CJ admits $2.4 M, P80 M not declared

MANILA, Philippines - Chief Justice Renato Corona yesterday admitted he has $2.4 million and about P80 million in seven bank deposits, which he did not declare in his annual asset statements.

Testifying before the Senate two days after he was hospitalized for a possible heart problem, Corona said he did not declare the dollar deposits because their secrecy was protected by law, while the peso deposits were either co-mingled with the funds of relatives or were part of his wife’s family corporation.

Corona said he had four dollar accounts and three peso accounts.

For the P80-million accounts, Corona explained that the fund co-mingled with the proceeds of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc (BGEI), plus P10 million in interest; P15 million in savings of his daughter Charina, some of which included those given to him and his wife whenever they visit their daughter in the United States.

Another daughter, Carla, also poured in some P4 million in savings. She was a physical therapist in the United States before she resettled in the country and married a doctor. The couple’s only son, Francis, also contributed P2 million from his own savings.

“If you ask why Carla and Francis made the deposits, it is because the bigger the deposits, the bigger the interest it could earn,” Corona explained in Filipino during Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s questioning.

The Chief Justice also mentioned the so-called Coronado funds, which seed money came from his mother (surnamed Coronado) who appointed him as caretaker of the family fund shortly after she died of cancer in 1995.

It was where the family got funds for medical and subsequent funeral expenses, he said. 

The same “Coronado funds” were also used whenever family members got sick.

During the questioning of Estrada, Corona debunked the claims of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales that he owned about $10 million to $12 million in dollar accounts.

“The answer is never. Never at any time (I) had 10, 11, 12 million dollars,” Corona said.

Malacañang said Corona should be convicted by the Senate impeachment court on his admission that he concealed $2.4 million and P80 million in deposits, on top of his declared P3.5 million.

“He (Corona) has proven, by his demeanor and his very own statements, the validity of the charges against him, and provided evidence more than sufficient to determine his fate,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said.

Lacierda said the chief magistrate “has become the best witness for the prosecution” when he “finally admitted what the impeachment court had wanted to find out.”

With Corona’s testimony, Lacierda warned the chief magistrate only made “his legal legacy a ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for all officials who are plunderers and crooks” when he said he only concealed his dollar accounts because of the absolute confidentiality of the deposit.

“They will merely have to park their ill-gotten funds in foreign currency accounts to immunize themselves from the effects of our anti-graft laws,” Lacierda said.

‘They were investments’

Senate Minority Leader Alan Cayetano lauded Corona for offering a waiver of his bank accounts before starting his questioning.

In responding to the senator’s questions, Corona also explained entries in his SALN and non-inclusion of the supposed dollar and peso accounts.

At one time during his testimony, Corona said he only had a few properties including the condominium unit in The Bellagio and Bonifacio Ridge.

Corona’s testimony also highlighted the question on whether the Foreign Currency Deposits Act or Republic Act 6426 should prevail over the law on SALN, which directs every government employee and official to divulge his true net worth, assets and liabilities.

“So your defense in your dollar accounts is that because of the law that guaranteed secrecy, you did not declare it because your interpretation of the law, if its dollar (account), you should not declare,” Cayetano said.

“If that would be the interpretation, once all politicians place their assets in dollars, then we can’t see the real net worth (of a public official)? Wouldn’t that be a misinterpretation of the SALN law?” Cayetano added.

Corona explained he had been investing his money in foreign currency unlike others who choose to invest in properties, paintings and shares of stocks.

It was at this point that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer of the impeachment court, reminded the members of the court that their function is to elicit facts and not to call for opinion nor interpretation of laws.

“We are triers of facts,” Enrile said.

In continuing his testimony, Corona said his family went into investing in foreign currency. “I already explained why dollars, because it is stable… and we were not wrong in hedging in dollars,” Corona explained.

He reiterated that he had started investing in US dollars even before the foreign currency law was passed by Congress.

Responding to Cayetano’s queries on how much was his dollar accounts, Corona said he has $2.4 million, an amount which grew from the 1960s when the exchange rate was still P2 to $1.

“During all those years, I was in the private sector, and I am not yet in government,” he pointed out.

Being married for 45 years, Corona said he and his wife Cristina have been investing in cash, which is also the reason why they do not have so many properties.

He explained the $2.4 million “by present standards” would reach about P90 million. 

“They were acquired in various dates,” he said, when the exchange rate was less than P48 to P1.

The interest earned over the past 35 years also allegedly added to the total amount, Corona said.

“We had a simple life so there was hardly any time that we were able to touch or move the interest, so there were compound interests.”

Corona debunked claims by the Ombudsman that his accounts had “fresh funds.” 

He explained the funds were moved from one to another to get higher interest rates after maturity of the time deposits.

In explaining the heavy movement of funds over the past years, Corona said that at times they were big amounts, sometimes not too big so as not to disrupt the deposit levels of the branch where he was maintaining his accounts.

“I have a current stream of income for everyday use,” he said. 

Corona justified their family’s simple living and that they have been living in the ancestral house of his parents in Quezon City.

Corona noted that the defense team had presented former Manila mayor Lito Atienza to prove that P 34.7 million was given in trust to Mrs. Corona for the BGEI, which in effect is evidence that the corporation had funds, contrary to the prosecution’s claim.

Corona had listed an P11-million cash advance from the BGEI in his SALN in 2003, which amount was subsequently reduced and paid until 2010.

