyari ‘yon si Corona na mismo ang magpapatunay na hindi ill-gotten wealth ang pinagmulan ng pondo para magkamal ng mga ari-arian.
Pakibasa dito:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/25/12/enrile-cj-not-yet-hook-ill-gotten-wealth
@baycas,
mabuti naman po kung ganun pala ang batas re: ill-gotten wealth, ang burden of proof ay nasa akusado.
tanong lang po: pag nag submit ng SALN, hindi pala kasama yung ITR?
nagtataka lang po ako kung bakit hinaharang ng depensa na ilabas yung ITR samantalang nailabas na yung SALN. sa palagay ko dapat tingnan pareho yung financial status (saln) at financial results (itr) kung ang layunin ay i-monitor yung net worth ng opisyal.
There are instances when one may not file an ITR. Please refer to NIRC Chap. IX, Sec. 51. Corona may have been covered by this provision.
And was the Mrs covered too?
It is getting too complicated, and murkier by each trial day that pass.
Raïssa, you may have to release again a report in the near future if Mrs Corona is excempted since by Atty Esguerra’s past account – joint ang SALN nila ni R Corona.
Is R Corona’s SC Alphalist good enough also for their Missus</a?
Sana mayruong dito sa mga commenters mo na CPA-Lawyer experts sa ITR and Alphalist areas to educate us on this.
I don’t know. But her inclusion in the alpha list from JHMC started only in 2007.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/25/12/mrs-corona-bought-p11m-property-no-income
The 11 milion allegedly was a loan by Chief Justice to Company which is controlled by Mrs Corona to buy a certain property.
Yes this is true, but what came out in yesterday’s hearing, the buyer as listed on the certificate of Registration produced by Henares turned out to be Mrs Corona only?
Does not matter cause it is conjugal anyway but why is it in the name of Mrs Corona and exclude the CJ as buyer when the money used to buy it is from the loan of the CJ?
Hokus pokus eh?
I dont know ITR rule in Philippines, that is why in the beginning I asked, is it tax evasionfor failure to file ITR but RA 7697 Sec 14 Sec 254 failure to write tax specifically implied its a violation unless there is another provision Sec 51. However, in same RA 7697 under houseband and wife it was mentioned that spouse has to file even when filing separately because BIR has obligation to consolidate ITR.
@ baycas ps try to attach link so everyone can interpret. Calling expert Accountants
In the US non filing of annual ITR is a tax offense whether you have tax dueor not as long as you have filed before includingthose with monthly govt pensions.
@baycas
Pls attach link Chapter IX Sec 51 A 2(b) (c)
These 2b,2c is where Corona could apply as exempted from filing:
2b- that is if withholding taxes were withheld from salary provided further that income was not more than 60,000 pesos in one year. Corona had more than 400,000 income as associate justice.
2c- exemption states that if income is based only on salary. If Corona claims ITR exemption under this provision, then Atty Esguerra could not aasert that Corona had other income from allowances or other sources
2a and 2d dont apply to Corona based on gross income.
My opinion, Corona committed tax evasion in 2002-2005 just based on his income, tatswhy Henares was treading gingerly because of absence of Alphalist, which is actually a list of all SC employees. Basing on the 2006-2010 list thereis no reason to doubt tgat Corona did not gross more than 60,000 pesos.
Henares could testify on this if Prosecutors know how to elicit her testimony.
catch him on tax evasion, non filing of ITR. Even the president files annual ITR despite thefact that most of his daily expensesare shouldered by government, that comparison alone is enough to deduce that Corona failed to file ITR.
Johnny in the case of Corona there is no tax evasion because section 51 of tax code exempts him from filing ITR.
It is the responsibility of the supreme court to file the so called alpha list to BIR. Alpha list
contains the taxable income and the tax withheld of Corona.
@kurapbuster
That is assuming his income was only from salary, however in that Sec 52 A2b it is applicable only to those whose gross income do not exceed 60,000 a year.
Common sense, Just imagine, if Employees like Corona are all exempted from filing ITR then most government employees need not file anymore which is far from truth if not impossible because many exceed the 60,000 gross income threshold.
Again, even if SC did not supply Alphaland, Corona is still has obligation to file and liable under RA 7642 and 7697. Its personal responsibilty aside from patriotic duty to pay taxes on gross income specified by NIRC. Corona should know that unless he was testing the system having SGV tax lawyer experience
Yes you are right . Provided that his salary is his only income.
The reason I did not include that in my comment is that the Commissioner
of the BIR said on the impeachment trial, Corona did not file his ITR but he is in in alpha list.
So, based on that testimony of the Commissioner, I knew that he has just one income.
The link to the full ruling reads
“Information disclosure has been erased!”
Noooo! Can anyone upload it and post a link to it? It’s a public document right so it should be ok.
Thanks!
I’m curious. What’s your browser? I can easily access the provided SC link with Firefox and Safari.
Nonetheless, here’s a link from another site:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jul2003/gr_152154_2003.html
I can’t access it from google chrome.
Hmmm…
Hi Raïssa
I am a Chrome user too.
Make it a habit to clear your browser’s garble data by going to Chrome’s Options, click on the Under the Hood (left sidebar), and click on the Clear browsing data Button.
BTW, restart your browser again.
It will improve your browsing speed – a bit.
Now it you still can’t access that original site or any other GR index file cases, the website administrator might have prevented your IP address from accessing its database – redirecting your connection to a page – like ‘your not welcome, you are doing us damage… BIRO LANG.
OK.
I was actually thinking of that too when I can easily access the site and Raissa can’t. That one is not a big problem anyhow. Anyways, Ms Raissa, it’s prudent to increase the security even of your emails as they contain also the footprints of your IP address. I suggest when uploading and updating your blogs, don’t use Windows OS but instead switch to Linux. WordPress is web-based anyways and it is OS independent.Linux is free , Ubuntu distro is the most supported. Just let me know if you need assistance, its free from me as long as you will keep on writing about the truth
Maselan kasi ang ginagawa ni Raïssa.
Raïssa, DO YOU GET AN ERROR MESSAGE? WHAT NO THAT IS SHOWN?
O baka naman you need to update lang your Chrome to the latest vers. or update your windows operating system, or your virus protections software, try microsoft security essentials.
—————
She’s stepping into a lot of people’s ‘toes’.
Kaya inggat ka Raïssa.
IF they were monitoring your Requests to their website, they already have certain ranges of your IP addresses. Maraming magaling na pinoy who are into this. They can block IP address, and direct to another page with garble messages or with malware.
As for your email IP address, ok lang iyan. as long as your log in, pw details are not compromised.
