My Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
ONE OF THE THINGS Chief Justice Renato Corona has to prove to the impeachment court is that he correctly filled up his SALNs (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) and whatever errors or omissions they contain are minor and not enough to get him kicked out of office.
One section of his SALN has highly intrigued me — the one on LIABILITIES where he is supposed to declare any loans, mortgages – in other words, utang.
In seven of his SALNs, he declared under LIABILITIES a “cash advance”, initially worth P11 million which through the years kept going down. The source of the cash advance? His “wife’s family corporation” – which he identified as Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. in his SALNs for 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Thanks to this cash advance, CJ Corona became instantly richer by P11 million – money which (according to his lawyers) he used to buy property. By the way, they have yet to show the paper trail from the cash advance to any of the properties.
This is my question about the“cash advance”: How could Corona have received millions from a corporation where his wife did not own any shares and where most of the shareholders – who were all her relatives – were openly quarreling with her?
In fact they had sued each other in court.The Basas had sued Corona’s wife Cristina for estafa; while Cristina sued them back for libel. Cristina won her libel suit and to satisfy the award of damages to her, the court allowed the Basa-Guidote shares held by her losing relatives to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
As it turned out, the highest and only bidder was none other than Cristina Corona’s daughter Carla. QC Sheriff Joseph Bisnar, who had presided over the September 30, 2003 auction, testified last Tuesday (May 8, 2012) that Corona’s daughter bought 4,839 shares of Basa-Guidote for P28,000 – equivalent to 90.87% of the company. Under corporation law, that means Carla Castillo practically owns Basa-Guidote.
But here’s the thing — the advance of millions to Corona was allegedly made to him by Basa-Guidote just days before Carla Castillo won the September 30, 2003 auction and obtained the corporation’s controlling shares, defense lawyer Judd Roy told the impeachment court last Tuesday.
Atty Roy said:
The cash advance occurred between September 5 and September 30, 2003. Because at the time the cash advance was drawn, the shares had not been sold to Carla Corona.
He then added that:
After September 30 (auction), the facts of the case change because the shares are now owned by a different person. The corporation is now controlled by a different person, Carla Castillo.
Those are Atty Roy’s own words, not mine.
Atty Roy has yet to submit to court any proof that the cash advance was indeed taken out BEFORE September 30, 2003.
But let’s just assume that was what happened.
In this piece, I will not go yet into the strange, strange case of Basa-Guidote. I will only talk about Basa-Guidote’s “cash advance” to CJ Corona and whether he disclosed these correctly in his SALNs.
Defense lawyer Roy implied last week that CJ Corona’s disclosures on his “cash advance” were accurate and complete.
Let’s now examine CJ Corona’s SALNs on the basis of the evidence presented last week by Sheriff Bisnar – that after September 30, 2003 Basa-Guidote was in fact owned by Carla Castillo because she won 90.87% of the company shares in a court auction.
It is in Chief Justice Corona’s SALN for 2003 – which he filed in April 2004 – where it is first recorded that he took out a cash advance from Basa-Guidote, his “wife’s family corporation.”
See below –
SALN 2003 of Chief Justice Corona**
Let’s now examine Chief Justice Corona’s subsequent SALNs
Let’s see how CJ Corona recorded in his subsequent SALNS his P11 million cash advance and the dramatic change in Basa-Guidote’s ownership.
For his SALN of the following year 2004 which he filed on April 2005, CJ Corona showed that his cash advance remained at P11 million and was drawn from his “wife’s family corporation” :
SALN 2004 of Chief Justice Corona**
This was even though he presumably knew – as the father of Carla and as the spouse of Cristina – that Basa-Guidote was no longer his “wife’s family corporation”. It had become his daughter’s corporation over a year before he had filed his 2004 SALN.
I say the word “presumably” with confidence because after all, he must know a lot about Basa-Guidote because its millions ended up deposited in one of his personal accounts at Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) Katipunan branch. It was NOT an AND/OR account. It was a single account where he alone could withdraw from.
Anyway, going back to his SALNs, for CJ Corona’s SALN of 2005 which he filed in April 2006, he listed under “liabilities” a “cash advance” of P10 million due for payment to Basa-Guidote. Again, he described it as his “wife’s family corporation.”
SALN 2005 of Chief Justice Corona**
This was even though Basa-Guidote had ceased being his wife’s family corporation on September 30, 2003, when it became his daughter Carla’s corporation – at least according to Atty Roy and Sheriff Bisnar.
Why didn’t CJ Corona disclose this fact? Perhaps he can explain this if and when he testifies.
But let’s continue.
For CJ Corona’s SALN as of December 31, 2006 which he filed in April 2007, he listed P8 million under “liabilities” and described it as a “cash advance from wife’s family corp.”
SALN 2006 of Chief Justice Corona**
This contradicts defense lawyer Roy’s statements and Sheriff Bisnar’s testimony at the impeachment trial. Last Tuesday May 8, Atty Roy told Presiding Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile that the point of Bisnar’s testimony was “to establish that the bulk of the shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice.”
Please keep in mind what Atty Roy said as you read the rest of this piece. Roy – a law dean no less – said “that the bulk of the shares of the Basa-Guidote Corporation are now owned by Carla Corona Castillo, the daughter of the Chief Justice.”
It is for this reason that I am asking why – three years after his daughter Carla had bought the corporation in a court auction – CJ Corona continued to describe Basa-Guidote as his “wife’s family corporation” in his SALN.
For CJ Corona’s SALN as of December 31, 2007 which he filed in April 2008, he listed P6.5 million under “liabilities” and described the amount again as a “cash advance from wife’s family corporation.”
SALN 2007 of Chief Justice Corona**
Four years after his daughter Carla bought the corporation in a court auction, why did CJ Corona still describe Basa-Guidote as his “wife’s family corporation”?
In CJ Corona’s SALN as of December 31, 2008 which he filed in April 2009, he listed under “liabilities” a P5 million “cash advance from wife’s family corporation”. He did this even though five years had passed since his daughter Carla had bought the controlling shares of the company in cash at a court auction.
