I honestly believe SC Corona's defense team, and no one else, are in the best position to say if it is good strategy for Corona to testify in his impeachment trial. Why, for heaven's sake, would his lawyers not put him on the witness stand if that will be his life-saver, so to speak?
True, the Chief Justice has been quoted saying he will come out in the open, if he needs to, when the right and opportune moment comes. It is obvious that the Chief Justice and his defense lawyers sincerely believe that opportune moment has not come, at least as of now. Ergo, former Chief Justice Serafin Cuevas, the CJ's lead counsel, was right in saying the Senators need not bulldoze them into putting their client on the witness stand. After all, the Constitution provides that no one shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Let's respect the CJ's right against self-incrimination.
They will never admit it, but the plain truth is unassailable that the senators, the prosecution, PNoy's allies, maybe even the public, have long been salivating to insult and further demonize the Chief Justice, to the extent that they would never believe whatever he says. As Chief Justice, Corona has his own personal reputation to preserve, and it's just right for his defense counsel to protect his prestige.
As a matter of fact, what more do they want. The defense has reduced to pure lies the 45 properties that the prosecution says Corona owns but did not declare in his SALN. As far as I know, only one remains in dispute, the one the Coronas bought from the Bonifactio Ridge in 2003 which the CJ reported only in 2010 in his SALN, even if there had already been full payment thereof. I think several witnesses had been presented by the defense to explain that the Corona's refuse to formally accept the property because of several complaints, some consisting of structural defects, that the developer was able to correct only towards 2010. In my view, if the CJ did not report it in his 2010, then he would be liable for concealment of a property, and that would be impeachable. The fact that he did report that in 2010, or before he was impeached, may never be regarded as a form of dishonesty, which is the one impeachable if committed by a Chief Justice. Senators Enrile and Osmena said that the proper thing to do is to report the amount paid for the property as Accounts Receivable in the asset side of the SALN. That is perfectly fine under the double-entry system of Accounting, that is, a debit to Accounts Receivable and a credit to Cash, to record an "advance payment." But there is also another system called "single-entry" accounting or "kuwenta beho" as the Chinese calls it. Ask accountants and they will surely confirm that neither system is necessary wrong, although it is double-entry that is generally the more acceptable one in customary business practice. So, the CJ, a lawyer, apparently not aided by an accountant in preparing his SALN, may have been guilty of ignorance of generally accepted accounting principles. But was that a culpable violation of the Constitution, or are impeachable offense? Definitely not. Isn't it that the solution is merely to correct an error, if indeed an impeachable error it is.
At the end of the day, the only important thing to consider is whether the charges against the CJ are impeachable or not. Methinks his lawyers have successfully proven they are not. Why then should there be a need for the CJ to testify?
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento