A commentary
By Raïssa Robles
Everyone assumes that all the US dollars that Chief Justice Renato Corona stashed in banks are covered by the bank secrecy law.
Let me offer the theory that they might not be ALL covered and the Senate impeachment court can legally look into them.
Yes, I know I am a mere reporter with no formal training in law. But I’ve had the experience of watching senators up close while they crafted our nation’s laws. And as a business reporter, I’ve covered retail banking. Anyway, this week I ran these ideas past two high-level bank officials. None of them wanted to be identified (I wonder why?), so let’s just call them Banker A and Banker B.
However, what they told me are all verifiable.
Now to go back to the Bank Secrecy Law
The mother law is Republic Act No. 6426 or An Act instituting a foreign currency deposit system in the Philippines, and for other purposes.
RA 6426 has no section defining what constitutes “foreign currency”.
However, it has three sections that suggest the definition by stating how banks are supposed to treat “foreign currency”.
First, Section 4 states that banks taking in such deposits “shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities…”
Section 4 recognizes that the act of depositing by a client establishes a kind of relationship and obligation between the bank and the customer. As Banker B explained to me –
Once you give money to the bank, the bank is indebted to you as a depositor. This is the relationship – the bank is borrowing from you in the form of a deposit. For that debt they will now pay you a certain amount of interest.
The next section in RA 6426 that further suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 6:
Section 6. Tax exemption. – All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws…
In other words, Section 6 gives all “foreign currency” deposits a 100 percent tax break.
The third section that suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 9 which states:
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
In other words, foreign currency deposits are insured by PDIC.
Now let me go to my theory that not all foreign currency deposits are guaranteed confidentiality by RA 6246 or the bank secrecy law. Section 8 of this law states in particular:
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature…
Please note the phrase here – “all foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act”.
It is part of my theory that bank secrecy only covers those foreign currency deposits defined by RA 6426. In other words, only those foreign currency deposits that contain the following elements enumerated by RA 6426:
- Those for which banks have to maintain a 100% foreign currency cover
- Those with interest earnings that are not taxed by the government
- And those that are insured by PDIC.
Why do I bring up these fine distinctions?
Because since RA 6426 came into law in 1974, banks have dramatically expanded the array of foreign currency products they offer their clients.
These are aside from the traditional savings, current and time deposits that were envisioned to be covered by RA 6426.
Today, clients can park their dollars in sovereign bonds, in commercial papers, unit investment trust funds (UITFs), mutual funds – all denominated in dollars and which are not tax-free and are not insured by the PDIC.
Why would a depositor want to move away from plain vanilla dollar accounts? One reason would be: Because the interest rate on dollar savings and time deposits are terrible.
According to Banker A, a US dollar time deposit now earns 0.25% per year. A US Treasury Bond earns 2% per annum. While a US dollar-denominated ROP (Republic of the Philippines) five-year bond can earn from 2% to 2.5%. In such transactions, “we merely act as a broker,” Banker B told me.
From this, we can see that if the client wanted to put his or her dollars to work earning something more than the miserable interest on time and savings deposit accounts, then investing in these products would make sense.
In fact, as Banker B explained to me, “with a UITF or mutual fund, there is no such promise by the bank that it will pay a certain amount. It is not a bank obligation. This is a separate vehicle from the bank. In that sense, UITFs are not considered as bank deposits.”
Banker B also explained that while even mutual funds can now be bought through banks, these money market instruments are actually regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case, the banks merely serve as “brokers” for these products.
In the case of such products, the bank has no customer liability, Banker B said. The bank doesn’t pay interest to the customer. Rather, it is the customer that pays the bank a transaction fee for arranging the buy and doing the paperwork.
In such arrangements, the bank usually asks the customer to designate a particular bank account (either savings or current) as the “settlement account”. When the customer wants to liquidate the UITF or when a commercial paper or bond reaches maturity, proceeds including the interest earned from such products are deposited in this settlement account.
