PerryScope
By Perry Diaz
Recently, it was reported that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales — acting on several complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman — served an order, dated April 20, 2012, to Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona to explain allegations that he has at least $10 million in bank accounts. Carpio-Morales gave Corona 72 hours to explain in writing how he acquired several peso and dollar accounts in various banks.
The order stated: “This office finds that there is reasonable ground to proceed further with the conduct of an inquiry vis-à-vis the charges that you, during your incumbency as a public officer, accumulated wealth that is purportedly grossly disproportionate to your salary and other lawful income.”
Corona denied owning $10 million. However, he indicated that he would not comply with the order because the “Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice.” But Carpio-Morales insisted that she has jurisdiction: “The Ombudsman Act empowers me to go over all complaints against all government officials, [regardless] of how the complaints were elevated to the office,” she said. She got a boost from Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a renowned constitutionalist, who said during a radio interview that the Ombudsman could investigate impeachable officials.
Retaliation?
In an attempt to deflect the Ombudsman’s order, Corona accused President Benigno “P-Noy” Aquino III of orchestrating Carpio-Morales’ adverse action in retaliation to last week’s Supreme Court affirmation of its decision last November 2011, which ordered the distribution of the 4,915-hectare Hacienda Luisita to the 6,296 farmworker-beneficiaries. The sugar estate is owned by P-Noy’s maternal family, the Cojuangcos.
But how could Corona accuse P-Noy of conspiring with the Carpio-Morales when the investigation into Corona’s unexplained wealth was initiated long before the Supreme Court issued its final ruling last April 24, 2012?
Money laundering
In my article, “It’s time for Corona to face the music” (March 22, 2012), I wrote: “It was recently reported in the news that the Office of the Ombudsman requested the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) for a copy of Corona’s bank deposits including the dollar accounts. The news report said that the Ombudsman’s request was precipitated by a complaint filed last February 17 by a group of individuals asking for an investigation of Corona for possible violation of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for possible violation of Republic Act 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
“It is interesting to note that at the bottom of the SALN form, there is a paragraph that serves as a waiver, which reads: ‘I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his duly representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, networth, business interests and financial connections, to include those of my spouse and unmarried children below 18 years of age living with me in my household covering past years, to include the year I first assumed office in the government.’ ”
Impeachment trial
Little did Corona realize that while the Senate impeachment court could not access his “secret” dollar accounts without his written permission per Republic Act 6426, his signed waiver in his SALN authorized the Ombudsman to look into all his peso and dollar accounts.
During the testimony of Philippine Savings Bank President Pascual Garcia III at Corona’s impeachment trial, he said that a Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) examiner told the bank to put a “PEP” notation on Corona’s bank records. “PEP” stands for “Politically Exposed Person,” which is required under AMLC rules to be placed on the records of elected and appointed public officials. However, sources said that Corona was at one time – or may still be – under investigation by AMLC.
Garcia testified that Corona had peso deposits of P8.5 million in 2009 and P29.6 million in 2010. However, Corona only declared P2.5 million in 2009 and P3.5 million in 2010 in his SALNs, which was one of the bases for the impeachment complaint against him.
Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (Republic Act 9160), banks and similar institutions are required to report to AMLC within five working days any “suspicious transaction” – or “covered transaction” — that exceeds P500,000 within one banking day. Under RA 9160, “money laundering” is defined as: “A crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted or attempted to be transacted to make them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.”
Could it be possible that Corona has violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA)? The Ombudsman’s investigation would certainly yield evidence if Corona has indeed violated AMLA.
But the Ombudsman is not allowed to file charges against Corona before the anti-graft court, Sandiganbayan, for as long as he is the Chief Justice. He can only be removed from office through a constitutional impeachment process.
Since the Senate impeachment trial of Corona is still ongoing, the Ombudsman could only investigate the complaints filed against him. However, the House prosecution team said that the investigation into Corona’s alleged $10-million bank deposits could be the “game changer” in Corona’s impeachment trial, which will resume on May 7.
Prosecution spokesman Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara reportedly said that the prosecution team could still present the dollar deposits as evidence before the impeachment court because the prosecution made reservation on Corona’s “foreign currency accounts” when it rested its case.
What if Corona was acquitted?
Rumors abound that Corona may already have secured the vote of eight senator-judges for his acquittal. If he is acquitted, the House of Representatives could try to impeach him again come December 13, 2012 – one year after the first impeachment complaint was filed. By that time the Ombudsman’s investigation would have been concluded and a report submitted to the House. This could trigger another impeachment complaint against Corona for “unexplained wealth” and, possibly, money laundering, which if proven in an impeachment court, these seemingly “friendly” senator-judges would have difficulty justifying a vote for acquittal.
