My exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Chief Justice Renato Corona was required by the SALN law to disclose starting 2003 that his wife sat on the board of a state-owned corporation, former Civil Service Commission chair Karina David told me in an interview.
David was chair of the Civil Service Commission when Cristina Corona first joined the board of John Hay Management Corporation in 2001 and then assumed the top post in 2007.
David’s credentials are impeccable. In 2008, David received a Jit Gill Memorial Award from the World Bank for “innovative public sector reforms” and for having “battled against formidable obstacles to defend meritocracy and improve civil service pay as Chair of the Civil Service Commission of the Philippines until February of this year.” She teaches at the University of the Philippines Institute of Social Work and Community Development.
Chief Justice Corona, in his Statement of Assets,Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 2003 to 2006, made no mention whatsoever that his wife Cristina sat on the John Hay board. He only disclosed this starting 2007.
His wife should also have affixed her signature on CJ Corona’s SALNs, David confirmed. Cristina Corona never did that.
I decided to interview David after some commenters posted on my website that I was wrong in saying Corona should have declared his wife was working for the government in his SALNs. See my story CJ Corona’s SALNs only declared his wife was in government post in 2007
The commenters pointed out that the Bases Conversation Development Authority (BCDA)- the mother company of John Hay – was created under a special law, Republic Act No. 7227.
And this law stipulated that subsidiaries that would eventually be created like John Hay “shall be exempt from the coverage of the Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations.” John Hay was later created through an Executive Order issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In the interview, Prof. David mentioned RA 6713, the mother law which stipulates the proper disclosure of SALNs.
Here below is my interview with Prof. David:
RR: Were you the CSC chair at anytime between 2002 and 2007 when Mrs Corona sat on the board of John Hay but was not yet its President and CEO?
DAVID: YES. I was the CSC Chair from March 2001 to February 2008. Cristina Corona was first elected as member of JHMC Board on May 19, 2001. She was elected as Chairman/president/COO on July 16, 2007.
RR: Are you saying that as member of the board between 2002 and 2007, Mrs Corona should have been filing her SALN jointly or separately with her husband?
DAVID: As a Member of the Board of JHMC since 2001, she should have been regularly/annually filing her SALNs. RA 6713 defines public officials as follows: “includes elective and appointive officials and employees permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service…whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount”. RA 6713 requires all public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity to file their SALNs. Under the Rules issued by CSC, all other central officials and employees of GOCCs and their subsidiaries shall file their SALNs with the CSC.
Heads of GOCCs and their subsidiaries are required to file SALN with the OP. She cannot deny that she was the HEAD of JHMC starting 2007.
It goes without saying that she would have to declare the assets, liabilities and net worth of her spouse as required by RA 6713.
RR: Please explain the RA which created JHMC but exempted its officers from CSC rules. What exactly did this mean – that they were being exempted form CSC rules? Did this only pertain to their qualifications, such as they should have taken the government exam to qualify them for civil service?
DAVID: JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA. It is not created by law but rather, created pursuant to an EO (EO 62, EO 132). An EO cannot exempt Corona from filing her SALNs. As stated above, officials and employees of GOCC subsidiaries are required to file their SALNs. The exemption from coverage of Civil service law and rules pertains to qualifications such as eligibility.
RR: And why would this mean that they still have to file their SALN between 2002 and 2007? Because some of my commenters have told me that the RA which created JHMC exempted them from CSC rules, and therefore they were also exempted from filing their SALNs.
DAVID: Again we go back to the fact that a mere EO cannot take precedence over categorical provisions of the law (RA 6713).
RR: Which government agency would be receiving their SALNs, if any?
DAVID: As a member of the Board, it (the SALN of Mrs Corona) should be filed with the CSC. As the Chair/Pres. of JHMC it should be filed with the Office of the President.
RR: So if Cristina Corona had to file her SALN, she was therefore a government employee in the eyes of the law?
DAVID: If you read RA 6713, nandoon naman yung definition. Members of the board are parang alanganin. They’re not employees, they’re not quite ofificals but they’re still required.
RR: Does this then mean that her husband, then Associate Justice Renato Corona, should have disclosed in his own SALNs from 2003 to 2006 that his own wife was in govenrment employ?
DAVID: Yes. In fact at the back of the SALN in the form there are some disclosures there of relatives up to the fourth degree who work in government. Since I haven’t see the SALNs of the chief jusice, I don’t know whether he declared his wife.
RR: Do yhou know if Crisitna Corona ever filed her SALN at the CSC?
DAVID: You have to check that. I think they (board members) are appointed by the president. Sa GOCCs (government-owned and controlled corporations like John Hay) you are either appointed or nominated by the president, then you are elected by the board.
RR: CJ Corona’s lawyer, Ramon Esguerra, told me in an interview that Corona’s SALN was actually a joint filing by the husband and the wife. A husband and wife working in government can file jointly or separately? What would indicate that it’s a joint filing?
DAVID: It’s fairly easy. I and my husband (UP sociologist Professor and Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Randolph David) are both government employees. When we file SALNs they are exactly the same. It’s just the signatory that changes. Puwede yung joint filing.
The only reason you will have separate filings is if a spouse would not declare the income of his or her spouse because the spouse is filing also.
RR: Just to clarify, are you saying that CJ Corona should have disclosed in his SALNs from 2003 to 2006 that his wife was working in government?
DAVID: That’s very clear in the SALN form. It’s in the SALN form if your spouse is a government employee you declare that as well.
RR: In my interview with CJ Corona’s counsel Esguerra, he said Mrs Corona’s signature on CJ Coronas SALNs were not necessary although I pointed out to him that there was a line where the spouse was supposed to sign.
DAVID: Technically speaking, the SALN is the declaration for th entire family. Even if your spouse does not work in government, your spouse is supposed to acknowledge that that is correct. It (the signature) means the spouse agrees (to the correctness of the declarations).
To me, as a former chair of CSC, that kind of a response (from Esguerra that Mrs Corona’s signature was unnecessary) is like saying you know you shouldn’t have bothered to put it (the signature requirement) there (int he SALN) if it didn’t need to be filled up. Every form in government is studied and everything that is put in there has a reason.
RR: Has anybody gone to jail for improper disclosures in the SALN?
DAVID: The SALN is used for administrative cases. It’s similar to the impeachment trial but at a lower level. I say that because everybody in government is subject to administrative cases, except the impeachable officials. If you look at the charges levelled against people – the non-filing of SALN, falsification of public documents, the cases that you file don’t have to be criminal or civil. You just want to get people out (of government) because they don’t deserve to be in government. Those are through administrative cases.
When Sonny Marcleo was the Ombudssman we had an agreement so that they can concentrate on big-ticket items. Those at lower level can be charged for non-filing and falsification of SALN.
As administrative cases these are appealable to the CSC. We are the appeals body kasi.
When I first entered CSC the SALN was an unimportant imposition. But between Ombudsman Marcelo and myself we felt if we wanted to fight against corruption the SALN was a critical tool.
We felt it was an important tool to ensure that government officials and employees as per the law would stick to ethical values. And while you cannot be convicted based simply on the SALN, in many of the anti-graft cases the SALN is your primary lead.
For instance, if the employee is driving around in a brand new car. But in SALN hindi niya dinedeclare yung car, magdududa ka na. You can check on the (car) registration. If the registration is in the name of that employee you start suspecting it’s ill-gotten wealth. Yun ang nagiging lead. Oops. Merong tinatago ito. Saka ka mag-didig.
Yun ang use ng SALN. Kaya nga hinahanap mo either honest naman yung SALN o hindi. Tapos pag biglang nag-spike yung property niya. Biglang nagkaroon ng napakaraming properties. Hindi naman nagbabago suweldo niya. The SALN will show that.
Yung kay Chief Justice Corona, kung joint filing yan, dapat nakadeclare din ang assets ni Mrs Corona.
Personally, after interviewing Prof. David, I realized that not all of Mrs Corona’s assets were included in CJ Corona’s SALN – if that was really a joint filing as Atty Esguerra said. I made this conclusion because of one notable thing in his SALNs – the entry disclosing “Jewelry” never changed in amount. It was constant at P1 million from 2003 to 2010.
Can you imagine the wife of a man of “no ordinary means” (as Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez described his boss) not buying any piece of jewelry for SEVEN YEARS?
You can view CJ Corona’s SALNs here.
For more discussions on the Philippine civil service, I would recommend that you read my hubby Alan’s article entitled Whose service? that appeared in the German development magazine D+C. Just click on this link.
Your insight is a great insult & rebuke to the Moronic & Seared conscience of the Defense Lawyers. I really salute your dedication for the better Philippines. May d Lord cause your wisdom & insights to be multiplied. God bless u Raissa.
It’s now very clear how CJ CORONA has manipulated his SALN. He has acquired so many assets beyond his means, which means, he was very corrupt. And yet, he is still insisting on his innocence. He may be acquitted by the Senate due to the incompetence of the presecution, but he will never regain the trust of the public. The SC as an institution is so much damaged, especially with CORONA around.
Thank you Chair David for very clear and fair explanation.
Madam Raissa,
Inaanyayahn ko yong mga Accountants para ipaliwanag nila ang definitions ng Assets, Liabilities and Netwoeth. Itong mga terms na ito ay accounting terms, kaya dapat lang na malaman ng public kung anong value ang ilalagay sa Assets, Liabilities and Networth.
Lahat ng Financial Statement, whether personal or business ay wala pa akong nakitang valuation ng asset na zonal value or fair market value, laging original acquisition cost less depreciation if any less liabilities para malaman ang exact Networth.
Yes, that would be good.
Thank you.
I understand both the defense and prosec panels are reading the comments.
That’s good. They know what ordinary people are thinking.
i pa audit mo kaya sa mga sikat naauditing firms dyan.. alam mo na
Raissa, in Accounting, networth = assets- liabilities. The value of the asset is the original cost if land. If not land, the original cost – depreciation. Liabilities is the value as of the reporting date. Therefore the true value of the networth formula should be the above as explained. Now if the value of the asset is not the acquisitiion cost, the networth is not the true networth as per RA 6713. This law clearly states that the assets should be declared by stating (1) acquition cost (2) apprasied value (3) fair market value. And I supposed the Networth should be the acquisision cost of the assets – liabilites..