In addition, Banker A also explained to me further why a dollar bond or a UITF denominated in dollars, for instance, is not considered a foreign currency deposit as defined by RA 6426:
Iba nga talaga. Kasi hindi siya deposit. Hindi siya covered ng PDIC. Pag bumili ka ng bond, wala naman sa amin ang bond. You house it at a third party. We only facilitated. We act as a broker.
Halimbawa kung ikaw kliente, magpabili ka ng stocks, I give you confirmation of sale that you bought 10,000 shares. I deliver the receipt. Babayaran mo ko. Kukunin ko commission ko. That money goes to the central depository (PCD).
Pag nagpabenta ka. Ibibigay mo ang instruction, pupunta (yung instruction) sa broker. Kukuhanin namin shares sa PCD, ito ang pang-settle. Parang nagkaliwaan lang kayo.
From covering retail banking, I’ve also noted that while banks like PSB do not offer certain investment products, as its president Pascual Garcia III testified today, they do routinely refer their customers to the head office of the mother bank, in this case Metrobank. Such referrals are coursed through the retail bank like PSB which then transacts with the head office or mother bank and charges a transaction fee for this service.
Because of this, it may be necessary for the Senate impeachment court to ask Metrobank and Bank of the Philippine Islands head offices whether CJ Corona has “foreign currency” investments with them. And not just dollars because some banks now have expanded their foreign currency-related transactions to euros and even yen.
Senator-judge Serge Osmeña seems to be on the same line of thinking
An hour ago, Osmeña asked PSB president and CEO Garcia whether dollar bonds could be classified as deposits under RA 6426.
And so I would like to ask the following questions of the Supreme Court and the senator-judges:
Is my theory valid or plain hogwash?
If valid, can the Senate impeachment court now ask the banks to disclose any and all dollar transactions of CJ Corona revolving around such products? I believe that the moment an amount of foreign currency deposit from CJ Corona left the safe haven of savings and/or time deposit it loses the umbrella of confidentiality during that period. And these become legitimate subjects of inquiry by the Senate impeachment court.
For this piece, I had tried to interview a well-known lawyer who teaches banking law. But he declined to speak to me. Likewise, I tried to obtain an interview with officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas but no one would talk to me.
Because of this, I have decided to throw my questions to the public and see that maybe, just maybe, some lawyers and banking experts will respond and share what they know.
I am posting below RA 6426 –
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6426
AN ACT INSTITUTING A FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1.Title.– This act shall be known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines.”
Section 2.Authority to deposit foreign currencies. – Any person, natural or juridical, may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, deposit with such Philippine banks in good standing, as may, upon application, be designated by the Central Bank for the purpose, foreign currencies which are acceptable as part of the international reserve, except those which are required by the Central Bank to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered two hundred sixty-five (Now Rep. Act No. 7653).
Section 3.Authority of banks to accept foreign currency deposits. –The banks designated by the Central Bank under Section two hereof shall have the authority:
(1) To accept deposits and to accept foreign currencies in trust Provided, That numbered accounts for recording and servicing of said deposits shall be allowed;
(2) To issue certificates to evidence such deposits;
(3) To discount said certificates;
(4) To accept said deposits as collateral for loans subject to such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Central Bank from time to time; and
(5) To pay interest in foreign currency on such deposits.
Section 4.Foreign currency cover requirements.– Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the depository banks shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities, of which cover at least fifteen percent shall be in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank, and the balance in the form of foreign currency loans or securities, which loans or securities shall be of short term maturities and readily marketable. Such foreign currency loans may include loans to domestic enterprises which are export-oriented or registered with the Board of Investments, subject to the limitations to be prescribed by the Monetary Board on such loans. Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the foreign currency cover shall be in the same currency as that of the corresponding foreign currency deposit liability. The Central Bank may pay interest on the foreign currency deposit, and if requested shall exchange the foreign currency notes and coins into foreign currency instruments drawn on its depository banks. (As amended by PD No. 1453, June 11, 1978.)
