Speech of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago:

Explaining his verdict on Chief Justice Renato Corona

[Delivered on May 29, 2012]

The Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof is on the
Prosecution. How much proof is necessary? In other words, what is that standard of
proof?

I have adopted the very high standard of overwhelming preponderance of evidence

pursuant to the recommendation of Prof. Charles Black of Yale University, author of The
Impeachment, considered the bible for the whole world on impeachment process in a
democracy.

My standard is very high because removal by conviction on impeachment is a stunning

penalty, the ruin of a life.

The Defendant admitted that he did not declare his dollar accounts and certain
commingled peso accounts in his SALN. Let us begin with this threshold question: Did
this omission amount to an impeachable offense? No.

Under the rule of ejusdem generis, when a general word occurs after a number of
specific words the meaning of the general word shall be limited to the kind or class of
thing within which the specific words fall.

The Constitution provides that the impeachable offenses are “culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of
public trust.”

An omission in good faith in the SALN carries a light penalty. It is even allowed by law to
be corrected by the person who submitted it. Thus, it is not impeachable because it is
not in the same class as the offenses enumerated in the Constitution. If we disregard
this rule of ejusdem generis, then we can interpret the law to mean anything as long as
the enumeration of specific words is followed by a general word.

Wala nang limitasyon iyon. Pag sinabi pala ng Constitution, “other high crimes or
betrayal of public trust,” wala na palang limitasyon iyon—iyan kung hindi ka nag-aral ng
batas. Sabi ng batas, you apply the rule of ejusdem generis—kailangan may listahan na
isa-isa nilang sinasabi kung ano ang kasalanan at mayroong isang salita na hindi mo
malaman kung ano ang kasalanan, Dapat basahin mo iyan na pare-pareho doon sa
kasalanan na nalista na. In other words, it should belong to the same class. Does
omission in the SALN belong to the same class, as, for example, treason, bribery, et
cetera?
The Constitution simply provides that the public officer shall submit a declaration under
oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. I am quoting the Constitution. That is all.
There are no details. The Constitution is a brief declaration of fundamental principles.
Many constitutional provisions are only commands to the Congress to enact laws, to
carry out the purpose of the Charter. As a general rule, constitutional provisions are not
self-executory. Hindi naman puwede na basahin mo ang Constitution na para ka bang
nagbasa ng diyaryo, tapos kanya-kanya kayo ng interpretasyon. Hindi ganuon iyon.
Kaya nga mayroon tayong constitutional law, which is said to be the most difficult
subject to pass in the entire college of law.

Hindi ganoon kadali magbasa ng Constitution. Constitutional analysis is a field of art in

itself. It is a technical field. Kaya apat na taon ang abogasiya. Kung maski sino na lang
pala pwedeng wag-interpret ng Constitution, bakit pa tayo may mga abogado? Eh di
kanya-kanya na lang.

The usual exceptions are the Bill of Rights—iyan, self-executory iyan, basahin mo,
sundin mo—and constitutional prohibitions—’pag sinabi ng batas, “hindi puwede ito,”
iyan sundin mo kaagad. Pero lahat hindi mo puwedeng masunod kaagad-agad.
Maghintay ka kung anong batas ang ipapasa ng Kongreso. Wala kaming ginagawa sa
Kongreso kundi maghintay kung ano ang sinabi ng Constitution. That is the main
function of legislation. All other constitutional provisions such as the SALN provision,
need implementing laws to provide the details. Hence, Congress, to implement these
constitutional provisions, has passed a number of laws including the Foreign Currency
Act, which confers absolute confidentiality on dollar deposits.

Nakikinig lang ako doon noon sa mga argumento na the Foreign Currency Act violates
the Constitution. I was already hoping with all my heart that God would strike me dead.
Mabuti pa ang mamatay ako bilang isang abogada kaysa makinig ako ng mga rason na
ganuon. Wala iyan sa libro, wala iyan dito, wala iyan doon. Para bang hindi ka nagbasa
ng batas mo. Ibig mong sabihin wala na palang batas na umiiral sa mga trial na ito
kundi kanya-kanya ng isipan?

