My Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Two Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and noted constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas are among the witnesses named by the defense lawyers to testify in behalf of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Defense lawyers Jose M. Roy III and Dennis P. Manalo named Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco as the main witness who will counter the testimony of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima today and yesterday. De Lima yesterday justified to the court her defiance of the court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), saying it would not have preserved the status quo – which is what TROs are supposed to do. De Lima said that in fact, it would have done irreparable harm by allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo escape justice altogether.
To corroborate Velasco’s testimony, the defense named either “Justice Roberto Abad and/or Justice Arturo D. Brion” in a 29-page submission to the Senate Impeachment Court dated this January 31. The submission lists the witnesses and documentary evidence.
Part of the magistrates’ testimony will touch on what Justice Lourdes Sereno divulged in her dissenting opinion on the issuance of the TRO and on her revelations on how Supreme Court administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez misrepresented to media what the court had decided on in Arroyo’s TRO case.
If the justices testify, I wonder if this will create an opening for Justices Sereno and Antonio Carpio to voluntarily come forward in order to give their own version of court deliberations that have always been cloaked in secrecy.
Their testimony could also give the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the magistrates. Earlier, the senator-judges had turned down the prosec’s request to summon Velasco, Sereno and two other justices as witnesses.
Fr. Bernas will be used as an expert witness to expound “on the substantial issue of the WLO being subject to judicial review.”
In scanning the list submitted by the defense, I noted two other interesting things:
First, although Corona and his lawyers have repeatedly said that the Chief Justice would answer all questions about his wealth in due time, Corona is not listed as among those set to testify.
Corona, however “reserved” his right to submit additional evidence and call additional witnesses, including himself.
Second, on the charge that his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth did not reflect his true wealth, Corona seems to be concentrating on giving evidence about his various real properties. He gave a lengthy list of witnesses and documents on this matter.
However, Corona did not submit any witness or documentary evidence from any bank about his peso cash deposits.
I would hazard a guess that Corona intends to make the public believe that all that excess cash he has stashed in banks actually belongs to his wife’s Basa-Guidote Corporation. And based on the list of documents he intends to submit, this would indicate that he plans to show that Cristina Corona legitimately acquired 98% of Basa-Guidote.
The fact that the money allegedly owned by Basa-Guidote is segregated in certain deposit accounts would mean that the defense is still pursuing the “fruit of the poisonous tree” angle insofar as all other Corona cash deposits are concerned. This means, the defense intends to persuade the court that all other accounts not holding Basa-Guidote money should be totally ignored by the court because information about them was illegally obtained.
I’m eager to hear the creative reasons that the defense will come up with for their client Corona.
And if they’re all pro-bono, I wonder how their law firms are reporting their billable hours in their book of accounts.
[The defense list of witnesses and documents can be downloaded here.]
Obet Mapanao says
Dear Raissa,
There must be other members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission other than Fr. Bernas who can contribute about the midnight appointment of CJ Corona. There are former associate justices like Justices Adolf Azcuna and Florenz Regalado and former CJ Hilario Davide. They can help persuade their peers in the current Supreme Court to advise CJ Corona that he has no legal or constitutional basis holding on being Chief Justice.
There are also former commissioners Atty. Christian Monsod, Mr. Bernie Villegas and Bishop Teodoro Bacani who can help or be consulted other than Fr. Bernas.
Cane Juice says
Fr. Bernas should stick only to his priestly duties.
Remember, you can not serve two ‘gods’.
Obet Mapanao says
Dear Raiisa,
I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks about this alternative, i. e. to convince the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to do the most critical and important duty at hand as a collegial body to convince CL Corona to just resign. They should be able to discern rights of the 99 Million Filipinos are more important than 1 Chief Justice.
They should not hide under the cloak of judicial technicalities and precedence. As a matter of fact, convincing the CJ to just resign would be a the best precedence ever to be made by them.