SALN 2008 of Chief Justice Corona**
For CJ Corona’s SALN as of December 31, 2009 which he filed in April 2010 – on the very eve he became Supreme Court Chief Justice of the Philippines – Corona declared P3 million under “liabilities”. Again, he described the sum as a “cash advance from wife’s family corporation” – six years after his daughter Carla took ownership and control of Basa-Guidote.
SALN 2009 of Chief Justice Corona**
But wait. There’s more.
Who really owns Basa-Guidote today?
Last January 22, 2012 when I first wrote about CJ Corona’s P11 million cash advance from Basa-Guidote, I interviewed one of Corona’s defense lawyers – Ramon Esguerra.
I asked Atty Esguerra about Basa-Guidote and this is what he told me:
That’s a family corporation of Mrs Corona. My understanding is that this is actually 98% owned by Mrs Corona already. My recollection is that there was some sort of intra-corporate controversy among the stockholders.
Atty Esguerra did not tell me then that it was owned by Carla Castillo. He said it was “actually 98% owned” by Cristina Corona.
When I heard this explanation from Atty Esguerra at that time, I asked him this follow-up question:
You said it’s 98% owned by Mrs Corona and the corporation is unregistered, does that mean he made utang to his own wife?
Esguerra replied to me then:
Hindi naman to his own wife. To her corporation.
So we have a corporation that, depending on which defense lawyer you’re talking to, is either owned by the mother or the daughter. By the way, the defense lawyers have so far not presented any corporate ownership papers to the impeachment court.
Perhaps the defense has yet another witness to present who will testify how Carla’s corporation ended up being owned by her mother today?
In any case, why did CJ Corona’s SALNs for seven consecutive years – 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 – state that he owed money to his wife’s family corporation?
Why did SEVEN SALNs he filed consecutively from 2004 to 2010 never disclose that he was in fact returning the “cash advance” to his daughter’s corporation – at least if you go by Sheriff Bisnar’s testimony and defense lawyer Roy?
Please note that even if it was his wife who had acquired Basa-Guidote from Carla, the SALNs of CJ Corona should have stated at some point that his cash advance was to due for payment to his “wife’s corporation”, and not to his “wife’s family corporation.”
Going by the narration of facts presented by the defense and its witness last Tuesday, the word “family” was legally erased on September 30,2003 at a court auction presided over by Sheriff Bisnar and participated in by Corona’s wife Cristina and daughter Carla. And this was only days after CJ Corona had obtained his P11 million cash advance.
Here is my first story last January on Chief Justice Corona’s P11 million cash advance from Basa-Guidote, where I interviewed defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra and where I accidentally unlocked a messy family feud.
Aussiebeck says
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/20/12/luisita-farmers-give-all-out-support-cj
Oh my GOD! Pati ba naman Luisita Farmers nagpa-uto at nag-pagamit na rin kay THIEF JUSTICE CORONA!!!
johnny Lin says
Reasons Corona lawyers did not subpoena bank officials to testify and Corona will instead.
The mock trials Defense had been conducting for the past 3 days resulted to the following:
1. Corona will admit to bank accounts provided by PSB but not to all tose reported by Morales claiming as either one original account ending to multiple accounts after repeated reinvestment. Figures coming as deposit from unknown source were not his, could be bank errors. Claiming some to be entrusted accounts from family members or friends might open more questions.
2. Many accounts revealed by Morales were fictitious and questionable like those withdrawals and deposits amounting to less tha $10,000 that are not covered by AMLA reporting so these reportsdid not comefrom AMLA but definitely fictionalized by Morales and she obviously violated RA 6426 confidentiality.
3. By not calling bank officials to testify they would be preserving SC TRO on FCD and if Prosecution will call them on rebuttal, they would manifest the TRO ruling. Reversal of Senate on their vote on SC TRO to subpoena bank officials on FCD willresult to confrontation between Senate and SC.
4. Corona will not sign a waiver on his FCD. He will confront the Senators to revote on their acceptance of SC TRO confronting the issue thereby forcing the Impeachment Court on a collision course with SC decision on Constitutional grounds.
5.Corona will ask the court for him to allow reading a prepared speech before the trial. The draft of this speech corrected many times has been finalized dealing mainly on attacks on Aquino and conspiracy to persecute Corona. His lawyers will insist that it is the right of the Respondent to make such opening statement from a question from his lawyer. How the rest of the Senators will respond is still a gamble but they have gathered the consent of 5-7 senators to this cause already. THIS IS A TEST ON THE JUDGMENT OF ENRILE AS PRESIDING OFFICER
6. Lawyers will manifest the testimony of Morales was uncorroborated evidence and should not be accepted despite her being their hostile witness because the source of the documents was not certified.
Kabalyero01 says
@JL
appreciate the way you discern issues of concern and sharing with us your wisdom on how best we can rationally keep abreast of the day to day development on R Corona’s case – with your indulgence sir if you can comment on below analysis translated into laymans term since we are not so familiar with the banking and financial lingo. thanks
————————————–
Comments from Mr. ABC, a finance-oriented professional:
“What they should have done is to ‘net out’ the deposits and the withdrawals, rather than add them all up,” said the banker, who heads a commercial bank.
“Netting out” is financial industry jargon for determining the difference between two values, usually the result of a purchase vis-a-vis a sale, or a deposit vis-a-vis a withdrawal.
COA Commissioner Heidi Mendoza knew what was a most crucial revelation that can be extracted from the 17-page AMLC report testified to by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales–and that was what the quoted BANKER supposedly suggested: the net result of dollar deposits vs. dollar withdrawals over the period covered by the report–April 2003 to early 2012. Thus, the amounts (total dollar deposits vs. total dollar withdrawals) that should be “netted” out were what she precisely stated as her opening statement when she was allowed to briefly take over from the Ombudsman.