BUT THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOU ARE DOING A NOBLE AND HUMANITARIAN SERVICE. PARA SA BAYAN. MAG APPEAL TAYO SA MABUTING PAGKATAO NILA. I HOPE WHATEVER MONIES THEY ARE PAID OR PROMISE IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE WORK THAT Raïssa IS DOING FOR THE NATION.
AN ALTERNATIVE IS TO USE A PROXY WEBSITE TO VISIT SITES THAT FILTER OR STOP YOU FROM ACCESSING THEIR DATABASE OR INFO – directly.
USE GMAIL NA LANG – THIS IS A TROLL. AGAINST THE ‘COMMENTS’ POLICY NI Raïssa. lol!
Thanks for the tips.
Magaling ka, Mrs. Robles! You are so much better than someone who wrote about Corona’s PhD but stopped at getting the side of UST. I tip my hat off to you…
A tripod cannot stand with two legs alone.
You are a big help to President Aquino and DOJ Delema in fighting these formidable corrupt government officials, that are being hindrance to the progress of the Philippines for so long.
With you as a third leg, this tripod cannot be moved, toppled or tricked by these syndicated
government officials of this country.
I salute you madam.
Hi,
I’m not doing this for them but for the country’s future.
We owe it to ourselves to make officials accountable, including the incumbents.
But thanks for your salute.
Marcos Jr just admitted that they will use the ruling penned by Corona on the forfeiture of their family’s Swiss accounts. And this gave the direction to the Senate on how to solve the tricky issue of ill-gotten wealth allegation against Corona. Ms. Raissa, your article is really perfect timing. Your kakulitan really paid off and this should mainly be credited to you.
Thanks.
I’m glad.
Just a little more. They now have the CAR as evidence. You trace the CAR to the properties – you trace the properties to his SALN – and you lay down the basis for allowing Article 2.4.
I was literally jumping for joy when Recto finally stopped the sideshow and just – went for the jugular!
Just watched the day 6 of the trial. I’d like to think that the prosecution is reading your blog as well because I noticed that they use this same argument in their memorandum submitted to the senate with regards to the article 2 of the complaint. After watching Senator Enrile’s interview in the ANC after adjournment he gave a hint that they this will use this formula tackle article II 2.4 which the senate set aside in admitting evidence.
You are right. If everybody will contribute for the betterment of the nation, however small, it will have significant effect. I admire your patriotism and resolved.
Mabuhay Ka!!!
Tama ka.
i’ve been reading through your blog for a while now, Ms Raissa. this is the first time for me to comment
basing on his words, corona is indeed of great intellect. too bad he gave in to the callings of greed. and since he’s still clinging on to that side, there’s no where else for him to go but down.
Thanks for coming out.
the problem is, their accusation is based only on reports & suspicion unlike sa case ng mga marcoses accusation pa lang may hard evidence na.
ONLY?
Documents? Only?
For close minded people who have already made up their minds, no amount of evidence is enough.
Kudos to you for a great blog.
Raissa, Congratulations! Napansin na ng Prosecutors blog mo.. They just cited Republic vs. Sandiganbayan..
Good for them.
excellent work!
Thanks.
We are all in this together.
Godbless the Republic of the Philippines.
Yes!
At this point, CJ Corona must be contemplating on resigning lest more “wealth” be disclosed.
Hindi siya magreresign. Alam na natin kung bakit. Pagnagresign siya, kasong kriminal for ill-gotten wealth kaagad ang haharapin niya. Yung sinulat niya pang desisyon ang isasampal sa kanya.
Siguro wala na siyang mukhang ihaharap sa mga kapwa niya mahistrado sa Supreme Court ngayon. Pati sa mga empleyado sa SC na pinapakinig niya pa sa speech niya.
Corona tax withheld & gross compensation
2002 to 2005 – No ITR filed and no alphalist submitted by Supreme Court
Source: ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 01/25/2012 3:54 PM | Updated as of 01/25/2012 3:56 PM
1 down, 7 to go. Can’t they just rule in this Article II complaint as guilty so that the Supreme Court can move on with a new appointed CJ? And let the Tanodbayan thru the Ombudsman to criminally charge [ex] CJ R Corona.
The following is what Senator-judge Miriam Defensor Santiago said after insisting that Henares could not play such role since the [impeachment ] court has already decided on the inadmissibility of paragraph 2.4.
“She said Henares can only be an authenticating officer at this point. “Nagkasundo na e. Tapos na pala e. Ito na ang na-file sa BIR. We can do the authentication outside…Tapos na ang trabaho ng babaeng ito.”
Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/25/12/senate-excludes-ill-gotten-wealth-clause
I may have jump the gun on this when I wrote this “1 down, 7 to go. Can’t they just rule in this Article II complaint as guilty so that the Supreme Court can move on …” With out knowing that the Senate-Judges excluded Article 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint before the start of today’s trial proceedings.
I read the other online reports after I submitted this with haste.
Corona didn’t file ITR from 2002-2010—BIR chief
“Chief Justice Renato Corona did not file his income tax returns (ITRs) from 2002 to 2010, Internal Revenue commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares disclosed Wednesday before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, for the trial of Corona.
“He [Corona] did not file an income tax return from 2002 to 2010,” Henares said during the direct examination of private prosecutor Arthur Lim.”
Source: INQUIRER.net 3:19 pm | Wednesday, January 25th, 2012
Hanep. Above the law.
Puwede pong manawagan?
Kinakabahan po ako para kay CJ Renato Corona at sa Missis niya.
Kung puwede pong paki kamusta sila, lalo na pu si ginoong Renato Corona.
Baka magtangka po si ginoong R Corona. Gaya ni Angie.
Kung sino po ang mga kamag anak niya na tumatangkilik dito, paki saklolo po ninyo sila.
Hindi naman siguro.
Malaki ang paniwala niya sa Diyos.
Hi Raïssa,
I hope he wouldn’t do IT.
What would be his ploy to do it to himself by not honoring an unwritten rule and that was to pay his own share of tax to the gov’t that he represents and receives his salary.
Parang Mikee Arroyo din.
With no ITRs for that period, he just added more calamities to his problems. Not the gov’t will really go after him.
Does that mean, he didn’t pay any tax?
Makes us wonder what are the penalties for not submitting/reporting a working citizen’s tax return – not only for a year but 4 to 10 years.
Indeed, a second set of Rule of Law, a Law unto themselves.
erratum
instead of ‘Not the gov’t will really go after him.’
it should read ‘NOW the gov’t will really go after him.’
Wait. Pag isa lang ang nagpapasuweldo puede nang di mag-file ng ITR. May withholding tax naman na ‘yun.