Paano na yan ngayon inamin na ng panig ng defense panel ni Corona na may inaccuracies sa SALN . Ang masama pa nito ay ibinabato ang sisi sa SC Clerk of Court , kita mo na. Dapat mo bang paalalahanan ang isang matalinong tao tulad ni Corona Eh. BAKA ITO ANG IBALIK NA SAGOT SA YO, ABA WALA KANG PAKIALAM SA MGA PROPERTIES KO IKAW BA ANG ASAWA KO. SINO KA NAMAN PARA PANGHIMASUKAN ANG PAGDEDECLARE KO NG PROERTIES SA AKING SALN. Oh ano ngayon ang napala mo?
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.
Miss Raisa, you might be interested to do research on whether the CJ and his wife are covered by CSC issuance regarding the filing of SALN Baseline Declaration which is more comprehensive, detailed and specific from SALN Annual Declaration as contained in CSC memorandum issued sometime in 2008.
I think it could be very interesting if they are covered or mandated to file the Baseline Declaration considering that the baseline info requires specifics.
Is the Baseline declaration already being implemented now?
This was scuttled by CSC Ricardo Saludo.
Ah, ganoon ba..I thought they pushed through with it.. There are conflicting news about it in the net.. Hope the CSC can clarify this one and for all. Thanks for the reply.
Raissa, when you testify, wag ka na mag-beauty parlor. Tama na ang NATURAL mong ayos. So presentable ka na. At mas maganda na ng sandaang beses kesa ki Miriam! No kidding.
Raissa, good luck on your scheduled testimony in the Imp Trial. My unsolicited advice: Pag humara-hara si Miriam sa iyo, tell this to her face: “HWAG KA NGANG MAINGAY DYAN, MIRIAM! HINDI MO AKO TAUHAN HA!?” Or if you wanna be a little civil and concerned about her medical problem: “Miriam, ung puso mo, hija, ung puso mo! Ikaw rin.”
Currently, I also blog about the impeachment trial of CJ Corona not to divulge results of investigation but more on my purpose to have a record of my personal observation of the proceedings. I am not a lawyer nor a journalist so I consider my views as that of a common tao who keenly watch things as they unfold in the hearing.
Raissa’s revelations as an investigative journalist are very useful in my blogging about the impeachment trial. My reading of the news is another help and for views coming from a lawyer, I recently come across and considered “Viewpoint Neutral” at http://jcc34.wordpress.com/ as a good source of information.
May the informed netizens continue to get useful and correct information about the case. Thank you.
What is at stake in this whole thing is Judicial Independence.
Well, that is as far as Mr. Renato Corona is concerned. He thinks that if convicted, it will be the Death of Judicial Independence.
But, how does Mr. Renato Corona regard Judicial Independence?
In the discovery of his SALN, which incidentally he did not publicly disclose as he was hiding behind an exemptive SC Resolution, we note that he declared that his wife was working in a GOCC under the Office of the President — a position in the Executive branch of government.
This declaration was as early as 2007 when he was already an Associate Justice of the SC — a position in the Judicial branch.
At that time, Mr. Renato Corona did not see a conflict of interest. Perhaps thinking that it is not public knowledge anyway.
However, in 2010, as he is being “groomed” for the highest post in the Judiciary, Mr. Renato Corona suddenly had the propriety to ask his wife to give up her Executive post.
Of course, then, he was being challenged with the question of independence considering Mr. Renato Corona’s wife was already broadcast to have been repeatedly (persistently?) nominated by gloria macapagal-arroyo to her JHMC post.
Now, what about Mr. Renato Corona’s independence in the early years of his wife’s stint in an Executive post under the Office of the President?
Was not the year 2007 already the Death of Judicial Independence???
No less than the Supreme Court acknowledged the standard:
“Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the Executive and Legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.”
The political question exists: will the much-publicized and embraced label “CoronArroyo” pass muster as having NO APPEARANCE of Judicial Independence?
Please remember that suspicion alone will already violate the Canons stipulated in the New Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary.
…New Judicial Code of Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary.
Justice Baycas;
Independence from each other branch but not independence from the sovereign people. The act of the House that resulted to the articles of impeachment and the Senate trying the impeachment are mechanisms in the constitution giving meaning to that eternal concept that in a free society, power belongs to the people.
Our colleague, David Barton said:
“Rather than violating the “independence of the judiciary,” impeachment actually gives the people a means to hinder the court from imposing its own judicially-driven political agenda on them. Infact, the impeachment of a judge might properly be likened to a recall election; it is the means by which the people remove from office anofficial with whose conduct they are strongly dissatisfied. As Thomas Jefferson wisely observed, no official was to be beyond the reach of the people:
“It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.”
JCC,
Good day, pañero!
The framers of the U.S. Constitution could have easily “awarded” the impeachment trial to the Supreme Court but in the end they gave it to the Senate:
That was good for the USA because the senators (now 100) are drawn from many independent states (now 50 States) at the time. That is from the US Constitution. Ours, is in a very different situation. We are only one State. Our senators are elected nationally. Some provinces (we are States) do not have a senator but some more than one senator. In short, no equal representation in the Senate. We have many provinces for our only one state or whole country (not like USA with 50 States for the whole country) but only 24 senators and not according to the number of provinces (which should have been the appropriate thing done by the framers of our Constitution). Will our 24 senators have that “confidence enough on its own; to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the Representatives of the People, his accusers” as intended in the mind of Alexander Hamilton, No. 65, Federalist, for his own country, the USA? I answer honestly, No. The US system of gov’t has a very different structure with the Philippine system. We are not a federal system of government like the USA. We could have had senators for each province if we wanted to get near that point of Federalist No. 65 by Mr. Hamilton. With only 24 senators for the whole country with many provinces, there is no proper representation if we wanted a representative form of government. So, I believe we can’t have that “suffficiently independent” Senate as a tribunal for impeachment purposes like what we are having now.
“(we don’t have States)” correction on Line 5.
Too bad. It’s kinda wishful thinking on my part that we should have totally adapted US of A’s system.
In reality, the local framers of our present Constitution “cut the umbilical cord” from the US Constitution with the insertion of the SC’s judicial power of review.
We are probably midway between the US system wherein impeachment trial is solely the domain of the Senate and South Korea’s (or other countries) wherein impeachment trial is vested on the Constitutional Court.
Strictly speaking, our Supreme Court may always intervene on the Executive or Legislative whenever “grave abuse of discretion” on their part is proven to be in existence (sadly, proven by the SC itself which is composed of unelected individuals).
It has happened before, it may happen in the future…and definitely, it is happening now!
Can a simple resolution over rule a RA?
No.
@Raissa
Something interesting on another front related to FG and GMA money which you might want to investigate.
Iggy Arroyo passed away. Lacson wanted to revive Jose Pidal case plus the pending PNP used chopper case. Brewing is marital dispute of Iggy.She was still legally married to Alicia because there was no official annulment yet despite pending petition. Alicia is claiming spousal legal rights while Iggy had a live in situation with Grace Bunag who gave the permission to discontinue life support. Another telenovela for your followers. Strike the iron while its hot.
This complicated legal case will involve the bank deposits of Jose Pidal and the LTA stocks which FG claims he had disposed in 2002. How will FG response be affected that Iggy leased the chopperon since Iggy did not show up in Senate invitation to attend Bluue Ribbon inquiry nor he appeared on deposition. FG defense is considered hearsay without deposition of Iggy.
Lacson must pursue case now if it was not completely resoved before.
Raissa, I have been following you since I discovered you. I find your investigative journalism is awesome. I am wondering if you can do an investigation on these fake accounts spamming sites like ANC, DZMM, ABS-CBN etc etc.. They seem to be all against P-Noy too. They sure know how to twist and turn facts. If you think it is not worth it I won’t blame you.. I just thought there is someone bigger behind it all.
if or when ever you testify and the senator-judges ask you to substantiate your evidence with reliable sources of info, are you allowed to divulge your sources or is that a violation of journalism ethics–just wondering what’s involved in this situation.
Dito sa Batangas iisa ang usap usapan sa kanto at sa bawat sulok ng usapan ng mga tao kase taga rito si Renato Corona, Kung ang taong ito ay may malasakit sa sambayanang Pilipino, tutal naman wala ng tiwala sa kanyang ang kasalukuyang administrasyon kaya humantong sa ganitong impeachment trial sapagkat ito ang nararapat na proseso sa pagpapatalsik sa isa sa mga head ng equal branch of government (judiciary). simple lang kusa ka na dapat siyang aalis o mag-reresign. Hindi na dapat niyang hintayin pa na makaladkad ang pangalan ng kanyang buong angkan para halungkatin ang itinatagong yaman na hindi galing sa malinis na paraan. ako ay taong hindi matalino subalit habang tumatagal ang proceeding ng usaping ito. sigurado ako na sa walong (8) articles of impeachment ay may mapapatunayan dito ang prosekusyon. Okey sabihin na natin na kaya malakas ang loob ng panig ng Campo ni Corona na ipagpatuloy ang impeachment na ito ay mahirap makakuha ng 2/3 sa mga elected senators. Kahit naman ngayon mag-survey ka iisa lang ang hatol ng taumbayan, GUILTY si Corona
A judicious observation.
Good point this –
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/senator-santiago-is-an-embarassment-to-the-world-court/
Dapat ang isang public servant ay honest, lubos na malawak ang kaalaman ng isang Chief Justice sa batas at alam niya ito , alam niya na dapat naka declare ang lahat ng kanyang ari-arian sa SALN, Bakit kailangan itago, ikubli ito sa publiko eh public servant ka nga Chief Justice pa. dapat maging role model ka nga sa mga empleyado ng gobyerno. Sa kasaysayan ng bansang Pilipinas nakabandera sa buong mundo ang Punong mahistrado ng Pilipinas na nililitis sa isang impeachment court. dahil sa walong (8) articles of impeachment laban sa kanya.. Bakit kailangan dumating tayo sa ganito? Kung ang prinsipyo ng isang public servant ay maglingkod ng tapat at walang pag-iimbot sa bayan at ginagampanan ng buong husay ang kanyang tungkulin bilang lingkod bayan at hindi lingkod para sa sarili o para sa bulsa. hindi naman palagay tayo dapat humantong sa sitwasyong ito. Ngayon, naghihintay ang buong sambayanan na huwag hadlangan ang paglalatag ng ibidensiya na ibinubunyag ng prosecutor na mga ari-arian ni Corona na hindi naka state sa kanyang SALN.
Raissa, wala akong maikokomento dito sa topic mo pero nais kong ipaalam sayo na nabasa ko na isa ka sa iimbitahan ng prosecutors para magtestify sa hanay ng mga journalists.
Aba’y malaking tulong ang presensya mo.
At pakisabi sa ma prosecutors, umayos sila. Sarap balasahin. Kidding.
