A summary of “House members’ SALNs released by the Office of the Secretary General showed Belmonte with a net worth of P726.2 million, an increase of P443 million from his 2010 net worth of P283.2 million. ”

Interkasyon.com has a SALN watch of other government officials. You can download them at SALN watch site. So far, only 13 of the 284 House members — all, except for Tanada who belongs to the Liberal Party, party-list representatives — have acceded to requests for a copy of their SALNs.

House Members’ SALN CY2011

According to one of the top leading advocates for the Rights of Women and Children, Congresswoman Janette Loreto Garin (1st District in the Province of Iloilo) House Bill 454 otherwise known as “The Kasambahay Act” which introduces policies that govern the household employment industry need to be studied thoroughly before congress passes it.

Citing that certain provisions fail to acknowledge some of the positive benefits involved in the family dynamics of a Filipino household, Rep. Janette Loreto Garin, points out one detail as a prime example; this is the prohibition of employing “minors” meaning any person below eighteen (18) years of age as a domestic worker or as referred to in the Act a “kasambahay”.

She believes that citing eighteen (18) as indeed the most reasonable limit a young person can be permitted to work as “kasambahay” must be established with factual evidence and it must be proven that indeed Filipinos families are agreeable to the age limit specified in the provision.

Rep. Janette Loreto Garin believes that by making the act of employing a young person below 18 years of age, who may be born in poverty and with no means of being able to go to school but capable of doing reasonable household duties while residing in another’s home as an unlawful act fails to recognize the realities of how majority of Filipino households are run.

The practice of taking in high school age children between the ages of 15 to 17 into ones household has long been done by generations of Filipinos and is still being practiced today for the opportunities and positive advantages they provide a young person and members of his immediate family.

Filipino culture allows for the nurturing of the young sometimes even from birth up to adulthood by people other than one’s own parents. Such is the reality of our world and taking this reality into consideration reveal how even if one is not of one’s own blood, he or she can still be properly cared for while learning about the responsibilities of having household chores. Doing work that is assigned to “kasambahays” should not be seen as a form of exploitation nor considered child labor when requested or tasked to a young person but viewed in a more positive light, seen as an occasion to develop positive Filipino values that may lead to brighter prospects for the future.

Housed, clothed, fed, educated and paid for their contributions in their role as “kasambahays” can be much likened to what parents of other families (even affluent ones) give and expect from their own children. The belief that if one does his chores well, one’s effort will be rewarded has often proven to be a good way to teach our own children about life skills we all need to know in the first place. When kindness, respect and consideration exist in similar arrangements, this proves to be beneficial to all persons involved.
Picture these real life events:

A young person who comes from a very remote and impoverished part of a community where no real schools are established except perhaps a four-walled room with a blackboard and no chairs and where the nearest high school is located miles away. The young person, determined to learn, willingly walks even barefoot to the nearest elementary or high school under harsh weather conditions imaginable. His kind-hearted teacher sees the child’s desire for knowledge and potential to do more offer assistance to the family by taking in the child into her household. Her home is a stone’s throw away from the school and she can provide free board and lodging while the child attends school. In return, the child helps with chores around the home and learns about responsibility, self-reliance and inner satisfaction of living a life that is productive and fruitful.

A well-loved “nanay” of the household brings in her child or grandchild during the summer. The child shows an eagerness to learn and expresses desire to go to school or to finish his studies. However, the child’s parents can barely make ends meet with 6 other children to consider. The grateful employers of “nanay” decide to welcome the child into their home and send him to school. The child studies, finishes his education while he helps around the household perhaps running simple errands, assisting others in the household and basically learning how to live life with diligence, self-discipline, a sense of responsibility and dignity.

There is nothing shameful or unlawful about working ones way through school. This has long been recognized as a way to a better life away from hunger, poverty and deprivation. It is seen as a gesture of kindness and generosity that opens doors for everyone involved. When a person is taught about responsibilities, diligence, even self-discipline the person is given a chance to receive proper education, is provided with a good opportunity to start ahead and forge his way into realizing his own dreams. He gains self-confidence and in turn his self-esteem grows a hundredfold.

Real life situations show that living with others as “kasambahays” help build character and add to ones sense of belonging. The young person is led away from a life of crime and vices, away from temptation and boredom. He is motivated to do well by others and inspired to look towards the future. The arrangement being advantageous to both, provide the generous employers with a household that is well run and a chance to give back and share their own blessings to others. For both sides, hope for a better and peaceful life continues.

Circumstances may vary but the bottom line is the same, by calling the act of welcoming a young person into one’s home and teaching him or her how to be responsible citizens and allowing him or her to “earn her keep” as an “unlawful act” deprives that person from experiencing life and all its wonderful possibilities.

By refusing the acknowledge the current situation in our Filipino household, the sweeping generalization in some of the provisions in the “Kasambahay Act” might in the long run prove to be more harmful rather than beneficial.

Parents who want these opportunities for their children are forced to hide the truth. Some children will be forced to lie about their ages and will remain misinformed, unfulfilled and uneducated. Those who are bolder than others will be tempted to attempt risky behaviors resulting in unwanted and unplanned pregnancies or led to a world filled with vices such as gambling, alcoholism, sex, and drug use.

“Do we really want this for our youth? Do we want them to dwell on lost opportunities that will forever hold them down into a life of servitude and poverty or should we strive to be more proactive and pragmatic in order to assure them of a good future?” asks Rep. Janette Loreto Garin.