Ang problem sapat ba ‘yun to acquire properties he reportedly has? Meron ba talaga siya ng other source of funds na hindi naman taxable?
Mahirap pa ring ipalabas ang ebidensiya kung walang “wide latitude” o “flexibility” lalo na sa Article II, Paragraph 2.4 ng AOI…
@baycas,
Tama ka, kung ang SC lang ang nagpapasuweldo sa kaniya.
Iyon nga eh, KUNG… ONLY R Corona can say Yes or No. But he can’t be called as a witness. No legal reference document exists – only a general SC Alpha list from 2006-2010 – from one employer.
What about the other sources of income R Corona his defense team announced.
That is another grey area for the prosecution to deal with.
With no Article 2.4, and no ITRs for 2002-2010 but only included in the SC Alpha list for 2006-2010, there are no ITR documents for either party to refer to IF R Corona’s has more than one income source.
Its worst than a mix bag of apples, oranges with mangoes – in one bag. No SC Alpha list to 2005 from ?, only 2006-2010, no R Corona ITRs from 2002-2010.
Either it was by willful design to muddle, confuse or diminish the preponderance of evidence(s), and hoping to dismiss for lack of merit due to technicalities because it will definitely prolong the trial period just for Article II minus II.4.
THE ONLY REMEDY, are resource legal documentations from city register of deeds, bank accounts, Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR), credible statements and first hand witnesses who are privy to the questionable properties, paid fees or facilitated these properties to R Corona and/or family.
BURDEN OF PROOF. At this juncture – the prosecution has to prove by their ‘evidences’ not listed in R Corona’s questionable SALNs.
HOWEVER, “Senator-judge Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. said it was Corona’s ponencia which gave them the idea how to resolve the impasse on the presentation of evidence in connection with his alleged ill-gotten wealth.
In an interview with ANC, Marcos said they made use of Corona’s ponencia on July 15, 2003 in deciding that “if the recorded income can’t support the expenditure, then there’s presumption of ill-gotten wealth.”
Talk about the change of tides these days in Philippine politics.
BURDEN OF PROOF. In this formula, R Corona has to prove that it is not ill gotten wealth.
KUDOS TO Raïssa Robles’ Exposé entitled ‘From his own mouth:
CJ Corona’s guidelines in the use of SALNs & ITRs to prove ill-gotten wealth’
One of Raïssa’s CPA commenter who would be disappointed is Arnel Dy: January 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm. (CJ Corona’s P11M ‘cash advance’)
“I would really love to see his 2003 and 2010 ITR.”
R Corona’s ITR for 2003 is non existent, only 2010 BUT as part of the SC Alpha list – but no 2010 ITR.
Na Technical and mga marurunong, lalung lalo na ang prosekusyon.
This is where Raïssa’s [this article] 1st note on ‘About the three things that struck me about CJ Corona’s ruling that could prove relevant to his ongoing impeachment trial’ comes in.
“First, CJ Corona had this to say about technicalities that simply delayed the trial. He wrote…” (please read above for the full section.)
The next big question is, will the senate-judges recall their recent exclusion of article 2.4 due to this revelation?
“Senator-judge Franklin Drilon said, however: “However, under article 2.4, which asserts that these are… that such properties could be ill-gotten, the court did not rule on that and will rely on the presumptions of evidence on the presumptions of law particularly, the anti-graft law.”
——————–
Part of today’s development.
It beggar’s belief that why would “Senator-judges decided to drop article 2.4 of the complaint, which had been the rallying cry of the prosecution in their effort to seek a Corona conviction for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.” Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/25/12/senate-excludes-ill-gotten-wealth-clause
Of all timing, BIR Commissioner Kim Henares was supposed to sit as witness YESTERDAY, then Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago suddenly jumped from her sick bed to join the Impeachment proceeding YESTERDAY & today, and then – ‘walaa’, the ill-gotten wealth clause of Article 2.4 was excluded before the start of the impeachment trial today.
A rotting fish is starting to permeate the impeachment trial. Something fishy is going on.
I earn more, much more than what CJ Corona’s declared income and I can’t afford the properties he has acquired, specially the condo unit in Bellagio Condominiums.
Excellent !…Raissa…God bless you in your advocacy for truth and justice! I am now your fan! May God give you good health and keep you from danger!
Thank you for your thoughts.
i agree, mabuhay ka!
@raissa or to anyone who has a better knowledge in the impeachment subject..
Now that the senate had excluded the clause for the ill gotten wealth issue…
can we still impeach him if it will be proven that he is not telling the whole truth about his SALN?
thanks.. just want to be sure, he’s not out of the hook yet..
we have to wait and see what happens.
The word is “set aside” … for now.
If they can lay down the basis for pursuing Article 2.4 – then the court will accede to allowing it to be pursued.
The CARs lay down the groundwork for Article 2.4. Do not give up hope yet.
Yes, pieces of evidence for 2.2 and 2.3 will inevitably lead to 2.4.
The best thing about it is that the burden of proof on 2.4 will be shifted to the defense.
Tupas et al must make up for lost time as a result of the inherent defect of 2.4 (as well as failing to charge Corona for graft and corruption).
—–
Just a thought, the Impeachment Court must provide a wide latitude or flexibility in accepting 2.4 as an allegation inasmuch as Corona’s SALN was never publicly disclosed.
CONGRATZ RAISSA, 20 minutes from now, the prosecution will submit their delayed memorandum wherein they mentioned your research on corona as ponente on the ill-gotten wealth case against the marcoses.
Let’s wait and see
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/01/25/12/prosecutions-memo-article-2
raissa maraming salamat sa mga researches mo. sinabi ko sa apo ko na gayahin ka. kasi magtatapos na sya sa mass com at print journalism ang major nya. sabi ko magbasa sya ng article ni RAISSA ROBLES at marami syang matutuhan.ako din kahit matanda na ako marami akong nalaman sa mga articles mo. salamat sa pagbibigay ng liwanag
Sabihin mo sa apo mo pumunta muna siya sa diyaryo bago mag TV.
ang mga nag-umpisa sa diyaryo mas magaling pagpunta sa broadcasting.
Salamat sa pagbasa mo.
maraming maraming salamat raissa sa payo mo. at bigyan ka pa sana ng PANGINOON DIOS ng mas malalim na kakulitan para maiambag mo sa Pilipinas nating mahal ang iyong katalinuhan. maraming salamat.
Salamat din ant nakinig sila sa isang hindi abugado at reporter lang
I am really grateful Raissa that your blog is being used. Congratulations!
May you and your husband live longer for the purpose driven life you were created for.