Depository banks which, on account of networth, resources, past performance, or other pertinent criteria, have been qualified by the Monetary Board to function under an expanded foreign currency deposit system, shall be exempt from the requirements in the preceding paragraph of maintaining fifteen percent (15%) of the cover in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank. Subject to prior Central Bank approval when required by Central Bank regulations, said depository banks may extend foreign currency loans to any domestic enterprise, without the limitations prescribed in the preceding paragraph regarding maturity and marketability, and such loans shall be eligible for purposes of the 100% foreign currency cover prescribed in the preceding paragraph. (As added by PD No. 1035.)
Section 5.Withdrawability and transferability of deposits.– There shall be no restriction on the withdrawal by the depositor of his deposit or on the transferability of the same abroad except those arising from the contract between the depositor and the bank.
Section 6.Tax exemption.– All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws and, in the case of nonresidents, irrespective of whether or not they are engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. (As amended by PD No. 1246, from. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 7. Rules and regulations. – The Monetary Board of the Central Bank shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act which shall take effect after the publications in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. In case the Central Bank promulgates new rules and regulations decreasing the rights of depositors, rules and regulations at the time the deposit was made shall govern.
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
Section 10. Penal provisions. – Any willful violation of this Act or any regulation duly promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon conviction to an imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years or a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Separability clause. – The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be separable and in the event one or more of such provisions are held unconstitutional, the validity of other provisions shall not be affected thereby.
Section 12. Repealing clause. – All acts, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with any provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly, without prejudice, however, to deposits made thereunder.
Section 12-A. Amendatory enactments and regulations. – In the event a new enactment or regulation is issued decreasing the rights hereunder granted, such new enactment or regulation shall not apply to foreign currency deposits already made or existing at the time of issuance of such new enactment or regulation, but such new enactment or regulation shall apply only to foreign currency deposits made after its issuance. (As added by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 13. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, April 4, 1974
raffy says
just heard argument of sen.guingona about mutual fund of cj not being covered by bank secrecy law. and now he’s asking to subpoena the account.
seems your critical analysis/idea made its way to the senator-judges.
congratulations! let the truth set us free
Estebantot says
Whatever would be the final decision on the Chief Justice’s dollar account or accounts, Corona is finished.
What has been revealed in the impeachment court was that as of Dec. 31, 2010, Corona had about P32 million in the bank.
Corona stated in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 2010 that he had only P3.5 million in cash and investments.
The huge discrepancy is glaring proof of dishonesty.
nelson ongpauco says
may sasabihin ako ,,ako ay hindi maka marcos o maka aqiuno sasabihin kolang ang nalalaman ko ..para sa mga sennior citizen na kagaya ko natatandaan ba ninyo yung nasa diaryo na mga muslim na sumuko na nakalitrato sa diaryo hindi ito muslim.ito rin ang mga tao na nag rally sa monumento na pumatay at nanggulpi ng mga estudiante dahil tuwing nasa diaryo itong kilala ko ay ipagyayabang ang litrato sa diaryo .kaya kayo huwag kayong basta basta naniniwala sa mga diaryong nababasa ninyo.pero kay raissa ay paniwalaan ninyo dahil fair ang sulat niya maypaliwanag at ebidensya.
cane-juice says
So it is said that “the Truth will set you free.”
But, in your case, Mr.Renato Corona…,
The Truth will lose you, “your very lucrative’ job..!
Mel says
Mel says
“My God, it is the entire system that is an issue here. I am not against the examining if they comply with the law, but if they can look into the accounts of anybody in this country, then what (for) are the Republic Acts (RA) that impose secrecies on certain matters in this country?” Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile asked his colleagues during the morning session of the Senate yesterday.
Was that JPE exclaiming ‘My God’? He sounded terrified and about to loose his life [savings].
IF JPE and his Senate peers DO NOT have anything to hide that is unexplained wealth not stated in the religious SALNs’ fulfillment, why panic? JPE has just made something obvious under pretense of citing Republic Acts 6426 and 1465? Does he too have unexplained wealth? Does he warrant an SALN investigation as well?
JPE give some reason why you should be investigated by the BIR!