She further warns that if congress is not careful about what it passes into law, the consequences will be many. First thing to do, Rep. Janette Loreto Garin suggests in order to remedy the situation, is to ask. Ask the majority of Filipinos if this is indeed what they want for their families, if this is indeed a change they want for themselves. Let us ask first and after such only then can we finally decide.

Congresswoman Janette Loreto Garin clarifies, “I welcome the passage of a bill that advocates for the welfare of our “kasambahays” and by extension their families. In fact, I truly believe that “kasambahays” hold a well-respected position in a Filipino household. They are already members that make up a Filipino family. The role of “kasambahays” is given to those who not only exhibit the skills to do their duties but possess the dignity and integrity expected of anyone. Therefore, a thoroughly studied and properly researched bill that benefits and protects them is expected of us. Most have “kasambahays” in their households – their ages should not prevent them from being welcomed into our homes.”

—-

This bill is HB 1140 Magna Carta for the Kasambahay 2010 filed by the two Rep Arroyo

HB 1140 Magna Carta for the Kasambahay 2010

On the 39th day of the impeachment trial against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the defense team successfully showed, with its presentation of three of the complainants in the cases filed against the Chief Justice before the Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, that the charges were baseless and were in fact filed only to disrepute the Chief Justice.

This developed as Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and some senator-judges berated Kaya Natin founder Harvey Keh, one of the complainants on the alleged dollar accounts of the Chief Justice, for trying to influence the Impeachment Court when he brought along with him a television news team when he submitted to the Office of the Senate President last May 7 purported evidence against the Chief Justice. Presiding Officer Enrile has ordered Keh to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.

Keh, the lead convenor of the Kaya Natin which is highly critical of the Chief Justice, Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, and Atty. Emmanuel Santos, chair of the International Academy of Management and Economics, were all presented as hostile witnesses during today’s hearing. All three witnesses, during their direct examinations, admitted that they have no personal knowledge of the ill-gotten wealth charges they had filed against the Chief Justice before the Ombudsman.

During the direct examination by Dean Eduardo Delos Angeles, Rep. Hontiveros admitted that she had in fact downloaded from the web all her supposed pieces of evidence and other attachments to her complaint.

The senators took turn in grilling and berating Keh, a columnist for the Manila Times and Director of the Youth and Social Entrepreneurship Program of the Ateneo School of Government.

The show cause order against Keh stemmed from his bringing of unsigned and unverified transactions records of the Chief Justice’s supposed peso and dollar accounts to the Office of Senate President Enrile accompanied with a news team from ABS-CBN. He said that the document was delivered anonymously last May 3 in the mail area of his office in Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

“I am ordering you to show cause why you should not be cited for contempt…You are trying to influence this [impeachment] court by bringing these documents. I did not open it. I did not read it. I felt insulted and offended as presiding officer,” said Presiding Officer Senate President Enrile.

Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago echoed similar sentiments. “A person governed by ethics would not have done things that you have done…you are giving undue influence,” she said.

Asked by Presiding Officer Senate President Enrile why Keh submitted the unsigned documents to him and not to House-Prosecutors or the Office of the Ombudsman where he has a pending case filed, Keh claimed that he felt Enrile was “the right person to make a decision on it.”

Keh, however, got the most scolding from Senator Jinggoy Estrada who even called him “Sinungaling” when he initially denied that he contacted friends from the press for media mileage.

“You had the temerity to submit them to the Senate President without authenticating the documents…Ikaw nga nagtawag ng media sa office ni Senate President Enrile di ba? Inabisuhan mo sila [referring to media] na pupunta ka,” an irate Senator-Judge Estrada stressed.

Keh admitted that he contacted his media friends from Abante and Inquirer, two newspapers which are highly critical of the Chief Justice.

Senator-Judge Allan Peter Cayetano, for his part, lamented that it is downright unfair for some public officials who work hard for years to build a reputation, which can be ruined in an instant by a mere anonymous complaint.

Santos, the third witness was questioned on direct examination by Dean Jose Roy. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the charges he had filed against the Chief Justice and that he had based his Ombudsman complaint merely on newspaper reports.

No cross examination was done by the prosecution on any of the defense hostile witnesses.

The defense has said that Ombudsman Carpio Morales’s testimony “proves once and for all that the Administration has put out all the stops to discredit its perceived political enemies at the expense of institutional independence and integrity.”

The defense deplored how the independent agencies and bodies such as the Ombudsman, the AMLC, the Commission on Audit, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, have been used for political vendetta.

THE DRAMA PLODS ON!
By Wilfred Avila

I must immediately admit that I am not good with numbers and, having said that, found the entire hearing rather boring. Basically, it was a replay of yesterday’s hearing. Ho hum.

From a whopping 23 Senator-Judges present, the number had dwindled back down to 17. Surprisingly though, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago stayed till the very end.

Scheduled again was the Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales who was to continue with the Proscutor’s Cross examination and her testimony on the alleged US Dollar accounts owned by the Chief Justice.

Senator-Judge Kiko Pangilinan led the opening prayer and prayed for almost everyone except his own Shawee. Hahahahaha.

Majority Leader Vicente Sotto immediately called on Senator-Judge Miram Defensor Santiago who proposed subpoenaing all 9 bank branch managers where Corona allegedly has accounts. Jut as quick, Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile said that they would tackle this in Monday’s caucus. This statement has a track record. When Senator-Judges don’t want to argue on the floor, they mention this as a mantra of sorts. More often than not, the proposal is declined in the caucus. Mark my words that this will be voted down since the Senator-Judges are in a hurry to get all of this ot of the way!