May you also have a great number of descendants that will carry your legacy for generations.
im so happy and thanks to you raissa… the prosecution has used your research in their memorandum.. spokesman for the prosecution right now is citing said corona decision in his interview in anc… it’s is so damaging for the defense i believe… another victory for us who want the truth to come out of this impeachment trial. again, thanks…
We, the people, are all welcome
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap,
Encore
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap,
Maraming salamat sa Diyos at may Raïssa Robles ang Pilipinas.
Your hubby Alan and son must be proud of you.
Yes they are.
Ma’am Raissa,
Thanks for your passion and diligence. sa kagaya kung ordinaryong mamamayan, I become more informed about these mess that Abalos, Gloria, Gonzales, and self serving Puno have orchistrated….palibhasa alam nila ang mangyayari after the election once si Pnoy ang manalo. kaya nila iniupo sa korte suprema si corona na TANGA……
Siguro po kung wala itong expsose and paper trails matutulad na naman sa dati ang pagantabay ko sa sa isyu noon ni estrada na naghihintay lamang ako sa mga bias na pahayag ng mga plotiko sa magkabilang panig….protecting their personal gains.
At least after reading all your blogs and carefully made a descernment. It appears na yours is aligned to what the masses is longing for…..justice, genuine democracy and progress for all and for the whole nation.
Wish ko lang po na hindi lang ang mga bugok na pulitiko ang mabunyag ang mga kalokohan…kasi tulad po ni gloria…before pos siya naluklok sa pagkakaalam ko po ay isa sya sa mga less corrupt pero simula nya kunin ang serbisyo ni Ronnie Puno kapansin pansin na pagsalungat nya sa diwa ng edsa 2. Sino ba si Puno? Di ba sya rin ang nasa likod ni Erap kung saan kaliwat kanan din ang corruption…
OO nga pala…may narinig pala ako na isang dating pangulo na kinaiinisan din ni Erap ang nag tayo ng isang mall sa sa singapore at doon nya dinala ang kanyang ill gotten wealth….palibhasa nasa malayo hindi naamoy ng mga pinoy tabako nya. hehehe
ops nakalimuta ko pala….si Ronnie Puno ay nagserbisyo rin sa ilalim ni Ramos.
Talaga?
nice posts regarding another angle on the impeachment tria
keep it up!
hmm.. but reading the all the positive replies above..
bawal ba mag-negate sa article
Read some more and see.
@Call Center,
Baka hearsay lang yung mall ha? For all I know, and aware din ang maraming Pinoy dito, yung IMM mall (just google it) daw belongs to the Marcoses hence the name – Imelda Marcos Mall. Pero walang facts yan so iapply natin ang due process both kay FVR & Imelda. But if you can pinpoint the mall, I can check the national library for some records. Baka may makita tayo. Transparent ang system dito so we can check it.
Having properties that can’t be justified by one’s income over the years in public service raises a presumption that it’s ill-gotten. The prosecution knows this and has had initial success in presenting the testimonies and documents of the registers of deeds and the SALN of CJ. However, they’re having a problem in proceeding to the next step (that of showing CJ’s income via his and his family’s ITRs) because of a vaguely written Article 2, which involves the charge of failure to publicly disclose the SALN only. The defense’s game plan, which has succeeded, is to bar the prosecution from proceeding to step 2.
The Senate should now rise to the occasion and allow the reception of evidence of CJ’s income. If very ordinary collection cases allow amendments to a complaint, why not in this case where public interest is involved? At any rate, CJ’s rights aren’t prejudiced. He can still rebut whatever evidence the prosecution may present when it’s time for him to present his. Blocking the presentation of such evidence on mere technicality, at this point, may benefit CJ’s position at the Senate, but will ultimately damage his image in the bar of public opinion.
you’re at it again raissa. you and your rumor mill.
firstly, let me just emphasize:
on your first: “It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. ” – RC
precisely. what he did was not in contrast to his previous “marcos” ruling.
on your second: ” (3)said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.” – RC
your malicious intention here is to paint and impression that renato has no capacity or have no access to other means to lawful income. how well do you know that?
wala ka nang ginawang matino. chismosa ka.
Sabihin mo yan kay CJ.
Huwag sa akin.
SA kanya itong decision na ito.
Siya ang naghusga.
Pasensiya na kay Abdullah.
Marunong siyang magbasa ng English, hindi lang niya maintindihan ang binabasa. Sabi nga ni Cuevas absent ka siguro nung ang subject matter ay ” understanding and interpretation” Rumor daw yung nakasulat sa supreme court na si Corona ang mismong sumulat at hindi si Raissa.
Tagalog na para maintindihan sabi nga ni Enrile.
@abdullah:
Magulo ang sinabi mo brod.
Wala namang sinabi si Ms. Robles na walang legitimate source of income si CJ. ang ibig lang niyang sabihin sa piece niya ay kung susukatin natin si CJ sa issue ng ill-gotten wealth (kung ang ebidensiya dito ay tatanggapin ng Senado) ay maari tayong tumingin sa sukatang inilatag ni CJ mismo sa kanyang desisyon. Kaya nga binanggit ng husto ang Desisyon para maliwanagan ang mambabasa sa sukatang legal para masabing may ill-gotten wealth ang isang opisyal sa pamahalaan.
Again, ang gulo ng sinabi mo. Hindi ko kinaya.
@abdullah, if CJ Corona has access to other “lawful” income, he most defiinitely did not file any tax on them as it was proven in the Senate today, if your were listeining, that he did not file any Income Tax Return since 2002 to present as required by law. Other than the alpha list SC submitted I think starting 2009 he has not filed any ITR. If he had no other income outside of his SC salary, how did he buy those properties? And excuse me, maraming ginagawang matino si Ms. Robles. Di mo ba nababasa how thankful many of her readers are for opening their eyes, including mine, to documented truth?
Abdullah
Tumpak na Tumpak ka.
Corona has capacity and access to other means of LOW FOOL INCOME
LOW – Under the Table
FOOL- panloloko sa position nya.
HE ALSO HAS CAPACITY COMMITTING GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
@Abdullah, based on records at hand, Hindi talaga proportion ang income niya sa amount ng properties niya. Malinaw, wala siyang ibang sources of income maliban sa kanyang sweldo. Gamitin mo naman isip mo kahit minsan lang, maigi yan sa kalusugan.
In the picture, what is Bongbong saying?
MARCOS WARNING TO CORONA
“Watch your thoughts, for they become words,
Watch your words, for they become actions
Watch your actions, for they become habits
Watch your habits, for they become character
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny”
The document is Chief Justice Corona’s landmark decision on July 15, 2003 turning over the Marcoses’ loot stashed in Swiss banks to the Philippine government.