There is no conflict between the Constitution and the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. The
perceived conflict is so simplistic that it is seriously laughable—nakakatawa ka o
nagpapatawa ka. If there is any conflict, it is between the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards on the one hand, which provides for a waiver of confidentiality, and the
Foreign Currency Deposit Act, on the other hand, which provides for absolute
confidentiality.

Kaya sinusunod natin ang batas—the Constitution—pero ang batas na pinaiiral ng

Kongreso ang mukhang may conflict. Pero hindi mo masabi na the Constitution is clear,
so the Constitution will, of course, prevail over an ordinary law. Ano namang klaseng
kagaguhan iyanl Galit kayo dahil ginamit ko ang salita na “kagaguhan” I repeat,
kagaguhan iyan. Why do we study law if that is your opinion?
At bakit mo tawagin na quasi-judicial itong proceedings na ito if it is all purely political
and anyone can have his own opinion?

It is for Congress to balance, on the one hand, the need for public accountability from
public officers with, on the other hand, the desperate need for foreign investment, which
entails confidentiality on pain of driving away investors from our country. Iyan ang rason
kung bakit mayroon tayong Foreign Currency Deposit Act dahil gusto natin na iparating
ang foreign investment at walang foreign investor, I promise you, na darating kung
mayroong bayan na may batas pala na lahat ng dolyar mo ideklara mo. Walang
darating maski ni isa. That is the purpose of that law. Did anyone of you bother to find
out why we have a Foreign Currency Deposit Act? Puro lamang ang tingin ninyo tungkol
sa impeachment. Iparke mo ang pera mo diyan, mamaya isasalungat ko iyong mga
argumento ninyong iyan. It makes me angry as a former law professor and as a future
judge of the International Criminal Court that you should presume to administer justice
in this manner. I am insulted by the way your minds run. The argument that a dollar
deposit, protected from inquiry, would nullify the principle of transparency is for
Congress to resolve. E, ‘di tayo, kayo sa House at kami sa Senate, tayo ang gumawa
niyan, tayo ngayon ang may problema. Bibigyan natin ng solusyon ang problema. We
could retain the absolute confidentiality clause with the amendment that Filipino public
officers are not protected. Iyon ang dapat na gagawin natin.

The Prosecution mistakes admission for confession. In law, in a confession, the

defendant admits his guilt. In an admission, the defendant merely states facts which
might tend to prove his guilt. In the instant case, the defendant did not make a
confession but merely an admission with a legal defense.

As a former RTC judge, I find it reprehensible, reprehensible beyond belief that the
AMLC document was introduced in evidence without authentication as required by the
rules of evidence. Nagpapanggap-panggapan pa tayo na korte tayong quasi-judicial,
lyonpala, sinabi pa natin na if there is any need, we shall use as a supplemental
authority the Rules of Court. lyon pala, hindi natin susundin ang rules of evidence. Hindi
ka pwedeng magdala maski na anong papel sa Korte, i-authenticate mo. Kung hindi mo
naintindihan ang authenticate, huwag kang mag-abogado diyan.

I am deeply disappointed that on, at least, three occasions, the prosecution claimed that
his documents came from an anonymous source. Strike me dead. Three times is just
too much coincidence. Are you for real, prosecution? Falsus in unum, falsus in
omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.

The defendant used his own name in all his questioned transactions. He could have
done otherwise if his purpose was invisibility. Kung ayaw ninyong matuklasan,
napakadali. Gamitin niya ang pangalan ng iba. Lahat naman tayo—hindi naman lahat—
marami sa atin dito kung tungkol na sa batas, ibang pangalan ang ginagamit. Sigurado
ako niyan. RTC judge ako eh. Mag-isa lamang akong RTC judge dito sa Korteng ito.
Maski ano, puwede mong wa-manufacture sa Pilipinas. Minsan binigyanpa nga ako ng
death certificate ng akusado, pagkatapos pinahuli ko; huling-huli, buhay na buhay.
Ganoon ang ating Korte dito. Huwag niyo akong paandaran ng kalokohan ninyo dahil
alam na alam ko iyon. Kayo, nag-practice kayo isang taon, dalawang taon? Ako, RTC
judge.