Sotto raised a concern by Pimentel if the testimony of COA’s Heidi Mendoza should remain on record. (Mendoza testified on Day 37 that the total inflow into Corona dollar accounts is $28M, while total outflow is $30M, recorded from April 2003 to December 2011.) Defense lead counsel Serafin Cuevas said he was about to raise the issue. Pimentel takes the floor and formally moves to strike out Mendoza’s statements. Motion is approved.Sotto then asked about the status of COA Mendoza’s manifestations in the previous trial. Was it presented in evidence, he further inquired.

Presiding Judge Enrile said that Heidi Mendoza’s statement was not presented in evidence since she was never presented as a witness by the Defense. Lead Defense Counsel, former Justice Serafin Cuevas, moved to strike it out of the record. It was immediately stricken from the records by Enrile.

The Ombudsman was recalled to the stand and Enrile, ever so sweetly said, “Madame Ombudsman, please bear with us.” Now that brings something to mind. Why can’t they the Senator-Judges apologize to the Filipino people for making them all go through this circus? Just a question albeit a valid one!

Morales then continued with her testimony. Total Summary of inflows: $12M. This is from April 14, 2003 to Dec 2011 (BPI Tandang Sora + Allied Bank Kamias). In December 2011, amount withdrawn from one account was $769,681.71. Morales then presented dates and amounts of withdrawals, deposits made to the mother account, and transfers to new accounts.

Private Prosecutor Mario Bautista asked the Court to have the Powerpoint Presentation of the Ombudsman’s report marked as evidence. Cuevas asked exactly what they were marking since this was never presented by the Defense in the first place. Ever ready Enrile replied that the honorable Ombudsman requested the permission of this court if she could present the documents allegedly from AMLC.

As in the previous hearing, Enrile made the request that the Court be provided a hard copy of the powerpoint presentation. All of us requested a copy, he said. The Ombudsman said she had already given the order to do so to her staff.

Enrile, after saying Powerpresentation 4 times in 1 sentence and to rectify himself said Powerpoint. I’m sorry I’m not literate enough in these things. Obvious ba? Haha.

Upon questioning by Bautista, Morales said that she did not know where the $769,081 went after it was withdrawn in December 2011. There were significant deposit and withdrawals. 2004 elections, 2007 elections and at the start of the impeachment proceedings.

On May 12, 2004, there was a deposit of $500,000 in BPI Acropolis. On May 14, 2004, deposit of $500,000. The date and source no longer indicates where the $769 thousand went in the final transaction. Then, she teasingly said that nothing shows who made the deposits. Maybe the bank can tell, she added.

The Ombudsman enumerated the ‘significant’ dollar account transactions alleged to the Chief Justice. May 3, 2007, there was a deposit made in BPI of $25,039.80 in BPI SF del Monte, she claimed. There was actually a study of peso accounts but since subpoena limited her to dollar accounts, she said that she just brought the dollar documents.

Prosecutor Bautista then asked the Ombudsman why she wrote those letters to the AMLC? Under the constitution, I am authorized, she perfunctorily replied. The Chief Justice authorized the Ombudsman in his SALN, she added.And, as if to prove her point, she continued to say that she is authorized to write letters to AMLC.

The prosecution asked her as to who were the members of AMLC. Cuevas objected to alleged coaching for Morales. Truth to tell, the whole gallery watched her do this several times asking for assistance from the Court whithour a by your leave from the Presiding Judge. Enrile was forced to dress down Prosecutor Bautista.

Bautista proceeded to ask Morales about Corona’s claims that AMLC audit is hoax and was a lantern of lies. Morales quipped that there are just lantern of lies. These documents were delivered to me by Executive Director of AMLC, Vic Aquino.

Bautista said that the best evidence are CJ’s accounts and he refuses to open his accounts. Morales repeated O(like a broken record) that she has the power to probe CJ Corona as he authorized the Ombudsman to check his assets thru his SALN. I am mandated by the constitution to investigate public officials whether they are inefficient, et al, she continued.
Someone couldn’t hold his/her bladder much longer and, therefore, session was suspended for one long minute. I guess the older you get, the harder it is to hold it in. Hehe.

At the resumption of the hearing, Defense Counsel Cuevas said that the nature of bank accounts were not indicated in the AMLC report.

A member of the defense team later whispers to Cuevas, to which Morales quips: “Are you coaching him?” Lead private prosecutor Bautista later on objects to questions in the redirect, saying Corona has not admitted ownership of the account. “You’re confusing the issues here,” Enrile tells prosecution. Bautista withdraws objection. Rule on coaching should apply to all participants in this drama! Finally, someone said the magic word that I was calling this trial all along, one big DRAMA and no less than the Ombudsman did so!

Cuevas responded to Morales as bitingly on whether she would like him to be on the witness stand? Then, he turned to Bautista and pointedly asked on whether he was cross-examining him?

Asked whether she did the Powerpoint presentation herself, Morales replied that she was personally involved in this but she did not do the arrows and the balloons referring to the screen showing the presentation.

Morales then negan to read the March 9, 2012 report from the AMLC. This is what she would refer to as the “report for “intelligent purposes in connection with complaint.”

Cuevas asked on whether this report was supposed to be confidential, Morales agreed with Cuevas. She said that the AMLC report is considered confidential but said she had to ask assistance from other govt agencies.

Asked on whether she could vouch for the veracity and content of the report, Morales said that the presumption is that they (the AMLC) would give to me the correct information. Cuevas countered by asking if it were a presumption arrrived at by the Ombudsman. Quick to answer, Yes. I cannot go to the bank myself to verify, the Ombudsman snapped.