I want to be objective here. This decision was made in 2003, the Chief Justice Corona just became Chief Justice in 2010.
That’s good, to be skeptical.
But he was an Associate Justice when he made that ruling. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
at this point of the trial this i can say:
the cj is now being tied to a post in the middle of plaza miranda, naked,
bitten by red ants. people see him extending his hand for help and calling
gloria…… gloria…… masdan ang ginawa mo……
masyado yata g(l)ory ang dating anyway magsamasama na silang mga kampon wala akong pakialam. hinay lang
Again another masterpiece! Wow if only those prosecutors can have you as their researcher/investigator, they wouldn’t have anymore problem. Hat’s off again. Thank you for doing us an excellent service. Hope those people up the hill will be seeing your site. I know Henry Omaga Diaz of ABS-CBN is watching your site. He’s doing an article and mentioning your site too. It’s too obvious that Neil Tupas is still a rookie. However given time, he will be an excellent congressman along with the newbies associated with this impeachment trial.
Ha Ha Ha , magigisa na naman si thief justice corona sa sariling mantika. kong walang itinatago ay walang dapat ikabahala. dapat pagsabihan na niya mga defense panel niya na huwag mag object dahil hindi ito tugma sa mga naging decesion niya(corona) noon.Tama kasabihan, “kong ano itinanim ay siya ring aanihin” HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF kaya humanda kana thief justice corona dahil unti unti ka nang nahuhubaran at lumalabas na ang BAHO mo thief justice corona… Nakakahiya at Nakakadiri na Pag MUMUKHA mo thief corona…Puwweeee….
Tuwing makikita ko pagmumukha nina thief justice renato corona, fake president pandak, fake com. chair abalos, fake ombudsman guittirez etc.etc.. Nasusuka ako at Naaawa sa kanila dahil napakaganda at mabuti na tayo nila sa lipunan kaso hindi pa rin nakontento at gumawa pa nang MALI at the expenses of the poor people of the Philippines…Pati mga Pari, Obispo etc. ay ginamit para sa pansariling kaginhawahan at kapangyarihan….
Wouldn’t it be a great irony if R.Corona’s own guidelines does him in?
“Birds of a feather flock together.” That picture on this post surely proves that point.
Thanks for sharing your findings.
Who is this Raissa Robles? More breed of her kind should be on TV (more can access). Really great job!!!
The questions asked Cong. Tupas by JPE yesterday, May 24, were trick YES or NO questions meant to embarass the prosecution and protect the defense. The way the questions were posed and their contents will not have a defensible answer.
agree. JPE phrased his questions in such a way that the prosecution team would be placed in a very awkward position. nagbalat- sibuyas kasi siya with Rep. Tupas’ request which was meant towards relaxing certain rulings, and not on JPE’s integrity as a Presiding Judge. Miriam’s call for not going ma-epal richocheted on some of them.
If hiding the truth is part of DUE PROCESS, then Atty. Cuevas is very successful in protecting this Due Process laced with intellectual dishonesty.
Napakahusay na namang pananaliksik nito Raissa. Maraming salamat sa edukasyong ito.
First, it was ex PGMA who had a taste of her own medicine. Now, CJ Corona. What comes around goes around. What you sow is what you reap.
Nakamamangha ka talaga. Looking forward to your next article.
@Raissa: SMART ka ba? Coz you’re simply amazing.
Kulit lang.
Thanks.
Ms. Raissa, it was a FOCAP event you showed and you would be there. What was the forum about? Surely you or other FOCAP members asked questions of the CJ and the senator, what were their responses. Interesado lang. A judge and a member of a family with court cases sitting together outside the court ????
I’ll write about it.
Promise.
The allegations in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment are the reasons for the complaint:
It is Reference 8 here: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/140337.htm#_ftnref8
An allegation of ill-gotten wealth was made and together with what Ma’am Raissa wrote in this blog post that the SALN must be compared to the ITR, there’s no stopping the prosecution to bring out the evidence.
Well, it’s probably water under the bridge, because “Lady” Miriam proposed to admit the evidence of ill-gotten wealth as alleged and Presiding Officer Johnny already ordered it without objection from the floor.
Really, this time the “envelope” will be opened!
Congratulations and a high five for you, Raissa.
You’ve done it again, a job well done no journalist can equal your painstaking diligence in gathering information for our benefit.
High to all my readers, too and commenters too!
im not lawyer just a layman, i only get my knowledge about jurisprudence from court tv show and movies. i can not understand why the prosecution panel did not submit for decision the objection of the defense that ill-gotten wealth is not related to article 2 even after senator santiago manifested that this court is quasi-criminal and quasi-civil so pleading should be liberal. why not the impeachment court decide if its related or not.
if they get a favorable decision then they can present and offer their evidence without the objection of the defense but if voted down then lets move to the next article there’s 7 left. prosecution panel looks like law students with their preparation of the case, they need leadership
superb sleuthing! this is what the prosecution panel should be doing..
Thanks, Sir.
Raissa Robles salamat sa mga articles. Pwede kang magabugado, kung gusto mo hehehe. mahusay ka pa sa prosecution…
Salamat sa pagbasa mo.
Pronto, the prosecutors have to hire researchers and consultants with the calibre of Raissa or else they would be trampled, outsmarted and outmanuevered by the defense skills.My God I don’t want to think of it. Raissa, you have another fantastic and brilliant work. Ikaw ang katapat ni Corona. We are rooting for you, Raissa. Thanks for your indefatigable work.
i agree!
If the burden of proof lies with the person being accused of having amassed such wealth according to Corona, why did he and his kin refused to testify before the impeachment court? If the burden of proof is on them and their refusal to testify would then mean they are forfeiting their right to refute the accusation of ill-gotten wealth? LOL
Because maybe CJ Corona FORGOT he wrote what he wrote.
It was so long ago.
I don’t think he forgot. Syempre abugado sya. Law-player nga. Hide and seek…..ha, ha, ha……….
Seriously, I think he may have forgetten. Decisions are usually drafted by law clerks/researchers.
He’s very proud of this decision.
He mentions it as one of his accomplishments.
Baka Hindi siya ang sumulat. Ghost writer niya siguro kaya Hindi niya matandaan.
Pero pinagmalaki niya itong decision niya sa SC website. Sa profile niya doon.
Corona said his family comes from no ordinary means which means they can very well afford those high-end properties and implied that those were legally acquired. But he didn’t offer any details on the source of funds to acquire those properties and his family has no business except his wife’s family business, where he took a P11M loan which turned out to be legally non-existent or ceased to operate by 2007. Ironically, he used the same argument the Marcoses used before which he himself dismissed.
Did he say that or Midas Marquez.
Pls send me links asap.
I have something naughty in mind
Corona: This is a hoax; we are a family of no ordinary means
Mike Arroyo on Corona: He’s a ‘very upright man’
I think that’s MIDA’S touch. Now may I request another sleuthing from you maam? Why not do a bumbling MIDA’S. This guy is an e-pal (excuse me madam MIRIAM).
Aaaaaamazing! When you dig, you really dig well. Hats off to you! Dapat may monumento ka sa front steps ng Supreme Court…a reminder to all of them that may Raissa na nagbabantay sa kanila.
Raissa, it is obvious that major newspapers pick up your blog, but timeliness is an issue. There’s real urgency that they must read your piece ASAP. Just to be sure that your piece is well-used and just to shorten this impeachment drama, would it be possible for you to send your piece/link to the e-mail addresses of the prosecutors and the senators? They have published e-mail addresses. Also, while I think Malacanang is monitoring, keeping pulse of the media (as they should), especially on sensitive issues like this, would you consider sending your message directly to Malacanang? Just a thougt.
oopsie..misspelled – thougt should read thought. sorry!
You know, Max, I’m not doing this for the prosecution.
I’m doing this for us. We want to know the truth.
But thanks for suggesting.
I appreciate your objective. I am just concerned that he’ll get away with it. While the prosecution may not be the icons of personalities that we wish them to be, they are the ones who can help correct the course of the SC leadership. At any rate, I hear you.
Thank you and all the best.
Just like his benefactor who almost got away, he will for sure, have his own doze of his medicine. Kaya still hoping against hope that the BIR commissioner will be allowed to present the ITRs to be able to ferret out the truth. Therefore I asked, is it mere coincidence or real force of nature? God really works in so many mysterious ways….. Akala ko ba walang tinatago si CJ based on his pronouncements a few days before the trial proper. kailangan panindigan nya ang mga sinabi nya. Thanks ms. Raissa for your kakulitan sana makatulong ‘to sa pagbunyag ng katotohanan. Cool lang tayo, ano, ha?
Katulong pa si Midas Marquez sa pagsasabing walang itinatago at lahat ng ari-arian ay naka declare sa SALN ni THIEF JUSTICE CORONA KAYA RAW WALANG DAPAT IKATAKOT.. wow ang sarap pakinggan ng pilantik ng dila noong sinasabi nila ito sa kanilang mga speech sa harap ng supreme court building bago pa man magsimula ang impeachment trial. at nakakatuwa naman ang banat ni Senadora Miriam na kung ano ang hinihinging ibidensiya ay isapubliko at huwag itago, kaya lang nadismaya ako noong sabihin niya na kung guilty si Corona ay i censure na lang o i-reprimand, mukhang kumapit na naman sa utak ni Miriam ang pagkatililing di mo maintindihan kung ano tuloy ang rulings at patakaran niya sa pagiging strikto.
Good Job Ms. Raisa ang galing mo talagang mag-research kahanga-hanga ka. Keep up the good work God Bless.
Thank you, Malyn.
Nagagalak akong nagbunga nag pinagpaguran ko
Masterful legal research! Hats off to you Raissa. God is fair. He gave us people like GMA & Corona. But He gave us people like you as well.And I’m equally proud that you’re from UP Diliman. The people’s taxes weren’t wasted on your education. Maybe you should wear a hat that reads “This is where your taxes went.” hehehe
I’ll consider wearing that hat.
I’m proud to be UP.
Thanks for the suggestion
Straight from the horse’s mouth…
Thank you very much for enlightening us.
And thank you for reading.
Pls. spread the word.
I did; as soon as I finished reading. (:FB:)
Congratulations!
Great work, Raissa! Keep it up! I learn so much from your researches, blogs, articles, comments!
Thanks.
I am learning too.
We are learning together.
Very informative and useful info. Wish we have more raissa robles in your field…….Good luck and more power! please don’t stop in your quest in uncovering the truth!
Ay. Don’t wish that.
Magugulo masyado ang mundo.
Hi Ms. Raissa! Sana kasama ka sa prosecution. Mas marami kang nareresearch! More power to you and God bless. Your piece is worth reading!
Thanks for the thought, Bessie.
I am just hoping the prosecution is hell-bent on uncovering the truth.
And won’t compromise in the end. They are politicians after all.
@HOUSE PROSECUTORS
Corona ruled the forfeiture of Marcos properties under Section 6 RA 1379. The last paragraph on Raissa article
Senate has ruled that Corona spouse and relatives could not be called to testify, however, if the Prosecutors could argue after presentation of ITRs and authenticity of documents of transferred properties they could subpoena again Cristina Corona and children to testify under Section 8 of RA 1379 protection against self incrimination. According to this Section they can be compelled to testify on the properties but under the self incrimination provision they could not be charged criminally except on perjury charge.
Raissa
You had done it again KUDOS. with these latest product of your kakulitan, Siguradong walang kawala si coronakut Kahit na anong gawin pa ni CUEVAS.
I hope that this latest discovery will convince CUEVAS et al that they are fighting a lost battle that will drag them down.
PAGING cuevas PLEASE DO NOT LET YOURSELF DOWN MORALLY IN THIS LAST LEGAL HURRAH OF YOUR LIFE.
Again Raissa maraming maraming salamat sa iyong kakulitan para sa sambayanang PILIPINO.
Its MORE FUN WITH RAISSA IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF CJ CORONA
Welcome.
Forget Cuevas. He’s enjoying the camera! He’s a ham and enjoying every minute of media attention.
Agree with you there. This is for his students benefit not for the common tao. He’s already an octogenarian. But he hasn’t learned anything yet. Like what the Lord says, The WISDOM OF MAN IS FOOLISHNESS TO THE LORD. Did I quote that right?
paging house prosecutors, this is a good piece to add in your memorandom tomorrow.
Very interesting! I hope concerned people will learn something from this article to help them be more discening in their quest for the truth. My humble congratulations to you Raissa for your perseverance and your commitment to find the truth. Please do not waver. God bless.
I meant to write discerning…
Thank you, Levi.
Do come back.
can anybody notify the presecution panel about this, im having second thought regarding their capability as the prosecutors. can any member of the panel stand up and rescue their lead if he become smarted out in the debate.
Thanks again Raissa for your great article giving us your readers a better and clear
picture of what kind of a person CJ Corona is.
Wow, I am so so impressed of you Raissa,
YOU did your homework well. Good job!!!
