LACSON:

It is written Do not judge lest you be judged, for the measure you measure with will be measured back
to you. (Matthew 7:1-2)

While I do not approve of the manner and way which the House of Representatives initiated, proceeded
and handled this impeachment, when they filed the complaint for impeachment before the Senate, the
House, in the exercise of its wisdom, determined that non-declaration in ones SALN is an impeachable
offense.
Ibigsabihin nito, mulangayon,
pwedeng nangtanggalinsapwestoangpunongmahistradopatinarinangpangulo at ikalawangpangulo at iba
pang impeachable officers kapagmeronsilang di dineklarasakanilang SALN.

Mataposamininni Chief Justice Corona namayroonsiyang $2.4M at P80M
na hindiniyadineklarasakanyang SALN, naging simple nalamangpoang kailangan naming pagpasyahan
Ito po ay: HINDI NGA BA ITO KELANGAN IDEKLARA DAHIL SA R.A. 6426 o FCDU LAW?
Kung sasangayon kami saposisyongitoni Chief Justice Corona, dapat naminsiyangipawalangsala at kung
hindinaman, ay dapat mag-gawad kami nghatollabansa
kanya.

Ikinalulungkotkona di kopomasasang-ayunanangposisyongitoni Chief Justice Corona.
Para sa akin, maliwanagangmgabatasnatin at di ito nagbabanggaan.
Ang pinagbabawalanng FCDU law na mag-release ngimpormasyonukolsa dollar deposits ay ANG MGA
BANKO AT DI ANG DEPOSITOR.
Samantala, ang KONSTITUSYON at R.A. 6713, pinag-
uutosnaideklaranglahatngopisyalngpamahalaanang LAHAT NG KANILANG YAMAN AT
PAGKAKAUTANG.
Kung ayawmoitoideklara, eh di huwagkangtumakbopara sa, o tumanggapnganumang,
pwestosapamahalaan. Subalitkungikaw ay nasapamahalaan, kelanganmoitongideklara.

Dahildito, mabigat man saakingkalooban, kailangankong mag-gawadng hatollaban
kay Chief Justice Corona.

Magingganoon pa man, naisko pong batiinmulisi Chief Justice Corona dahil, sa kasaysayanngbansa,
siyaangkauna-unahangopisyalngpamahalaanna nag-execute ng
waiver parabuksananganumangdepositonyasabanko.
Sana siya at angkasong itoangmagsilbing hudyatngisangbagongsimulasaatingbansa.
Isangbagongsimulakung saan di napwedeang dating gawi!
Panahonnaparaitaasnatinangpamantayanngmga naninilbihansapamahalaan!
At dapatpantaynatingipatupadito di lamangsakanyakundisaating lahat!
Kahapon, i-sinumitekosaSenado, paborsa Ombudsman angaking waiver upang ilakipsaaking SALN
at hinihimok at hinahamonkoangmgakasamahankosaSenado at sa Kongresonagawin din ito at
ipasanatin, salalongmadalingpanahon, angini-akdakong Senate Bill 107 nanaglalayonna i-require
itosalahatngnaninilbihansapamahalaan.
Tuladngsinabi kosaakingpambungadna salita, ano man angpanukatnaginamitnatinsapag-husga, siya
ring panukatnadapatnating gamitinsaatingmgasarili.
Ikangani Cong. Farinas, kung di natin pinapalusotsi Chief Justice Corona, wag din tayongmagpalusot!

Itoyhinihilingkoparamagkaroonngsaysay, kahulugan at positibong kinahinatnanang
kalbaryongdinaananni Chief Justice Corona, ngkanyangpamilya at ng atingbansabunsodng impeachment
proceeding naito.

Dalanginkoponasanaagadnamagsimulaangpaghilumngpait, sugat at pagkakawatak-
watakngatingbansa. Sana naman, pagkataposnito ay tama na!
Let us move on and move forward.
Pag-tuunannanatinngpansinangmahahalagangproblemasa atingbansana
may kinalamansaatingekonomiya at paglagayngpagkainsabawatlamesa.

Ano man angmaginghatolnghukumangito, I wish you and your family well Mr. Chief
Justice.
Nawaygumaling kayo mulasainyongkaramdaman at patnubayan nawa kayo, at tayong
lahat, ngDiyos.
DRILON
The Constitution commands the Respondent Chief Justice to file an accurate and complete SALN. This
requirement is not a mere formality, as it goes into the heart of Respondents moral fitness to hold
public office.
Respondent concealed his luxurious condominiums for five years after they were fully paid.
Worse, Respondent reported the values of these condominiums at less than 50% of their acquisition cost.
Respondent admits he did not declare 2.4 million US dollars, and 80 million pesos, in his SALN.
The enormity of Respondents hidden assets--over 180 Million pesos, or 50 times more than his declared
cash assets--is scandalous.
It is grossly disproportionate to his total income for 10 years of about 27 Million pesos. It establishes a
prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
180 million pesos.Res IpsaLoquitor. The thing speaks for itself.