According to Commissioner Heidi Mendoza, the total deposit/inflow was $28.7 MILLION while the total withdrawal/outflow was $30.7 MILLION (Cathy Yamsuan and Christian Esguerra, “CJ keeping $12M in 5 banks–Ombudsman,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 15, 2012, page A6), or an excess of withdrawals–or NET OUTFLOW–in the amount of $2.0 MILLION, which could have come from the balance of CJ Corona’s dollar accounts as of April 2003, the beginning of the AMLC reporting period. This means that there was a beginning balance of at least $2.0 MILLION in CJ Corona’s dollar accounts that was not shown in the AMLC report of CJ Corona’s dollar transactions–not balances.
Translated to PESOS, CJ Corona’s $2.0 MILLION beginning dollar-account balance as of April 2003 was at least P86 MILLION, which cannot be fully explained by the P34.7 MILLION sales proceeds of the Basa-guidote property sold in 2001. It was not shown in CJ Corona’s SALNs. It was also way above the P50 million threshold for the crime of plunder.
Further, the alleged 82 accounts might have been opened and used during the AMLC reporting period (spanning roughly nine years), but 78 accounts of which were eventually closed, thereby leaving only four dollar accounts opened at present.
———————
Bankers find columnist’s explanation of Corona dollar accounts ‘plausible’
By Daxim L. Lucas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:45 am | Friday, May 18th, 2012
Bankers Thursday described as “plausible” the explanation posited by Inquirer columnist Rigoberto Tiglao who defended Chief Justice Renato Corona from allegations of having amassed some $12 million in as many as 82 bank accounts.
The bankers—speaking to the Inquirer on condition that they don’t be identified because of the political nature of the topic—uniformly said that an estimate of the Supreme Court chief’s bank account balances made by adding up all transaction values over time would be incorrect.
More importantly, the columnist’s explanation for Corona’s bank transactions may be a preview of the line of defense that the Chief Justice may put forward when he testifies before the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday, the bankers said.
“What they should have done is to ‘net out’ the deposits and the withdrawals, rather than add them all up,” said the banker, who heads a commercial bank.
“Netting out” is financial industry jargon for determining the difference between two values, usually the result of a purchase vis-a-vis a sale, or a deposit vis-a-vis a withdrawal.
Transactions not balances
Though he could not say so conclusively, the banker said it would be possible for each transaction to represent the same funds moving into and out of an account multiple times. One example, he said, is for the funds to be withdrawn by the account holder to be used to fund an investment in bonds, then returned to the account after it matures, having earned interest.
Another bank president who spoke to the Inquirer agreed that the contents of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report presented by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales recently represented “transactions” that “do not necessarily represent balances.”
“I don’t know how they came up with the balances, but if they just summed up the transactions, then it wouldn’t be accurate,” he added.
One ranking bank official also stressed that, in banking parlance, the term “account balance” is not synonymous with “transaction balance,” the latter having been used by the Ombudsman to describe the amounts allegedly belonging to Corona.
Where’s money from?
When viewed in this context, the banker said the contents of the bank accounts in question may turn out to be significantly lower than the $12 million initially suggested by the Ombudsman.
“Maybe the question should be where those funds came from, regardless of how much they were,” he said.
Thursday, the Inquirer spoke to an official of the AMLC, the agency that prepared the report on Corona’s transactions.
To recall, the law allows the AMLC, traditionally with the benefit of a court order, to look into suspicious bank “transactions”—meaning the movement of funds into and out of accounts—but not the account balances themselves.
This fine but key distinction may be one reason for the confusion as to exactly how much Corona has in his bank accounts.
The AMLC official, on condition of anonymity, described Tiglao’s column published Thursday as being “on the correct track.”
johnny Lin says
Importante sa accounts bank numbered account o kahit anong account yung beginnjng balance lalo na kung malaki ang beginning deposit. Pag malaki tatlo lamang ang nakakaalam, yung depositor, ang bangko at ang AMLA dahil nareport yun.
Hindi ako accountant pero bigyan natin ng comparison sa mga high rollers ng casino sa Vegas Pero pareho dinang suma kasi kapag more than $10000.00 ang transaction reportable din sa AMLA yun ng mga casino.
Sa Casino ang high roller meron siyang account number din kahit na cash ang dala niyang pera o “marker” and gamit niya. Marker ay parang beinning loan account ng gambler nagumpisa na siyang magsugal.
Kunwari meron high roller nagpapalit ng $10000 cash sa table #1. Nilista kaagad yun ng casino pit. Kapag nanalo siya ng $5000 pinalit iya ang pera niya na $15,000 at bumalik sa ibang table para maglaro ulit at nagpapalit ng $10,000 ulit? Bagong lista sa table #2 yun na $10,000 pero sa master list ng casino account meron na siya 15,000. Kung tumayo siya at meron pa rin 10,000 pinacash niya ulit yung chips niya at pumunta sa table #3 nagpalit na naman ng $10,000 alam ng master account 15,000 pa rin ang pera niya. Pagtapos tumayo siya nanalo ng 5000 ulit at pinalit 15,000 alam ng master account meron siyang 20,000 yung original niyang 10,000 at dalawang panalo ng 5,000 so total 20,000.
Pero tingnan mo ang suma. Tatlo ang table nagpalit o nagdeposit ng 10,000 each so 30,000 ang pinalit na cash pero sa tatlong times pagtayo o nagwithdraw, ang total niya $40,000. Netting out nito ay $10,000 at yung original niya na $10,000 so tama yung master account $20,000 ang net perang chips sa bulsa ng high roller.
Ngayun yung chip niya ng $20000 hindi niya pinapalit at pumunta sa table #4 at nagpapalit ng bagong cash na $5000, nakalista sa master account yun na meron siyang originl chips na 20,000 at bagong cash account na $5,000. Tumayo siya natalo ng 2000 at inuwi 3000 So ang total na chips na pera niya ay. 23,000. Hindi niya pinacash ang chips at kinabukasan nagpalit siya ng cash money totalling 20,00 at nanalo ng 15,000 so panibagong account 2nd day account niya meron siyang 35,000 at alam nila meron na siyang total money on hand at least 60,000 after 2days.