Mel says
TODAY (20 Feb. 2012) day 20 of the impeachment trial, SI Presiding Senate President JPE was questioning the PSBank Pres. Pascual Garcia. He was ‘leading’ the witness to insinuate (e.g. source of) that the AMLC and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas may have something to do with the PS Banks documents reaching the House Prosecutors.
Baka maya-maya, the SI might subpoena the AMLC and/or BSP officials to shed light on ‘the source’, or even perhaps ‘share’ on their investigations or audit reports done on the Corona’s accounts.
Is the Senate-Judges fishing for the source (and rightly so), or are they better off just to focus on the Supreme Court’s TRO, Defense Contempt for allege Senate Judges bribery and evidences to accept from the prosecution on Article II?
The Senate Impeachment is ‘sui generis, it is neither a Judicial proceeding nor an administrative case. The Senate is not co-terminus to a Judiciary where evidences and the merits thereof are appeal-able.
Focus on the glaring breaches to the Judicial Code of Conduct, testimonies and evidences at hand. It is not a criminal textbook trial proceeding. IT IS JUST TO EXPEL the Chief Justice! Magisip kayo!
Johnny lin says
“are they allowed to make photocopies”
Certaing auditing entities are authorized to write notes or make copies depending on contractual obligations or treaties. Example: when FDA investigates or audits the clinical trials of drug study clinics, they get copies of statistical testings and results to refer to when finalizing evaluations in their office
Two possible theories on signature card during audit:
1. Copy was made by audit team with consent of PSB liason.
2. There were old extra original signature cards because newer repacement cards were recently obtained so the PSB employee gave the one extra card to the auditors to make notes on it.
On this old card notations of PEP and dollar deposit were written on.
Also the reason the prosecutors copy is different from what is on file with PSB
Mel says
On Coronas’ BGEI Peso Deposits and luxury Condos.
Rotting fish permeates the aura of the Senate Chamber, “Something is fishy here”, Sen. Angara said.
rafael l. vidal says
First, the formidable INC announced a grand religious rally at the Luneta this coming Feb. 28., followed by his lonesome, the batangueno Arcrhbishop Arguelles of Lipa City, joining forces with a common battle cry “STOP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL”, for obvious reasons.
However, about 4 hours ago, a whiff of fresh air comes from the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), thru the CBCP website, urges cj corona to open his dollar accounts if he really has nothing to hide.
Previously, many students of Catholic Schools publicly urged corona to disclose his dollar deposits if he still has INTEGRITY left in him.
The nationwide move of the INC, if true, and other synphatizers, connote one thing – BASANG BASA NA ANG PAPEL NI CJ CORONA SA PAGKAKALABAS NG MGA LIMPAK-LIMPAK NIYANG YAMAN NA HINDI NAKAYANG PIGILAN NI INJUSTICE CUEVAS.
“Everyone sees who I appear to be but only a few know the real me. You only see what I choose to show, there’s so much behind my smile you just don’t know” (unknown)
bo_panganib_ka says
percentagewise,how many of us filipinos being covered by this law? the ratio of those who works at government offices, politicos vs that in the private sector is far in difference as to its number.and among those in the government employees only those with higher positions so with these politicians (senators and congressmen) has the means to have dollar accounts. the foreign bank account secrecy law is designed for these corrupt lawmakers/government officials to conseal,ensure and safeguard what they have earned illegally. this is the only law that favors for those who stash and rob the treasury of the country.
opening the said account of cj corona is like a pandora box wherein it would be a precedence in the future for these lawmaker be put into a situation if a case would be filed against them. surely, everything would be expose of the true value of their assets, specifically the monetary value of their dollar savings.
13 voted against opening the exposure of what is indeed into the dollar account of cj corona. they made used of the legality of the law but for the truth to expose the real truth is within the disclosure what is recorded into the bank account. these lawmakers surely made a fool out on us for these law only benefitted to them.
only those with clean conscience would gladly accept to show if they indeed have dollar deposited account. who among the 10 senators who voted for disclosure would stand and say he would open himself to disclose his/her account?
percy1007 says
Anyone may answer. To convict Corona, it requires over 2/3 of 23 or 16 votes and nothing less.