Respondent justifies his concealment of his dollar accounts because of the alleged confidentiality in R.A.
6426. This kind of interpretation will encourage aspiring thieves in government to simply hide all their loot
in FCDU accounts.
The law does not prohibit Respondent from disclosing his foreign currency deposits. It bars the bank
from disclosing them without his consent. In fact, he authorized this court
to inquire into them.
How can Respondent, the Chief Justice no less, claim good faith in asserting such a twisted interpretation
of the law?
Besides, the defense of good faith cannot be invoked. The punishable act of non-reporting of assets in
ones SALN is mala prohibita, where good faith is immaterial.

Respondent concealed his 80 Million peso deposits because allegedly they are co-mingled funds of
BGEI and that of his relatives.
Respondent presented no evidence to substantiate his claims.
If BGEI funds are held in trust, respondent must report such funds as assets, and enter the corresponding
liabilities, in his SALN.
He did not. He cannot claim good faith. He was the manager of SGVs Tax Department.

The Supreme Court dismissed Delsa Flores, a lowly court interpreter, for not reporting in her SALN her
stall in a public market.

The Chief Justice must be held to a much higher standard.

Those who dispense justice must conform to the highest standards of professional integrity, and personal
honesty. Chief Justice Corona knowingly, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, filed inaccurate and
false SALNs to conceal his enormous wealth.
Where our Constitution and our laws require disclosure, he chose the path of concealment. He has lost
his moral fitness to serve the people. He has betrayed the public trust.
He cannot be Chief Justice a minute longer.
I found the Respondent guilty.
LAPID

Kasamahankongsenador-judge, prosecution, at depensa, saatingmgakababayangnanunuod at
nakikinigsa TV at radyo. Inuulitko, magandanghaponposainyonglahat.
Alamniyopo, walanamanakong speech dito,
walapoakongdala.Angmgakasamahanko dito, pagpinasoksaisipnila, dadalhinsabibig at
magandanaangsasabihin.
Bilang high school graduate po, saatingmgakababayan,
anongsasabihinniLitoLapid nahindimarunong mag-Ingles, nahindikaalamansabatas, ano kaya
angmagigingdesisyon? Didisisyunanpong katas-taasanghukomnaisang high school graduate lang
at tagaprobinsyang Pampanga.
Napakinggankopoangdepensa, siguropurihinponatinangdepensa,
napakagalingnilasamganakaintindingabugasya. Purihinrinponatinangprosecuton,
sapaghanapngebidensiya, nakinigpoakosabawatebisensiyanginaanoniladito. Ngayon,
naaayonpo, lalunglalonasi Cong. Farinas yung pong prinisentaniyakahapon ditto,
parasakinpomalinawnamalinawnasiCJ Corona ay lumabagsabatas.
Siyamismoinaminniyana may $2.4M at P80M na bank account. Yun
posigurohindinakasinungalinyun, yunpo ay totoona.

Nagpiprisintapoakoditohindibilangabugasya, hindipoakopwedengmagsalitang Republic
Act dahilhindimaniniwalaangtaosa akin. Hindi
poakonagmamarunongmarunongdito.Angginagamitkolangpokonsensya,
representantengmasanahindinakapag-aral, hindimarunong mag-Ingles, niwalangalamsabatas.
Kaya nuon pong nagsasalitasi Chief Justice Corona, nagsusumbongsataumbayan, awang-
awapoakosakanya. Akalakototooangsinasabiniya. Hindi pala.
Maspinaniwalaanko pa si Cong. Farinas nung nag Poweroint dito.
Ngayonangsinasabiniyaisang pizza pie, hinditotooyanna may 82 akong account,siguro kung
akohoangpagbabasehanko, kung 100 basongtubiginilagaysa 4na drum langangkanyang account
naawapoakosakanyadahilnaiintindihankopo kung anongdamdaminniya at sakanyangpamilya,
naranasankorinpoyan.
At sanasapagkakataongito, pasasalamatankosiyadahilnungpangalawakongpanalobilangsenador,
sakanyaakonanumpabilangsenador.
Pasensiyana po. Pasensiyanapo. Pasensyanapo. Anghatolkosainyo, guilty.