Ganyan din sa bangko na mayroon bagong deposit account ginawa si Corona na galing kunwari sa ibang bangko. Madaling itrace sa bangko dahil may paper documents.Madaling itrace yung mga accounts kahit ilan pang accounts pinagbabaligtad ni Corona.
Dahil nnirereport sa AMLA ang casino transaction more than $10,000 tatlo din ang nakakaalam sa transaction, gambler o depositor, casino master account o bank master account at AMLA.
Parehong pareho, ang bangko at casino tracking, di ba? Kaya yung withdrawal at deposit ginawa frequently ni Corona akala niya hindi matrace nagkamali siya. Kung sa casino na tra track nila na walang paper documents e di lalo na sa bangko madaling itrace dahil may paper trail documents.
Noon pa sinabi ko na yung “Kristo” lang sa sabong kayang saluksukin ang mga pera ni Corona, lalo na yung batikang auditor kagaya ng galing sa Commission on Audit. Kaya yung forensic accountant ni Corona ayaw magtestigo dahil magmumukha siyang moron sa pagexplain na walang katotohanan at malulusutan.
chit navarro says
iN 2004, EXCHANGE RATE IS $56.314 TO a USD
hence, $9,340.00 deposited on Nove. 5 is equivalent to P525,972.80.
baycas says
LIBERALITY will supervene…no question about it. He must be allowed…
baycas says
I remember that former SolGen Frank Chavez said in December, I believe, that impeachment is all about propaganda on either side.
“Hearts and minds” of ALL Filipinos are involved here. Impeachment cases is POLITICAL.
He who WINS the hearts and minds of the people, as represented by Senate now, WINS.
At best, his prepared speech is an APPEAL TO EMOTION.
However, his appeal to emotion does not make HIDDEN WEALTH a regular part of his official function as Chief Justice…
Appeal to emotion, as experts say, is one of the logical fallacies.
At best…for the prosecution, as well as The Filipino People as accusers…
His prepared speech is a FALLACY that will eventually merit a conviction!
baycas says
Impeachment cases ARE political in nature.
raissa says
Of course.
Leona says
To read a prepared speech as part of his testimony after a question is asked of him so as to read that speech is not authorized under the Rules of Evidence and Procedure because we follow the ENGLISH RULE that answers of a witness must be upon questions propounded by counsel for every answer. The AMERICAN RULE allows a witness to “tell a story” without question and answer method.
So, if that is how the defense will present the CJ, the Senate presiding officer should not allow that even as an exception under no ground(s) at all! The CJ must give answer only after every question and not to read any prepared speech or “tell a long story.” Why is it not allowed. Because by reading a prepared speech or telling a story, many “inadmissible items” as evidence cannot be “Objected to” by the other party for being immaterial, irrelevant, impertinent, hearsay atbpa under the rules on evidence. It is unfair to the other side. The prosecution never adopted such method even with Ombudsman Morales or any of their witnesses during their evidence in-chief.
His prepared speech if any, should be read at the balcony of the SC building when he gets back from the Senate! There, nobody will object to his reading it. But not at the Senate during his testimony.
Again, if that is the “plan” of the Defense to allow the CJ to read a speech, what does it show? Guess…they want to put into record for evidentiary purposes or whatever, anything inadmissible without the prosecution being able to make objections. Their suspicion is that the defense of the CJ is altogether without any merits, it is weak and the odds as against whatever the prosecution has presented is 95% vs 5% against the CJ.
Defense is showing this because of that situation. A fear they have now. A real fear at that.
They will try anything desperate. Hon. Enrile should throw the book at them! if they ask for any reading of a speech.
Hon. Enrile has never been a judge before but this time since he is and as presiding officer, he should know the reasons why allowing a witness and respondent to read a speech rather than give answer to every question is and has never been allowed in the courts or anywhere except when appearing for “confirmation” before a legislative body like Commission on Appointments, etc., as an appointee for a position in the gov’t.
Never in court proceedings or Impeachment court. No. The CJ should be denied that chance. Just answer the question if he wants to testify. No reading of a speech!
rafael l. vidal says
TIME IS RUNNING OUT
Judgment day is just a week or two and the corona camp is literally moving heaven and earth to ensure his acquittal.
It was reported that the INC has started a high-powered lobby in the senate while the thief’s media group composed of tatad/maceda/tiglao/magno/jurado,etc is pretty busy crafting their lantern of lies.
PNoy has already started his DAANG MATUWID drive and will not culminate even if the thief is acquitted, which is very likely as of this moment.
However, our group has still ample time to drive home our point to the senator-judges, especially those on the UNA senatorial ticket – A VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL/ABSTENTION IS A POLITICAL SUICIDE. Let us remind them always what happened to those senators who voted not to open the 2nd envelope during Erap’s impeachment trial in 2001, as mentioned by a fellow commenter yesterday.
The infamy list I made (# 379), was culled from the comments of our fellow CPMERS whenever the subject of senator-judges’ voting inclination came out in this Blog during the long impeachment trial.
The list may always be modified considering that Lapid is a creation of GMA and he is politically beholden to her, while Allan Cayetano is an enigma – he being fiercely anti-corruption and a very principled man.
The others are “givens” unless they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
CPMERS – CONTINUE THE FIRE BURNING, FOREVER
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
Let us employ block voting in the coming election/s. Zero vote for a political party which includes a senator who abstained or voted for acquittal of Corona or such senator’s son, relative, protege, or friend.
Kim says
Hear, hear!
john c. jacinto says
I support this. Reject the entire slate which is tainted with the Corona virus!
Leona says
All fears of lobbying will not “kindle” yet any fires for the CJ until he has testified! If at all he will.
Many things can happen when he testifies. He may be denied to “read his prepared speech” by Hon. Enrile. That will be very embarrassing!