He also testified on the interest of the P34.7 million over the past 11 years, which may have reached about P10 million.

Malacañang tool

Corona also told Estrada during the hearing that he is not resigning from his post despite all the pressures he had been getting from various sectors.  

“I won’t,” he said.

Corona said Ombudsman Morales should resign for misleading the public over his alleged bank accounts.

He told Estrada that he would still insist on asking Morales to resign for saying that he had 82 dollar accounts and over $10 million in secret accounts.

Corona said Morales had an axe to grind against him, which is the reason why she was overzealous in the presentation of a 17-page Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report before the impeachment court a few weeks ago.

Corona also accused Morales of allowing herself to be used by Malacañang.

“Although we were civil to each other, there is an undercurrent gap or distrust. For lack of a better word, element of … we are not allies,” Corona remarked when asked to describe his relationship with Morales.

He admitted that he did not approve of Morales when she underwent the scrutiny of the Judicial and Bar Council.

Corona also questioned the propriety of Morales’ move to investigate his alleged dollar accounts and yet the move was leaked to the media allegedly to ensure “maximum damage.” 

Corona said he was surprised after reading it in a newspaper headline that the Ombudsman was ordering him to explain $10 million to $12 million in alleged accounts. 

“Her (Ombudsman’s) letter said it was strictly confidential and yet it was leaked … published like that, that is for maximum damage to my reputation,” he said.

Sen. Franklin Drilon confronted Corona over his analysis of his SALN reports and various accounts through a power point presentation.

In 2005, Drilon pointed Corona’s SALN reflected cash of P3.3 million contrary to what the senator tagged as “evidence on record” which showed a BPI peso account of P149,767.36 and a substantial dollar account of $700,265.12.

Drilon pointed out that the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Cainta account where the Chief Justice showed an initial deposit of P57,000 on Jan. 14, 2005 and closed on Oct. 6, 2008. The senator also cited a credit memo of $15,242 on July 19, 2005.

In 2006, Corona’s SALN reported P2.5 million when he supposedly had $700,265.1 and P153,000.

In 2007, Corona reported assets of P2.5 million in his SALN against P10.87 million and $414,611.39.

In 2008, CJ’s SALN showed P2.5 million in cash and investments versus P1.525 million and $768,733.96 reported in the AMLC findings, while in 2009, his SALN reflected P2.5 million against P9.1 million, $768,733.97 and in 2010, P3.5 million versus P31 million and $768,733.

“You just mentioned that you have $2.4 million and P80.7 million, apparently none of this is being reflected in your SALN,” Drilon said.

Corona merely reiterated the dollar deposits should not be reflected because of the law on foreign currencies.

Drilon said the P34.7 million held in trust for Mrs. Corona is a “liability” but it should have also reflected in his SALN.

Corona maintained he was not an accountant.

“Pardon me, Senator, but I am not an accountant… what I understand is what a lawyer understands here, if it’s not mine, I should not report it,” Corona said.

“Factually, there is no dispute. You did not report it. In the same manner that you did not report your dollars because in your view the law provides you full secrecy of the dollar accounts,” Drilon said.

During his testimony, Corona said he also withdrew amounts on Dec. 12 last year, the day he was impeached, because he was concerned that the money would be frozen, especially the funds were partly “hard-earned money” while some were actually BGEI’s.

Into the homestretch

After Corona stepped down from the witness stand yesterday, the defense panel rested its case since he was their last witness.

The prosecution and defense panels ended their presentations and rested their respective cases.

The defense panel has submitted its written offer of evidence while the prosecution panel filed its supplemental offer of evidence, all of which would now be reviewed by the senator-judges.

“This case is now submitted for final resolution by this impeachment court subject to the oral arguments of the two sides to be held next Monday at two in the afternoon,” Enrile announced before adjourning yesterday’s trial.

Each side would be given one hour to deliver their oral arguments on Monday as their final effort to convince the senator-judges about the strength of their respective cases.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the evidence presented would now be “subject to the appreciation of the individual judges as to their weight and sufficiency for the purposes they were offered.”

The prosecution, which was first to present their case, submitted evidence on three of the eight Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against the Chief Justice.

Instead of presenting all eight articles, the prosecution decided to focus on their three strongest cases against the chief magistrate – Articles Two, Three and Seven in order to help speed up the resolution of the case.

Article Two accused the Chief Justice of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when he failed to disclose his SALN as required by the Constitution.

Article Three questioned the competence, integrity, probity and independence of the Chief Justice because he allegedly allowed the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases, specifically the case of involving the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines and the management of Philippine Airlines; and creating an excessive entanglement with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office.

Under Article Seven, the Chief Justice was accused of betraying public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order on the hold departure order against former President Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo to allow them to escape prosecution.

It was clear with the amount of witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution panel that the strongest case against the Chief Justice is Article Two.

The prosecution tried to show that the Chief Justice owned numerous real properties, peso and dollar assets, which he did not declare in his SALN.

For the defense panel, they argued that the number of real properties presented by the prosecution panel was overstated.

They also tried to disprove the alleged unexplained cash assets of the Chief Justice.

Based on the statements issued by several senators, including Enrile, the acquittal or conviction of the Chief Justice would depend heavily on what was presented by the two sides on Article Two.

One particular question would be studied very carefully by the senator-judges before they issue their verdict: Did the Chief Justice declare all of his assets in his SALN and if he did not, is this violation of the law serious enough to merit his removal from office? –With Delon Porcalla, Marvin Sy