Good luck Raissa. You already
ang galing nyo po maam, mas maganda pa mag basa ng article ninyo kaysa manood ng proceeding ng impeachment, kasi puro banat ang defense ng technical issues. puro irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, defective complaint ang naririnig ko. Panay naman ang sang-ayon ni Enrile. keysu fishing expedition daw ang prosecutor, na wawalang na tuloy ng pag asa ang taong bayan na baka ma mis-trial lang ito.
House-Prosecutor: We’d like to call our next witness for today – your honor.
House-Prosecutor: Can you please state your name and address.
Witness: My name is Raïssa Robles dot com (Raissa Robles.com
House-Prosecutor: ahh, eehh, what is the dot com?
Witness: With the indulgence of the court – your honors. It would save a lot of time for the stenographer, the Senate-Judges’ and for the Defense & Prosecution panels’ in this historic Senate Impeachment. Especially for the audience to easily find me.
House-Prosecutor: ahhh, but why is that?
Witness: In that site your honors, you would find my contact details, my Comments Policy, commenters to my blog site, and my archives of investigative reports – your honors.
House-Prosecutor: oohhh, okay.
House-Prosecutor: In one of your reports, Can you please give us a backgrounder of one of your reports, entitled “How Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got caught in her own mousetrap – halo vest and all (162)”
House-Prosecutor: It says that today it has (162), but the other day, it had 144. What does that mean?
(ayos, na promote na rin ang blog site ni Raïssa Robles dot com.
For my pilgrimage on 28 & 29 January, we’re going to visit the Basilica of St. Servaaskerk in Holland, then on 7 – 13 Ferbruary, we’re going to visit Our Lady of Lourdes, St. Michael the Archangel and Our Lady of Hope in France and Black Madonna And St Francis Xavier in Spain. I will request the organizer of the pilgrimages to include in the mass intentions the success of the impeachment trial against Corona. We are behind you if ever as a witness. God bless you and your family.
as the lawyers ( prosecution and defense says)..I submit ..kabayan. Sana Ms Raisa makuha ng iba ang tapang mo para maipakita sa lahat ang bulok at nangangamoy na maling sistema sa ating lipunan. Itong kaganapan na ito ay siyang mag ga-guide sa atin para mabuksan na ang mga tulog na kaisipan at maging parte ng pagbabago. Mabuhay po kayo
Marami pang mas matapang sa akin.
Pero salamat sa mga salita mo.
I’ve read you’ll be a witness for Article VII.
Good luck Ma’am Raissa!
Alam mo, ngayon ko lang nalaman yan.
Nasa dentista kasi ako, e.
Nabasa ko rin iyan tungkol sa pagiging testigo mo Raissa. You and Justice Sereno will be the game changer here. Ika nga tapus na boksing- convict na sigurado si “midnight”. hehehe
keep up the good work mam,para yong mga kurakot na goverment official ay magkaroon ng takot.sohestion ko langpo pakibusisi din yong si prospero pichay astig masyado yan nong panahon ni pandak.god bless
Raissa vs. Cuevas …sounds like pacquiao vs. mayweather to me…
Good Luck sis you’re part of the history now.
We support you all the way.
“Justice Secretary Leila de Lima will be among the 18 witnesses for the prosecution to testify against Chief Justice Renato Corona’s alleged betrayal of public trust over an aborted overseas medical travel of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband….”
“De Lima will testify along with two associate justices of the Supreme Court and its spokesman and court administrator Midas Marquez, a copy of the list of witnesses and documents e-mailed to INQUIRER.net by the office of Bayan Muna partylist Representative Neri Colmenares showed.”
“Also on the list of witnesses are members of the broadcast and print media, like [b]Raissa Robles of South China Morning Post, Marites Vitug of Rappler.com,[/b] and Criselda Yabes who will testify on the alleged close relationship of Corona with Arroyo.”
wow Raissa. I pray you’ll do fine. Beware of Cuevas though.
God bless you.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/135237/de-lima-marquez-among-18-prosecution-witnesses-in-corona-trial
WOW! Ms. Raissa, you’ll be in the witness stand! Puede bang mag inhibit ka muna sa pag susulat as this may have a bearing on your focus.? LOL, You know , I am archiving all the videos of this impeachment for my son as he will be taking up law soon and this material will surely be a good case study for him. This means you will be immortalized in a video.
Pag si Midas na ang umupo sa witness stand, dapat firm yung microphone para hindi natutumba)
@Baltazar
ang lakas mo kay Raïssa.
anong mayruon ka na wala kami?
Ikaw ang una na may comment YouTube link. Hanep.
LOL!
Midas “… Any questions?” aayyy, that said it all. tumaas din ang kilay niya. LOL!
sayang ang pagkalalake mo!
@Mel
.
LOL. Mate, Raissa uses WordPress blogging facility and due to security reasons, among the video links Word Press allows is You Tube. Selos ka naman agad. Mahal nya tayo lahat he he. But maybe she really purposely allowed it for a little fun and of course, relevance. Masyadong seryoso lahat eh
@Baltazar
Ang sulat mo máte, “Selos ka naman agad. Mahal nya tayo lahat he he.”
Ako selos, hindi naman. bilib nga ako sa iyo dahil kailangan ng ‘commercial’ para ngumiti o tumawa naman tayo.
Mahal niya ang taong bayan. iyon ang mahalaga.
maganda ang kaniyang adhikain sa inang bayan natin.
mabalos.
Honestly, so far I’m not that impressed with the cross-examination skills of J. Cuevas. He even helped the prosecution yesterday when he elicited the opinion of Kim Henares as to tax evasion. But in any case, we are with you in spirit, Raissa! I also pray for you and in the event that you are called to testify, I hope that your testimony will shed more light on the truth.
Nina, I just got to know about this.
It’s a mystery to me.
It is for Article 7, may be in a few weeks, a month or two from now.
It depends on the progress of Article 2, and what the prosecutors deem to be the next one. Maybe Article 7 ka-agad.
I hope the Senate-Judges would be kind to you, and not force you to reveal your anonymous sources. And that they would not put you in Contempt, and not incarcerate you at their House ‘jail’.
Would you accept the summon(s) with OPEN ARMS?
It has to do with your articles concerning the ‘special’ relationship of R Corona and the Arroyo couple. Why the SC bias of approving a TRO ex parte.
And other related info in relation to your Corona-Arroyo tandem reports/investigations.
Credible witness ka by your chosen profession – investigative journalist.
You still have plenty of time to prepare for Article 7, unless they’d invite you for the other articles for hearing/trial.
Inggat at all the best.
Ms. Rissa,
I look forward to seeing you on TV (or at least hearing your voice on the radio).
Break a leg… or give ‘em hell… or whatever it is they say to prospective witnesses.
Seriously, we’re behind you all the way. Rock on!
Hi Raissa,
You may want to check the effectivity date of the substituted filing of ITR (BIR Form 2316). This is the discontinuance of filing of BIR 1701which was replaced by the Alphabetical (Alpha) List submission. This means that before the effectivity (not sure if in 2006 or 2007), Corona should be filing his ITR using BIR form 1701.
Salamat sa isa na namang napakasustansya at napaka-detalyadong artikulo.Thankful and glad there is ONE Raissa Robles..
Mabuhay po kayo at mabuhay ang Pilipinas..
Thank you, Jon.
Mabuhay ang Pilipinas.
UPDATE!
Prosecutors want justices, journalists summoned
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/27/12/prosecutors-want-justices-journalists-summoned
Raissa is being summoned! Goosebumps all over..
Excited! teehee.
Huwag kayong ma-excite.
Hindi ko talaga alam kung bakit.
Madam, we have history on the making. I’m excited for you will be a part of it. And I’m excited too ’cause me and my generation gets to witness it.
mali dapat “in” pala hindi “on”
tama ba?
hay grammar, bakit ba hindi kita minahal dati pa.
Ms. Raissa and other journalists will be summoned by the prosecution to testify regarding the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA, according to news reports.
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
ms raissa.. ipapatawag ka na sa impeachment court.. we would keep watch on your talk show..
I am getting more confused reading Tigerlila’s comments–can anybody put all these ‘legal speak’ in a more concise, reader-friendly way. Honestly, I want to understand the real issues involved. So far Sen. Santiago aside from Raissa are the only two people who can really speak to me with regard to the impeachment trial. Don’t get me wrong I truly appreciate Tigerlila’s comments, it’s just too much for my pleb brain
galing mo Raissa … ipapalit kita kay llamas …
Huwag.
Your interview with the venerable former CSC chair Karina David is another thorn on the sides of the coronas and the defense panel as well. Section 17, Art. 11 of the 1987 Constitution and Sec. 8 of RA 6713 are categorical on the need for government workers to submit a true SALN upon assumption to duty and every year thereafter until separated from the service. In case of high officials like the supreme court,etc., public disclosure of their SALNs is expressly required by the Constitution.
Another very inbcriminating evidence presented by the prosecution are documents transferring ownership, by deed of sale, of posh La Vista properties by the spouses renato & cristina coronas to their daughter Carla C. Castillo, of obviously little or ordinary means, in the huge amount of 18M, which was not reflected in his SALN for 2010 as an increase in assets (cash holdings)
The mountains of incriminating evidences already presented and to be presented by the prosecution, might just go to waste because the impeachment court is not a judicial court but rather a political court, wherein the fate of the respondent depends not on the merits of evidences but on the number of senator-jurors who would vote for conviction or acquittal (2/3 needed for conviction).
Cj corona might possibly escape conviction but the credibility and integrity of the supreme court would be badly impaired, not to mention the tarnished reputation of his family which we pinoys valued most.
Pardon my legalese correlation.
I am presenting the pertinent laws and order. I am in my analysis mode.This is not to brag what we know, it is about probing deep and wide,probably not for anyone’s sake but for anyone similarly interested with the truth. My original stand has been to give CJ Corona the benefit of the doubt. He is not here to shed light to this dilemma.We are merely entertaining and exploring probabilities the reasons for his failure to allege his wife as ‘working in the government’ from 2002-2006 in his SALN
Executive Order No. 132
- Authority in the creation of JHMC
WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 103 Series of 1993 [EO 103] created the John Hay Development Corporation as the operating and implementing arm of the BCDA to manage the Club John Hay created under Proclamation No. 198 issued on June 29, 1993;
WHEREAS, Section 16 of RA 7227 authorizes the BCDA to form, establish, organize and maintain subsidiaries in accordance with Philippine Corporation Law; WHEREAS, Section 17 of RA 7227 provides that the BCDA shall be under the direct control and supervision of the Office of the President for purposes of policy direction and coordination;
—– Is JHMC a subsidiary of BCDA in that light? BCDA is no doubt under the fold of the government as a GOCC. Is that EO promulgated by the President merely enabled the power of BCDA to form its subsidiary?