Asked whether she had proof that she asked the AMLC for help. the Ombudsman produced a letter she sent the same.

In a veiled threat to the Chief justice, the Ombudsman mentioned a possible Impeachment Hearing this coming December if the Senator-Judges failed to convict him. Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago asked Morales if she intended to file an impeachment complaint against CJ in December if he gets acquitted? Even if this court acquits the chief justice, let him be warned that he will face another impeachment case.

Ombudsman Morales replied that she must abide by the provision the Ombudsman law abides. Santiago told Morales in no uncertain terms on whether it was the Ombudsman’s opinion that should somebody file a complaint against any public official you can go straight to the AMLC without going through the court?

Morales replied that it depended upon the complaint.
MDS to Morales: Will you file another impeachment complaint? You are fudging with your answer! You are arguing with a Senator-Judge!.
Morales: Mea culpa. (I’m sorry in Latin.)
Santiago: I accept your apology.

The Ombudsman said as a reply that she made sure there was no double counting on the alleged Corona dollar accounts. Yet, it was obvious that the Ombudsman turned docile as Santiago was questiong her. She must have been aware of the sharp mind of the Senator accompanied by her sharper tongue.

Sen. Cayetano then stood up to say that when he was part of the Blue Ribbon Committee, AMLC would tell us they can’t help us. We have to get a court order. Cayetano wanted to clarify if AMLC documents is admissible in the Impeachment trial. He further asked whether the Ombudsman will have protocol where nature of complaint calls for AMLC info, will it be SOP regardless of PNoy, foe or ally?

Enrile was concerned where this line of questioning was going and sid that questions on the Ombudsman’s power may be more apt for hearing in aid of legislation, not the Impeachment hearings. Nevertheless, Morales replied that the question should be to AMLC. If they determine they cannot give data, they can say that. Even without waiver, I would have access to documents but whether or not AMLC would have provided me is a different story, she added.

Senator-Judge Greg Honasan stood up to address the Ombudsman and said that he wanted to have the peace of mind that the CJ was not being singled out here. Morales replied that as far as the case against the CJ is concerned, this is the first she asked AMLC during her incumbency.

Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano expressed her desire to discuss in caucus how to treat Morales’ testimony in the Impeachment hearings.

Enrile said that He who produces a witness must be bound by testimony. Defense called Ombudsman. Cayetano then cited jurisprudence and asked whether the Ombudsman refer administration cases to the Supreme Court? It seemed to her as a circuitous way of going about probes. How will Ombudsman’s evidence be treated?, she followed up.

Senator-Judge Estrada, after praiding the Ombudsman to high heavens, wanted an assurance that the Ombudsman was not being manipulated. Morales replied that she would not allow herself to be used. I assure you of that. Whoever wrote this script must be fed to the wolves.

Asked by Estrada on the cases pertaining to PGMA, Morales saikd that there were no request or transmittal of bank documents from AMLC. estrada reiterated a copy of the AMLC reort and he was told by Morales that she directed submission of same report to the Senate.

Senator-Judge Chiz Escudero clarified the purpose of the Ombudsman investigation. he asked in the vernacular, “Bakit ang sinubmit ng AMLC umabot sa 2011, 2012 kung ang SALN hanggang 2010 lang? Will there be a need for us to call and ask AMLC to testify? I will also ask this in caucus. Morales impatiently commented that it was the Senate’s call! Any tary ni Nanay, di ba? Btw, weren’t you bothere by those eyeliners that went heavenward? It was, to me anyway, annoying.

Senator-Judge Koko Pimentel asked the Ombudsman on what was the margin of error in her report. Morales replied that the estimate for “margin of error” would be that the fresh deposits would be at least $10M.

Morales responded to questions from Senator-Judge Loren Legarda on how much the Chief Justice could have in various account at any given time. She said that Corona could have had $10M in transactions in various accounts. Morales further admitted that she has not been able to determine Corona’s balance in bank accounts at any one time. If we believe charges before us need info from AMLC, we would tap AMLC, she replied to a question o whether she would ask assistance from the AMLC again.

Other senator-judges posed questions to Morales, among them Senator-Judges TG Guingona, Franklin Drilon, Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Pangilinan, Gringo Honasan, Panfilo Lacson and Pia Cayetano.

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada also took to the floor and tells the Ombudsman: “Sana you give us the assurance that your office will not be used to get back at the administration’s political opponents.”
“I won’t jeopardize my 40 years of government service — spotless,” Morales replied. “I will not allow myself to be a tool of anyone to get back at certain persons.”

Sen. Francis Escudero takes his turn, points out the waiver in the SALN pertains to past years including the year the person assumed office. “Bakit ang sinubmit ng AMLC umabot sa transactions in 2011, 2012?” he asked. “Will there be a need for us to call AMLC to testify?” Morales says that will be the decision of the Senate.
Session resumes after a brief break. Senators Koko Pimentel and Loren Legarda pose questions to Ombudsman. Morales is discharged as witness. Defense asks impeachment court if they can continue presenting witnesses tomorrow,

Finally, it was over! Ombudsman Morales was discharged from the witness stand.

Meanwhile, Rep. Erin Tañada said the prosecution was pleasantly surprised when defense summoned Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales. “Parang sinagot ang aming mga panalangin,” he said. Tañada added that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report that Morales presented at the trial confirms Corona has dollar accounts and that Speaker Sonny Belmonte had a copy of Ombudsman’s documents but didn’t disclose them since he knew Morales was testifying.