Please keep digging..
Thanks.
Is there a Pulitzer Prize equivalent in the Philippines (THERE MUST BE);
Is there a Pulitzer Prize equivalent in the Internet?
Raissa should win both for 2012.
If the US gives her the Pulitzer, I expect no one objecting.
More power and integrity to you Raissa.
LOL!
Ok! I second the motion.
Calling all Raissa fans. Together, we should move that Raissa get an award for her excellent work in investigative journalism. She raised the bar and has pioneered in the world of blogosphere. She has established online journalism as a credible forum. Many journalists (aspiring and struggling) will be inspired by her example. She deserves recognition locally and internationally.
Let’s start the move with Malacanang, universities and move forward with international journalistic associations.
Raissa, you are a winner. Thank you so much for your fearless, tireless effort, dedication and indomitable will to do this service for the Filipino people. Your dogged determination to research on your subject is absolutely impressive. Congratulations and thank you.
Better than any award – are people like all of you who believe in my brand of journalism
You can all help by telling people about my site.
I have a lot of naughty things up my sleeve.
Let’s build our democracy together.
We are with you even beyond this administration. I believe that the FOI and Anti-dynasty bills should be enacted pronto before Pinoy’s term expires. These two bills if enacted will go a long way in cutting the hands of the “octopus corruptus”, the breed in the Philippines with so many tentacles to enlarge and protect their interests.
I hope the naughty things up in your sleeve are about those opposing these two bills.
Me, too.
The anti-dynasty law is VERY VERY IMPORTANT to catapult the country to the 21st century.
The FOI – we have to be careful with this.
Because instead of giving us more freedom it might inadvertently llimit freedom. I’ll explain later.
You’re right, Raissa; I also have some qualms about this FOI.
Another interesting topic to look forward to, guys.
‘Forgot to thank you for this another wonderful piece.
THANKS, Raissa.
I’m looking forward to that FoI blog. PNoy enemies are all crying about this. They said PNoy is hiding something hence diverting people’s attention. BTW, your FB likes will soon hit the 20k mark. Congratulations! Aminin, mas sikat ka na ngayon kesa kay Aling Dionisia Paquiao
. As always, my prayers are with you and your family.
Oo nga ano. Ngayon ko lang napansin malapit na sa 20k.
Congratulations to us all!
I merely echo what many of us feel deep in our hearts.
Copy that!
No objection here!….. Maybe the defense will raise their hands. If they do please cover your noses gentlemen…..
Galing talaga ni ms raissa ^_^
Salamat.
Makulit lang talaga.
A doze of his own medicine?
That’s the bitterest pill the CJ has to swallow; and the defense panel now, will obviously stop at nothing to prevent the prosecution in substantiating the sub-clauses of Art. 2 that mainly focused on non-disclosure of his SALN.
The “reported” or “suspected” accumulation of ill-gotten wealth as alleged in the sub-clauses of said article, admittedly, infringes the anti graft and corrupt practices act, which – per defense is inadmissible, and also runs counter to Sen. Escudero’s position, that the same is a distinct and separate breach that calls for another article of violation to be proven.
At any rate, the public’s mind – mine included, is now convinced more than ever, that the accused is guilty of amassing illegal wealth and that perception could never be erased by any other means that the defense intends to do.
You’re naughty, Raissa, but your resourcefulness never ceases to amaze us.
p.s. Do you think the Prosecution Team has added 1 more ally now in its bench in the person of Sen. Marcos?
Sen. Marcos is very pragmatic.
I don’t know.
Depends on whom he is pissed off more = PNoy or CJ Corona.
That would be very interesting to know on how Marcos Jr.will vote. I’ll bet he will side with Corona. That ruling was already past, way back in 2003, and he can’t do anything about it. Whereas now Marcos Jr needs to bury his father at the Libingan ng mga Bayani and PNoy had already decided he won’t allow it under his term.
I think Marcos Jr is having trouble sleeping at night because he’s afraid this anti-corruption drive is really serious and has the potential to reach even his father’s loot. I say this because i notice the online presence of “Bongbong for President” quarters have morphed into anti PNOY articles recently. That’s the only logical explanation i can think of for this sudden change of tack. If you’re runing for President in 2016, it makes no sense to antagonize a popular sitting President. So i think bongbong is voting to acquit.
Kung karera ng kabayo si kabayong Pnoy naka abot na ng finish line tapos nag collapse patay nakaratay sakto sa linya, sigawan mga tao
Samantala si kabayong Corona nasa bandang gitna pa, hagulapay dahil napilay, nabulag at uhaw na sa pagtakbo.
Papipiliin si Bongbong, kung sino manalo, sino ang pipiliin nya?
Nah, Corona is a dead horse. Even if he gets acquitted this year, he’ll still be facing impeachment next year. The pieces of evidence that have come out so far are very damning and he can’t rely on technicalities forever. The prosecution I’m sure will learn from their mistakes. The senators are very aware of this. So why save Corona’s ass and risk looking like their condoning a thief?
I meant to say ‘they are condoning a thief’ and not ‘their condoning a thief.’
There will be more Marcos cases for final arbitration by the SC. I think Sen Marcos will acquit since pwede “pakisusapan” si J. Corona up to 2017 than Pnoy na 2016 lang term and a new CJSC may negatively impact the interests of the Marcoses. And if Corona is acquitted with the help of ANY senator, we know how the current CJ repays utang na loob.
CJ Corona citing Tupas vs Court of Appeals (Feb. 6, 1991) in the November 18, 2003 Resolution. I wonder if the Lead Prosecutor is related to the Petioners Francisco and Ignacio Lim Tupas. If he is, isn’t it ironic? Don’t you think? hehe
“Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural due process. In order that a particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must be compliance with both substantive and the procedural requirements thereof.” – CJ Corona citing Tupas vs. CA (Feb. 6, 1991)
Another excellent article, Ms. Raissa. Bravo!
I must say the same to Corona for a very well written ruling. Truly a landmark decision. Unfortunately, this will be applied to himself now. How painful it is to be fried in his own fat, as the saying goes…
At that time he wrote this ruling, perhaps it hadn’t sank in yet about the power he possessed on being an SC justice, hence he was able to think appropriately and justifiably. During that time also, GMA was not yet busy in committing plunder and still no “Hello Garci”. Medyo pasikat pa sila ng konti nung panahon na yun.
But I noticed after Hello Garci, the quality of Corona’s decisions had regressed tremendously in which he always found a way to favor GMA. So a new equation or formula could be deduced like this: GMA + Hello Garci = Corona + Ill-gotten wealth.
Thanks for reading.