I still believe that those Associate Justices inclination to side with the CJ in spite of the damning revelations about his character not befitting to be within their own ranks, will submit to their conscience before the sovereign Filipino people publicly and privately when they commune with God who has provided them life, intellect and free will to do what is good and side by the truth. If after all the truth has come out and they still chose be side contrary to the truth, then, they will be answerable and punished severely not in this world by in the after life and final judgement day.
This will save us the trouble having a long impeachment trial.
Let us all pray for divine guidance or even divine intervention as what is EDSA 1 is all about. Tama Na. Sobra Na.
baycas says
THE ELUSIVE “BETRAYAL…
The HOR initiates impeachment and the Senate tries the impeachment.
Thus, the Congress (the HOR and the Senate) was given the enormous power TO KNOW what an impeachable offense constitute or what is not.
The Supreme Court would not know and would not even venture to define what an impeachable offense carries! (Francisco vs. HOR and Gutierrez vs. HOR)
The right to determine the elusive definition rests solely on the legislative branch of government, a political body.
The 1987 Constitution enumerates the impeachable offenses:
I counted six (6) impeachable offenses; the Supreme Court in Francisco vs. HOR likewise counted six (6) “grounds for impeachment,” namely:
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and corruption
5. Other high crimes
6. Betrayal of public trust
The lack of jurisprudence results to a lack of understanding of the offenses 5 and 6 respectively: “Other high crimes” and “Betrayal of public trust”. In Francisco the Supreme Court said:
The Corona impeachment trial will hope to decide in concrete terms the elusive definition.
IMHO, “betrayal of public trust” must not be equated with “other high crimes”.
Offenses 1 to 4 are admittedly of a nature of “high crimes” already. Following the ejusdem generis (of the same kind, class or nature) rule, this is so and the offense “other high crimes” must consist of unlawful commissions similar to offenses 1 to 4.
“Betrayal of public trust,” however, will not necessarily constitute the same offense as 1 to 5. Being the last ground for impeachment as enumerated in the Constitution, it bears a different meaning from the others. It may now be enumerated or categorized to be:
a. Culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption
b. Other high crimes, or
c. Betrayal of public trust
Thus, as the Supreme Court puts it, the offenses “other high crimes” and ” betrayal of public trust” are to be defined or dissected.
The 6th impeachable offense may not be of the same category as a “high crime” because the rule of construction against redundancy will impose that “betrayal of public trust” is not synonymous to “high crimes”. “Betrayal of public trust” must mean another thing aside from being a “high crime”.
Besides, if “betrayal of public trust” was considered to be a “high crime” then it must be at Number 5 instead of Number 6 in the enumeration!
Further dissection/definition of “betrayal of public trust” will be found in two of my comments here (also with reference to the Constitutional Commission deliberations on “betrayal of public trust”):
http://raissarobles.com/2012/02/03/coronas-not-intentional-mistakes-in-his-salns/
The question now is, “Must we therefore subscribe (hook, line, and sinker) to Fr. Bernas’ definition?”
The HOR must know (and so does the Senate) the definition…because it is their Constitutional DUTY and POWER to know.
However Cong. Tupas et al QUOTED Fr. Bernas in OPEN COURT and in MEDIA! I am pretty sure they also put this in their MEMORANDUM on what an impeachable offense constitute as what was required by the Impeachment Court.
It is saddening to learn if the TRUE MEANING of “betrayal…” will elude us.
But, what is more saddening is when, aside from the true meaning, THE ONE(S) WHO BETRAYED US will elude us.
baycas says
Thus, the Congress (the HOR and the Senate) was given the enormous power TO KNOW what an impeachable offense constitutes or what it does not.
Dimasalang says
@baycas and the betrayal goes on and on. yesterday’s ruling using what they call judicial privilege to completely shield the Supreme Court from the processes of the Impeachment Court is lamentable. this is further aggravated by the reluctance of the IC to meet the issue the way it should.
we have now a Supreme Court with members who are beyond the reach of the constitutional court and the check and balance machinery of a democratic government. with this, no justice of the SC can be removed by impeachment because all the damning evidence and witnesses have been effectively sealed. A supreme obstruction of justice.
jcc says
The pro-coronas have too much rubbish to spare..