Who then are the sixteen senators most likely for conviction.
rose says
quite hard to reach…
upright bike says
more likely… Ok. Just a guess.
Trillanes
Drilon
Osmena
Pangilinan
Lapid
Angara
Guingona
Lacson
Cane Juice says
I seriously doubt whether LAPID should be included in “the List”…!
Leona says
Very good Ms. Raissa for your research on this law. The way this law was crafted is that not even the SC can “look into, etc.” the deposit with the consent of the depositor’s consent. So, the law is cannot be cracked as crafted. Very clever indeed. But it doesn’t say anywhere it cannot be declared unconstitutional by the judicial or any court. If declared unconstitutional, then the law can crack wide open. Once done, the deposit can be “looked into, etc.,” would you agree? Had the Senate as impeachment court insisted to follow through, and discovered the CJ’s deposits, despite a TRO by the SC, would this SC had power over the Senate? Would there be a possible “appeal” to the SC for “grave abuse of discretion…amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”? Abuse of discretion could be committed but would it be “grave” considering the Senate as IC is also given power and jurisdiction? I know you are not a lawyer but your intelligence is as good as one. Many interpretation of the law comes down to common sense too, after the laws are considered. This piece maybe moot and academic (but not completely) as of now as far as the TRO is being obeyed but the trial is still ongoing. The Senate can still proceed to see the deposits if it really realizes it has a need for that. Manyy say a constitutional crisis would or may result. How would the SC enforce its TRO against the Senate? Both are equal branches of gov’t. Let CJ appeal. But his deposits are already revealed. Let the issue be threshed out with the SC. By that stage of the trial a verdict was already rendered most probably if the Senate went through finishing it. The SC would have 2 principal issues to consider: the alledged illegal acts of the Senate; and since the deposits are already already known, to declare the law unconstitutional in order to validate the looking into of the CJ’s deposit of his dollar accounts. But arriving at such a stage will need the good numbers of senators to not comply with the TRO. Unless they take a risk there is no accomplishment that can come out. I believe, as many also believe, many of the senators do not have that dedication to seek for truth. Thus, justice will not prevail in this with their relenting to the TRO. I find the law as bad as not being a law at all. Imagine SEC. 8 of this law prohibiting even judicial courts not to violate the absolute secrecy of the deposits. The one who crafted this law must have malice in his heart to have pushed this law into a living pariah for all of the country and the judicial system where everyone is “under” such a bad law. Not anymore ‘no one is above the law.’ Thank you Ms. Raissa for your good work. God bless and protect you and the family.
Leona says
“without the consent of the depositor”…sorry.
Johnny lin says
President Aquino is correct in principle, filial to his executive duty in preaching the evils,lies and larceny of Corona to the students and the impoverish class of the nation. Where lies the respect on the highest magistrate of the land, preservation of moral character or demeaning acts of malfeasance?
Corona by irresponsibly teaching his children the art of stealing and lying thru fraudulent transfer of unaffordable properties has destroyed their foundation for moral decency. The loss has disappointed their spirit to achieve any sense of higher purpose in life.
Simple questions parents with moral values must ask while discussing with their children the merits of impeachment.
1. What kind of work do the children of Corona engage into that earns them bundles of money to buy very expensive real properties?
2. What kind of chief justice do we have refusing to reveal how much money he has In his bank accounts?
Transparency is as simple as brushing teeth everyday.
Corona must be hiding something is the plain clear answer could be!
Stu Dent says
My heartfelt thanks to all who expanded my knowledge of financial accountability, dollar transactions, UITF, legal concepts etc. Raissa should have a special section here on understanding concepts of sorts. Legal and Banking domestic/International for dummies sort of. Ang gagaling ng mga teachers dito, ang aayos magpaliwanag. Hindi ka mahihiyang magtanong.
Parang EDSA 1 dito, hindi madamot magshare ng knowledge at pangunawa.