Why would a suspected criminal leave his calling cards at the scene of the crime? Kung
noon pa gusto pala niyang itago ang kayamanan niya, bakit niya ilagay sa pangalan
niya? Marami dito sa Pilipinas naglalagay sa ibang pangalan ng ibang tao. Hindi kaya
alam ng abogado iyon? May masters pa sa Harvard, may doctorate pa sa UST. Ganoon
ba siya katanga?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a preponderance of evidence for the
Prosecution, the preponderance is not overwhelming.

Iyan ang English. Inihanda ko para sa two minutes ko. Eh wala pala kaming limitasyon.
Ngayon Tagalog naman at hihingi na ako ng paumanhin abanse pa lamang, dahil
kulang na kulang ang Tagalog ko.

Unang punto: Kung matalo ang chief justice dito, ibig sabihin pala ang mga nananalo ay
mga honest na tao dahil kinondena nila dahil corrupt ang taong iyon. Palagay din natin
na itong mga representante—dahil nga tayo we represent the people, is that not so?
That is why we are elected officers; we are supposed to represent our constituencies.
Kung hahatulan nating may sola iyan dahil crooked siya, di ibig lang sabihin honest
tayo. Ngayon, kung lahat pala tayo honest, o marami pala sa atin ay honest, why is the
Philippines often, or if not all the time, why is the Philippines always ranked as one of
the most corrupt countries in the whole world?

Iyan, sagutin ninyo ako niyan. Nagpapakalinis kayo. Aba kung malinis pala ang mga
opisyales natin at malinis pala sa buong bansa, bakit palagi tayong nililista ng
Transparency International as one of the most corrupt countries in the world?
Magtitinginan tayo? Sino kaya dito? Iyan ang unang punto ko.

Pangalawa, tumigil na nga kayo ng kapapanggap-panggap ninyo, mga artista.

Mayroong mga pulitiko na alam na alam natin kung ano ang loopholes nila sa SALN.
Ang sinasabi ng batas, kapag katapusan ng Disyembre, katapusan ng taon,
magdeklara ka kung magkano ang pera mo sa bangko. Hindi ba wini-withdraw nilapera
nila sa buwan na Nobyembre o Disyembre parapag nag-file sila ng SALN nila, wala nga
silang deposito o kaya mayroon lang silang couple of thousands kasi winidraw
(withdraw) nila eh ‘pag Enero, i-deposit nila uli.

Taongbayan, kayo ang magtestigo. Iyan, bakit hindi natin habulin iyong ganoon?

Pangalawa, palusot o pangalawang ginagawa nila na loopholes sa SALN lahat ngpag-

aari nila—real estate, bank accounts, iba pang pag-aari—ilalagay sa ibang pangalan.
Iyan ay very, very widespread. O di wala na naman silang pag-aari dahil lahat inilagay
na nila sa ibang pangalan. Kung bawal ang asawa at ang mga anak dahil sa batas ay
inspeksiyunin pati iyan iyong mga malapit sa kanila, di doon sa mga malalayo na mga
kamag-anak o kaya maski hindi kamag-anak, sa kaibigan na pinagkakatiwalaan nila.

What a hypocritical accusation. That is a problem with this country. We are all for
honest government, and yet the world condemns us as one of the most corrupt
countries in the world. That is why it is difficult to win in any international election, in any
international campaign, because the Philippines, among others, has a reputation of
being a corrupt country, hip ng iba kung corrupt ang bayan na iyan, walang matinong
lalabas diyan. Walang matinong ibubunga iyan.

Bakit bawat isa ba sa inyo walang sala tungkol sa SALN? Bigyan ninyo ako ng isa pang
buhay, Panginoon, bigyan mo ako ng isa pang buhay at iimbestigahin ko lahat isa-isa
dito sa Senado at sa House of Representatives. Tingnan natin. Pati sarili ko
imbestigahin ko.

[Senate President Enrile: Order please.]