“We’re prepared if the defense decides to put the Chief Justice immediately on the stand,” Tañada said. “This will be a welcome development to the public.” Tañada also said Corona has to open his dollar accounts to refute the AMLC report.
When asked about the possibility that the numbers presented yesterday were bloated, Tañada said it would be “very hard” to confirm whether the figures from the AMLC report are bloated or not.

This was clearly like a repetition of Secretary Leila De Lima’s testimony. While the Prosecution was raving, it is also clear that it left more quesions to be answered.

Yet, in the same token, the defense has their work cut out for them. They should not be rushed into terminating their Defense, by ANYONE! It was so obvious that Enrile wanted to end the defense by asking whether there was need to present the other witness. We are pleased to note that Cuevas said that the Defense still had to present complainants to the Ombudman’s Office against the CJ as witnesses.

Let Justice be the winner here and tgether. Let not the bildfold of Lady Justice be blind to the truth. This drama has a long way to go and we will be here until the end. Who’s end, no one can tell. But this I can say, the Fuilipino people will not accept abything less than fair and justice no matter the creams of the multitudes for blood and more blood!

Today’s hearing was a virtual hell for the Defense Panel and painted as the Devil incarnate was the Chief Justice, Renato Corona!

Day 37 of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona began with a bold assertion by Defense lawyers that he would squarely face charges that he kept $10 million in secret accounts. By day’s end, however, the Defense team appeared shell-shocked, after its hostile witness, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, shared with the court highlights of the chief magistrate’s dollar stash. Her source: a report by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) presented via a Powerpoint presentation.

Day 37 will also be remembered, meanwhile, for being the first time that defense lead counsel Cuevas, regarded as the “lion” of the impeachment court because of his skills, seemed to have found a match, at least in feistiness, in Ombudsman Carpio-Morales, who at times sounded testy and replied to Cuevas with another question.

For the very first time in all of its 37 days of hearings, all 23 Senator-Judges were present in the Senate Hall as the trial commenced at 2:08 pm. There was great expectancy in the hall as everyone looked forward to the testimony of Ombudsman Carpio on the US$10,000,000.00 account supposedly kept by the Chief Magistrate!

Prior to the start of the trial, the Senators gathered in caucus and decided to defer their vote on the TRO concerning the alleged dollar accounts of the Chief Justice. There was also no decision made on whether the hearings were to last until 10pm everyday as proposed by Senator-Judge Pangilinan. Thank God for small favors!

Seen at the Senate Hall were Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro who claimed he was there to support the Ombudsman Also seen were Harvey Keh, a summoned witness, and Former Representative Risa Hontiveros, another witness and who earlier said that she had nothing to add to the hearings. The regulars former Senators Maceda and Tatad, Ekky cardena, Bel Cunanan, Baby Nebrida, Leslie Bocobo, Camille Zamora, Zen Danga and Francis were also seen in the hall.

Earlier, Ombudsman Morales wrote to the court requesting to take witness the stand first. Majority Floor leader Vicente Sotto II, asked the pleasure of the Court but Defense Lead Counsel Cuevas demurred saying they had other witnesses that were ready but that the Ombudsman would be called the same day.

Presiding Judge Enrile emphatically said that, “She’s no less than the Ombudsman, one of highest functionaries of govt. She has the power to probe. We should hear her first. That was that! As the proceedings continued, Ombudsman Morales was called to the witness stand by the Lead Defense Counsel Justice Cuevas. Actually, she came in earlier but was forced to go out again since she hadn’t been called in yet.

Defense Counsel Cuevas said that Morales’ testimony was to prove there is no basis whatsoever that Corona has bank accounts in the amount of $10M. He added that the probe being undertaken by the Ombudsman’s Office was illegal! he adds that they consider Morales a hostile witness.

Enrile demanded that Cuevas justify why the Ombudsman is a hostile witness. He continued that the Ombudsman was not a hostile party in this case.

Cuevas stated that the Ombudsman’s vote-when she was member of the SC-disapproving of CJ’s midnight appointment as basis for declaring her a hostile witness.

Lead Private Prosecutor Mario Bautista objected to the Defense’s motion to declare Ombudsman a hostile witness. This was sustained by Enrile.

Cuevas proceeded to ask Morales about PNoy’s opinion vs Corona’s appointment as CJ. Enrile, seeming impatient demanded that Cuevas go straight to the point. Cuevas pointed out that PNoy took his oath before the Ombudsman. Morales countered that it was a fact.

Bautista objected again saying that Cuevas’ questions were irrelevant. He further asked what the connection was between the Ombudsman and the President?

Cuevas replied that the Defense wanted to show how hostile the President was.” He further went on to the subject of Morales’ letter to the Chief Justice regarding the alleged #10M account.

Morales stated that she went over the complaint vs the CJ and sought additional information from various agencies and referred the complaints to AMLC. She added that she wrote the AMLC seeking determination of truth of the report. She claimed that she got a recommendation that she should write the CJ instead. We were doing a case build-up. In other words, a fact-finding investigation.

Morales clarified that she was already investigating the CJ when she wrote that letter. We wanted him to enlighten us because I sought help of AMLC, she continued. Purpose of the probe was to determine if there was unexplained wealth or things to that effect violating the Anti-Graft Act, she said.

It was then that Cuevas moved again to declare Morales as hostile witness, citing Ombudsman’s probe into CJ. Morales countered by stating that it was her mandate. It does not make me an adverse person, she continued. Lead Private Prosecutor Mario Bautista continued his objections against declaring the Ombudsman a hostile witness.

Morales said that she was able to get data showing that at least [evidence] was material and relevant to the complaints filed by the 3 complainants.