Salamat mga kapatid….hindi man tayo magtagumpay ang sarap na nakasama kayo.
baycas says
ETHICS IN PUBLIC OFFICE
The lack of it and how it is spread
The glaring issue in this political exercise of impeachment is Ethics…or, the lack of it. It is hoped by this process of housecleaning that Ethics will eventually be a part of public office 24/7 from now on.
Forget first the messenger…because a lot of people nowadays shoot the messengers first before pausing to reflect upon the message…and let us be reminded of what the lead prosecutor said in his opening statement:
Of course, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (2004), as I have been harping about in the past, is the book of standards by which Corona must be judged. Corona must be beyond reproach and must have absence of even an appearance of impropriety.
This is already being tackled in open court (impeachment trial) at the Senate. In the court of public opinion it is being discussed as well (albeit with misconceptions).
But, what is really the ethical standard…no, the question should be, how is Ethics being regarded and how is it being applied especially in public office?
Ethics…or, appropriately, the lack of Ethics goes through a process called PEANUT BUTTER APPROACH wherein a wrongdoer spreads blame to others in order to somehow reduce (or, escape) accountability.
This approach may have originated a long time ago but I believe the Peanut Butter Approach was perfected by none other than gloria macapagal arroyo. It led to the apathy of the masses in 2005 at the height of the “Hello, Garci” scandal and practically “exonerated” gloria resulting in her strong hold to the presidential throne.
gloria macapagal arroyo started with the oft-repeated “I’m not the only sinner” strategy:
Then she went on to a counter-offensive. Her apostle and saint, Virgilio Garcillano, masterfully stroked the butter knife and spread the blame to the opposition then…
This tack is also what is being employed by gloria’s other saint, Renato Corona. His defense lawyers floated the idea that NON-disclosure of SALNs may be commonplace thus prompting media to spread the word: members of the HOR do it, Senators report incomplete SALN data, etc.
In January of this year, even Teddyboy Locsin, the sly lawyer that he is, actually suggested in his morning radio program “Karambola” (DWIZ 882) to put lead House prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr. (or other House members) to the witness stand and ask him about SALNs. The NON-disclosure of SALNs is the norm even in the Legislative branch of government…and this can very well be presented and easily proved by defense counsel Serafin Cuevas.
Now, Corona himself uses the peanut butter knife prompting law professor Theodore Te to write:
Ethics in public office is simply the widespread lack of it and, more often than not, a public servant spreads the blame of his unethical conduct.
Again, quoting Capino…
“Of course it does not work that way. The peanut butter approach merely spreads the guilt around and does not clear anybody at all.”
Lawyer Ted Te was able to say it all. The peanut butter approach in defense of a wrongdoing will not work.
Corona impeachment as one of the housecleaning methods in government must fulfill its promise of ensuring the presence of Ethics in public office FROM NOW ON. Spreading ethical conduct in public office is good even a peanut butter approach to this is welcome.
percy1007 says
Talk about ethical behaviour and delicadeza and Corona. How can he coninue to work in the Supreme Court and be in the office with the other justices who will decide on his petition. It is like Lucio Tan reporting for work in the SC or Ampataun to an RTC. When Corona meets with another justice in the building, do you think they only talk about the weather or Pacquiao?
Sp[eaks volumes on what a CJ or justice should not be.
Mel says
Peanuts, one lingo connotes – easy.
Some people do have experience Peanut allergy. If left untreated or in severe exposures, it could kill.
For good measure, if PNoy is holding on to the Ethics Knife to spread the peanut butter, the scalawags in gov’t service would develop an allergic rash. Lo and behold, peanut allergic reactions would expose the undesirables in its ranks.
Although corruption and the lack of Ethics in a public office is found everywhere, not only in the Phils.
Ang diperensiya, garapalan at harapan na nagmumula sa pinakamataas na dating pangulo, at ngayon mula sa pinakapangyarihan na mahistrado ng pilipinas. Tama ang direksiyon ni PNoy, umpisahan sa pinaka mataas, pababa.
Magiging halimbawa si R Corona, GMA, B Abalos, Garcia, Gatdula, Palparan, atbp.
Pero masarap ang mani, lalu na sa kare-kare.