If that would come to pass, it would be a double whammy for Corona – removal from office through impeachment and criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan, which could end in a conviction… and imprisonment.
Can’t the $10-million man see the handwriting on the wall?
# # #
“The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!” – Napoleon
No, Perry, he can’t see any handwriting on the wall because he has been in a state of denial from way back. Examine the way he views himself from way back to his high school days, it’s all self-deception and make believe. He won’t wake up to reality until he is behind bars at Bilibid.
His charted course is now clear. Acquittal in the current impeachment which doesn’t involve ill-gotten wealth. Second impeachment for ill-gotten wealth supported by the findings of the Ombudsman. Removal from office. Trial at the Sandiganbayan for unexplained wealth. Guilty and sent to prison.
This is the handwriting on the wall that we all can see but to which he is blind by choice and habit.
Hey Perry,
Good story… and well-written.
Sabi ng Lolo ko ang magnanakaw galit sa kapwa magnanakaw…. Ang daming magnanakaw sa Pinas, that’s for sure. Ay ang sigaw diyan ng mga Politikong Tikboy ay: “Alis diyan, kami naman.” Only in the Philippines.
Jesse Jose
Seattle, WA
How right your Lolo was Jesse! Why do you think PNoy is very angry at Corona? LOL!
Tama ka, Jesse. Kaya nga ba panahon pa ni Pigafetta tinawag na ang Pinas “Islas de los Ladrones”. Sa tingin ko, lahat ng politiko magnanakaw puwera lang si Magsaysay at ang mga Aquino. Anong say nyo?
Philip,
Agree ako sa ‘yo tungkol kay RM. Pero sa mga Aquinos, no. Hacienda Luisita was a stolem property from the farmers of Tarlac. The Aquinos were supposed to distribute the land, but they did not. They kept it instead.
Jesse
Tama ka Jesse. PNoy said, “kung walang kurap (corrupt) walang mahirap.” He only told the truth there because he knows how corruption, his own and the entire Cojuangco-Aquino clan, works. Their 37 years of corruption made all those poor farmers even poorer—dirt poor! His Uncle Danding’s corrupt practices robbed the coconut farmers of everything. I agree that only the great Ramon Magsaysay was honest and never stole a centavo from the Filipino people.
What Magellan called Ladrones Island or “Isla de los Ladrones” if you will, was not the Philippines but what is now Guam. He called the natives of that island thieves after they stole one of his boats. That was before he landed in Cebu and then lost his life in Mactan when he foolishly tried to impose Spanish authority there and demanded that Lapu-Lapu and his people pay tribute to the King of Spain. For Lapu-Lapu’s heroic stand against foreign invaders, the Pinoys honored him by naming the premier Filipino fish after him. LOL. Anyway, after almost four hundred years of Spanish rule where the Spaniards robbed the Philippines blind, the Pinoys struck out and said, “hey it’s our turn.” Aguinaldo then ousted Bonifacio and proclaimed himself dictator, and thievery in government, Pinoy style was born and survives to this day. The Pinoys are good learners, and both the Spaniards and Americans were very good teachers of corruption, so there!
Perry, if Corona is denying ownership of all those millions, including the S10 million dollars, then he must have something up his sleeve. But why waste time filing a case against him at the Sandigang Bayan. Since he is denying ownership of many properties and vast amounts of dollars and pesos, what’s stopping the PNoy dispensation from sequestering all those and make them part of the Philippine Treasury? The AFP could surely use that kind of money to buy modern hardware, jet planes, ships and also increase the paltry pay of the poor enlisted persons. If the government seizes those “unowned” properties and money, who will raise a bloody hoot, when nobody owns them, per Corona? How about the new Ombudsman running after the Marcoses? Where do they get the money to support their lavish lifestyle? Are not their vast wealth also unexplained. A German bank holds in deposit about $17 billion in Irene Marcos’ name. That’s only one Marcos. What about Senator Bongbong, La Imelda and Imee? Fair is fair, right? I agree with you that Corona must explain his wealth that he could not have earned in government service, but PNoy and his hatchet lady should also go after the other big fishes in Philippine politics. In the Senate everyone is a multimillionaire, and in the House, only the party list Congressmen, except Mikey Arroyo of course, are non-millionaires. But give them time and they too will be rich. So enough of Corona (only), go after the others too!! Corona is kaput and he knows it!