Bautista objected and said that the mere fact of investigation does not render Morales a hostile witness merely by doing her job.

In an emotional outburst, the Lead Counsel perorated on why Morales should, in fact, be declared a hostile witness. Finally Enrile declared the Ombudsman as a hostile witness against a possible reversal of his decision by the Court, he claimed.

Cuevas, noting the testy and seeming taunting replies of the witness said that there was already a finding. How could anyone expect the Ombudsman to be neutral towards the Chief Justice?

Enrile ordered Cuevas not to argue with the witness. Morales, without pause continued that she was just following the mandate of the law. She continued that it was the lookout of the CJ if he does not like to answer. That’s CJ’s lookout, she emphasized.

She stated that it was her mandate, what they were doing is a case build-up which means they were merely doing an investigation. She then cited Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act as basis for her probe into Corona’s alleged unexplained wealth. As a challenge, she asked Cuevas whether he was assailing Article 26? Cuevas retorted that CJ Corona was compelled to answer, violating his right not to be a witness against himself.

Morales impatiently retorted that she sounded like a broken record. Sec 26 of the Ombudsman Act requires me to request the CJ to respond, she added. Knee-jerk reaction is to say that’s phony. Now you’re invoking… the Bill of Rights?, she laughed with a twinkle in her eye. This was fast becoming a show of legalese expertise.

Morales said she was not used to discussing millions of dollars. Cuevas countered that he was also not accustomed to millions. Dun lang ako sa 10 pesos. No one laughed in the court. Morales retorted that Cuevas was correct since no one mentioned anything about $10M in their complaints. She then said that she asked assistance of AMLC because she wanted to know if they had documents that had bearing on the complaint.

Enrile told the defense to go direct to the point. He then continued to read to Cuevas the powers of the Ombudsman, as stated in the Constitution. Cuevas stated that the AMLC could not just conduct an investigation and submit reports.

Enrile countered by stating that the Ombudsman already said she got the documents from the AMLC. We presume regularity of official conduct, he empirically added. If there was a violation by the AMLC, that’s another issue, he added.

Mario Bautista stood up to counter that he could not understand the line of questioning. It is the defense that called the Ombudsman to testify, emphasized. This is all irrelevant, your honor, he continued when Cuevas underlined that the complaints were based on newspaper reports and accounts.

Ombudsman Morales announced that she furnished the AMLC with copies of complaints thinking that it’s under its jurisdiction. Again she stated that she sounded like broken record. Furthermore, we got reports CJ has $10M, she added. That’s based on AMLC, not complaints, she underlined! I received the AMLC report prior to writing the CJ. I cannot write CJ about that if I didn’t gather it from the AMLC data, she claimed. I did not find it necessary to mention the source of information on the $10M, she stated. Corona could have asked for a bill of particulars. He could have said, ‘Can I be enlightened?’

It was now clear that there was a public perception contest going on. At every possible turn, Morales was taunting the Lead Counsel Justice Cuevas. It was also noteworthy that both were former members of the Bench. It was also obvious that Morales was playing to the Gallery and the media and supporting the cause of the Prosecution. It is also of interest that both Cuevas and Morales are close friend despite the theatrics.

Morales said that she did not source the information from the banks but from the AMLC. Are you saying accounts exist, she asked Cuevas to add insult to injury. This was when she started waving papers supposedly the 17-page report from AMLC!

She was to waive this report in the air for more effect only now. It would happen again and again! The media drank the courtroom drama in!

Senator Judge Senator Jinggoy Estrada stood up to request a copy of the AMLC report. Prosecution also asked for a copy. The Defense team was not to be left out. They also asked for a copy. A short five minutes later, the entire media, including those in the Press Briefing room, had copies of the voluminous report! WOW! Coyly, Morales said that she did not know whether the alleged $700,000 is included in this $10M.

Corona has $12 million in “fresh deposits” in various banks, Carpio-Morales said. This is aside from the $10 million Carpio-Morales said Corona had maintained in 82 accounts in five banks and where he had made deposits and withdrawals “on very significant dates,” including the 2004 and 2010 elections, and on December 11, 2011, the day he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Cuevas reminded everyone that nothing in the impeachment complaint deals with $10M. Morales countered that she did not nitpick the impeachment articles. True, that! If it’s not in the impeachment complaint there is more reason for me to probe, possibly for impeachment in December, she answered. A heavy silence fell over the crowd of listeners. A foreboding that there was not going to be a let up on this affair whether the Chief Justice was acquitted or convicted! The determination of this administration, rightly or wrongly, seems too obvious!

Bautista asked pointedly that if the $10M is irrelevant, why did defense counsel ask to subpoena the Ombudsman and to bring the documents.

Enrile underlined that the Issue in Article 2 is inclusion, non-inclusion of assets, whether amount is 1 billion or 1 peso. Amount is immaterial. Amount is immaterial in Article 2, he continued.

Carpio-Morales said her information on the accounts did not come, as widely thought, from the complaint filed in her office by three personalities, but from a 17-page report of the Council, which under the law is required to observe strict confidentiality. An investigation by the Ombudsman is one of the rare exceptions when the AMLC must share information outside of its office regarding bank accounts protected by bank secrecy laws.

Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon pompously said that they were going around in circles. The Defense said, ‘We will willingly confront issue’, he reminded everyone while Juana Change sat in the gallery smiling an approval at her idol!

Cuevas concluded his direct examination of Morales. Seriously, it was not a good day for the Defense. Rather than clearing the issues concerned with the $10M, it confused everyone more. It shocked even the Defense Panel. I don’t think they expected this at all and neither did we!