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/we-masquerade-our-dysfunction-as-a-quest-for-due-process/
Cane Juice says
Not mentioning “logistics to spare”.
truth_seeker1961 says
The poll, conducted by the Laylo Research Strategies from Jan. 28 to Feb. 6, showed that 86 percent of 1,500 respondents nationwide will respect whatever decision the impeachment court will hand down on Corona. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/780551/9-of-10-pinoys-to-respect-impeachment-verdict
This is a good indication that a big majority of the people upholds the presumption of innocence and the rule of law.
The thin crowd at Edsa commemoration yesterday also indicated that its not “people power” that will resolve the impeachment case. Its still the court. The survey also had shown that “only eight percent of the respondents will join rallies if the Chief Justice is absolved, four percent will join rallies if he is impeached, and two percent are undecided”
It goes without saying that sound arguments and not mudslinging will ultimately shape public opinion.
raissa says
The thin crowd yesterday is not an indication.
People are waiting and watching, giving the impeachment trial a chance to unfold further.
Patience.
Andres Bonifacio says
Ang daming hukom sa atin ang yumaman dahil sa pagbebenta ng desisyon….magkano lang sweldo nila…pano sila magkakaroon ng milyon agad kung hindi magbenta ng desisyon. pwera nalang kung nabigyan sya ni gloria ng pabaon, nung nagpakamatay na duwag na heneral,nag baril sa sarili imbes na magsalita ng katotohanan.
Mel says
@truth_seeker1961
Ahhh, bumalik ka rin! Balik Raïssa Robles with a dot com blogsite
‘He he! I humbly surrender. Mission failed…‘
weather, whether lang iyang crowd.
tristanism says
Sound argument is not the same as legal maneuverings to hide information.
It’s not “May pera siguro ako sa banko pero di niyo pwede buksan.”
Baltazar says
Aruy, ibig sabihin, wala na namang kuwenta ang sinasabi nitong bubuyog na kapon na si truth_seeker. He he, truth_seeker, saka ka na bumalik pag napatunayang hindi nagnakaw ang amo mo then I can also say I humbly surrender. :-) . It’s difficult to teach ass parasites to stop sucking because only in shits they do feed and live. Catcha later alligator!
Baltazar says
It was a reply to Baycas’ post regarding surveys :-)
truth_seeker1961 says
Im back because I believe Pnoy has already tamed himself by saying both Corona and Pagcor’s Naguiat deserves the presumption of innocence. But obviously his minions of zombie propagandists could not fathom his conversion. So I humbly surrender again. See you again after the war. That’s the day when the president’s puritan propagandists will unleash Operations Treadstone to swipe clean their spooky counterparts.
Nostradamus said “I saw demons whose dirty tonques were tied with fish hooks by angels who would hang them at the Ortigas flyover.”
But a voice will forewarn you in a dream. Your first warning: “Baltazar, Baltazar, you still have time to convert and change your destiny. You can still avoid hell.
Your second and last warning: “Look at Jeremy, he is already there and still shrieking and badmouthing. And a sleepless Lucifer is petitioning heaven to accept a transferee. hehe!
Hope you both enjoy the parody. ;-)
Baltazar says
@truth_seeker
Har har har…No you did’t leave and you are not leaving – you are only browsing and reading but not interacting. ;-) Admit it or not, this is the only site where you will find a multitude of sound and scholastic arguments, lesser name – callers, straightforward commenters and most of all , haters of thieves adn corrupts.
LOL. :P You can’t entice me to join the dark side … guaranteed, you will perish in your INCommendable and insignificant rebellion. Enjoy their Bible Exposition (daw!). No way a blind can lead another blind – it’s neither a parody nor a pseudo-wisdom. ITS A FACT!