Next, he may not be able to give good answers even on his direct examination. Worst on the cross-examination stage. How he will fair at all during his testimony is now in his hands. He has never been a good witness on the witness stand. Tuesday will prove how it will be for him. If and when he starts showing to “shift away” from answering directly the questions asked, he will start fidgetting, perspiring and be making many “abnormal” body English, a sign of not telling the truth or what?
So, Tuesday is his D Day. He knows “the beaches” are well entrenched and well defended. Where will he attempt to land? He doesn’t know that. With the best battery of lawyers he has he cannot claim his case was railroaded. But if he is really innocent even with just a country lawyer he will be exonerated and proven innocent of the charges.
There is no DNA testing here to prove he is innocent. Only his SALNs documents have been the source of his problem. The case against him is what we call airtight! Or he is in a vise grip. A lock has been put on him. Only the truth is the key to unlock it.
There is no other way. May God have mercy on him!
johnny Lin says
Answer to #399.6
Public officials have the ethical responsibility, truthfulness, morality of reporting ASSETS without divulging where they are stashed, meaning despite listing the dollar oasset in equivalent pesos the confidentiality of the FCD accounts remained confidential.
Those reported large ASSETS become a problem when the amount is massive requiring investigation on their source. Therefore, NON DISCLOSURE is hiding unexplained wealth with the intention to avoid further investigation. Simple, which Corona was very much aware based alone on his Marcos Ponencia.
If the ASSETS are explainable in terms of source, the public employee does not have to be worried, ethically and morally.
The mere fact an ASSET is not revealed, the employee is presumed to be hiding wealth, how small or big, unless it is an inadvertent error which according to law could be corrected with the year the SALN was filed. Leaving it unreported the following year or many years is no longer considered an error but a pattern of NON DISCLOSURE. This is where Corona committed his impeachable offense.
RAs 6426 and 6713 are not in conflict with each other, nor one takes precedence over the other. For a Filipino public official, rules in reporting SALN is crystal clear muddled only by corrupt people hiding behind RA 6426 in which Corona is GUILTY. His impending testimony will dwell only on:
1. how to further meddle the issue by refusing to give waiver on investigating his FCD accounts and keep pounding the confidentiality of RA 6426 including denying some accounts reported by AMLA.
2. resorting to technicalities by saying for example that he had one original account but by repeated withdrawal and reinvestment of the same original money, it was given multiple account numbers by the bank so Morales was wrong. Ingenous but understandable only to morons like Corona lawyers and followers but never to well informed CPMers and Netizens.
3. Demonizing Pres Aquino, Omb. Morales and justice Carpio as conspirators against him, as well as keeping Hacienda Luisita issue alive and appealing to farmers that he is their protector from oppression by the rich like the Cojuangcos.
4. Preaching that his fight is about Court Independence but, actually, it is a warning to court employees that with his departure their corrupt activities will be curtailed so if they want to continue earning extra money thru illegal means, court employees must side with him. It is his CALL TO CONTINUE THEIR CORRUPTION.
Very simple way to be ethically and morally right to follow by public officials which Corona intentionally violated because immorality is ingrained in his body and soul, shared by his wife and genetically inherited by their children. Publicly receiving holy communion by entire family while stolen BGE money is still kept by them is beyond reprehensible. Only devils possess such character.
Mag-asawang Corona at mga anak, Ginagamit ang ngalan ng Diyos habang nakatampisaw at nakalubog sa kasalanan ng pagnanakaw.
Walang budhi mga Corona, he he he.
Den says
Two days before embattled Renato Corona takes the witness stand in defence of himself, there is a wealth of information on Sunday’s newspapers. For people who are keenly following developments in this catalytic episode in our history as a nation, it is a chance to actively participate in building a nation of informed, conscientious and discerning citizens. The Internet has also provided a vast universe of information that can be accessed at lightning speed, allowing even the most ordinary citizen to cross-reference facts and other data needed to make an intelligent assessment on their own.
It is under the above premises that I offer to my fellow CPM’ers my humble views on how the Tuesday drama will unfold.
1. Corona or his lawyers will attempt to show that the 82 accounts are normal in the course of doing investment transactions with banks.
They may succeed in doing this, as Tiglao had shown in his column in PDI. Those familiar with banking practices will also agree with this position. They will attempt to whittle down the account to a few “mother accounts” and the rest shall be declared as either settlement accounts (transit accounts where proceeds from a closed investment account are deposited prior to being withdrawn again for placement to a new investment account) or investment accounts (unique accounts that are created for purposes of investing a depositor’s fund in an interest-bearing instrument). In so doing, they will attempt to prove that Corona’s dollar fund does not approximate the $10 – $12 million alleged by the Ombudsman.
As Tiglao also insinuated in his column, Corona will attempt to establish that the actual amount of $700,000++ that he keeps in his accounts is more or less equal to the P34 million belonging to BGEI. This will justify the source of those dollar funds. However, in attempting to deconstruct the arguments put forward by the Ombudsman, Corona will implicitly acknowledge the existence of the dollar accounts. Furthermore, if it is established that the dollar deposit that he is acknowledging ($700K) co-existed with the peso account for the P34 million of BGEI, it will demolish his justification for the sources of the dollar accounts.
Given the above, the only way to establish the real value of the dollar funds is for him to act on his earlier promise of opening his dollar accounts “in due time”. This time around, this promise would have to extend beyond the accounts kept in PSBank, as the AMLC report showed substantial dollar movements in other banks as well. A blanket waiver no less should be insisted by the prosecution.
2. Corona will invoke the confidentiality clause of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act to justify either or both his refusal to open his dollar accounts for scrutiny and/or the need to declare his dollar accounts in his SALN.
In a paper titled “Bank Secrecy Law: A Historical and Economic Analysis”, Francis David Ong Lim traces the progeny of bank secrecy laws (Republic Act 1405) and practices in the Philippines and how out-dated laws can create more problems than solutions based on historical and economic contexts. Republic Act 6426 or more commonly known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act” is actually a Presidential Decree issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos on April 4, 1974. As in RA 1405, this was issued in response to the prevailing economic, security and social issues at that time.
