CJ Corona's fortune worth 80 million pesos

Claiming he undervalued his assets, prosecutors on Friday (March 16) said impeached Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona should have declared a personal fortune of as much as 80 million pesos-more than four times what he put down in his most recent statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

"We believe that his net worth should have been 70 million and 80 million pesos based on our computation of all of his assets and bank deposits that were presented in the trial. He only declared a net worth of 22 million pesos in his SALN in 2010," Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III said at a press conference.

Defense counsel Tranquil Salvador III rejected the prosecution claim.

"That is their own computation. We don't know where they got the values or how they got the computation. We should be given a chance to lay down our evidence. It appears they're preempting our presentation of evidence by making their own explanation of evidence they have presented," Salvador said.

"I just hope this is not a ploy to condition the mind of the public."

Salvador added: "To my mind the statements made by the prosecution are a reaction to the questions of certain senator-judges that their claim of 45 ill-gotten properties of Chief Justice Corona can't be proven. Based on last count and we're only on our fourth day, we're left with only five other properties to be explained."

Tañada said the prosecution used the acquisition costs of Corona's prime real estate assets, such as The Bellagio penthouse and the Bonifacio Ridge prime condo unit, to come up with his "real" net worth. The defense at Corona's impeachment trial said the Chief Justice listed these properties at their assessed and market values, which were markedly lower than their actual values, primarily for tax purposes.

Tañada, a prosecution spokesperson, noted that Corona not only declared less than a quarter of his actual net worth but that he also failed to declare his assets and bank accounts at the year of their acquisition or opening.

"That is the question, why did he deliberately fail to fill up the acquisition cost in all of his SALN?" he said.

Tañada stressed that the prosecution's initial estimate of Corona's net worth did not include dollar accounts estimated to range from $300,000 to $700,000. A temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court has prevented the disclosure of those deposits.

Help from peers

Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, another prosecution spokesperson, said Corona knew his dollar accounts were too big to be justified by his income and allowances, as well as by the money owned by his wife in the Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. This was why he sought the help of his peers in the high court to block the senator-judges from prying into his foreign currency deposits, Angara claimed.

Tañada also said the defense team took pains to bring the Supreme Court's budget and disbursement officer Araceli Bayuga to testify at the Senate trial to show that Corona earned 21.6 million pesos since being appointed to the high court.

"They wanted to show that Corona had a legitimate source of income. This is deception on the part of the defense. They told the public that the Chief Justice had a P25-million income and it is up to you [to determine] where he used it," Tañada said.

Tañada noted that Corona's allowances were spread out over 10 years and that these funds were not allowed to be used to buy assets.

Tañada shrugged off a defense threat to show the SALNs of select senator-judges to prove that these officials were also remiss in filling up the acquisition cost column, just like Corona.

"They (the senators) will convict based on the evidence presented before them. They will not consider their own SALNs," Tañada said. "I'm sure the senators will say 'we are not on trial here' and that they stand by their SALNs. 'Why present our SALNs in an impeachment court?'"

Corona should testify

Angara said the defense would be comparing apples and oranges if it came out with the SALN of legislators.

"Senators and representatives could be brought to the Ombudsman, unlike the Chief Justice and other impeachable officers, who have to be removed from office first before they could be charged in court," said Angara.

Tañada and Angara said that after the defense had presented seven witnesses, it was inevitable that Corona should testify himself and personally explain why he left out his assets and bank deposits in his SALN; why he used deflated figures and kept blank the acquisition value of his assets; why he was "hell-bent" on keeping his dollar accounts secret; and how much of his income and allowances were used to buy his assets.

Abad explains

Angara said that for Corona to claim that other government officials were doing what he was doing would not hold water.

"It's not a valid defense for a thief to say there were other thieves so what he did was just all right. That should not be the case. Your crime is personal to you," Angara said.

He said Corona had no basis to claim that the SALN forms were at fault for being vague.

"All government employees have the same form. The issue is if it was truthfully filled up. So let us not blame the form," said Angara.

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad on Friday acknowledged that he only used the assessed value of his pieces of property in his SALN disclosures during all his years in government service.

Following a report by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) about his supposed failure to indicate as well the current fair market value and acquisition cost of his property, Abad said he would start doing so when he files his SALN for 2011 this April.

"In the interest of transparency, I will review my previous SALNs and include the acquisition cost and the fair market value, to the extent that the pertinent documents are still available. This will also be reflected in the SALN that I will file in April for year 2011," Abad said in a statement.

Corona's lawyer Ramon Esguerra had adverted to a PCIJ report that Abad did not indicate the current fair market values and acquisition costs of the pieces of property he owned.