Johnny lin says
Ha ha ha : the first time truthseeker posted we said his brain shell seemed empty. No different from Corona, full of Summa cum larceny in his mind.
Right on target, nincompoop truthseeker came back, same result-
hollow drum, loud sound on thumping full of empty rhetorics, he he he
truth_seeker1961 says
Forgive me Jeremy Lin…. i was referring to Johnny Lin… Heaven said the articles of impeachment is defective and full of hearsays… So poor Johnny will have to stay in hell until the TRO is lifted… Lucie now calling for demon power to repatriate johnny and restore order in his kingdom… and claims hearsay is evidence… and his alter ego said: “Between national interest and one’s constitutional rights, which is more important? It’s certainly the interest of the state.”
Baltazar says
@truth_seeker
LOL.. :P Nakita mo na? Hindi ka makaalis ano? The truth_seeker myth has been busted. YOU ARE A MEMBER OF INC ..he he.. NOT of UCCP.
Enjoy kayo ng relihiyon mo sa Bible Exposition (kuno). Post mo agad sa you tube ha.. :P
baycas says
And survey said…
http://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/27/arroyo-pollster-commissioned-sws-to-test-political-messages
To all: please read above link and judge for yourself…
baycas says
Surveys are reliable…DEPENDING on who did the survey, the methodology, the number of subjects, who commissioned the survey, etc.
Akin to medical research studies, there has to be some form of CRITICAL APPRAISAL.
In short, in polls, there is necessity to somehow “shoot the messenger” because inference drawn from the survey may NOT, at all times, be reliable just as the example cited above (NOTE: With same researcher involved!).
Kim says
“the thin crowd at Edsa commemoration yesterday also indicated that its not “people power” that will resolve the impeachment case”
…hmmm …. it depends … on who will call for “people power” …. PNoy? there’s no Cardinal Sin today, who has the clout?
renee says
The eloquent Conrado de Quiros, and the Balck and White Movement, both avid supporters of Pnoy tried several times to call for people power to Occupy Supreme Court. Of course he failed. Why? Because Pnoy turned himself into the anti-Corona symbol. History tells us that people power can never be sponsored by a president in power. It’s uniqueness lies in the fact that it will only come when a president becomes a much hated tyrant or horribly inept.
Baltazar says
@truth_seeker,
At ano naman ang ginagawa mo rito? Sabi mo babalik ka when the war is over, tapos na ba? At ano nga ba ang hinihintay namin.? Kudeta? Eh di ba marami ga rito ayaw nun at hinhintay lang ang result ng impeachment. Hindi ka mapa t@e ano kaya ka bumalik kasi alam mo kung ano yung meron kami na nasabi ko na sa iyo at sinabi uli ni Raissa, PATIENCE.
Johnny lin says
General truthseeker
You are also acquiring the character of your idol based on your own statement. Digest it again:
You said ” the survey result 86 % of 1500 respondents nationwide will respect whatever decision the impeachment will hand down on Corona. Then you made your personal conclusion which is not in the survey that “this is a good indication that the majority of the people upholds the presumption of innocence and rule of the law”
A survey result is what the question is intended for, not for making up personal conclusion.
Stupid characteristic of Corona is making personal on true facts, “saying Aquino was wrong on Rabe case that it was about her dismissal based on non disclosure of her assets in SALN” yet in fact it is the truth but Corona made a different personal conclusion suiting his favor.
You alluded same Corona principle on the survey you quoted so that makes you like Corona,. At least, you improved from DIFFUSE General to nincompoop, he he he.
Anton Mendoza says
WB truth!!!!!!!! Kaw naman nagdala ka pa ng resbak eh walang naniniwala sa poll survey na yan!
renee says
The thinner the crowd at Edsa, the saner (and cleaner) the debates at cyberspace and the humbler the tenant of the palace becomes… kurot na lang di na sabunot ang inabot ni Corona mula sa presidente. hehe!
