AMADO P. MACASAET
MALAYA
‘The prosecutors did not see the bigger offense of falsifying a statement under oath, an offense that may border on the question of betraying public trust or forgery of a public document.’
THE law requires all state workers, including the Chief Justice, to declare or include all assets in the annual statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.
Since the Chief Justice did not include all of his assets in the SALN which is a document under oath, Renato Corona lied under oath as discovered by the Senate trying him for eight alleged offenses.
His SALN shows he falsified the document.
The impeachment court ruled that ill-gotten wealth is not to be admitted as evidence of guilt in Article 2 of the impeachment charges.
But the offense is not exactly in relation to ill-gotten wealth. The charge against the Chief Justice in Article II is refusing to make public his SALN. With the permission of the Supreme Court the document was submitted and examined by the senators sitting as judges.
They discovered that the Chief Justice lied under oath in his SALN by not listing all his assets. We think that the matter is not exactly covered by the ill-gotten wealth law. Therefore the Senate should have admitted the documents as evidence of falsifying a document under oath.
The effect of not admitting the document as evidence ag may well mean the Senate allowed Mr. Corona to conceal ill-gotten wealth. It is the concealment that becomes the offense, not exactly the wealth the Head Magistrate did not disclose in the SALN which is a sworn statement.
This is the issue, not exactly ill-gotten wealth.
The impeachment court should have allowed the documents to be admitted as evidence not of ill-gotten wealth but as wealth undeclared in his SALN which turns out to be falsified.
In other words, while it may be arguably correct for the Senate not to try the Chief Justice on the ill-gotten since the same is not directly alleged, the SALN should be admitted as evidence of lying under oath regarding his wealth, ill-gotten or not.
The Senate seems to be lumping together the question of falsified statement clearly proven in the SALN and ill-gotten wealth which became evident by the same falsification. The two questions – falsified SALN and ill -gotten wealth – must be treated separately.
The Senate can ignore ill-gotten wealth as shown in the SALN, but it cannot close its eyes to the fact that the Chief Justice falsified his SALN. There is no acceptable reason for lying or falsifying a document signed under oath.
The prosecutors did not see the bigger offense of falsifying a statement under oath, an offense that may border on the question of betraying public trust or forgery of a public document.
If only on this point, the prosecution is indeed weak.
Since the prosecution did not object to the concealment of ill-gotten wealth in a falsified SALN, it may well be said that the Senate allowed the Head Magistrate to hide stolen assets and the falsification of a public document. Therefore, the senators are as guilty as the Chief Justice. That is one way of looking at the refusal to accept as evidence the documents showing ill-gotten wealth but ignoring the more serious crime of lying under oath.
The motion of defense to seek the inhibition of Sen. Frank Drilon from participating in the deliberation of Art. 2 is a smoke screen calculated to hide the fact Mr. Corona submitted a falsified statement.
The size of the wealth, stolen or not, is not the question. It should occur to the prosecution that the Chief Justice lied under oath. This is the impeachable offense that the Head Magistrate committed. Therefore, the proof of such lies or falsification should be admitted as evidence without necessarily passing judgment on the ill-gotten wealth discovered in the SALN.
As aptly explained by Senator Drilon, the question of ill-gotten wealth can be dealt with later under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The prosecution left Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court no choice but to allow the defense argument that the documents showing Corona acquiring ill-gotten wealth should not be accepted as evidence.
The prosecution miserably failed to see the equally important or heinous crime of a Chief Justice lying under oath in his SALN which shows he has ill-gotten wealth. The prosecutors hammered hard on this subject but did not explain the crime of submitting falsified statement.
The whole point is the prosecution succeeded in getting the world to know that the Chief Justice has wealth, the source of which he may be hard put to explain. That made his SALN spurious, a forgery.
No comments:
Post a Comment