Ang daming loopholes ng SALN na iyan, bakit hindi kayo umimik noon? Bakit ngayon
bigla na lang kayong so exorcised about a loophole? Well, if that is the case, then let us
all just put our assets in dollars and the purpose of the SALN will be perverted or
corrupted. That is true. But what about all the other loopholes? Bakit ngayon lang kayo
nagalit tungkol sa loophole na iyan? Bakit hindi noon pa? Dahil iyong iba sa atin
ginagamit iyong mismong loopholes na iyon. Hindi lang sila ma-impeach.

Sunod na punto. Sinabi ko sa umpisa, this is quasi-judicial and this is quasi-political.

Iyan aminado iyan ng mga authors—si Prof. Charles Black ng Yale, si Prof. Raoul
Berger ng Harvard. Mga tinitingala iyan ng mga authorities all over the world.

Ngayon, this is quasi-judicial. Ibig sabihin, kalahati niyan pulitika, kalahati niyan batas.
Napakahirap gawin iyan.

Ngayon, ako dahil naging RTC judge, ang ginagamit ko lang ay ang batas. Wala akong
ginagamit na pampulitika dahil hindi na ako makatakbo uli. Tinatawag na ako ng
International Criminal Court. Wala na akong kinabukasan sa pulitika sa Pilipinas. Even
though I wanted to, I am prohibited because this is already my second consecutive
term.

Ngayon, ano ba ang sinasabi na quasi-political? Imbestigahin nga natin for future
impeachments. Ano ang sinasabi na quasi-judicial, quasi-political? Madaling intindihin
ang quasi-judicial. Kalahati niyan ay tungkol sa hustisya o tungkol sa batas, pero ang
kalahati niyan ay tungkol sa pulitika. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng tungkol sa pulitika?
Tungkol sa pulitika, dahil ang ibig sabihin niyan ay pag-iisipan mo at pakinggan mo ang
mga taong bumuto sa iyo. That is actually the meaning of quasi-political. Because
people might disagree with what the law says, iyon ang pakikinggan mo. That is the
meaning of quasi-political.
Hindi ang ibig sabihin quasi-political na boboto ka ulit, bibigyan ka ng mamahaling
proyekto sa public works na kung saan maaaring kumita ka. Alam naman natin iyan
kung magkano ang halaga ng public works mo, ten percent ang mapupunta sa iyo kung
gusto mo. Hindi iyon ang ibig sabihin ng pulitika. At hindi ibig sabihin na quasi-political
na isipin mo, naku, tatakbo ako, either for reelection or for another position, or I need
some position in government for my kaalyado ko, whom will I use as my dummy. That is
not the meaning of quasi-political.

[Enrile: May I request the Lady to wind up please?]

I thought that I was unlimited. I prepared a two-minute paper but I will obey the
injunction.

At saka, isang punto. Nang matapos mag-prisinta ng ebidensiya ang prosecution,

naglabas ng mga survey na ang mga tao gusto pala na guilty ang chief justice. Ngayon,
natapos ang depensa, nasaan ngayon ang mga survey? Wala.

At huli sa lahat at pinakamahalaga—hindi na importante kung ano ang magiging

desisyon natin ngayong hapon—ano ang magiging katuparan, ano ang susunod sa
ating desisyon? Ulit ba mananalo tayo sa botohan, panalo na tayo?

Sa masa na nakararami sa ating bansa and we follow the rule of the majority, sa
kabataan sa pamantasan dahil they are educated constituency, sa kasaysayan ng ating
bansa, this will go down in history. Nagtrabaho ako abroad, nagka-cancer ang tatay ko,
bumalik ako, ang sabi ng tatay ko, “Mag-resign ka nga riyan sa trabaho mong iyan, wala
kang silbi sa bayan mo. Magsilbi ka sa sarili mong kababayan.” Nagsilbi na nga ako.
Pero kung ang pulitika ay mangingibahaw sa batas, wala na rin akong silbi.

Bayan, kayo ang maghatol sa ginagawa rito sa impeachment trial.

[Enrile: What is your vote?]

Would you be very surprised if I say that I vote not guilty?