"I acknowledge though that with respect to my real properties, I have declared their value based on the assessed value, which has been the basis of the taxes I have paid against these," Abad said.

"In all my years in public service, my attention has never been called to this, whether by the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman or the Commission on Appointments," he added.

Abad said he had been truthful in filing his SALNs since he was a representative for Batanes and when he became a Cabinet member.

Corona owned wide variety of firearms

It turns out, according to PNP records, that Corona has owned not just one gun but a veritable personal armory, from revolvers to high-powered machine guns, and even a vintage Winchester, the kind popularized by American cowboys in the 19th century.

Family dispute The alleged physical threat by Corona was first mentioned by Ana Basa, a first cousin of his wife, who described in detail to the Philippine Daily Inquirer this week how the Corona couple allegedly cheated the rest of the clan of collectively owned property and other assets.

Corona claimed that the millions in cash that he had in bank accounts revealed during his impeachment trial were proceeds from the sale of family property, which Ana Basa said was a surprise to the rest of the Basa clan. In the Inquirer story, Ana Basa said her clan had long been asking her cousin, Mrs. Corona, for an accounting of the properties. Mrs. Corona was the administrator of the family properties under the corporation Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. set up by her grandparents in 1961.

One of those properties was a lot in Sampaloc, Manila, where the family caretaker Aguilon maintained a small home. Aguilon stated in his affidavit that the Corona couple had his home demolished without warning in January 1997, and Renato Corona, then a presidential legal counsel in the administration of then-President Fidel Ramos, pointed a gun at him while saying,

"Baka gusto mong pasabugin kita."

However, according to PNP records, the first two of Corona's licensed guns were registered only in late 1997. The .38-caliber and .22-caliber revolvers were registered respectively on Oct. 14, 1997 and Nov. 6, 1997.

While denying that he pointed a gun at a property caretaker, Chief Justice Renato Corona admitted that he owned a gun. PNP records, however, showed he has owned at least 31 firearms, including an Uzi and a vintage Winchester popularized by American cowboys in the 19th century.

The chief magistrate has had a total of 31 firearms under his name since 1997. These include 18 pistols,

six revolvers,

two machine pistols, two shotguns, one submachinegun, one high-powered rifle, and a carbine. Among these are an Uzi, a Beretta, and a Glock, all leading gun brands.

The licenses of all the firearms have expired except for two: a .380-caliber pistol (Lic. No. 374-2900), which expires October 15, 2015; and a 9mm machine pistol (T0624-07V0060978), which expires on October 15, 2014. It was not immediately clear from PNP records if the expired licenses have been renewed or whether ownership has been

transferred to other entities. Sought for comment about Corona's guns, lawyer Ramon Esguerra, the magistrate's legal counsel in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial, told GMA News Online in a text message that he was "not aware" of the firearms that his client has owned over the years. In a long-running family feud between Mrs. Corona and her cousins and mother's siblings, Chief Justice Corona has been accused of using his influence with judges and even of terrorizing other clan members and their workers, such as what allegedly occurred to Mr. Aguilon.

"Walang nangyaring panunutok ng baril. Hindi po ako kilala bilang mainitin ang ulo,"

Corona told GMA News' Unang Hirit host Arnold Clavio last Wednesday.

In the same interview, Corona admitted owning a firearm, but quickly added:

"Meron akong baril pero hindi ko ito dinadala."

A summary of Renato Corona's 31 guns with corresponding serial numbers, according to the PNP:

.45-cal revolver (DAN1906)
.38-cal revolver (A40241)
.22-cal revolver (CJS2753)
.38-cal revolver (88676)
.22-cal revolver (145560)
.22-cal revolver (UD93691)
.32-cal pistol (DAA096492)
.380-cal pistol (374-29000)
.45-cal pistol (748851)
.45-calpistol (1678782)
.22-cal pistol (1948)
.45-cal pistol (92456B70) 9mm pistol (AS335)
.40-cal pistol (DLB531)
.45-cal pistol M37 (GDV758)
.40-cal pistol (QL1431)
.45-cal pistol (RK6887)
.45-cal pistol (SN24969E)
.45-cal pistol (WF3557)
.45-cal pistol (BL32370)
.45-cal pistol (DHZ878)
.45-cal pistol (KPA11832)
.45-cal frame (BL31184)
.45-cal frame (PG005068)
.9mm machine pistol (T0624-07V0060978) 9mm machine pistol (SR01121)
.12GA shotgun (M450399) 12GA shotgun (RC101548)
.9mm submachine gun MK9 (P0580)
.556 high-powered rifle (4951938)
.30-cal carbine (7243757)

Mukhang pera!