These are the websites: RP vs Sandiganbayan & Marcoses GR 152154
Supreme Court:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/152154.htm
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/152154.htm
Arellano University:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jul2003/gr_152154_2003.html
Arellano University works but not the Supreme Court website – at least on my browser.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/jul2003/gr_152154_2003.php
Here naman is the Resolution denying with finality the Motions for Reconsideration of the July 15, 2003 Decision filed by the Marcoses again penned by no less than the CJ himself..
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/nov2003/152154.php
Raissa, again, this is really very informative and an eye opener. Good Job! You might want to see this opinons of C.J. Corona and see if there is any relevance to his impeachment case. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/160261_corona.htm
Thanks.
Ito pala sinasabi nila na Francisco v House.
It’s only a Separate Opinion written by Corona.
Francisco vs. HOR is penned by former Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jul2003/gr_152154_2003.html
Here is the exact Decision of the SC penned by no less than CJ Corona. Galing Raissa! I hope the prosecution is monitoring your blog.. Another well researched article..
Let the prosecutors lawyer do their best… We need the best prosecutor in this country to impeach CJ. Can you not find one? I can recommend!
With Corona’s logic, his goose is cooked, provided the prosecution can capitalize on this!
Straight from the horse’s mouth!!! the prosecutors should really check/read your blogs and stop the grandstanding.
As always, excellent work Ms. Raissa,
Thanks.
Appreciate it.
I’d also appreciate if you tell your friends and relatives about my blog so I can reach a wider audience
Yes, I will tell them and post your blog site on my Facebook account.
Could you kindly do a follow-up blog regarding the ban on household help in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), it seems that our Government has soften its stand (WHAT ELSE IS NEW) with the latest memorandum of understanding between Phils. and KSA. Maybe you can ask VP Binay the terms of this MoU.
The Ministry of Labour in KSA has made a press release yesterday on an Arabic newspaper that Filipino maids will be paid a minimum of SR. 1,500 (almost US$ 400) with 1 day leave per week and the maid’s passport / iqama (KSA identification card) should be with them and not with the employer.
BUT
at the same time there was an article on Arab News (http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article563759.ece) that the Phils and KSA have a MoU but did not agree on the minimum wage of domestic household workers along with the other things that will benefit them.
Really?
Ok. I’ll follow it up.
Thanking you in advance.
I (heart) Ma’am Raissa!
—–
This, also coming from the “horse’s mouth”, is relevant to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment:
J. Corona’s ponencia here:
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12252568851060602789
I got this from mlq3′s site. It’s also readworthy (and likewise may cause epistaxis as mlq3 also described Ma’am Raissa’s previous post on CJ’s 11M cash advance).
One may read it here:
http://www.quezon.ph/2012/01/23/the-second-article-fishing-expedition-or-systematic-investigation/
—–
Another irony (although an indirect one):
This also came from Corona’s ponencia here:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/160261_corona.htm
His reference to that quote comes from a book by TUPAS and TUPAS!!!
(Antonio Tupas and Edcel Tupas, FUNDAMENTALS ON IMPEACHMENT, 2001 ed., Quezon City, p. 6 [2001].)
I think the prosecutor should look into hiring Ms. Robles to work for them as legal researcher/consultant.
Naaah.
I have a job, you know.
Bravo Raissa! Let’s see if the prosecution will exploit this damning decision penned by the accused himself.
aha… aha…
Is this why they’re trying to prevent Commissioner Henares from testifying?
You got it.
Makes me wonder on how Bongbong Marcos will vote!! This could be payback time.
what is the exact name of the document? maybe google still has a cached copy…. i’ve recovered some docs/webpage content before by accessing google’s copy.
never mind, was able to access it, but just to be safe, double checked quoted text if its still the same in the decision— still an exact quote, the decision was not changed. saved a copy offline just in case
i forgot to comment on the topic hehehe. Ms. Raissa, this article should be voted “In-Your-Face of the Year”. I wish there were cameras on hand to record Corona’s fat pudgy face as soon as he read or heard of this article.
Or maybe the defense will eat their own words, now arguing that since this is an impeachment proceeding, SC decisions are not relevant since this is not a judicial but a political exercise.
Won’t bet against it.
thanks for the article. hope the prosecutors take note.
You’re welcome.
Can anyone else access the decision from the SC website? Looks like the content was deleted (intentionally or accidentally?). The links to other decisions appear to working fine. Hmmmm.
Hope someone can send a link to a copy from the SCRA.
You’re right.
It’s disappeared/
Bad news: He he he Midas, naughty naughty, ngeek!
Good news: Midas is on top of your blog, Raissa.
Do you think Defense will deny existence if Prosecutors quote it?
Defense cannot deny its existence. Decisions of the Supreme Court are published in the SCRA (Supreme Court Reports Annotated) and several private groups upload these decisions in the internet (e.g ChanRobles and Lawphil).
Are you girls referring to G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003?
Its back online.
I was able to access the site just now…pls try again:)
Same here. I can access the decision quickly.
Proven correct the analysis that Corona learned very well from his stint at SGV. He tried beating the odds by laying the groundwork of his own scheme to hide ill gotten wealth thru ITR and SALN but he was caught in the web of his own contraption after being blindsided by vicious opposition to his midnight appointment. As I have been saying all along his psychological profile of greed in power and cravings for respect got the most of him. His delusion of grandeur masked memory of his own landmark decision. He forgot the most important adage in history is very true, “history repeats itself”
@johnny lin
Miriam threw in a dummy spit.
“That should make everybody think. We don’t necessarily have to convict or acquit. We can also reprimand. We can also just censure …”
———–
Great piece Raïssa. THANKS.
It seems you’re releasing reports once a week.
Baka masaturate naman kami, o maburn-out ka naman.
Inggat. Salamat kadi
@mel
PRESCRIPTION sa impeachment, Acquital or conviction. Pag conviction tanggalin sa pwesto, pag acquittal upo pa rin sa pwesto, kaya matulog sa doghouse o pitik mata hindi pwedeng parusa
CENSURE si Corona, sigaw ni miriam
Akala ni Miriam prescription ng doktor
kaya sinabi nya ENSURE kay Corona.
LOL!
Mas mainam ang ‘ENSURE’.
Puwede na siyang mag scuba diving.
LOL!
Here’s another dummy spit
Santiago defends her previous Corona defense
Santiago said her defense then of Corona was just a “layman’s opinion.”
Sometimes one wonders if the Senate Impeachment trial was better off when she was on sick leave.
Now she’s on the media frenzy, whereas her senate colleagues are not publicly commenting on the Corona Impeachment.