CAYETANO, P
Explanation of Vote on Article 2
Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
By Senator Pia S. Cayetano
29 May 2012
Today, we face a difficult task of deciding whether the man who holds the highest position in the
Supreme Court has committed acts tantamount to betrayal of public trust that would warrant his
removal from office. It is all the more difficult for me because I took my oath before this man.
If this were a purely legal process, my legal training would require that much of the evidence
presented is disregarded due to irregularities in obtaining the same. But this is not a purely legal
process. The framers of the Constitution did not set the Quantum of evidence nor the burden of
proof required to convict. Much was left to the individual conscience and collective wisdom of the
Senate.
Further, impeachment cases are heard by senator judges with different professional backgrounds of
the 23 senator-judges, less than half of us are lawyers. Thus, I was challenged and admittedly
burdened by the need to balance my legal training as a lawyer and my calling as a public servant,
particularly a senator-judge.
The Chief Justice states that the requirement in the Constitution to declare ones assets liabilities,
and net worth, is AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW. He then cites RA 6426 or the Foreign
Currency Deposit Act (FCDA), as that law which states dollar deposits are absolutely confidential,
thus providing him with a shield. But is that the law in point? I submit it is not. It is RA 6713, the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which, among others, requires
the submission of a Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALN) and provides for the details thereof. It
requires stating all kinds of assets including cash on hand and in banks. There are no exceptions. To
allow the contrary view would be setting a deadly precedent. It would allow any official to hide his
assets behind the cloak of the FCDA. Does that make sense? It does not, both from a legal point of
view and from a lay persons view. Bakitpwedengitagoangperasa dollar? Makatarunganba yun?
RA 6426 on the secrecy of foreign currency deposit is not an exception. In fact, it is easy to reconcile
it with RA 6713. A government official should declare his assets and liabilities. But no one can
examine the bank accounts without his written consent.
The defense then posits the view that misdeclaration in the SALN is minor and therefore not an
impeachable offense compared to other impeachable offenses like bribery and treason.
As a lawyer, to me, minor inaccuracies in the SALN, such as parking lots or a unit whose ownership
is under contention, would not amount to betrayal of public trust. In fact corrections are allowed
under the law. But, the failure to declare 2.4 million dollars and some P80 Million pesos is not minor.
In decided cases, the Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal from service of public officials and
employees for failure to delare a sari-sari store, two motor vehicles, and for non-declarationof
several assets such as real properties and bank deposits (Rabe vs. Delsa Flores, Ombudsman vs.
Nieto Racho, Flores vs. Montemayor)
I also have difficulty accepting the defense on comingled funds. The fact of comingling, I can accept
that but the huge amount involved leaves too much doubt in my mind.
In our interpretation of the law, we who hold a position of public trust, must choose the interpretation
that will uphold pubic interest over private interest. Regardless of whether malice or an intent to
suppress the truth was present, we must remember that Public office is a public trust. Once that trust
is gone, we must step down to preserve the integrity of the position we hold.
Pagwalanaangtiwalangtaongbayandapatbumabasapuwestoangisangopisyalparamapangalagaanan
gposisyonna yon.
Lastly, we need to remember that we can only mature as a democracy if we can learn from this
experience.
From the start, I questioned breaches in procedural law and ethical conduct of various participants in
the impeachment process The trial by publicity and the irresponsible hurtling of bloated unverified
figures of assets, among others. My fervent hope is that in the future, the pursuit of justice is
conducted in a more responsible manner, lest our children are left with the impression that those
accused of wrongdoing can be persecuted without respecting their rights.
The other lesson must go beyond the Chief Justice. It is the call for transparency. I echo that call.
Those of us who sit as judges, those who acted as prosecutors and all those in public service should
not hide behind our titles. We must come clean and give meaning to the constitutional requirement
that we declare all our assets.
Mr. President, on the accusation made in Article 2, I find the respondent GUILTY. #