Lahat tayo ay mahilig sa pera. Hipokrito ka nalang kung sasabihin mong hindi. Kaya ka nga nagtatrabaho (bukod ng dahilang para sa ikabubuti ng pamilya) ay para kumita ng pera. 'Yung bulag nga sa "Slumdog Millionaire", alam ang denomination ng pera sa pag-amoy lang, paano pa kaya ang mga nakakakita? Paksyet ang gasgas na kasabihang "hindi mahalaga ang pera". Tingnan lang natin kung saan kang taehan pupulutin kung wala kang pera.

The recent “arrest” and booking of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in St. Luke’s hospital is a reminder that life is indeed like a wheel—sometimes we are on top, other times on the bottom. Her arrest should remind us of former President Joseph Estrada who was arrested, booked, convicted, but pardoned before he could spend a day in a real jail. Erap is quoted to have described the experience as “weather-weather lang” (from the Filipino “pana-panahon lang”). Former First Lady and now Ilocos Rep. Imelda Marcos used to comment on the flood of charges brought against her, saying she faced almost 400 court cases—more than all her fingers and toes, more than the days in a calendar year. She too has not spent a day in jail.
We go through life and see these historical reminders but rarely notice then. Take our currency, do we look closely at the designs of our coins and banknotes? Don’t these represent our past, our culture, our identity? Open your wallet and pull out banknotes, old and new. Look at the faces and scenes printed on them and you are treated to a review of recent political history that should lead us to reflect on the GMA arrest and the Latin phrase “Sic transit gloria mundi (Thus passes the glory of the world).”

In 1987, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas issued a new denomination banknote—P500—in yellow, a celebration of the color of people’s protest against two decades under Ferdinand Marcos, a celebration of Cory Aquino and People Power. The logical choice for the portrait on the P500 bill was Benigno “Ninoy” S. Aquino Jr., martyred husband of then President Cory. Compared to previous notes the P500 bill was a breath of fresh air in terms of design and color, until feng shui experts focused on details they deemed inauspicious. Ninoy had his chin resting on his fist, and so the country’s economic woes were blamed on his brooding portrait. If Ninoy were made to smile like a pot-bellied Buddha, the P500 bill would bring good fortune and prosperity to the nation, it was said.

Signatures were collected and a petition sent to the BSP governor by a group that called itself Pangitiin si Ninoy Movement (Make Ninoy Smile Movement). The BSP ignored the petition. BSP officials were reminded of a little-known Civil Service Commission regulation that states that if a citizen sends a written request to a government official, he deserves a written reply within 15 days. Failure to reply could be the basis for a formal complaint lodged with the CSC or the Office of the Ombudsman.
With the exception of Josefa Llanes Escoda who smiles at us from the P1,000 bill, everyone is stiff and formal: Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, Macapagal, Ninoy. Even Jose Abad Santos and Vicente Lim, who share the space with Escoda in the P1,000 bill, are not smiling. The BSP solved the issue raised by the Pangitiin si Ninoy Movement with the new-generation currency launched at the end of 2010. Ninoy has been joined by Cory on the P500 bill and both of them are smiling so widely that you can see their gums (kita na ang gilagid). Furthermore, it is significant that we have one family on the new P500 bill: the son of Cory and Ninoy happens to be the sitting President of the Philippines so the scrawl of Benigno “Noynoy” S. Aquino III can be seen beside that of the BSP governor’s as the government guarantee or promise to pay the bearer with the amount printed. The operative words on the banknotes read: “Ang salaping ito ay bayarin ng Bangko Sentral [ng Pilipinas] at pinanagutan ng Republika ng Pilipinas” (This money is payable by the Central Bank [of the Philippines] and guaranteed by the Republic of the Philippines.) With its updated design and enhanced security features, people say in jest that the only images lacking in the new P500 bill are those of P-Noy’s sisters. These people suggest that to complete the picture, it should have Kris Aquino together with her sons Josh and Baby James.

The first banknotes series issued by the Central Bank in 1951 had nine denominations, most of them bearing the portraits of 19th century heroes of Philippine independence: P1-Apolinario Mabini, P2-Jose Rizal, P5-Marcelo H. del Pilar and Graciano Lopez Jaena, P10-Frs. Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, P20-Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, P50-Juan Luna. There was only one woman, Melchora Aquino, a.k.a Tandang Sora, on P100, and there were two 20th century politicians, Manuel Quezon on the P200 and Manuel Roxas on P500. The 19th century heroes have fallen by the wayside or have been relegated to coins such that the 2010 banknotes are dominated by 20th century politicians, with the notable exception of the P1,000 bill which bears the portraits of heroes of the Japanese occupation. Quezon and Roxas have been on our banknotes since 1951.