It was then Private Prosecutor Mario Bautista’s turn to cross-examine the witness. He asked for a copy of the AMLC report followed shortly by the Defense Panel and the Senator-Judges.

Bautista looked at the 17-page document from AMLC. Morales coyly contributed that there were 4 other pages. The AMLC document showed 705 entries or bank transactions of Chief Justice Corona. Prosecutors now huddled around Prosecutor Mario Bautista looking over the document. It was then that the Prosecution asked for a 20-minute break to photocopy the AMLC report.

The Prosecution started the cross-examining of the Ombudsman shortly thereafter. Bautista asked Morales how she arrived at the figure of $10M. Morales said she grouped accounts under one column, looked at documents and dates. Corona had significant withdrawals in the 2004 and 2007 elections, and the week he was impeached, she underlined.

On the day of the Impeachment Trials, he allegedly withdrew $418,193.32. Amount was added to the BPI SF Del Monte account where $417,978.80 was placed in a trust fund. AMLC Executive Director Vicente Aquino gave me this report, she stated.

I sought assistance from the COA’s Grace-Tan and Heidi Mendoza. They came up with the analysis on the dollar accounts, she added.

Defense Lead Counsel Cuevas objected saying that the report was not tackled in direct examination therefore it should not be tackled in cross. Bautista replied that the Defense asked for these documents and wondered why they were now stopping this from coming out and wondered if it was because they knew it had an adverse entry.

Senator Judges Cayetano and Legarda supported Enrile’s decision to allow the Ombudsman to present the powerpoint on AMLC findings. Cuevas questioned Morales’ competence in discussing AMLC report.

Senator-Judge Marcos asked what the Ombudsman meant by transactional balance? Morales explained that it included inflow, outflow of funds and balance of transactions. She claimed further that her computation was arrived at with assistance of CPA lawyers is fresh deposits, accounts that never moved but remained in account amounted over $12M.

Senator Santiago moved to allow the Powerpoint presentation of the Ombudsman. There was an audible applause from the gallery. Forced to a vote by Senator-Judge Lacson, the Senators voted unanimously to allow Morales to show the Powerpoint presentation on AMLC findings.

In a bid to underline her testimony and after Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson forced a vote and despite the objection of the defense, all 23 senators present allowed Carpio-Morales to make a Powerpoint presentation of Corona’s deposits. Even Senator-Judge Joker Arroyo, who timidly raised his hands at first to vote against it, voted for the presentation in the end.

Corona’s lead counsel, former SC Justice Serafin Cuevas, objected to the presentation, questioning Carpio-Morales’ competence to examine the AMLC report, but Senate President and Presiding Judge Juan Ponce-Enrile said the objection would be a proper subject when the defense undertakes the redirect on Carpio-Morales.

Morales’ PowerPoint presentation showed that Corona kept dollar accounts at BPI Acropolis, BPI Tandang Sora, BPI San Francisco del Monte, BPI Management Investment Corp., PSBank Cainta, PSBank Katipunan, Allied Bank Kamias, Deutsch Bank and Citibank.

Chief Justice Renato Corona has $12 million in “fresh deposits” in various banks, Conchita Carpio-Morales said as she testified at the magistrate’s impeachment trial. This is aside from the $10 million Carpio-Morales said Corona had maintained in 82 accounts in five banks and where he had made deposits and withdrawals “on very significant dates,”

including the 2004 and 2010 elections, and on December 11, 2011, the day he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Morales, who appeared as a hostile witness for the defense, said the information she had on Corona’s dollar accounts came from a 17-page report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council that was made available to her office in the course of investigating complaints filed before her over Corona’s alleged ill-gotten wealth.

The powerpoint presentation that the senators, unanimously voting, allowed her to make was solely meant to help her explain what she gathered in her investigation. It has not been accepted as evidence by the court.

Morales then continued that Corona had multiple accounts spread in 5 banks. The Powerpoint presentation showed alleged 82 dollar accounts of the Chief Justice. She then talked about the “circuitous” bank transactions of Corona. The Ombudsman itemizes transactions of Corona’s dollar accounts.

It was then that Morales asked to be allowed to use a magnifying glass. Enrile smilingly replied that he was also using a magnifying glass. The gallery all laughed as the Presiding Judge showed off his own magnifying glass.

Enrile then talked about one bank account: 14 withdrawals, 17 deposits and asked about the ending balance. Morales replied that she doesn’t have the ending balance. It’s difficult to determine the balance, she added. She claimed that she prepared the Powerpoint with assistance of the COA.

First bank account: BPI Acropolis. 2nd one, this time: BPI Tandang Sora. There were deposits and withdrawals on the same date, Morales implied. After awhile, Morales, said that she thought she was done with the report. She suggested that Heidi Mendoza, COA commissioner, take over to explain Corona dollar accounts. This was allowed by the Presiding judge.

COA Commissioner Heidi Mendoza said the inflow into the Corona accounts included deposits, credit memos, fund transfer and internal remittances. The outflow included withdrawals, debit memos, purchases and outward remittances. “What AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) reports are only transactions.

That means it’s possible that he has (a) beginning balance because you cannot withdraw something that is not available in the funds,” Mendoza said.Cuevas objected to Mendoza’s testimony and said it was Morales the panel asked to appear and not Mendoza. This was sustained by the presiding Judge and Mendoza was told to step down.