- —-Or is it an entirely different animal not connected with BCDA? Or as a commenter would say a non-chartered gocc? Let’s go back to the EO above. It connected BCDA after the premise of JHMC’s creation under that EO.
PD 2029(DEFINING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND IDENTIFYING THEIR ROLE IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(b) A subsidiary corporation is one created pursuant to law where at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock or outstanding voting capital stock of which is owned by parent government corporations and/or other government-owned subsidiaries.
—–BCDA owns majority of the shares of JHMC. Isn’t BCDA the so-called parent government corporation and the JHMC its subsidiary in that light?
RA 7227 ( Charter Creating BCDA)
SECTION 16. Subsidiaries. — The Conversion Authority shall have the power to form, establish, organize and maintain a subsidiary corporation or corporations. Xxx
Such subsidiaries shall be exempt from the coverage of the Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations.
—–Sitting on the above premise that JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA.What does this exemption mean? Does it mean it is a private corporation waiving its attachment to the government? It is like saying, I know my parents are the GOVERNMENT and a private individual, but I am waiving the religion of my father and instead I am following that of my mother (the private individual)
BP 68 ( The Corporation Code )
Section 4. Corporations created by special laws or charters. – Corporations created by special laws or charters shall be governed primarily by the provisions of the special law or charter creating them or applicable to them, supplemented by the provisions of this Code, insofar as they are applicable. (n)
—–It is plainly saying the charter of BCDA (RA 7227)being a special law controls or governs itself. The supplementary rider under that BP merely reiterates that in corporate matters needing interpretation or application, in the absence of specific rule in the charter, the Corporation Code applies, in so far as it is applicable.
Republic Act No. 6713
-Who are required to file SALN?
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
—–In that light , in probing section 5 in so far as it is applicable, is the director of the board in a subsidiary of a GOCC an employee or a public official? The CSC Chair admits, it is vaguely identifiable with either of the two. This is critical too because an employee is defined in our laws as having a contractual-control nature. We will look at RA 3019.
Ra 3019
(a) “Government” includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
(b) “Public officer” includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
—– note that subsidiaries are not expressly mentioned in Sec a. Next, is a director of the board a public officer? The president and its other officers( secretary,treasurer, etc)of a corporation (gocc), or the position of their Chief Operating Officer plainly are considered public officers but is a mere director of the board of the same league as other officers?
What I am pointing? We need an interpreter of the law to look at the correlation of all these laws, just to fit it in one piece for the enlightenment of all.I understand, this issue appeared to be plain and simple- (JHMC is a gocc, its father is from the government, though it’s mother is plainly a private individual , hence, etcetera). But for my sophie’s sake, my stumbling block is this RA 7227 exempting its subsidiaries from CSC Rules. I am still pining on this belief that JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA.With due respect to the commenter above, his point is well taken, and it leads me to this question- is JHMC really a non-chartered GOCC?
But I do admire Raissa for letting me open up my mind for further legalese inquiry. She knows her duty well as a journalist. We should not stop looking and probing for the truth. We should not be a mere observer sitting on a sideline (like others) and resort to bashing this type of query with a raised eyebrow and a smirk.
As for others, your input is well appreciated
you read the report again to understand the issue and to answer your question
@Tigerlila, kindly refer to my post here:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/26/ex-csc-chair-david-questions-coronas-saln-non-disclosures-on-his-wife/#comment-12738
RA 3019 (a)
What is the difference between government instrumentalities/ agency and subsidiary?
A. Semantics. Example: Foreign affairs of different countries sometimes coordinate with other countries to represent each other in another country for many reasons like cost cutting measures like an agency or instrument. There is a liason officer for the Philippines assigned with, lets say, Korean embassy in Maputatputat. Liason was appointed thru DFA technically appointed by president being under executive office. The liason has responsiblity to the Philippines despite under jurisdiction of Korean Embassy which is a distinct entity. That is similar to Mrs. Corona representation being appointed by the president.
Fact: per Marites Vitug Rappler.Com report
Mrs. Corona did not submit her SALN because she claimed her husband filed for her, likewise her last salary from CJH was withheld in 2010 because she did not yet submit SALN .
Proof: CJ Corona SALN did not include Mrs. corona
Fact: she did not sign SALN under spouse, prompting Raissa to query Atty. Esguerra who answered ambigously, initially saying Mrs Corona did not need to sign because there was no applicable law later on when pressed by Raissa he answered, I dont know.
Proof: if CJH administration was requesting Mrs. Corona to file SALN, then all other members of Board filed SALN to receive salary. Mrs. corona was also Pres, CEO and chairman of the Board.
She needs to explain why she lied that she was filing with her husband,? why she did not file or why she must be exempted from filing, compared from the rest of board members?
Kaya hindi nag file si cristina corona dahil may itinanagong baho at saka ginagamit implowensiya dahil chief justice asawa nito…. saka malakas kay pandak itong si cristina noon biro mo kapit tuko sa jhmc dahil malaki pakinabang nito doon… pero hindi pa nakontento pati companya nang pamilya hiniraman pa nang perang 11 million at hindi natin alam kong nakabayad dahil nagrereklamo na kamag anak niyang si mrs.basa….Lalabas na talaga baho nilang mga TUTA ni Pandak….Puwweeee….
If SALNs are meant to keep people honest and are public documents, why not have them put on the Internet for the sake of transparency? People will then know if our supposed public servants are making an honest living.
no need
yan ang dapat… ipakita sa madla ang mga SALN’s… para transparent…
An executive order should not deviate from the Republic Act because in terms of hierarchy, EO is a subset of RA but not equal to EO. The Senate is right not to subpoena Corona’s multiple bank accounts as hackers could transfer through online all his monies into their (hackers) fictitious accounts.But if there’s a hacker who would take the form of Robin Hood and transfer all Corona’s monies into charitable institutions and agencies which are supporting various humanitarian works – kariton classroom, Sendong victims, etc- that would indeed alleviate the lives of the needy and the poor in so many ways. Raissa, I’m so amazed of your ingenuity when it comes to your investigative reporting. As I’m going to pilgrimages end of January and mid- February, I will pray for you and your family for your health and protection. We. the Filipino people need you.
Thank you, Letlet, for including me in your prayers.
Where are you going?
This comment made me think of the group ‘Anonymous’, a group of hackers who in wiki described themselves as ‘We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.’ Rebels for a cause, fighting in a new arena. What if?
Your objectivity is beyond reproach. Kudos for you. I enjoyed reading your articles.
Thank you for reading.
Although I am “inundating” whatever information I could get through Philippine newpapers etc. I found the interview of Raissa Robles with the former CS C very enlightening and nourishing to my insatiable thirst for information with whats going on with our beloved country. I know something good will come out of all this unprecedented events that will have radical changes in how we approach our work especially in the government service, which I had the opportunity to experience, before I migrated here in NY several years ago.
private corporation pala ang JHMC. bakit hindi mo ito linagay sa blog mo. ano ang point mo sa SALN ni mrs corona. ang naka-impeach ay si CJ corona.
lumalayo ka na sa usapan.
Hinid ka ba nagbasa?
Sabi nga ni Karina David sakop ang JHMC sa pag-submit ng SALN.
Haha!
Like!
@lagot.ka — JHMC is a government owned and controlled corporation, not an ordinary private corporation.
parang ikaw ang naligaw sa usapan. parang hindi ka marunong umintindi. siguro magpaturo ka sa mga lawyers ng depensa para malinawagan ka. feel ko lang ha
@lagot ka… lagot ka talaga… he he he… ang blog na ito ay para sa may utak lng… hindi kasama dito ang kagaya mo na utak ipis… he he he… peace be with u my friend…
Amf saan ba galing are?
excellent piece of journalism….
Raisa gets it done!
wala ba nakapansin … nabasa ko sa news, na ni-rerequest ng defense team na mag INHIBIT na daw si DRILON … binanggit nila na hindi na daw kapani-paniwala ang pagiging patas ni DRILON sa impeachment … in short … bias na daw dahil sa kanilang mga binanggit na kadahilanan …
anak ng …
sandali lang … di ba ganun din ang pinupunto ng IMPEACHMENT … na dapat magbitiw na si CORONA o mag-inhibit sa mga kaso against kay arroyo dahil hindi na kapani-paniwala ang pagiging patas nia … at in short bias daw allegedly in favor of ARROYO ..
ANG LABO NIO NAMAN !!!
hehehe…ikaw nalang ang mag inhibit
@ nakita,
Maraming beses na nakita ang pagiging pro gma ni thief justice corona kaya siya ini impeach ngayon saka 8 articles ito. magbasa ka nga nakita? nabulag yata pangalan mo dapat? saka anong mali sa ginagawa ni senador drillon gayon ipinahahayag lang naman niya ang dapat malaman nang taongbayan, kong walang kasalanan si thief justice corona dapat wala siyang itatago, dapat ipahayag at ipakita niya lahat para siya ay pagkatiwalaan. Bakit wala siyang sasakyan gayon tatlo ang parking lot niya sa the port na pagkamahal mahal at siguradong hindi niya kayang bilhin? Nakakahiya at Nakakadiri na itong si thief justice cororna kaso kasalanan niya rin kasi nagpaka TUTA kay pandak….Puwweeee….
LOOK AT THIS:
“proving of something that there is, based on the absence of something.”
Mejo tumagal muna ako sa line na to pero sa wakas naintindihan ko din.
True, Cuevas and his posse could muster enough legalities to frustrate the suggestion that it’s not possible for an SC Justice to not buy her wife precious stones for seven years — unless may resibo.”
oy, oy BAKA MAYROON, Ms raissa or friends can just inguire from the
big jewelry stores in Manila, Hongkong or Singapore, BAKA, MERON DIN MAKABAYAN gustong magsalita Meron namang makatotohanng interview si Ms Raissa.
Kong maipapakita lamang nang mag asawang corona ang kanilang credit cards ay sigurado akong maraming lalabas na BAHO kaso hindi nila gagawin yon at kapag mailabas man siguradong sasabihin na naman nang defense panel na pabor sa kanila ang paglabas nang credit cards records? ha ha ha….
There ‘s no longer a wish to find another modern hero in our mist. With your disclosures, interviews and wisdom you can step up to that podium. May other investigative reporters like yourself spread throughout the land and expose those corrupt officials.
God bless you,
Thank you for your kind thoughts.
I’m just doing my bit so the Filipino nation can move forward and not be stuck in the corruption shit-hole it’s been in since our Republic was born in 1946.