Whose mug shots are on our banknotes and why? Who are excluded from banknotes and why? Our currency deserves a closer look.

Pin It

Corona Impeachment, a waste of time and effort

It was unrealistic to have expected the 2001 Senate to remove Pres. Joseph Estrada at his impeachment trial even had the senate majority voted to open the envelope that would have revealed the amount (P3.2 billion) that Estrada (aka “Jose Velarde”) kept in his Equitable Bank accounts. It is not realistic now in the trial of Corona even had the Senate majority voted to ignore the TRO of the Supreme Court and subpoenaed Corona’s dollar accounts in the Pilipino Savings Bank.

It would be unrealistic even if the House prosecutors were composed of experienced litigators in the vein (or vain) of Juan Ponce-Enrile, Miriam Defensor-Santiago or even Joker Arroyo when he headed the House prosecutors against Estrada.

It would be unrealistic even if the Senate were to accept all the evidence of Renato Corona’s ownership of 24 pieces of real property, including the luxurious Bellagio penthouse condo, as well as tens of millions of Philippine pesos (and at least $700,000) in his bank accounts and even if it was established that Corona, a tax law specialist, evaded paying taxes on all his unreported income and assets.

The reality is that facts don’t matter in a system where 16 senators are needed to vote in favor of removing the impeached public official, which is twice the burden of the defense which needs only to convince 8 senators to vote against removal for whatever expedient reason they may choose.

Since there are only 23 senators (after Sen. Benigno Aquino III was elected president in 2010), 8 senators voting against removing Corona would mean only 15 left to vote for his removal, which would not be sufficient, as a 2/3rds super majority of 16 is needed to remove an impeached official.

The basic problem with the whole senate impeachment process is not just the arithmetic but the composition of the jury. The senator-jurors are all politicians, who are naturally motivated by political considerations, not by lofty notions of truth and justice. These senate-jurors don’t even have a set of jury instructions to ignore.

Besides, if truth be told, many of these senators are guilty of the same charges that have been leveled against Corona. Who among them has not received unreported sums — some of which may also have been deposited in dollar accounts — from benefactors who seek favors from them? Who among them has truthfully listed all their assets in their SALNs? If they vote to remove Corona on charges that they themselves are also guilty of, then they would be just knotting their own nooses.

While some of them may nevertheless vote against their own self-interests and according to the dictates of their conscience, most will surely not.

Some may vote to remove Corona, not because his removal would advance good governance, but because they may expect favors from the President, perhaps support when they run for re-election in 2013 or appointment to a cabinet post.

But most will likely succumb to the influence of the major forces actively lobbying for the political acquittal of Corona.

Foremost among them is former Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) who sees Corona as her main hope to avoid incarceration for corruption. Corona proved his loyalty to her when he abruptly cut short his vacation in San Francisco last November to rush back to mobilize a majority of Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court (SC) justices to grant a TRO that would have allowed GMA to leave the Philippines and avoid incarceration. This same SC majority can be counted on in the future to dismiss the charges against GMA and to allow her to leave the Philippines.

At a recent cabinet meeting, Pres. Aquino said that a Supreme Court without Corona ensures a conviction and a long jail term for GMA. And GMA knows this to be true. If the former First Couple accumulated billions of pesos/dollars while in office as the government alleges, then surely dispensing a few million pesos/dollars to a few grateful senators will be well worth the cost. After all, how can GMA enjoy her billions in Bilibid Prison?

While the INC endorsed Aquino in the 2010 presidential elections, the INC was greatly disappointed when Aquino sacked former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Magtanggol Gatdula, an INC member, for his involvement in the abduction of a Japanese tourist wanted by the Yakuza. The INC wants Aquino to apologize to Gatdula and reinstate him in his post.

The INC’s top lawyer is former Supreme Court justice Serafin Cuevas, the chief defense counsel of Corona.

Other INC lawyers are active in representing cases brought by the government. GMA is being represented by former GMA Justice Secretary Artemio Toquero, an INC member, while former First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo is being represented by noted Hitler fan, Ferdinand Topacio, also an INC member.

It should also be noted that many of the senator-jurors won their seats because they were endorsed by the unified voting bloc of the INC and they can ignore the INC’s wishes only at their political peril.

While the INC has endorsed the Reproductive Health (RH) bill backed by Pres. Aquino, the other force supporting Corona is the Philippine Catholic Church which is staunchly opposed to the RH bill and whose bishops have threatened Aquino and RH backers with excommunication.

