Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Was CJ Corona’s wife exempted from filing her SALNs from 2003 to 2006?

Share:
LinkedIn1
Pinterest0

 

Some readers have commented that Cristina Corona was not a government official from 2003 to 2006, so Chief Justice Renato Corona was well within his rights not to disclose her as a government functionary in his own Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for those years.

I just talked to someone who set the record straight. I will post the interview tomorrow as soon as I write out everything that was said.

Meanwhile, good night.

Raissa sleeping AddEmoticons04242

 

Comments

  2. SABI KO NGA NOON , ”KONG WALANG ITINATAGO AY WALANG DAPAT IKABAHALA SI THIEF JUSTICE CORONA, DAPAT PAGSABIHAN NIYA SI LIARKING CUEVAS PARA MADALI NA ANG PAGLUTAS NANG IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT NA HUWAG NANG MAG OBJECT AT MAGPALUSOT PA…PERO SA NAKIKITA KO ANG DAMING MGA ITINATAGO NI THIEF CORONA NA REAL ESTATE NA NASA PANGALAN NILANG MAG ASAWA…HINIHINTAY NA SIYA NI GMA AT ABALOS….HA HA HA …

    • Correct ka dyan, sobrang nakakainis na ang mga salitang binibitiwan ng defense panel na irrelevant, immaterial not in the impeachment complaint. ang dami dami ng objection. kase pilit na itinatago ang mga real properties na dapat sanay naka declare sa SALN. Ang tanda na talaga ni Lolo Cuevas di pa rin siya makapaniwala na walang lihim na di nabubunyag. Batikang abogado yan. take note.

  5. i noticed an ABS-CBN banner on your site! is your blog somehow related to ABS-CBN? i wanted to ask you for your views on why so many of the private prosecutors in the impeachment case are connected to ABS-CBN?

    • sorry, i noticed you explained the ABS-CBN tie to your blog elswhere. still interested in your views on why private prosecutors come from ABS-CBN? doesn’t this lead to a conflict of interest in their reporting? surely the network would want to support their ‘team’ and then because of your tie-up with them, your readers might suspect that you would be less than independent in your writing?

      • If I recall, Atty Bautista of ABS-CBN was also involved in the Erap impeachment trial.

        Prosecution wanted to tap his expertise.

        • i read in the Daily Tribune: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20120116com2.html “The five private prosecutors are Maximilian Uy — chief legal counsel, assistant corporate secretary; Mario Bautista — general counsel, legal services; Manuel Torres — corporate secretary; Maximilian Joseph Uy — legal services and assistant corporate secretary; and Enrique Quiason — assistant corporate secretary.”

          that’s quite a lot of ABS-CBN dedicated to this!

        • @Ms Raissa
          A follow up question. Are these lawyers from ABS-CBN paid by the prosecution team? I recall, we were discussing the defense’s pro-bono lawyers somewhere in another thread.

    • If I recall, Atty Bautista of ABS-CBN was also involved in the Erap impeachment trial.

      Prosecution wanted to tap his expertise.

  6. Atty. Esguerra impliedly admitted that Mrs. Corona was in fact a government employee from 2003 to 2006 by saying that “Joint SALN ito (na) finile ng mag-asawa.” There is no need for joint filing if the other spouse is NOT a government employee. SALN’s are for civil servants only.

  7. There are 2 types of GOCC’s. One with original charter (Law passed by Congress for it’s creation) the other is incorporated under the Corporation Code (CC). Those with Original Charter is covered by Civil Service Rules. Those incorporated under the CC governed by the Labor Code.

  8. I stated before, “There may be someone who may shed light on the why Renato Corona considered his wife private prior to 2007 and became a government employee starting in 2007.”

    Looking forward to your next post on this, Ma’am Raissa.