Together, we can make corruption NOT A WAY OF LIFE.
It’s really up to us.
that tiny little bit of yours ms raissa that you help so that the filipino nation can move forward and not be stuck in the corruption is a great leap of the filipino people. i call on every filipino citizen here and abroad to to give your own tiny little bit so that we can see the true change that we have been dreaming for. lets continue what the present president has initiated and raise to the occasion but still be vigilant that if this president will not follow his own policy we will do the same to him what we did to the corrupt officials of the past.
accountability should permeats every aspect of the filipino life starting from everyone to the highest offcial of the land. we should be accountable and responsible enough not pay bribes to the corrupt officilas in order to fast track our projects, licenses, or a mere traffic ticket and we should report all crimes to authorities and responsible journalist like ms raissa, not just stand aside because its not our problem or it doesnt concern us.
lets make it our duty as what ms raissa did to contribute something for the common good. we can uproot corruption if we have the numbers and the right people to lead us.
“It’s really up to us.” -Funny, while doing some leg work for my husband at the local RDO, I approached an examiner who did an assessment of the CGT/DST of a sale our office was handling. I know from the questions asked and the runaround I was given that the examiner was trying to get some juice out of the transaction so I asked to be excused and gave some reasons to get back all the documents. Then I called up an examiner I know ( a straight, incorruptible one) and told her my story. She told me, ” Ma’am it’s really up to the taxpayer, e. You have to let them know your duty is to pay the govt with the necessary taxes and not them”. She’s admirable but then again, she might be the only clean one in that RDO.
Marami diyang malinis.
Natatbunan lang ng mga garapal.
raissa .. .dapat ikaw ang lead prosecutor … ikaw na … he he he … kudos
LOL.
You are realy one of a kind Raissa!
Another very intelligent piece of work.. Kudos to you.
God Bless!
Thanks for reading, Wheng.
i am learning a lot from your blogs madam raissa…. its worth reading…
Thank you, lakay.
Pls tell your friends and relatives about my blog.
News! Corona filed petition to inhibit Drilon for possible bias against defense.
Before, Corona was asked frequently to inhibit himself on cases involving GMA for possible bias but he steadfastly refused many times. This will have same result as ITR. denied.
Something is wrong with Corona lawyers. They already
lost on their motion to obstruct ITR but was denied because the reason was the Corona ponencia on Marcos wealth.
Same with Sen Arroyo, he was questioning Henares why she is conducting investigation of Corona’s tax return when she found anomalies. He asked her to delay because Corona is being impeached. Looks like Arroyo is suffering from Early Alzheimer symptoms the way he talks and some tremors in voice and hands. If there is a possibility of crime committed Arroyo wanted the investigation delayed because of the trial. He has lost his sense of good judgment.
Crime is crime needing investigation upon discovery
If the defense filed a motion to inhibit Drilon, the prosecution must countered by filing a motion to inhibit Arroyo and Santiago. It is Crystal clear these two senators are bias toward Corona.
The defense seems to forget that government service is public service and public trust. The government is the people, government officials are the representative of the people. Therefore, they must be an epitome of public honesty and trust.
The defense panel specially Cuevas are like actors more interested in displaying their skills to portray to the public their mastery of questioning in a judicial court.
They forgot that the people only want the truth to come out, a process that constitution enshrined to us that if a public official cannot be trusted or loses the confidence of the people, he must go.
i completely agree.
what do you expect? sen. joker arroyo is living up to his name as he gets older…he can’t accept the fact that an “ignorant” ( his word, not mine) newbie like Pnoy was elected president of this country- a position he has been salivating for since many years back…
At ang nakakatawa sa mga defense counsel ni thief justice renato corona ay pabor na naman sa kanila ang paglabas nang nang S.A.L.N. at I.T.R., samantalang matagal na itong hinihingi nang prosekusyon? ha ha ha ngayon dahil nailabas na sa tulong ni senador drillon ay sasabihin nila na pabor sa kanila????? ha ha ha ha….LOL…. nakakatawa itong mga defense councel….
What if Renato borrowed money from a relative abroad, bought a property in cash, and is now paying for it on installment with or without interest?
if that were the case, then he would have a loan (therefore an increase in his liabilities)… and the next question is how is he paying for the loan and at the same time buying additional properties…. (is the relative giving him more and more loans? does the relative have the initials GMA or is known as FG?)
another possibility that the defense can use is “donation”… someone donated millions to the Corona’s… if so, there should be donor’s taxes declared, and the cash should show up under Corona’s Assets in his SALN.
any way you look at it, parang walang lusot.
However, this presumption is juris tantum. It may be rebutted by the public officer or employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his acquisition of the property was lawful.
The Solicitor General also makes much of the fact that the statements of assets and liabilities filed by private respondent Simplicio Berdon covering the years material to the case did not accurately reflect the donation and the loans granted to private respondent spouses and that Simplicio’s testimony in effect contradicts the entries in said statements. It must be emphasized, however, that in determining whether or not there is unexplained wealth within the purview of R.A. No. 1379 the courts are not bound by the statements of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent. ** On the contrary, this statute affords the respondent every opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, how he had acquired the property in question [Sec. 5, R.A. No. 1379.]
Republic of the Philippines v. Simplicio Berdon
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/apr1989/gr_74225_1989.html
Thanks.
True. In fairness to the Chief Justice, he should be given an opportunity to explain the sources of his wealth. But for me, one thing that will be difficult for him to explain is the underdeclaration of the value of the assets in his SALN as well as the non-inclusion of some assets that are/were in his wife’s name. For that alone, he committed perjury (lying under oath).
True. In fairness to the CJ, he should be given an opportunity to explain the source of his wealth. But one thing that will be difficult for him to explain is the underclaration of the value of his assets as well as the non-inclusion of other assets. Based on that alone, he committed perjury (lying under oath). Will this disqualify him from holding his position as a chief justice? For me, yes. Our justices, especially the *chief* justice, who are tasked with dispensing justice, should not have even the faintest trace of dishonesty.
I doubt if the CJ would appear before the impeachment court. he has all the chances he needs to explain, but what do his lawyers do? they hide under technicalities. in a speech, he said, “sasagutin ko ang lahat ng mga bintang sa akin-punto por punto xx xx xx” but look at what they’re doing- fighting a lost cause.
To be fair with CJ, his right (against self-incrimination) can forbid him to appear in the impeachment court. Sasagutin nya lahat nang bintang at sasabihin nya mga kababayan, totoo ang tsismis….mas malinis maglaba si Cuevas . Subalit may mantsa na hindi kayang tanggalin. Isa sa mga dahilan dito ay si Raissa Ro… oops!
Pilyo ka.
ang lusot lang nila is to say the evidence is not relevant to the case, or kung napasok na sa records ng hearing, move to strike!
in short, ang lusot nila is to simply not speak about this, hoping the Filipino’s forgetfulness at mapangawa will be on Corona’s side.
ang daling malusutan ni corona ang impeachment. sabihin kaya nya na hindi sya si corona baka effective pa
For now, l know mrs. cristina corona can be put to jail for faillure to file her SALN, ITR & for non payment of income tax & other taxable sources of income, the same can happen to her children… kawawa sila, dahil sa kasinungalingan at pagpakaTUTA kay pandak nadamay na…
@baycas:
Whether it’s borrowed or not, it’s still cash. Therefore need to be reported because it increased your assetts. Even a gift no matter how small should be reported in the SALN.
“proving of something that there is, based on the absence of something.”
Mejo tumagal muna ako sa line na to pero sa wakas naintindihan ko din.
True, Cuevas and his posse could muster enough legalities to frustrate the suggestion that it’s not possible for an SC Justice to not buy her wife precious stones for seven years — unless may resibo.
But just between the two of us, I can never imagine not buying my wife any jewelry — or my wife not buying any jewlery for herself — for seven years.
At hindi pa ako SC Justice niyan.
At hindi din member ng kahit saang board or ang misis ko.
Kung minsan meron tao na hindi maluho lalo na sa mamahaling alahas o bagay
Example, warren buffet top billionaires in America, he still lives in his 3 bedroom old house and drives few years old Camry.
kung minsan din, yung 1 million worth of jewelry ay ok na, at hindi na kailangan dagdagan
I suppose.
Pag Php1 million na nga ang worth ng alahas ni misis e dapat tumigil na kami sa kadadagdag,
So kelangan lang natin malaman na hindi nadagdagan ang alahas ni Mrs. Corona dahil okay na siya sa Php1 million-worth na alahas. For seven years, walang nagregalo sa kanya ng kahit anong mamahaling kwintas etc.
True. Mahigpit sa salapi si Warren.
Although I doubt kung steady lang ang worth ng Jewelrries ni Mrs. Buffett. Mababawasan yan, madadagdagan ng konti, mamimigay ng alahas, makakatanggap ng regalo, etc.
What I was driving at (which I failed miserably) was the improbability of having the same jewelry worth for seven years straight. Kung hindi siya maluho, it does not mean na hindi magbabago ang worth ng alahas niya.
I don’t like wearing jewelries (watches especially) and yet I have two wristwatches — one was given by my father and the other given by my aunt. In seven years, I’m sure nagbago ang worth ng jewleries ko.
Yes correct ka dyan, kase msarap mabuhay ng simple, hindi naman dapat magkamal ng napakaraming yaman kung hindi naman sa malinis na paraan nanggaling, hindi siguro ako makakatulog ng mahimbing at syempre laging may pagdududa ang mga tao sa paligid di ba.
@ jahnny lin,
Tama ka, mabuti pa yong billionaryong si warren buffet nagpapakumbaba at tumutulong sa mga mahihirap, samantala dito sa atin, itong mag asawang corona at iba pa, nagpapakahirap magsinungaling, nagpapakahirap magnakaw para sa pansariling kaginhawaan at kabusugan….at ang masakit sa thief justice ay nagpaka TUTA para sa Mandarambong kaya nadamay…Malapit kana thief justice? nauna lang si lggy….hindi na kayo makakatulog sa ginawa ninyo….Ha ha ha…
@jorge
Sabi nila ang mga laki sa yaman, tahimik, mapagkumbaba; yung bagong yaman lalo na yaman ay galing sa kalokohan waldas sila, walang pakundangan at nagigisa ang sarili sa sariling mantika. Example: Jocjoc Bolante, Garcia, Ligot, Corona, Ampatuan, Mikey Arroyo, Marissa Lapid at marami pang iba
Saka nga pala nakaKARMA kapag masama ginawa sa taong bayan:
Iggy Arroyo, Mike Arroyo, Gloria Arroyo, Ampatuan, Pichay, Corona, Abalos, Edcel Lagman binastos siya ni GMA na pinagtatanggol niya sa kailaliman ng buto niya kahit mali.