It must be noted, however, that subsequent developments both in local and global contexts necessitated updates in the aforementioned laws. The global financial crisis and the rise of terrorism provided the impetus for a concerted effort among nations to curb abuses on financial systems. Thus, the Philippines passed RA 9160, later on amended by RA 9194, also commonly known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001”. This law mandates banks and other financial and quasi-financial institutions to report to the AMLC any and all transactions that fall under prescribed criteria (“covered” transactions) of suspicious transactions.
The same law explicitly defines as part of covered transactions those that are pertinent to RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 7080 (Plunder). On the other hand, RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act), and even the Philippine Constitution of 1987, provides the Ombudsman the power to enlist the help of government agencies and institutions to aid its investigations. This is the basis for the AMLC to declare that the request for the transaction records, and its subsequent release to the Ombudsman, was done within the legal framework. Note as well that all these laws include a repealing provision that automatically supersedes any and all contrary provisions of earlier laws. Thus, any contradicting provisions of both the Bank Secrecy Law and the FDCA are deemed repealed by provisions in the AMLA, RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Ombudsman Act and related laws on illegal wealth and other corrupt practices.
In Philippine National Bank versus Gancayco, the Supreme Court wrote in reference to the conflicting provisions on confidentiality of bank deposits in the Bank Secrecy Law and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, “Indeed, it is said that if the new law is inconsistent with or repugnant to the old law, the presumption against the intent to repeal by implication is overthrown because of the inconsistency or repugnancy reveals an intent to repeal the existing law.”
3. In the absence of any evidence denying the legality, authenticity and accuracy of the AMLC report submitted to the Ombudsman, and if the Senate will take the view of Enrile that dollar accounts must be declared in the SALN, Corona will have no other choice but to stonewall and invoke his right against self-incrimination.
This will be a no-win situation for Corona. If he cannot demolish the credibility of the AMLC report, it will clearly establish that he had actively acquired and invested on dollar funds that are not proportional to his lawful income. If assuming that he admits to those accounts, albeit insisting on a much lesser value than what is alleged, and points to BGEI as the source of the money, he will open an even bigger can of worms. It will open an opportunity for the prosecution to dig into the circumstances of how the BGEI money found its way into his peso and dollar accounts when it is supposed to be held in trust by Cristina Corona, or by Carla Corona-Castillo if she is indeed the new majority owner of BGEI. It will be very interesting to know how that money changed custody from BGEI to Cristina, then possibly to Carla and ultimately to Renato.
Far more damaging than the failure to declare truthfully his assets and liabilities in his SALN, Corona will be exposed as a man of dubious character and integrity. He will be laid bare as a High Magistrate who hands down decisions with hands that have been dirtied by his own unscrupulous actions. Far from painting himself as a devoted family man protecting his wife and children, the BGEI saga and the money trail on his properties and bank accounts will show an entire family conniving and conspiring to circumvent laws either to avoid paying correct taxes or to hide unexplained wealth.
On the witness stand, he will stand before the nation:
… as a man who had no qualms about enjoying the perks of public office (“isang tawag lang…”);
… as a man who is brazen enough to exert undue pressure on judges and justices handling cases filed by his court-hopping wife (he is seen in courts where cases involving his wife were heard even if he was already an associate justice in the SC);
… as a man whose naked ambition culminated in his coveting and ultimately accepting the position of Chief Justice even if it could very well result in a constitutional crisis:
… as a man who would cut short his overseas vacation in order to participate in deliberations involving the former official from whom he owes his midnight appointment and deliberately changing an en banc decision to favor his own view (Midas Marquez was also accused of lying when he claimed that GMA had complied with the conditions of the TRO);
… as a man who cannot be decent enough to go on official leave so as to spare the Judiciary from any partisan activity while his impeachment trial is on-going, thus endangering the integrity of the entire judicial system.
Renato Corona is a farce, an aberration brought about by a culture of impunity in our government and society. He will stand before the Senate sitting as Impeachment Court representing the sovereign will of the people. A vote of acquittal or abstention is a vote for Impunity. A vote for conviction is to serve notice that there is hope for this country – that yes, a clean government is possible.
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
This is in regard to the $700K mentioned by Tiglao purportedly corresponding to the 34M pesos of BGEI. In addition to the 37M pesos withdrawn from and redeposited by Corona on December 12, 2011 with PSBANK, there is another amount of 26M coming from the sale of la vista and Ayala heights lots in QC in 2010. Corona falsely declared in his 2010 SALN that he used said 26M pesos to buy the Bonifacio and Bellagio condos in 2010. But the said condos had been fully paid already in 2005 and 2009, respectively. So the 26M pesos was unspent in 2010 and should have been declared as cash in Corona’s 2010 SALN.
keanleogo says
@Den,
I concur.
A vote of acquittal or abstention is a vote for impunity in this Corona impeachment trial.
telly c. bernardo says
Coronarroyo is not only “a farce, an aberration”; he is an abomination, nay, an obscenity.
rafael l. vidal says
@mel 424
The OMB is an independent gov’t entity created by Sec. 5, Art. X1, of the 1987 Constitution, which states, in full, “There is hereby the independent office of the Ombudsman composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall deputy and at least one deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.”
The OMB enjoys fiscal autonomy and its annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released (Sec. 14)
Mel says
@rafael
Thanks for the reply.
As per your input on the independence of the OMB, point well taken.
In reference (see #424) to my open clarification before the CPMs, the first page of the document (see comment #420 of @keanleogo’s link to rappler’s) written in the Agency to the Supreme Court Taft Ave., Manila.
Since the OMB, as you narrated, is an independent body – what is the relevance of stating the Agency for the Supreme Court with address at Taft ave. Manila in that first docu ‘Memorandum’ Page. (btw, the Phils’. Supreme Court is at Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila).