RECTO
Senator-Judge Ralph G. Recto's Explanation of Vote
on the Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona
I base my decision on facts presented in this court, and not on opinions aired outside of it; on
testimonies of witnesses, and not on theories of wags; on the arguments of lawyers, and not on the
analysis of their spokesmen; on submitted evidence, and not on anonymous leaks; and above all, on the
figures in official documents, and not the numbers on the recent polls, because as a judge, my duty is to
choose what is right and not what is popular.
Let me put forward my observations on this trial :
First, in an impeachment complaint, length is not strength. Better for an indictment to be short but
substantial, than one that is long in allegations but short in proof.
Second, haste makes waste. The reason why the trial simmered in the Senate is because the articles
were served half-cooked instead of well-done.
Third, the way evidence was produced left a bad taste in the mouth.
Mr. President, let me now explain my vote.
There is no such thing as a SALN so statistically perfect that it is precise to the last decimal point. If a
government employee is asked to catalogue what he owes and what he owns, some information may fall
into the crack, not as an act of deliberate concealment, but as an unwitting omission done in good faith.
So this boils down to the degree of the unintentional miscalculation, and logic dictates that we accept
slight inaccuracies because if we leave no room for those, then, believe me, no government official will
be left behind his desk.
In the case of the Chief Justice's SALN, the undeclared assets are so huge, 50 times more than what he
declared in cash - 2.4 million in US dollar deposits, 80 million in peso deposits - that they cannot be
brushed aside as innocent exclusions.
The very same Constitution that he had sworn to obey and uphold makes it mandatory for a public officer
like him to submit a true declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth.
Mr. Corona knows this because in cases brought to the Supreme Court, he had punished his fellow
government workers for failing to disclose far lesser amounts.
He should have declared the above.
Thus I vote guilty on Article II.
Mr. President, in a few hours we will be pulling the plug on this afternoon political telenovela. With a sigh
of relief, let's go back to our regular programming, where hard, unheralded work is done away from
camera lights.
The end of the trial doesn't call for celebration. It calls for getting our bearings back and setting our
priorities right again.
One in five people who watched this trial on TV occasionally go hungry. One in three in the labor force
had all the time to watch because they had no work.
Five in 10 people who followed this trial rated themselves poor. 80% do not have a bank account or
savings.
So if we think what we have done here is herculean, then we stand indicted for being clueless of what
our people want and ignorant of our true potential.
It is easy to impeach one man. What is hard is to impeach hunger, to impeach joblessness, and to
impeach poverty.
EXPLANATION ON EXPLANATION FOR THE VOTES
The Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent,
until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. How much proof is
necessary? In other words, what is the standard of proof? I have adopted the very high standard of
overwhelming preponderance of evidence. My standard is very high, because removal by
conviction on impeachment is a stunning penalty, the ruin of a life.
The defendant admitted that he did not declare his dollar accounts and certain commingled peso
accounts in his SALN. Did this omission amount to an impeachable offense? No.
Under the rule of ejusdem generis, when a general word occurs after a number of specific words, the
meaning of the general word should be limited to the kind or class of thing within which the specific
words fall. The Constitution provides that the impeachable offenses are: culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
An omission in good faith in the SALN carries a light penalty, and is even allowed to be corrected.
Thus, it is not impeachable.
The Constitution simply provides that a public officer shall submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth. That is all. There are no details. The Constitution is a brief
declaration of fundamental principles. Many constitutional provisions are only commands to the
Congress to enact laws to carry out the purpose of the charter.
As a general rule, constitutional provisions are not self-executory. The usual exceptions are the Bill
of Rights, and constitutional prohibitions. All other constitutional provisions, such as the SALN
provision, need implementing laws to provide the details. Hence, Congress, to implement this
constitutional provision, has passed a number of laws, including the Foreign Currency Act, which
confers absolute confidentiality on dollar deposits.
There is no conflict between the Constitution and the Foreign Currency Act. The perceived conflict is
so simplistic that it is seriously laughable. If there is any conflict, it is between the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards, which provides for a waiver of confidentiality; and the Foreign Currency Act,
which provides for absolute confidentiality.
It is for Congress to balance on the one hand, the need for public accountability from public officers;
with, on the other hand, the desperate need for foreign investment, which entails confidentiality, on
pain of driving away investors from our country. The argument that a dollar deposit protected from
inquiry would nullify the principle of transparency is for Congress to resolve. We could retain the
absolute confidentiality clause, with the amendment that Filipino public officers are not protected.
The prosecution mistakes admission for confession. In a confession, the defendant admits guilt. In
an admission, the defendant merely states facts, which might tend to prove his guilt. In the instant
case, the defendant did not make a confession, but merely an admission, with a legal defense.
As a former RTC judge, I find it reprehensible that the AMLA document was introduced in evidence,
without authentication, as required by the Rules of Evidence. I am deeply disappointed that on at
least three occasions, the prosecution claimed that its documents came from an anonymous source.
Are you for real? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.
The defendant used his own name in all his questioned transactions. He could have done otherwise,
if his purpose was invisibility. Why would a suspected criminal leave his calling cards at the scene of
the crime?
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a preponderance of evidence for the prosecution, the
preponderance is not overwhelming.