    —–

    Just a flashback from what Ma’am Raissa previously wrote…

    By the way, I also asked Atty Esguerra why CJ Corona did not indicate in his SALN from 2003 to 2006 that his wife Cristina was employed as a board director of John Hay Management Corporation.
    Atty Esguerra replied:

    “Hindi naman obligasyon yon. Joint SALN ito (na) finile ng mag-asawa.”
    I asked him why Mrs Corona did not affix her signature on the space provided for in the SALN. He said:
    “It doesn’t have to be signed by both. There is no requirement there.”
    I pointed out to him that there was a line that specifically required the spouse’ signature. Atty Esguerra replied:
    “No, no. I don’t know where you got that. Very limited ang knowledge ko dyan. I don’t recall anything in the law that requires that.”

    http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/22/cj-coronas-p11m-cash-advance/

    —–

    Backgrounder…

    JHMC is a non-chartered GOCC covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines).

    ASUNCION BALINGIT-SANTOS, Board director-EVP, John Hay Management Corp., considered it private. She has more to say on Mrs. Corona and JHMC here:

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100308-257285/JHMC-Ms-Corona-amply-qualified

    gloria macapagal-arroyo’s “I DESIRE” letters and Ermita’s reiteration of them can be read in this PDF:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75749409/Conjugal-Ethics

    Or one may just google:

    “CONJUGAL ETHICS: JUDICIAL SUBSERVIENCE AND THE SPOUSES CORONA”

    • More on JHMC:

      On 3 October 2002, Executive Order No. 132 was issued renaming the John Hay Poro Point Development Corporation to John Hay Management Corporation as the implementing arm of BCDA over the John Hay Special Economic Zone, and at the same time, authorizing the creation of the Poro Point Management Corporation. PPMC was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 6 January 2003.

      http://poropointfreeport.org/about.html

  9. the parameters of art.2 now becomes clearer.on the positive side, the prosecution is doing a good job withstanding the massive wall presented by the defense. lest we forget, the prosecution will never get past thru the defense because the rules of court does not allow them to elicit information. what saves the prosecution is the rule that the senator judges have the right to ask any questions under the sun and this helps in getting the truth to come out.the pattern is obvious. the prosecution ask a question from the witness, the defense will object and the presiding officer will sustain the objection. the senator judge will ask the same question,the defense cannot object and the presiding officer will instruct the witness to answer..ha..ha…
    on article 2 .4 the charge of ill gotten wealth is disallowed but 2.2 and 2.3 is allowed because this pertains only on presentation of information on saln, itr and properties. jpe and mirriam made it very clear that the ill gotten wealth issue is not acceptable but they made it clear that this can be surmised and concluded (after the predicate is layed by information sought under art.2.2 and 2.3 once all the information on saln is presented. now after the information on saln is all in, the presumption of ill gotten wealth can then be presumed once it is shown that the income is insufficient to finance the asset acquisition and this what j. corona’s opinion is all about in republic v. sandigan bayan. the role of prosecution is to play patsy for the defense while a senator judge will sneak in and get the information… this is very brilliant… once the disparity in cj’s income to buy all the properties are shown.. the public(ultimate judge) and all parties has no other way but to conclude that cj corona’s wealth is ill gotten(no need for article 2.4). please do not replace Cong. Tupas because he is playing his card well… In chess this is zugzwang(forced move ) for the defense…Mate in three in favor of the people.. let us wait how the defense will solve this one. this is not about lawyering…this is about strategy

    • Thanks @Hungkag–it’s becoming more clear to me. I was sort of losing hope about how the prosecution is playing their cards; fingers-cross these senator judges know what they’re doing otherwise as I said before it’s gonna be a big MESS.

