The prosecution has rested its case, but were they right? When Corona admitted to having undisclosed dollar accounts, the prosecution decided that no further cross-examination was needed.
But Corona thinks he has the perfect defense. Although the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN) requires disclosure of all assets, the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (FCDA) states that dollar accounts need not be disclosed. The FCDA states it explicitly, and by adhering only to what is literally stated, Corona has chosen to obey the letter of the law.
The SALN, however implicitly states that all accounts need to be disclosed, and although it’s not explicitly stated, the spirit of the SALN implies that even dollar accounts must be declared.
But what is the spirit of the SALN? The basic idea is that if public officials declare their assets every year, it would be possible to learn how much they’re making from being in public office. If it exceeds the income expected of a person in their position, the excess can be interpreted as potential corruption, warranting further investigation.
For the SALN to fulfill its purpose, it is obvious that both peso and dollar assets must be declared: a corrupt politician who wants to hide ill-gotten wealth *could* and would use dollar accounts if these were indeed exempted from declaration.
I emphasized “could” because having undisclosed dollar accounts does not necessarily mean that a politician has ill-gotten wealth. It is possible for a politician to have undisclosed accounts — both peso and dollar — but still be clean (all their wealth is made honestly).
But the law is blind — it does not assume good intentions. That is, laws that are made to prevent crime do not make exceptions for the innocent — it applies equally to all.
Consider the following. It is illegal to board airplanes with explosives. This is because an explosive can be used to perform other illegal acts which is infinitely more harmful: taking the passengers hostage and potentially killing them all. Note that the bringing of explosives aboard the plane by itself is not harmful at all.
Hypothetically, a genius inventor could create a bomb that would avoid detection, take it on the plane, and fly to his lab in another country to continue development on his invention. Not a single passenger got hurt. But does that mean the inventor did not do anything illegal? No. He broke the law and deserves to be punished.
But he didn’t hurt anyone, right? Would it be better then if we modify the law so that passengers who promise to behave are allowed to board with bombs? Definitely not. Because the mere potential that a person *could* use the bomb for the more harmful act (detonation) is worth making the act of boarding with bombs illegal itself.
It becomes clear then why dollar accounts are not exempted by the SALN. In our analogy, dollar accounts are the undetectable bomb. And although having an undeclared account is by itself harmless, those who wrote the SALN law thought that non-declaration should be in itself an offense because it could be used to hide corruption.
As far as the prosecution is concerned, the legality of how Corona accumulated his wealth is no longer the issue. What’s at stake is whether he violated the spirit of the SALN. And I agree with the prosecution that of this he is guilty.
The most common argument used by Corona’s supporters is that he’s not the only one at fault. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has found that President Noynoy and several cabinet members are potentially guilty of violating the SALN. But even if it is a common violation, it is still a violation, and every one of them who can be proven guilty should also receive the proper punishment.
This, however, does not mean they should all be punished at the same time. It’s Corona’s case that’s being heard, and it’s him that we should focus on. Punishing him for violating the SALN does not mean we can no longer go after other violators. On the contrary, punishing Corona will set a precedent that will be applied to all the other violators. If the senator-judges ignore the spirit of the SALN and acquit Corona, it will mean that Corona’s hypocritical critics are innocent as well.
I don’t think anyone is against fighting corruption. The intent of those who are defending Corona because of the hypocrisy of his accusers — and those who were asking other Congressmen to sign the conditional waiver — is a noble one. But it is misguided and fallacious (for starters see the tu quoque and perfect solution fallacies).
Let’s convict Corona first, send the message that we won’t accept circumvention of the law, and then go after all other public servants who may (or may not) be hiding ill-gotten wealth in illegally undisclosed accounts.
___
These are my opinions. Filipino Freethinkers does not have an official position on this issue.
[…] Firstly, the said constitutional provision mentions the phrase “as may be provided by law” only twice: In reference to the frequency of the filing of the SALN, and the manner with which the SALN is to be disclosed to the public. The FCDA concerns neither of these. Secondly, the FCDA’s “absolute confidentiality” clause applies only to bank officials who must not divulge any information on the foreign currency deposits of their clients. The clients themselves, however, are free to divulge these information, which is exactly why the Chief Justice can waive his bank secrecy rights as he did last Friday. Thirdly, the Constitution does not speak of any exemption to the assets and liabilities that public officials are required to disclose. Indeed, any exemption would defeat the purpose of the SALN itself, as activist Red Tani has suggested. […]
I agree that the challenge for others to take the waiver is a load of bull, after all he's on trial, not the other people regardless of how he sees or trying to make it look that way. But when you consider the pressure and calls for him to sign a waiver and divulge all details, it's just funny to see how unutilized it is. The senate won't touch it. The defense won't bother with it. The prosecution's not using it. Why were we asking for this again? 😀
I do agree that the spirit of the SALN law seeks to bring to public all assets of officials, however the way the law was written in the end is what is followed by our courts. However what Corona is now trying to do is argue with a legal defense which I believe is best left to lawyers and judges to decide upon. His contention is that regardless of the spirit or the intent in the SALN, the FCDA combined with the part "As provided by law" ensures that his dollar deposits remain absolutely confidential. I personally do not agree with this but I'm not a lawyer and it's up to the Senate-Judges to decide on the legal merit of this defense.
That's why I disagree with your analogy. The genius inventor in our case is stating that he brought that bomb and did not disclose nor think it is illegal to bring the bomb is because the law specifically prohibiting explosives in an airplane produced the loophole necessary to allow him "legally" bring it along. He's not claiming that it is not ill gotten rather Corona is trying to argue the law, that the SALN and FCDA interpreted according to the Letter of the Law rather than the Spirit of the Law allows him to not disclose his dollar accounts. Let lawyers be lawyers and decide on whether his legal argument has any merit. After all, you don't punish the criminal who found a loophole, you blame the lawmakers who failed in closing such loopholes.
I actually agree with a lot of your points about how a crime is still a crime regardless of who it hurt or the widespread of it's occurance. However, I just wanted to give my own take on why I'm leaning on the side of 'I'd rather he not be impeached' despite not feeling strongly about the matter either way.
The premise driving the impeachment trial is what's got me skeeved about the whole thing. PNoy's administration is so vehemently against him because they believe him on former president GMA's side. Nevermind the fact that the main thing they wanted to call into question before the trial was that he could not be just as he had an obvious bias, nevermind the fact that the decisions made re: GMA's leaving were lawfully correct.
What I just hate about this is that it is such a selective implementation of justice towards Corona, it's not even funny. You are 100% right, the common-place-ness of the practice does not excuse Corona for his misdeeds. However, lets be real, the only reason he was called into question is because PNoy and his administrationdo not like him. He does not make the decisions the current administration want him to take, and that pisses them off.
Rather childish of me, I know, but I'd still wishfully think that he not be impeached as a fuck you to PNoy & his administration's attempt to quell dissenting views. It's a terrible reason, I know, but the negative-ned part of me just can't get over that others who are just as corrupt are more will not get their own come-uppance if they continue licking PNoy's boots.