On that same docu page, the ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ belong to the OMB – right?)
For some reason, Agency Supreme Court shouldn’t have been noted or written if the OMB or its ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ doesn’t have to furnish or to account (e.g. submit CC) it’s report to the SC. It just raises a question of relevance to the Special Panel of Investigators’ report FOR the OMB.
madflip says
1,000+ comments, I’m not too sure if somebody has already mentioned this here but Mr. Macasaet’s column in Malaya says that in 2004, the thief justice bragged to 2 fellow SC jurists that he was holding money for then-president GMA. Here’s the link:
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/opinion/3750-whose-dollars-are-those
Mel says
Hi Raïssa
Are you going to write an article about this document purportedly an Investigation Report by a ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ under the OMB?
This material was in a Rappler link, supplied by commenter @keanleogo (#420)
I. One item under the ‘Investigative Activities’ table column head:
– AMLC = AMLC requires additional requirements.
II. One item under the ‘Matters investigated’
26. In relation to the Banck Accounts of Subject Corona, this Office sought the assistance of the Anti-Money Laudnering Council (AMLC). Per reply-letter dated 07 March 2012 and per subsequent discussion with the AMLC officials, they require further information and supporting documents showing the commission of any underlying unlawful activity by Subject Corona to warrant the filing of an application for bank inquiry with the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 11 of RA9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001).
——–
The world knows by now that the OMB have already produced her department’s investigative report using the AMLC’s reports in reference to R Corona’s FCDs. With the help of the COA, they did produce an analysis which were presented to the Senate Impeachment last week.
Is OMB’s senate impeachment report thesame as the rappler’s docus?
Yet in the two items I wrote as above, taken from the rappler links ‘reports’, they seem to be contradictory.
nakuryente kaya ang sambayanang Pilipino dito, o ang rappler about this documents.
or a false or fake investigations’ report released by parties favoring the defense of R Corona?
IF THE AMLC, as one item to begin with, did cooperate. Why wasn’t it rated as ‘Complied’ in the rappler supplied documents – Special Panel of Investigators report for the OMB.
BTW, in the written Memo on the main page, is the OMB under the Supreme Court?
CPMers, anyone?
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
The information in the documents personally handed by ALMC Executive Director Vicente Aquino to OMB. Morales was given in a “need to know basis”. The panel of investigators cannot access it from ALMC. It is only for the eyes of OMB. Morales who has the option to dispose of such info. In this case it was OMB. Morales who informed her subordinates about the ALMC info.
Please see my post @298 for more.
Mel says
@Rene
You wrote in your comment #298;
Based on what you quoted (Reference news link? please), this docu (see comment #420 of @keanleogo’s link to rappler’s) is only the ‘Special Panel of Investigators” report not including the AMLC official’s 17-page report which it had furnished ‘directly’ to the Ombudsman.
That is more plausible then. I missed your Comment @ #298.
Hence, the rappler’s 20 page docu is part and parcel of the OMB’s materials. In that document – III Investigative Activities, Table 1. The only reference to AMLC is at Page 4 of 20.
DOCUMENT REQUIRED = Bank Records
OFFICE/DEPT = Anti-Money Laudnering Council
STATUS = AMLC requires additional requirements
In the ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ report, the AMLC didn’t supply the group info as per their request.
Thanks. @Rene
Mel says
AMLC stands by report sent to Ombudsman
AMLC says submission of report legal
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
So sorry, Mel. It is @299 – not 298.
Mel says
No worries buddy, thanks @Rene.
baycas says
@Mel,
On your two points:
As stated in your comment above and located on Page 4/20 and Page 13/20 in the rappler Scribd documents…
I DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG THERE.
AMLC didn’t further investigate as the transaction records were already with them when the OMB requested for assistance. Covered institutions (banks) MUST submit transactions above the threshold for the transactions to remain SECRET with the banks.
Going deeper, would mean the necessity for AMLC to file for a court order to sift through SECRET bank records.
—–
baycas says:
May 16, 2012 at 8:42 am
Mel says
@baycas
Thanks for the reply.
Medyo na-claro na (ng kaunti).
@Rene’s reply (see #424.1) provided a clearer picture why the ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ didn’t receive the AMLC documents at their request (Note. III Investigative Activities, Table 1. Page 4 of 20.).
THE AMLC provided a report directly to the OMB CCM.
The OMB used the AMLC’s official report. I guess, the powerpoint of ‘lantern’ of lies/deceit illustrating R Coron’as web of FCDs were an analysis worked on with COA. Which was scratched Off later due to illegality – technically it was the COA official who spoke, and it was not OMB CCM.
In effect, the OMB’s ‘Special Panel of Investigators’ on their request to AMLC was stated as ‘Bank Records’. Hence it points number 26 (Page 13 of 20). “In relation to the Banck Accounts of Subject Corona, this Office sought the assistance of the Anti-Money Laudnering Council (AMLC). Per reply-letter dated 07 March 2012 …”
The AMLC can not comply without a court order. AT Item point 27 (Page 13 of 20) did state;
As a result, the AMLC used the automated, compliant reports from banks whereby client’s account with transactions for or over PHP500K are regularly reported to them.
In the above quotation, there is a footnote reference 37. Annex A. But not available from rappler’s.
Thanks.
Leona says
OMB = Office of Management and Budget? No. This is under the Executive Department. Kay PNoy opisina ito! Correct me if you are right.
Mel says
@Leona
duon sa OMB #427. acronym used for Ombudsman.
as for your query ‘OMB = Office of Management and Budget?’
Sa pinas, it is –
Bonifaciokatipunero says
Mga kababayan, mag noise barrage po kayo sa Tuesday sa labs ng senate… Let them hear our cry for good governance! Let the senate knows na Hindi po natutulog ang mga Pilipino! Let Corona knows na Dapat na syan MAHIY sa Sobrang kapal ng mukha Nya!