480 billion investments under his watch. Ganyan ang mga dapat marinig mula sa kanya… Seguro may pumiyok na rin sa mga subjects niya at nagsabi “the emperror has no clothes “…
Now, all eyes to the senate….
For My Angel AJ says
@ truth_seeker
Did you ever encounter the fallacy Ad Populum – apeal to popularity? If we talk about SALN, were are talking of digits/numbers and not mere words. 1 dollar is equivalent to 1 dollar and not 1 doll hair. My point is if it involves numbers you can not change what it means. If Corona file for PHP 3.5 million cash on hand or deposits, he meant PHP 3.5 million not PHP 35 million or USD 3.5 million.
It is fallacious to think that just because 99.9 % of the population says PHP 3.5 million also means PHP 35 million or USD 3.5 million, then it is already the truth. If X is equal to 1 and only 1, it can never be equal to 2 just because a lot of people said so.
Words or phrases could mean differently when taken in a different context but numbers are numbers.
Cane Juice says
“Presumption of Innocence” SHOULD NOT be the case when the person/defendant in
question is one who is appointed and holds a POSITION of HIGHEST TRUST.
One whose integrity is beyond question.
Further, this is not an oridinary trial. This is an Impeachment Trial.
How can the respondent be proven guilty when proof of his guilt is hidden and protected by a battalion of technicalities.
Absolute Integrity and Honesty should be proven by CJ Corona.
Proof, beyond Reasonable Doubt that he IS HONEST is just one of the qualifications that
he must present to the Filipino People.
Cane Juice says
@truth_seeker1961:
Let’s not kid ourselves.
The presumption of innocence and Rules of Court/Rules of Evidence do not really
apply in this particular Impeachment Trial, where the defendant CJ Corona is
just an appointee and is holding a position of highest trust, and is presumed to
have unquestionable integrity.
Any doubt as to his character; Any tarnish to his reputation/honor…, delicadeza requires
that the CJ should prove otherwise…, or else resign.
Case(s) of point: Holders of high position in other countries, some of whom are
appointed and many are even elected officials.
The Senator/Judges are not required to follow any set of rules, except the rules of
their(Senators’) personal conscience & opinions.
They are not even required to explain their decision, nor are their decision subject
to reconsideration or appeal.
Mel says
Kiko has principles for the Senate Impeachment to live by.
“How can they explain this anomalous situation wherein we need to secure the consent of the court for witnesses to appear before us in a trial wherein the chief justice himself is being tried?” – Senator Francis Pangilinan.
Baltazar says
The HOR should act on this. The excesses which was perceived to be coming from IC is actually manifested by SC. Now, we are entering a truly constitional crisis.
percy1007 says
What we have is judicial tyranny .
The majority of justices are creating their own independent entity but uses public funds without accountability. Clearly an abuse of power which should never be tolerated by the other branches of government.
For My Angel AJ says
Common Mel. GMA is still alive and she happens to have appointed most of them. What more can we differentiate when GMA admin issued practically the same EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE to cover their wrong doings. Its a copy paste.
Mel says
@For My Angel AJ
You’re right with your observation. To confirm, read ‘SC ‘gag order’ like GMA’s EO 464, says Tañada‘.
The difference right now, PNoy hasn’t executed a similar EO nor officially signed any order or dangled a carrot. At best, hasn’t prevented anyone to witness or testify – for or against. His was a tacit approval, it is entirely the House Prosecution’s initiative.
It is a major concern and problem, each branch can just issue capricious ‘orders’ to suit their vested whim. It is their own ‘Rule of Law’ – pahabaan ng Ruler.
Now, its the Supreme Court that issued a iTRO to put a leash on the Senate Impeachment.
WITH ALL the PEOPLE and CAUSES CONSIDERED AT THE PRESENT JUNCTION, the Senate Impeachment could have just yielded a stronger bow, just as the Representatives that took on the Highest Magistrate. Snub a mob smug of bad Ass Justices.