      • believe me, in chess there are some moves that are puzzling. listen intently and read jpe, mirriam and frank. they kept on repeating that art 2.4 is inadmissible now but the impeachment court reserves the right to rule on ill gotten wealth later. this is logical because the ill gotten wealth is a conclusion not a predicate. what is the predicate of ill gotten wealth. it is the disparity between income and asset. without acknowledging raissa’s research, these senator judges ar definitely leading us to conclude that there is indeed ill gotten wealth. i like this…may finesse, walang brasuhan. i admire justice cuevas et al, but theirs is a lost cause. once the public saw the disparity between asset and income, the burded as j.corona says in republic vs. sandigambayan and jpe repeated in his interview the charge of ill gotten wealth is prresumed and the burden of disproving ill gotten wealth shifts to the defense..then they will be trapped unless they are magicians and can produce an income for corona to justify acquisition of the assets… corona’s income less than 5 million from 2006 to 2007…asset at today’s count is at least 30 million… the defense has to produce 25 million.. i do not want to be in just. cuevas shoes when the burden to disprove ill-gotten wealth shift to the defense.. what a mess for j.corona’s opinion created for himself… one of life’s ironies…. law of unintended consequences works in mysterious ways.

    • Being a chess player myself [NEDA Inter-Agency Champ 1980s, hehehe], I have the exact same take on this Impeachment exercise as HUNGKAG. Methinks the Prosec Panel is merely playing possum… lulling the Defense to sleep, to a sense of artificial superiority, to make them complacent and loosen their guard — then… WHAMMMMOOOO!!! Even this early, Prosec has already shown some of its hidden pangs…. on Day 6 out came an aggressive talker-tactician-cum-tax-expert (?) Atty Lim. Na tila mi asim. At anghang. At bangis! Right?

      • salamat po g. fernando at nagkakatulungan tayo na ipaliwanag sa mga kababayan natin ang tumpak na isyu sa masigasig na pamumuno ni bb. raissa. chess enthusiast din po ako pero parating reserve o substitute lang po. mahilig lang ako magbasa ng strategy books lalo na sa chess. ang laban po dito ay mga bagito laban sa mga grandmaster. maganda sana makikita at marinig natin ang balitaktakan sa caucus. gusto ng depensa article heading, saln lang ang isyu sabi naman ng prosec ill gotten wealth. ang solomonic desisyon ng imp.court, pwede 2.2 at 2.3 kasi saln lahat yan. sa ngayon di pwede 2.4 kasi ang ill gotten wealth ay konklusyon at hindi akusasyon. kailangan pa ng predicate at yon ay nasa 2.2 at 2.3.ibabalik ang 2.4 pag hindi nakayanan ng depensa na ipakita na kaya ng cj corona at pamilya bumili na mga ariarian nila nakalagay man sa saln o wala. ergo ill gotten wealth na yan at pasok na rin anti graft law at ra 6379(code of conduct. ang galing. pero kahit na napatunayan na ang ill gotten wealth ang desisyon ay nasa sen judge pa rin. ang maganda pag malinaw na malinaw ang ill gotten wealth ay paano sasangahin ng hardline corona defenders ito.mag aalsa ba ang mga tao pag di makakuha ng 16 ang prosec. palagay ko hindi pero si cj corona ay lameduck na at pag kapalmuks pa rin diyan ang krisis kasi ang cj at sc ay wala ng moral ascendancy sa bayan. may plan B ba talaga? ano kaya yon?

  10. sana nga lumabs ang katotohanan,if they have nothing to hide,huag na silang magmaangmaangan pa.

  12. Looking forward how you will put this to rest, Raissa. Thanks for this really good job of keeping the public aware what really has been going on behind the scene. Congratulations 10x, your blog is very famous now!

  13. LOL!

    I’ll look forward to that one. Hopefully it will rest the case.

    You have two lovely and highly opinionated commenters; Tigerlila and browneyegirl (http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/19/cj-coronas-salns-only-declared-his-wife-was-in-government-post-in-2007/).

    TIT for TAT silang dalawa. Kulang na lang ata magkurutan.

    BUT its good to read their different stance though. Parang mga abogado ata, kung tutuo man.

    Look forward to that other great piece again.

    Salamat kadi!