It was then Majority Floor leader Vicente Sotto said that it was the consensus of the court to continue the following day. Late in the night, the Chief Justice described the powerpoint presentation as “a lantern of lies” that he said he will disprove as a hoax, and dared her to resign after he is done unraveling her

In a statement, Corona said that the “The initial testimony of the Honorable Ombudsman is quite unfortunate, if not very malicious. I don’t know how she came up with her own mathematical equation.”. He described Carpio Morales’ presentation a “hodgepodge,” convoluting the amounts in his dollar accounts as well as the minds of the public.

“The number of accounts alone is at best ridiculous. Her PowerPoint diagram is a lantern of lies which only messed up her presentation, contrary to what some believe now as damning evidence,” Corona said. He said Carpio Morales does not know what she is talking about, as shown by her “chaotic” accounting.

“Either she does not know what she is talking about, or is purposely misleading the Impeachment Court and the public. Is she even privy to how the [Anti-Money Laundering Council] arrived at the bloated numbers?” he asked.

He added, “we will debunk all her bloated numbers. And once she is proven wrong, I urge her to immediately resign from her post for allowing herself to be used by this Administration and making a laughingstock of ‘government auditing’.”

Corona tagged Carpio Morales’ alleged evidence as another “LRA hoax,” referring to the bloated list that the Land Registration Authority (LRA) produced for the prosecution.

Meanwhile, Isabela Represenatative Giorgidi Aggabao, one of the prosecutors and an accountant, called Corona’s accounts “indescribable.”

Sought for reaction to Mendoza’s disclosure, lawyer Karen Jimeno, spokesperson of Corona’s defense team, said they would need to consult with Corona on the matter. “We are studying this. We might confront the Chief Justice with this document and ask him his side of the story,” Jimeno said.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice is likely to file a complaint against AMLC officers and employees for violating his rights under the Foreign Currency Deposit Law, said lawyer Jimeno.

“Titingnan namin (We will see), if they (AMLaC) divulged (information on the alleged dollar accounts) in violation of the FCD (Foreign Currency Deposits) law, the only recourse Corona has is to file charges against those officials and employees who did so,” Jimeno said in an interview.

“AMLC has separate powers. But AMLC can be held liable if they divulge any information guaranteed secret under the FCD law. AMLC is only mandated for the purposes of anti-money laundering activities,” Jimeno explained.

While admitting that Morales’ presentation of the AMLC caught Corona’s defense panel unawares, Jimeno said they also see the disclosure as an opportunity to scrutinize the AMLAC report and find out where the allegations about the dollar accounts came from.

She added that Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is likely to file a complaint against officers and employees of the Anti-Money Laundering Council for violating his rights under the Foreign Currency Deposit Law.

“Titignan namin (We will see), if they (AMLC) divulged (information on the alleged dollar accounte) in violation of the FCD (Foreign Currency Deposits) law, the only recourse Corona has is to file charges against those officials and employees who did so,” Jimeno said in an interview.

“AMLC has separate powers. But AMLC can be held liable if they divulge any information guaranteed secret under the FCD law. AMLC is only mandated for the purposes of anti-money laundering activities,” Jimeno explained.

While admitting that Morales’ presentation of the AMLC caught Corona’s defense panel unawares, Jimeno said they also see the disclosure as an opportunity to scrutinize the AMLC report and find out where the allegations about the dollar accounts came from.

Jimeno called the disclosure of the AMLC alarming because it means agencies of the government can be used against one person, such as Corona.

“Nakababahala ito na nagagamit pala ang iba’t ibang ahensiya ng gobyerno (It is worrying that various agencies of government are used) against one person … As Justice Cuevas has said, dapat masunod ang tunay na proseso (due process has to be observed),” she said. “If they divulged the (information) to the public, the documents violated the rights of Corona,” she said.

Another defense lawyer doubted that the dollar accounts are what they seem. More likely, said Tranquil Salvador, these will end up like the “45 Corona properties” that the defense trumpeted at the start of the trial. It turned out later there was a misappreciation of the documents and there were only 11 properties.

“Malicious. A lantern of lies.” This was how Chief Justice Renato Corona described the testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on the 37th day of the trial. Corona also said he will debunk all of Morales’s allegations and dared her to resign if she’s proven wrong.

Corona’s statement, first published by ANC, the ABS-CBN News Channel, on its site says: “The initial testimony of the Honorable Ombudsman is quite unfortunate, if not very malicious.

“I don’t know how she came up with her own mathematical equation. She made a hodgepodge out of the accounts, making her numbers chaotic.

“The number of accounts alone is at best ridiculous. Her powerpoint diagram is a lantern of lies which only messed up her presentation, contrary to what some believe now as damning evidence. Either she does not know what she is talking about, or is purposely misleading the Impeachment Court and the public.

“Is she even privy to how the AMLC arrived at the bloated numbers? We will debunk all her bloated numbers.

“And once she is proven wrong, I urge her to immediately resign from her post for allowing herself to be used by this Administration and making a laughingstock of ‘government auditing.’”

There was a cloud of doubt that began to form in the minds of those who support Chief Justice Corona. Yet, it is obvious that they will forge on for they see the truth in the man. On the other side, there was an air of celebration that they were now making their case against the Chief Justice.

It would seem that this entire case is still unravelling as we write but it is also obvious that the Defense has a lot of work ahead of them. That Ombudman Morales was ready to face her inquisitors is obvious. On whether what she stated was inded fact, is another story.

Devil incarnate or not, the Chief Justice was not about to throw in the towel. He remains strong and steadfast in his resolve to fight this case to the end and …… win it!

Indeed this day was HELL for everyone concerned

Photos via @momblogger and senate.gov.ph. Some rights reserved.