Tama na ang pangloloko ng mga pulitikong yan! Tama na ang pagnanakaw! Linisin ang Judiciary, paalisin ang mga magnanakaw!
pelang says
like na like!
jun 2 says
Copy of ombudsman report on cj corona!!!
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/5626-copy-of-ombudsman-s-report-on-cj-corona
Minda Nao says
A PRAYER TO GOD
Dear Lord, as I got to sleep tonight my mind is filled with great concern on my beloved
Philippines.
Please Lord send your Holy Spirit to all those whom you want to use to
change the Philippine society especially our President. Turn your attention O Lord to the Judiciary and the Senate. For too long, our country has been under the grip of corruption and persecution by the powers that be. Today we have the Judiciary seemingly detached from the suffering nation they serve. We have those in the Senate whose sole objective is personal gain and not public service. To the wicked in their ranks, weaken their hold on our country O Lord, confound them and scatter them to oblivion.
Bless O Lord those who take the stand for what is just and for what is favorable in your sight. Bless especially O Lord the CPM group and the couple Raissa and Allan and their family, always send your protective angels on them.
Thanks O Lord for giving us this rare chance for standing up and making known to everyone that the Filipinos deserve a better country. In Jesus name, amen.
Anton Mendoza says
AMEN!
pinay710 says
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! PLEASE DEAR LORD HEAR OUR PRAYERS! PLEASE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT HEAR OUR PRAYERS !
Peter of Arabia says
I strongly agree. Amen.
J.A. says
Hey gang… Haven’t heard from Raissa for a while now. Hope she is okay and just working on another pasabog?
jun 2 says
pansin ko nga rin, parang me gag or pressure from her end, di kaya!!!
jun 2 says
For more information!!!! http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/196461/in-the-know-powers-of-ombudsman
max says
My connection is getting spastic. I am re-sending my comments.
@Leona # 388, kalakala
AMLA HAUNTING GLORIA ARROYO, SAYS JOKER
“When this (AMLA) was being discussed in 2001, we warned President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: ‘This will haunt you.
I am confused why would Joker warn Gloria? Was he aware of any irregular/illegal activities by Gloria that he warned her about AMLA? I’d like to hold on to Joker’s image of a decent people power man and would like to think that he will never be a party to any illegal or criminal acts.
“But she ignored (our warnings). Look, she is now being prosecuted partly because and substantially because of the reports of the (Anti-Money Laundering Council against Chief Justice Renato Corona),” Arroyo said.
I tried to follow the IC trial but I must be missing something. I don’t know how Joker was able to state above claim.
*************************
After the tragic 911 event, AMLA has been viewed as a tool to curb illegal financial transactions and control terroristic activities. AMLA is not an exclusive Philippine legislation but a global regulatory system that many countries adhere to as responsible global citizens – to make the world a little safer.
If this PDI item is true, why would Joker choose GMA’s and other future leaders’ welfare to take precedence above all others.
We have our own share of Abu Sayyaf, suspected Al Qaeda operations and other elements threatening the safety of our society. Drug trafficking is not undeniable as well. We have to ensure that their funding is cut off and not funnelled through our banking system.
What alternative would have Joker advised GMA to ditch these AMLA measures. (I must give credit to GMA for not listening to Joker’s advice.) Besides, GMA would be truly ill-advised to think that she has the option not to cooperate with the rest of the world.
North American, European and Asian countries have adopted AMLA. Can Joker please cite any ex-leader who was unjustifiably crushed because of AMLA. Bush is still out. Sotto’s fear of having a governor “durog” because of AMLA is unjustified. US Libertarians would not have allowed implementation of this AMLA if Joker’s and Tito’s thinking have valid points.
Other countries’ banking systems and practices are more rigid in enforcing their AMLA measures. E.g., needs two pieces of good photo id’s before he can open an account. One known as Joseph cannot open an account as Pedro. Documentations have to be presented establishing the sources of funds when transmitting and receiving amounts in accordance with AMLA rules. If any, AMLA should have more teeth and more diligent in implementing its rules.
I have also included the link re some info on AMLA outside the Philippine vista.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/195955/amla-haunting-gloria-arroyo-says-joker-arroyo
http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publications/guide/Guide2/2-eng.asp#s2-1
***********
Additional issues (Sotto) —
“If the Ombudsman would write a letter and the AMLC acts on it, any governor or candidate for that matter would be crushed (“durog”) by information about his alleged bank accounts or any other allegation, especially before an election,” Sotto said.
Leona says
“Any governor xxx about his alleged bank accounts xxx” dugtong “that contains huge money deposit beyond his salary and ordinary means of living style!”… si Sen. Sotto always “incomplete” ang salita niya! He makes remarks that are “kulang kulang” parang may “sirang bigote” sa bibig! Does he remember his chief of staff, a PNP officer with P2M deposit in the bank? How did that guy get such money? What happened to the investigation of that? Fizzled out!
Walang kuwenta ang sinasabi nito. “There is an announcement before you go.” Yan lang.
keanleogo says
@ Raissa,
This is the link for 20 pages of AMLC report to Ombudswoman from Rappler.com
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/5626-copy-of-ombudsman-s-report-on-cj-corona
Mel says
correction.
This link supplied does not refer to the ‘AMLC report to Ombudswoman’.
WRONG.
Rather, it is a panel of investigators’ report FOR the Ombudsman CCM in reference to 3 lodged complaints made on Feb 7, 01 Mar, 28 Mar, 2012.
IT IS NOT THE AMLC report for the OMB. Its the other way around, the AMLC was to be given a copy of the panel of investigators’ report.
LOL!
keanleogo says
@Mel,
My mistake. You are right.
Thanks for the correction.
Mel says
No worries @keanleogo.
I have a lot of mistakes also in this blogsite
But thanks for the link BTW..
Mel says
please refer to my comment #424.
documents in the rappler link MAY NOT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AS GENUINE by the rappler blogsite.
i may be wrong.
but read the complete 20 pages at your pleasure.