What the Senate-Judges (most) innately FAIL to realize (to date?), it is now the Sovereign Will of the People of the Philippines (including the Senators) who are demanding a change in the Judiciary Branch. 188 Congressmen is an overwhelming majority of the people’s representatives. They want their Supreme Court back, from the clutches of a pseudo justice for a select ‘supreme’ few.
nong says
the issue on the prosec’s reliance on the issuance of the TRO seemed to border not on the resultant TRO but on the regularity of the procedure that brought about the issuance of the TRO.
popeye says
Hi Raissa,
See today’s Sun-Star Daily (Cebu) Feb 25, 2012 – Bzzz Column. Your name appeared again as the “small lady”. I’m pretty sure the editors have not read your column.
More power!
raissa says
Thanks.
rejtatel says
Kung manindigan si Justice Sereno na tumestigo para sa prosekusyon, wala namang mawawala sa kanya kahit gawin nya iyon ng walang pahintulot ng korte suprema. Ito ay sa kadahilanan na ang isang hukom ng Korte Suprema ay madidisiplina lamang sa pamamagitan ng impeachment. Walang magagawa sa kanya ang kanyang mga kasamahan suwayin man niya ang resolusyon na nagbabawal na tumestigo ang isang hukom o empleyado ng korte suprema kapag walang kaukulang pahintulot muna sa hukuman.
Sa ganang akin, ang mas malaking hamon ay kung maninindigan ba si Justice Sereno sa kanyang naisulat at naisiwalat sa kanyang dissenting opinion? Maninindigan ba siya sa katotohanan?
Tungkol naman sa pananaw ni Atty. Bernas tungkol sa “betrayal of public trust”, may salungat naman na opinyon diyan si dating SC Justice Isagani Cruz. Mababasa ang pananaw ni Justice Cruz sa kanyang librong Philippine Political Law. Ito ay nabanggit din sa Briefing Paper na nakatala sa CRA Law na matatagpuan dito:http://www.chanrobles.com/index.php/component/content/article/35/71-briefing-paper-on-the-impeachment-process
Pinoyparin says
@ Ruben Ramos
hindi mo ba napansin? ni isa walang pumatol sa iyo? he he he he
alam mo ang dahilan?
siguro una di ka MAKABAYAN
pangalawa makitid ang utak mo painglis inglis ka pa di mo naman naiintindihan sinasabi mo he he he NASABON KA TULOY NI RAISSA
pangatlo baka naman katribo mo sina ARROYO AT CORONA. O KAPAREHAS MO SINA NINEZ, TEDDYBOY, TATAD, TIGLAO, MACEDA and the likes.
I hope not KAWAWA KA NAMAN
pinay710 says
raisa, pilit kong binabasa ang mga articles mo kahit na sumasakit ang mga mata ko dahil sa edad sapagkat marami akong natututuhan sa edad kong ito. dito ko lalo natanto na katotohanan na maraming pilipino ang nagmamahal at nagmamalasakit sa ating bansa. sa kalooban ko ay ipinagmamalaki ko pa din na ako ay pilipino may mga pilipinong katulad nyong magkabiyak na isinasaisangtabi ang kapakanan ng pamilya alang alang sa ikabubunyag ng katotohanan. maraming salamat sa inyo at sa mga taong nagbibigay liwanag at katotohana sa mga bagay na nagpapahirap at umaabuso sa ating bansa. PATNUBAYAN KAYO NG MAYKAPAL NA MAGASAWA. NAWAY MAGLIWANAG ANG KATOTOHANAN.
raissa says
Ay, siguro you only have dry eyes.
Try Genteal eye drops.
Salamat sa pagbasa mo.
Pinoyparin says
why not introduce a law that include the following para di na paglaruan ng mga abogado at walang grandstanding ang mga politico.
1- In case of impeachment all rights of the impeached official under banks secrecy law shall be waived. all ” fishing expedition ” as they termed it is allowed.
2. By all means to expose their ill gotten wealth shall be allowed.
3- By all means necessary to acquire proof required to probe the allegations in the articles of impeachment is allowed.
