Jay Lagare

In the end, it boiled down to Corona’s own admission that he had not declared $2.4M and P80M in his official statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. But is that an impeachable offense? Here’s my layman’s analysis :P

Article XI Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution states that “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.” Under oath. Meaning he must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He did not. He is in violation of the Constitution.

It goes on “In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.” By failing to honestly disclose his assets, liabilities, and net worth he betrayed public trust.

Article XI Section 2 of the Constitution states that “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Thus he should be impeached.

As I expected, most senator-judges of the court more or less had that line of reasoning. Except for Miriam. Her rambling hysterical rhetoric centering on her contrarian interpretation of Republic Act 6426 The Foreign Currency Deposit Act (FCDA) is just as twisted as Corona’s interpretation that the reason he didn’t declare his dollar assets is due to the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits as stipulated in the FCDA.

Section 8 of the FCDA states that “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.

The way it is stated and the way I understand it, the section is intended to allow financial institutions to protect the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits from “any person, government official, bureau or office”. Nowhere does it say that the depositor cannot disclose his own deposits.  In fact it even explicitly allows for all those prohibited parties to do so upon the written permission of the depositor.

Corona’s interpretation of the FCDA at best illustrates that even the highest magistrate of the land is fallible at best. And incompetent for the position at worst. In the same way, Miriam’s interpretation illustrates that even a lawyer, law professor, former regional trial court judge, and future International Criminal Court judge (as she constantly loves to point out) is fallible at best. And incompetent at worst. Or should it be unhinged?