Susunod na si Ronnie Puno, Augusto Syjuco, Leandro Mendoza, Arthur Yap, Midas Marquez, Eduardo Ermita, Mike Defensor at Pagdangaman
true and expert investigative reporting is back with you ms. raissa singlehandedly doing it. i scan the blogworld and i cannot find anything close to what you are doing.
therefore, malinaw na malinaw they have should have done this and that. ang dami ng scope ng SALN, daming mali. Guilty na yan…..
off topic po…. sorry… in the hope that the prosecution is reading this…
Bakit nyo po winidraw yong request nyo for the bank accounts? even if it falls under 2.4 it still falls under SALN as an asset (cash) which might have been underdeclared. just like real estate properties, bank accounts fall under assets. so….
thanks ma’am…i enjoy reading your blogs….keep it up =)
Thanks, I will.
Winidraw yung request for the bank accounts kasi kailangan nilang sabihin ang actual bank account number na ni-ri-request nila. Hindi sila pinayagan na blanket request.
i see. thanks!
the defense seem not to realize it but the rules is stacked againts them. the impeachment rules say the defense and prosecution has to follow the rule on evidence. the skills of the defense(puro texas ‘to at batikan sa batas) prevents the prosecution(manok poultry and baguhan) from ferreting out the truth. what is not obvious to us laymen and it seem the defense is not aware of is that the senator judges are not covered by the rule on evidence(leading, hearsay, hypothetical etc.) and they can ask all the questions they want within their 2 minutes qouta and the defense cannot object. atty m. bautista ask atty vidal for the copies of saln and j. cuevas vehemently objected. sen-judge drilon ask atty. vidal asked similar questions and objection of j.cuevas objection is overruled. atty vidal gave saln and was not evasive. same with sen. judge recto when he was able to get the data on itrs and cars.haaaay kawawa dito ang defense without them knowing it.nobody can accuse the sen -judges of helping the prosecution because it is proper and valid for them to elicit the information because they are not obstructed by the rule on evidence unlike the prosecution. the only benefit the defense lawyers gets are their fees for this article. they got no chinaman’s chance for art. 2….maybe for other articles where the issues are more legal(tro..etc.) but not on this one.
mahirap talaga lumaban kung dokumento ang kaharap mo… the senator-judges can ask for the documents and the defense can only shake their head
@Hungkag
Is this an opinion or observation? Even Sen. Miriam Santiago said “tanggapin na lang kung may ibidinsya” which means the senator judges can try to extract any piece of evidence/exhibits in every way possible. I don’t think Cuevas doesn’t know this. He is very sharp and frankly I admire his wit. Raissa’s blog about Estong Mendoza immediately flashed back the moment I saw him start talking. He definitely knows the prerogatives of the judges. You are right, the general public doesn’t know this that’s why right after day3, there was already a clamor for Sen. Drilon to inhibit . And that was propagated by pro Corona/GMA sites.. I bet some are also here spying.
RA 7227 enabled BCDA to form a subsidiary, JHMC.
RA 7227 exempted JHMC from Civil Service Laws.
BP Blg. 68 (Philippine Corporation Law) enabled JHMC.
PD 2029, considering BCDA owning a majority capital stock of JHMC as imposed by RA 7227, made JHMC a GOCC.
RA 6713 covers all public officials.
“Public officials”, as RA 6713 defined it, includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount) to submit annual SALNs.
It goes without saying that public officials are working in government. “Government”, as RA 6713 defined it, includes the National Government, the local governments, and all other instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the Republic of the Philippines including government-owned or controlled corporations, and their subsidiaries.
baycas:
What happened to “the specific over the general”.
The specific law is RA 7227 (Section 16) which says “Such subsidiaries shall be exempt from the coverage of the Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations”?
The general laws are PD 2029 and 6713, which cover all GOCCs. The specific law, and section (RA 7227 Sect 16) says, Oops, hindi kasali ang mga subsidiaries created by the Conversion Authority. Note, it is a specific of the specific (pardon the grammatical gibberish). It covers subsidiaries, which is a specific type of GOCC; but it further specifies, saying it covers only subsidiaries created by the Conversion Authority; does not include subsidiaries created by other GOCCs, say, the PNOC.
Sax,
Yan na nga hindi ko maubos maisip. Naaalala ko parin naman ang mga lectures mo on “specific” and “general” provisions of the law.
Accdg to CJ’s SALN, Mrs. Corona is not w/ government from 2003 to 2006 yata. Director of the Board pa lang siya noon.
When Mrs. Corona became Board Chair, Pres, CEO, COO, etc. in 2007 that was when CJ declared her part of government.
Very informative Raïssa. THANK YOU.
The House-Prosecution MUST invite former Civil Service Commission chair Karina David to shed light on SALNs.
Tigerlila and browneyegirl, ayan – the difference between EO (EO 62, EO 132). An EO cannot exempt Corona from filing her SALNs. RA 6713 TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER Executive Orders. Mandatory to file a SALN, as a Member of the Board of JHMC since 2001.
Friends ulit? LOL!
Baka may sequel pa kayong dalawa …
Mrs. David’s statements support browneyedgirl’s position.
The definition of Employees under RA 6713 clearly includes appointive officials of the GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
Hi @Nina,
That’s right.
Kudos to @browneyegirl since she remained steadfast to her formidable knowledge.
@Tigerlila should also be credited for her perseverance, though sincere, since there are also many, including me, who are not that sure. She represented a great bulk of similar opinions.
Kaya girls, keep it on. I for one, do appreciate your inputs and exchanges of info. I learn a lot by it.
But kudos goes to the one and only Raïssa Robles.
It is in her blog site where we can intelligently exchange opinions – without being too personal.
Latest news on John Hay, you may or may not have the same intensity but worth to read it. Baguio court stops BCDA takeover of John Hay
Agyaman ak.
Thank you, Mel. I’m humbled by your opinion. When one knows the truth by heart, no one can sway it.
To Raissa, you’re the best! Thanks a lot for going all the way to get Ms. Karina David’s statement to eliminate any doubts that can be cast by propagandists from the opposition. They are hellbent now in going after to discredit the reputation of distinct conscientiousness and intelligence of your articles. Let’s be wary of these elements that are being scattered to find a hole to escape on what had been unearthed so far. You keep us inspired to pursue relentlessly for the truth. A Raissa Robles is inspiration defined. Ingat ka palagi.
Thank you.
Hi Ms. Raissa: Just a thought lang po re this statement in your article:
“Can you imagine the wife of a man of “no ordinary means” (as Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez described his boss) not buying any piece of jewelry for SEVEN YEARS?”
–My take: Yes, it is possible. It would take a real tacky mind from the prosecution to pull off the proving of something that there is, based on the absence of something. hehe mejo confusing, sorry. technicalities of this impeachment trial really matters, contrary to others that say they only hinder in bringing out the truth, technicalities may also prove the innocence of a person, or his guilt. so the defense and prosecution should always come prepared.
Admirable! My deep respect for Raissa in taking the cudgel to investigate and research.
This should be the manner in proceeding with disputes and queries..- an intelligent probe to quiet the noisy minds and not some careless bashing..lol..
My take though-
The CSC Chair provided insight that pushes further my inquiry. And with due respect, I am opening up the following questions-
Does a mere executive order override a statutory declaration in RA 7227? What does ‘exemption from CSC rules’ in RA 7227 refer to? CSC Chair interpreted that it merely refers to eligibility and qualification of civil servants but my mind does not rest with this premise- In the absence of specifics in RA 7227 on what these exemptions are,is not this exemption rider in RA 7227 deserved to be specific or defined? I understand that the CSC Chair talked based on experience and according to her best known rules and practices in CSC..But if the law does not mention what these exemptions are, i do beg to seek an answer from the interpreter of the law.
What does statutory construction (the subject in law school discussing the science of interpreting the laws) say about- if the law does not expressly enumerate the rules alleged to be the matter for exemption, does this mean, the exemption covers all CSC rules presumably including the matter of SALN?
Just a thought for you browneyed..if you do want to be a justice of the Supreme Court..lol..Peace!
RA 6713 still stands definite in its cover of who are public officers or employees of the government for the purposes of the CSC, yes, but I beg to point an inquiry as to the consequence if another law would say- we are different, we are exempted from your rules.
But this appeared to be moot IF the answer to my first query is- an Executive Order ( coming from the President, an executive department) can override provisions of a statute ( law passed by legislative).
I beg everyone’s indulgence kung nosebleed ang dating ng mga tanong ko..lol..
the former CSC chair clearly stated that an Executive Order cannot override a Republic Act so that should answer your question.
..Gotcha..my next query would then be..does ra 7227 expressing exemption of their subsidiaries override ra 6713?statute versus statute..:)
The law that enabled/created JHMC is the Corporation Law or Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 as what is provided in Sec. 16 of RA 7227.
JHMC is therefore a NON-CHARTERED Corporation in contradistinction to BCDA which is a CHARTERED one on account of RA 7227 (as amended by RA 7917 and RA 9400) that created BCDA. BCDA is under the Office of the President.
Now, BCDA owns at least 51% of the capital stock of JHMC as also imposed by Sec. 16 of RA 7227. This made JHMC a GOCC as specifically defined in Presidential Decree 2029.
Therefore, JHMC is a NON-CHARTERED GOCC under the Office of the President.
As such, JHMC is governed by RA 6713 that imposes ALL public officials (includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount) to submit SALNs.
Pertinent web links are found here:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/26/ex-csc-chair-david-questions-coronas-saln-non-disclosures-on-his-wife/#comment-12560
Sec. 8 of RA 6713:
RA 3019, in it’s definition of terms, states:
I would hazard a guess that the rule on presumption of regularity applies. Ironically, the same argument applies to SC resolution that impedes the SALN disclosure by the justices. If Corona were to walk on Art 2 charges for non-disclosure due to SC resolution that has not been declared unconstitutional, then EO 62 and EO 132 assume the same status too. A sauce for the goose is also a sauce for the gander.
Be wary, gentlemen and people of Raissatown. She’s peeping if there is a sitting justice in SC here. She hinted SC twice already. She can go directly to the Supreme Court for her further answers.
Huh?
* Ps..
I’ve mistakenly posted my reply for this track in your response. Please do have the liberty to post it here for purposes of easy tracking from whence this exposition came from..lol..Thanks
Pardon my legalese correlation.
