A fish (or a Chief Justice) is caught by its mouth

by Atty. Emmanuel Samonte Tipon 

“Go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up; and when you have opened its mouth, you shall find a piece of money.” Matthew 17:27.

How does a fish get caught? By opening its mouth.  How does a Chief Justice of the Philippines get impeached and convicted?  By opening his mouth.

Renato Corona, now ex-Chief Justice of the Philippines, was impeached and convicted by the Philippine Senate by a 20-3 vote on May 29. He was charged with, among others, not telling the truth in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).  Every Philippine government officer or employee is required by the Constitution and by law to file a SALN at the beginning of his term of office and every year thereafter.

Corona took the witness stand and like the Biblical fish opened his mouth. Lo and behold. The Senators found money – plenty of money. Corona admitted that he had cash in banks amounting to $2.4 million and P80 million. Before Corona opened his mouth, there was a lot of uncertainty as to how much money he had, since the source of the information about his wealth came from second and third hand sources (generally inadmissible in a court of law) rather than from the banks which would have been the best evidence. But Corona’s admission about the amount of his cash deposits was the highest form of evidence. As a Malacanang spokesman observed, Corona was the “best witness for the prosecution.”

Corona also admitted that he did not declare the cash in his SALN. His defense for not declaring the peso account was that they were commingled funds owned by him and family members. His defense for not declaring the dollar account was that there is a foreign deposit secrecy law which barred the disclosure of dollar deposits. Although Corona was not being accused of ill-gotten wealth, he tried to explain that his dollar account was the result of saving dollars starting in the 1960’s when the peso-dollar rate was 2-1 whereas now it is 43-1.

“PALUSOT”

Our congressman from the First District of Ilocos Norte, Rodolfo C. Fariñas, a bar topnotcher, was impressive in arguing for conviction with the aid of a high tech power point presentation. I nominate him for the Senate. He ridiculed Corona’s defenses, saying they could be described in one word:  “palusot” (flimsy defense). Baka sa kali (perchance) it might work.

For example, a wife gets hold of her husband’s cell phone to make a call and discovers romantic text messages with a woman. She angrily confronts him. Do you think his wife will accept his defense that a friend borrowed his cell phone and the text messages of his friend and his were commingled? Another example is an immigrant woman, married to an elderly citizen, who went home and got pregnant by another man. She applied for citizenship and was asked to explain why her application should not be denied because she was not a person of good moral character after disclosing that she had an adulterine child. Do you think USCIS will accept her defense that her husband gave her permission to have a child with another man because he could no longer perform his marital duties?

There was a reasonable doubt whether Corona had that much cash. When he opened his mouth that doomed him. Corona’s admissions about his cash that he did not declare in his SALN plus his “palusot” were cited by a majority of the senators in voting to convict him.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile rejected Corona’s defenses. He said that the commingled funds could have been segregated and the amount belonging to Corona reported as assets. Enrile also said that the dollar deposit secrecy law was intended to prevent the bank holding the deposit and third persons from disclosing the deposit but did not prevent the owner of the deposit from disclosing it himself in his SALN as required by the Constitution and the law.

An excellent criminal defense attorney does not put the client on the witness stand (even if the client insists) because the possibility is great that the client might say something prejudicial.  Gary Spence, Imelda Marcos’s lawyer in the racketeering case who successfully obtained her acquittal, refused to allow Imelda to testify despite her insistence. According to my friend, a Honolulu attorney, who had requested Spence to represent Imelda at the behest of Doris Duke and who was present throughout the trial, Imelda would have been like a “loose cannon.”  Enrile made reference to Corona’s almost 3-hour testimony during which he not only made damaging admissions but attacked people left and right. Was he a “loose cannon”?

MORAL LESSON: As Senator Gene Magsaysay who refused to be interviewed used to say:  “Less talk, less mistake. No talk, no mistake.”

(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He specializes in immigration law and criminal defense. Office: 800 Bethel St., Suite 402, Honolulu, HI 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: www.ImmigrationServicesUSA.com. He is from Laoag City and Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. He served as an Immigration Officer. He is co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Listen to the most funny, interesting, and useful radio program in Hawaii on KNDI at 1270, AM dial every Thursday at 7:30 a.m., rebroadcast at www.iluko.com. This article is a general overview of the subject matter discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No warranty is made by the writer or publisher as to its completeness or correctness at the time of publication.)