Bishop Ramon Arguelles of Lipa, Southern Luzon, recently asked the Senate to stop Corona’s impeachment trial while Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Pangasinan openly expressed support for Corona. Retired Novaliches Bishop Teodoro Bacani, the adviser of Mike Velarde’s El Shaddai gtroup, and Malolos Bishop Jose Oliveros charged that the impeachment complaint was politically-motivated and should be dismissed.

The other group furiously lobbying for Corona’s acquittal is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) headed by Roan Libarios. Even though five former IBP presidents have endorsed the impeachment of Corona, Libarios has called the impeachment of Corona “improper and inappropriate.” The IBP recently lauded Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile for his support of “the rule of law”. Many of these IBP lawyers have cases pending in the Supreme Court and believe that expressing support for the CJ will benefit them and their clients.

An IBP stalwart, Atty. Judd “The Dean” Roy, is one of the lawyers defending Corona. On February 2, he tweeted that “Honasan and Estrada stick the dagger into Tupas throat. Nicely done, guys.” On February 13, he tweeted about the head of the House prosecution panel: “Idiot Tupas, just one of those guys you love to keep f—ing over and over again.”

Probably the most influential of the “interest groups” lobbying the senators to acquit Corona is the group of unnamed beneficiaries of Corona’s Supreme Court decisions. Likely included in this group is Lucio Tan, owner of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), who gave Corona free Platinum Card tickets to fly with his wife to various cities while the case of PAL flight attendants against PAL was pending in the Supreme Court.

Also likely included is Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco, the beneficiary of a Corona Supreme Court decision that declared that he was not a crony of Ferdinand Marcos, a decision then Supreme Court Justice (now Ombudsman) Conchita Carpio-Morales dissented from and called the “biggest joke of the century”. It was a decision that allowed Cojuangco to maintain his majority control of San Miguel Corporation, a decision worth billions for Cojuangco.

Many members of this interest group have invested heavily in Corona and would not wish to see their investments go down the drain. Since many of them also fund the election campaigns of many of the senators, they exert considerable influence over the votes of their senators.

The final scorecard.

The eight senators who are reliable votes against the removal of Corona, regardless of the evidence, are: Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., Manuel “Manny”Villar, Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, and Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan.

Also joining them will be: Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Loren Legarda, and Ralph Recto. And if his vote is needed, the trial’s presiding officer, Juan “Manong Johnny” Ponce-Enrile. And there may even be four more senators.

People eat their hotdogs and their spam without really caring to know what goes into them. But when people learn of all the toxic ingredients that actually go into the food they eat, people will care and will do something about it. The same is true with the toothpaste of information that has been released to the public by the televised trial. No matter what Corona and his supporters may do in the future, they simply cannot return the toothpaste back into the tube or excise the damaging testimonies from YouTube.

Chief Justice Renato Corona Impeachment Trial 2012

Current Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has been impeached by the House of the Representative accusing him of betraying the Public Trust, committing Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Graft and Corruption.

The articles of impeachment are the following:

Article 1 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona betrayed the Public Trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo Administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court Justice and until his dubious appointment as a midnight chief justice to the present.

Article 2 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona committed culpable violation of the constitution and or betrayed the Public Trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.

Article 3 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona committed culpable violations of the constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that “[A} Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flop-flopping decisions in final and executor cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Article 4 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona betrayed the public trust and or committed culpable violation of the constitution when he blatangly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “Status Quo Ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro – Gutierrez.

Article 5 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona betrayed the Public Trust through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the Principle of Res Judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

Article 6 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

Article 7 of the Impeachment: Respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO.

Article 8 of the Impeachment: Renato Corona betrayed the Public Trust and or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

The impeachment trial in the Senate started on Monday, January 16, 2012.

Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal who is the clerk of court of the Supreme Court was called in as the first witness for the prosecution. She was told to surrender the SALNs (statements of assets, liabilities and net worth) from 2002 to 2010 of the Chief Justice to the impeachment court. At first, Vidal tried to beg the court citing Supreme Court en banc’s May 2, 1989 resolution which prohibit the public disclosure of the SALN of judges and justices.

But in the end, she was forced to turn over Corona’s SALN’s inside a brown envelope to the impeachment court. The prosecution panels received the documents and started to read them, but the Senator Sotto called their attention that the documents should be surrendered to the impeachment court not to the prosecutors. Then the documents are marked as evidence by the court.

Later, Marianito Dimaandal, records custodian of the Office of the President was called. He brought with him the certified copies of the SALN’s of Corona from 1992 to 2002 when Corona was still an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.