I am presenting the pertinent laws and order. I am in my analysis mode.This is not to brag what we know, it is about probing deep and wide,probably not for anyone’s sake but for anyone similarly interested with the truth. My original stand has been to give CJ Corona the benefit of the doubt. He is not here to shed light to this dilemma.We are merely entertaining and exploring probabilities or the reasons for his failure to allege his wife as ‘working in the government’ from 2002-2006 in his SALN
Executive Order No. 132
- Authority in the creation of JHMC
WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 103 Series of 1993 [EO 103] created the John Hay Development Corporation as the operating and implementing arm of the BCDA to manage the Club John Hay created under Proclamation No. 198 issued on June 29, 1993;
WHEREAS, Section 16 of RA 7227 authorizes the BCDA to form, establish, organize and maintain subsidiaries in accordance with Philippine Corporation Law; WHEREAS, Section 17 of RA 7227 provides that the BCDA shall be under the direct control and supervision of the Office of the President for purposes of policy direction and coordination;
—– Is JHMC a subsidiary of BCDA in that light? BCDA is no doubt under the fold of the government as a GOCC. Is that EO promulgated by the President merely enabled the power of BCDA to form its subsidiary?
- —-Or is it an entirely different animal not connected with BCDA? Or as a commenter would say a non-chartered gocc? Let’s go back to the EO above. It connected BCDA after the premise of JHMC’s creation under that EO.
PD 2029(DEFINING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND IDENTIFYING THEIR ROLE IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(b) A subsidiary corporation is one created pursuant to law where at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock or outstanding voting capital stock of which is owned by parent government corporations and/or other government-owned subsidiaries.
—–BCDA owns majority of the shares of JHMC. Isn’t BCDA the so-called parent government corporation and the JHMC its subsidiary in that light?
RA 7227 ( Charter Creating BCDA)
SECTION 16. Subsidiaries. — The Conversion Authority shall have the power to form, establish, organize and maintain a subsidiary corporation or corporations. Xxx
Such subsidiaries shall be exempt from the coverage of the Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations.
—–Sitting on the above premise that JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA.What does this exemption mean? Does it mean it is a private corporation waiving its attachment to the government? It is like saying, I know my parents are the GOVERNMENT and a private individual, but I am waiving the religion of my father and instead I am following that of my mother (the private individual)
BP 68 ( The Corporation Code )
Section 4. Corporations created by special laws or charters. – Corporations created by special laws or charters shall be governed primarily by the provisions of the special law or charter creating them or applicable to them, supplemented by the provisions of this Code, insofar as they are applicable. (n)
—–It is plainly saying the charter of BCDA (RA 7227)being a special law controls or governs itself. The supplementary rider under that BP merely reiterates that in corporate matters needing interpretation or application, in the absence of specific rule in the charter, the Corporation Code applies, in so far as it is applicable.
Republic Act No. 6713
-Who are required to file SALN?
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
—–In that light , in probing section 5 in so far as it is applicable, is the director of the board in a subsidiary of a GOCC an employee or a public official? The CSC Chair admits, it is vaguely identifiable with either of the two. This is critical too because an employee is defined in our laws as having a contractual-control nature. We will look at RA 3019.
Ra 3019
(a) “Government” includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
(b) “Public officer” includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
—– note that subsidiaries are not expressly mentioned in Sec a. Next, is a director of the board a public officer? The president and its other officers( secretary,treasurer, etc)of a corporation (gocc), or the position of their Chief Operating Officer plainly are considered public officers but is a mere director of the board of the same league as other officers?
What I am pointing? We need an interpreter of the law to look at the correlation of all these laws, just to fit it in one piece for the enlightenment of all.I understand, this issue appeared to be plain and simple- (JHMC is a gocc, its father is from the government, though it’s mother is plainly a private individual , hence, etcetera). But for my sophie’s sake, my stumbling block is this RA 7227 exempting its subsidiaries from CSC Rules. I am still pining on this belief that JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA.With due respect to the commenter above, his point is well taken, and it leads me to this question- is JHMC really a non-chartered GOCC?
But I do admire Raissa for letting me open up my mind for further legalese inquiry. She knows her duty well as a journalist. We should not stop looking and probing for the truth. We should not be a mere observer sitting on a sideline (like others) and resort to bashing this type of query with a raised eyebrow and a smirk.
As for others, your input is well appreciated
@Tigerlila,
You’ve probably just managed to convolute my post here:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/26/ex-csc-chair-david-questions-coronas-saln-non-disclosures-on-his-wife/#comment-12560
…which I explained further here:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/26/ex-csc-chair-david-questions-coronas-saln-non-disclosures-on-his-wife/#comment-12676
Well, here are my assertions:
a. JHMC is a subsidiary of BCDA and they are both under the Office of the President.
b. BCDA is a Chartered (meaning there was a specific law that created it) GOCC.
c. JHMC is a Non-chartered GOCC because JHMC was only enabled by the general Corporation Law.
d. COA Annual Financial Reports since 2002 listed JHMC* as a GOCC. (Please see http://www.coa.gov.ph/Financial_Reports.htm . AFRs from 2002 to 2010 are available.)
e. GOCCs are covered by RA 6713 and RA 3019.
f. RA 6713 – CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
g. RA 3019 – ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
h. The laws in F and G are not Civil Service Laws but they COVER ALL “Public Officials” or those people in “Government”.
i. Again, the definitions as written in RA 3019 are:
—–
*JHMC is formerly known as JHPPDC (Please see http://poropointfreeport.org/about.html .)
Ooops…
My assertion H should be:
h. The laws in F and G are part of Civil Service Laws and they COVER ALL “Public Officials” or those people in “Government”.
Hence, it appears that
(1) Sec. 16 of RA 7227 exempting a subsidiary of BCDA from Civil Service Laws (as a private corporation),
AND
(2) RAs 6713 and 3019 imposing a SALN filing (as a GOCC)
are apllicable to JHMC.
As mere director of the Board, no. (1) was invoked; with multiple designations, no. (2) was applied.
Baycas, saludo ako sa ‘yo. Nalito na lalo ang matalino nating abogada sa simpleng pagbalangkas ng mga sinulat mo at mga naisulat na dito.
Panigurado meron pa ring itatanong ‘yan. Huwag tayong padala sa mga pang-uudyok nila na ilihis ang katotohanan mula sa isang simpleng tanong. Naghahanap sila ng butas na lalabasan ngayon at naghahanap kung sino ang babalingan nila na pasimuno kunyari ng mga kaganapan ngayon.
Akala kasi nila, tanga na talaga ang taumbayan. Nakakaawa sila dahil para ngang matalino pero hindi ginagamit sa tamang paraan. Ang tamang paraan, kung mas dumami pa ang tanong nila mula sa pahayag ni Ms. Karina David ay ang pagtanong mismo doon sa mga amo nila sa Korte Suprema. Dito sila naghahanap ng sagot dahil wala silang mahanap na sagot para sa depensa. Nakakatuwa na nakakaawa.
As what Atty. Saxnviolins had said here:
http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/26/ex-csc-chair-david-questions-coronas-saln-non-disclosures-on-his-wife/#comment-12799
Specific law trumps General law.
So, Sec. 16 of RA 7227, being specific in exempting a subsidiary (JHMC) of BCDA from the coverage of the Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations, makes JHMC private.
Kaya “SALN pusa” lang si Cristina at hindi siya kinilala ni Renato na taga-gobyerno
…sa simula as Board director. Nagbago ito nang maupo na si Cristina bilang Board Chair, President, etc., etc. ng JHMC dahil noong 2007 kinilala na siya ni Renato na taga-gobiyerno ayon sa kaniyang SALN.
Mas lalong nilublub ni Renato ang sarili niya ngayon sa putikan kung gano’n! Lalong nagiging kapanapanabik ang mga susunod na kabanata.
Baycas,
if you follow my line, what you’ve been saying now, has been my premise all along. It appeared to have been convulated because some quarters cannot follow this simple correlation.I was trying to expand albeit in legalese form.
2002-2006- board director
2007-onwards- Chairman, Chief Operating Officer. .
that spoke of the need to distinguish.
Naiintindihan yan ng mga kapwa abogado.. but I guess your form in explaining it in simpler form made it clear.Kase in my attempt to be simple, nabansagan ba akong nagmarunung-marunungan..Hence, pinatulan ko yong kapwa kong nagmamarunong…lol
@browneyegirl
This means they are rattled by the facts here and their tails started to coil back to their b@lls. Mirror site Ms. Raissa. Ask hubby to set up one.
No doubt about that, Baltazar. The initial propaganda they had used, e.g. HL, had lost its luster after these latest developments coming from this site and the prosecution announcement of who will be called in for witnesses. A friend wrote “With a prosecution like this, who needs a defense?”, after Raissa was given merit on G.R. No. 152154 that had forced the ITRs. They now know they are chasing after their tails which had coiled back to their b@lls.
As a member of the Diaspora- CJ’s trial whether he will be impeached or not will spell the difference of a borrowed justice system and other social inequities besetting our country: will it slow down the daily departure of more than 3,000 Filipinos looking for a better future? or will it simply reinforce the perception that this country is being fed to the dogs and this impeachment proceeding has nothing to do with the daily lives of our impoverished kababayans (home and overseas) especially victims of natural and man made disasters trying to cope all what they have lost?
This blog is very helpful to non lawyers like us as it connects the dots and dashes through Raissa’s relentless effort of investigative journalism – a one of its kind and makes us all proud of her since she was covering the Middle East some time in one of our English daily.
Maaga pa para husgahan ang kahinatnan ng trial na eto and surprises are imminent.
Maraming salamat Madam Raissa sa iyong adbokasya upang hanapin at maisaliwalat ang katotohanan sa pamamagitan ng iyong blog at mahalaga na maibahagi sa kalakhang OFW ang iyong blog which am proud to do so.
Sa mga subscribers na nagko komento sa iyong blog marami po akong natutunan sa kanilang laha:
Mabuhay po kayong lahat at salamat!
May God save the Philippines.
Let’s do it one step at a time, Bagong Pepe. Ang malinaw ngayon ay ang pakikibahagi ng mga Pilipino sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng mundo para maumpisahan ang paglinis sa inaasahan natin na pagbabago sa pamamalakad ng ating gobyerno para maibalik ang tiwala ng sambayang Pilipino dito. Huwag tayong mapagod na ipaglaban ang tuwid na daan. Kesehoda kung sino ang nasa puwesto, patuloy tayong magbabantay at magmamatyag.
browneyegirl:
Sang-ayon po ako sa inyong naturan na kailangang maging mapanuri, makialam at magbantay ang bawat isa sa atin na naninindigan sa paghahanap ng katotohanan para sa pantay-pantay na paggawad ng hustisiya at katarungan sa bawat Pilipino.