4- All impeachable officials (only 31 officials out of millions of government employees) shall be required to sign a waiver or authorization in favor of the Impeachment court to open all its bank account in any bank Known or unknown.(THIS INCLUDE SPOUSE AND CHILDREN)
BY DOING THIS, THOSE WHO ARE THINKING TO USE THEIR POSITION PARA MAGNAKAW OH ILLEGAL NA PAKINABANGAN ANG POSITION NIYA AY MAGDADALAWANG ISIP
rafael l. vidal says
Your honors please.
This humble representation your honors begs to disagree with the public pronouncements of Fr. Bernas that “betrayal of public trust” must be equated (or of the same gravity) with culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft & corruption, and other high crimes.”
It is my humble opinion your honors that “betrayal of public trust” is another subject since it is preceded by the conjuctive word “or” and, therefore, subject to varied interpretations not necessarily associated with “high crimes” but nevertheless an impeacheable offense.
Only the senators sitting as judges in the Impeachment Court could interpret the same, and render judgment in due time.
One last thing your honors please.
I respectfully request your honors that my previous reference to “Queen Mirriam XI” be please corrected to read as follows ” HER MAJESTY, THE ALL-KNOWING QUEEN MIRRIAM XI OF THE ANGRYBIRDS KINGDOM.”
That is all, your honors, thank you
benjiepicada says
AGGHH !!! REE BASTA LABAS ANG LAHAT PATI $$$$$ ACCOUNT 700.000 GRAND SHIT !!! HIRAP KITAIN YAN DITO SA AMERICA SILA PIRMA LANG NG TRO KUMITA NA AGAD ADVANCE PAYMENT PA ARAY KO PO KA ENDO…
Joseph Benigno says
Tma ka, dapat lahat ng dollar account ay mabusisi din. As citizens of the Philippines, we are not so much with the intricacies of court proceedings but after the truth. In cases like impeachment of public officials, whenever the need to reveal bank accounts is needed to ferret out the truth, this need should supersede the bank secrecy law. Opening of bank accounts is suppose to be strict, but, when the truth is safely stored in that bank account, then the Court should have the right to have it opened like in the case of CJ Corona. There are rumors in the barber shop saying that he has deposited a big amount of dollar in his account that serves as advance. I still believe that CJ Corona is innocent until proven guilty. His innocence will forever remain to be doubtful if his dollar account remains untouchable.
Nonoy de los Santos says
Well Joey, firstly I would like to tell you that I too share your observations much more disappointment with some Senators, esp. Joker Arroyo! I had always looked and admired him …In the past… But now his antics, and irrational reasoning and understanding he has been trying to impress and impose upon us revealed his true color… I dot know where is coming from, ang labo niya ngayon! His is not for the truth… He has placed himself in the rank of Santiago, Marcos,Villar or maybe Honasan! Tsk tsk… Sayang, matanda na sana. Maybe that is what he wants to be remembered… A has been! Never mind Santiago, she has always been a joke, not to be taken seriously really. Am curious what she will do and can do at the International Court! Senators please give us the truth… Yan naman ang gusto ni Corona…p The truth! Yes, Sen Enrile please your honor please, hear us out the citizen of the
philippines… We just want the truth, nothing more. I submit God bless you all! Btw, tnx Raissa…
raissa says
You’re welcome.
Guy With A Blog says
That is something worth looking into. The lawyers or law firms of the defense should be checked if they have pending cases before the Supreme Court.
Kim says
Yes, definitely!!!
and while someone in the government is doing it … why not check the existence of dollar deposit accounts of justices who voted for TRO ….(easy giveaway) … it’s hide and seek in the adult world ….
Bayonic says
” And if they’re all pro-bono, I wonder how their law firms are reporting their billable hours in their book of accounts.”
and whether they are handling cases which are pending
with the Supreme Court.
raissa says
That,. of course.
Their pending SC cases.
Kim says
… and future cases before Corona … and it’s implications with pro-corona justices