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.
Peter of Arabia says
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.
Jayson Wong says
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.
boyet says
Thank you Chair David for very clear and fair explanation.
Lino says
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.
raissa says
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.
nong says
i pa audit mo kaya sa mga sikat naauditing firms dyan.. alam mo na
Lino says
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..
MALYN says
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?
baycas says
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.
BP says
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.
raissa says
Is the Baseline declaration already being implemented now?
This was scuttled by CSC Ricardo Saludo.
BP says
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.
AUGUST C FERNANDO says
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.
AUGUST C FERNANDO says
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.”
EdZee says
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.
baycas says
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.
baycas says
…New Judicial Code of Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary.
jcc says
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.”
baycas says
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:
Leona says
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.
Leona says
“(we don’t have States)” correction on Line 5.
baycas says
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!
Battousai says
Can a simple resolution over rule a RA?
baycas says
No.
johnny lin says
@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.