Our yearning for equal protection and a just society has been evident three decades ago when Filipinos’ started leaving the country in hordes causing the “brain and brawn” syndrome and the inherent social cost that comes with it as a neglected sector of Philippine society.
A double standard justice system (one for the poor and another for affluent members of our society ) is a major cause why we cannot take-off compared to our Asian neighbors.
My apology for cross posting Sen. Marian Defensor Santiago’s press release and I say otherwise:
We will become a failed state only if CJ Corona is not convicted until-
ilabas ang mga nakatagong katotohan, huwag pagtakpan eto at busalan ang prosecution team sa paghain ng mga ebidensiyang makakatulong para mahusgahan ng tama at nararapat si CJ Corona.
Naniniwala ako na ang impeachment proceedings na eto ay para sa taong-bayan at hindi para sa mga abogado o sa senado na pinaiikot ng mga technicalities at salitang legal.
Ang hamon ko kay CJ Corona kung totoong malinis siya at naniniwala na may Diyos at kung darating na ang kaniyang oras – ilabas niya ang kaniyang dalawang kamay na nakalawit labas sa kaniyang kabaong pagpapatunay na hindi siya nagkamal sa pera ng bayan, hindi nang-abuso sa kaniyang kapangharihan bilang punong mahistrado at walang inagrabyadong kapwa Pilipino -
Nagawa eto ni Alexander the Great at magagawa niya rin eto dahil nasa ulunan niya ang korona ng pagpappatupad ng pantay-pantay na hustisiya para sa buong sambayanan mayaman man o mahirap.
Para kay Senador Mariam sana mag text na ang International Court of Justice at mag report na siya sa Hague ng agaran- ng sa ganun hindi naman maging brain dead ang ilang miyembro ng Senado na kala mo natutulog sa pancitan.
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2010/1210_santiago1.asp
Press Release
December 10, 2010
MIRIAM SEES FAILED STATE IF CJ IMPEACHED
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that the Philippines will become a “failed state,” if administration representatives succeed in filing an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Santiago discussed at an impromptu press conference today the recent Supreme Court decision declaring as unconstitutional President Aquino’s Executive Order No. 1 which creates a Truth Commission.
Earlier in the morning, the senator was mobbed by a hysterical crowd of some 1,000 students at the Centro Escolar University, where she delivered a speech marking Human Rights Day and then took questions from the media.
“The rumor that certain members of the House of Representatives are passing around an impeachment complaint for signature makes people jumpy. If the agitators succeed, the Philippines will definitely become a failed state according to standards set by the international legal community,” she said.
Santiago said that impeaching a chief justice by imputing “political motives” behind a decision clipping the President’s powers would be fatal to the tripartite system of government.
“The executive and legislative branches are political in nature. But the judicial branch is nonpolitical. If the chief justice is removed for political reasons, then that would be a signal that even the judicial branch has also become political. That would be the end of our democracy as we know it today,” she said.
Santiago said there was no need for panic among President Aquino’s supporters, because EO No. 1 and its declared unconstitutionality “is merely part of the learning curve process.”
Santiago said that President Aquino should not be derided over his judicial defeat, because he is learning on the job and he is handicapped by the lack of a legal adviser with expertise in constitutional law.
“Most Supreme Court decisions turn on a constitutional issue, and logic dictates that President Aquino should have a topnotch constitutionalist in his staff. Of his present lawyers, I would merely say that their doctrinal foundations are horribly inadequate,” she said.
Santiago also warned the public that since the case remains pending, there should be no discussion on the merits, but only on the factual circumstances of the case.
“The Supreme Court has the power to cite for contempt any person spouting his own peculiar judicial philosophy while the case is pending. We are all bound by the presumption of regularity. We have to presume that official duty has been regularly performed,” she said.
Santiago disagreed with commentators who said that the case was decided on equal protection grounds.
“This is not a case of whether equal protection has been denied to ex-President Arroyo. This is a case of whether President Aquino has power to create an agency without a prior law by Congress authorizing him to do so. This is a case questioning whether the President has legislative power independently of Congress,” she said.
Santiago said that President Aquino has no legislative power of his own but under the Administrative Code, he merely has so-called ordinance power, or the power to issue rules and regulations pursuant to a law passed by Congress.
As a constitutional law expert, Santiago lamented the use by the Supreme Court justices of what she called “old equal protection analysis.”
“The old equal protection consisted of only one standard – the rational relationship between the classification made by the law, and the national policy that the law seeks to serve. It is disappointing that the justices continued to use the rational relationship test, which is very lenient,” she said.
Santiago said that the new equal protection now uses three standards – rational relationship, intermediate standard, and strict scrutiny.
“Since the Truth Commission involves a fundamental interest of the state, the majority should have applied the standard of strict scrutiny, which usually results in striking down the classification. That would have been more consistent,” she said.
Santiago said that the pending case will become one of the factors that will influence the electorate in the 2014 elections, three years from now.
“If the voters think that President Aquino is right in his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court, then his senatorial ticket will win in the next election. But on the contrary, if the voters think he is at fault, then they will repudiate his ticket at the polls, and he will become a lameduck president,” she said.
Browneyegirl:
Sang-ayon po ako sa inyong naturan na kailangang maging mapanuri, makialam at magbantay ang bawat isa sa atin na naninindigan sa paghahanap ng katotohanan para sa pantay-pantay na paggawad ng hustisiya at katarungan sa bawat Pilipino.
Our yearning for equal protection and a just society has been evident decades ago when Filipinos’ started leaving the country in hordes causing the “brain and brawn” syndrome and the inherent social cost that comes with it as a neglected sector of Philippine society.
A double standard justice system (one for the poor and another for affluent members of our society ) is a major cause why we cannot take-off compared to our Asian neighbors.
My apology for cross posting Sen. Marian Defensor Santiago’s press release and I say otherwise:
We will become a failed state only if CJ Corona is not convicted until-
ilabas ang mga nakatagong katotohan, huwag pagtakpan eto at busalan ang prosecution team sa paghain ng mga ebidensiyang makakatulong para mahusgahan ng tama at nararapat si CJ Corona.
Naniniwala ako na ang impeachment proceedings na eto ay para sa taong-bayan at hindi para sa mga abogado o sa senado na pinaiikot ng mga technicalities at salitang legal.
Ang hamon ko kay CJ Corona kung totoong malinis siya at naniniwala na may Diyos at kung darating na ang kaniyang oras – ilabas niya ang kaniyang dalawang kamay na nakalawit labas sa kaniyang kabaong pagpapatunay na hindi siya nagkamal sa pera ng bayan, hindi nang-abuso sa kaniyang kapangharihan bilang punong mahistrado at walang inagrabyadong kapwa Pilipino -
Nagawa eto ni Alexander the Great at magagawa niya rin eto dahil nasa ulunan niya ang korona
ng pagpappatupad ng pantay-pantay na hustisiya para sa buong sambayanan mayaman man o mahirap.
Para kay Senador Mariam sana mag text na ang International Court of Justice at mag report na siya sa Hague ng agaran- ng sa ganun hindi naman maging brain dead ang ilang miyembro ng Senado na kala mo natutulog sa pancitan.
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2010/1210_santiago1.asp
Press Release
December 10, 2010
MIRIAM SEES FAILED STATE IF CJ IMPEACHED
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that the Philippines will become a “failed state,” if administration representatives succeed in filing an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Santiago discussed at an impromptu press conference today the recent Supreme Court decision declaring as unconstitutional President Aquino’s Executive Order No. 1 which creates a Truth Commission.
Earlier in the morning, the senator was mobbed by a hysterical crowd of some 1,000 students at the Centro Escolar University, where she delivered a speech marking Human Rights Day and then took questions from the media.
“The rumor that certain members of the House of Representatives are passing around an impeachment complaint for signature makes people jumpy. If the agitators succeed, the Philippines will definitely become a failed state according to standards set by the international legal community,” she said.
Santiago said that impeaching a chief justice by imputing “political motives” behind a decision clipping the President’s powers would be fatal to the tripartite system of government.
“The executive and legislative branches are political in nature. But the judicial branch is nonpolitical. If the chief justice is removed for political reasons, then that would be a signal that even the judicial branch has also become political. That would be the end of our democracy as we know it today,” she said.
Santiago said there was no need for panic among President Aquino’s supporters, because EO No. 1 and its declared unconstitutionality “is merely part of the learning curve process.”
Santiago said that President Aquino should not be derided over his judicial defeat, because he is learning on the job and he is handicapped by the lack of a legal adviser with expertise in constitutional law.
“Most Supreme Court decisions turn on a constitutional issue, and logic dictates that President Aquino should have a topnotch constitutionalist in his staff. Of his present lawyers, I would merely say that their doctrinal foundations are horribly inadequate,” she said.
Santiago also warned the public that since the case remains pending, there should be no discussion on the merits, but only on the factual circumstances of the case.
“The Supreme Court has the power to cite for contempt any person spouting his own peculiar judicial philosophy while the case is pending. We are all bound by the presumption of regularity. We have to presume that official duty has been regularly performed,” she said.
Santiago disagreed with commentators who said that the case was decided on equal protection grounds.
“This is not a case of whether equal protection has been denied to ex-President Arroyo. This is a case of whether President Aquino has power to create an agency without a prior law by Congress authorizing him to do so. This is a case questioning whether the President has legislative power independently of Congress,” she said.
Santiago said that President Aquino has no legislative power of his own but under the Administrative Code, he merely has so-called ordinance power, or the power to issue rules and regulations pursuant to a law passed by Congress.
As a constitutional law expert, Santiago lamented the use by the Supreme Court justices of what she called “old equal protection analysis.”
“The old equal protection consisted of only one standard – the rational relationship between the classification made by the law, and the national policy that the law seeks to serve. It is disappointing that the justices continued to use the rational relationship test, which is very lenient,” she said.
Santiago said that the new equal protection now uses three standards – rational relationship, intermediate standard, and strict scrutiny.
“Since the Truth Commission involves a fundamental interest of the state, the majority should have applied the standard of strict scrutiny, which usually results in striking down the classification. That would have been more consistent,” she said.
Santiago said that the pending case will become one of the factors that will influence the electorate in the 2014 elections, three years from now.
“If the voters think that President Aquino is right in his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court, then his senatorial ticket will win in the next election. But on the contrary, if the voters think he is at fault, then they will repudiate his ticket at the polls, and he will become a lameduck president,” she said.