EAGLE EYES – Dean Tony La Viña

17 January 2012, Manila Standard Today

Pandora’s Jar

Zeus was furious when Prometheus, the titan, stole fire from the heavens and gave it to the
mortals. The god’s fury for this sacrilege was implacable such that he gifted Epimetheus, the
brother of Prometheus, with the beautiful and gifted Pandora, known in Greek mythology as the
first woman on earth. But there is a catch: together with Pandora was an earthen jar (for some
reason, most of us call it Pandora’s Box) which she was not to open under any circumstances.
Piqued by curiosity, Pandora nevertheless opened the jar – and lo and behold – all evil it
contained escaped and spread throughout the earth.

Riding over the crest of enormous popular support President Aquino pledged to run after
public officials during the last administration who are guilty of corruption and other chicanery in
public office. Many construed this as referring to former president Arroyo who even during her
term of office was plagued by charges of electoral fraud and other anomalies. In the mind of the
public, Mrs. Arroyo lied, stole and cheated. For President Aquino, she is indeed Prometheus
incarnate. Much like Prometheus who was bound to a rock while a great eagle ate his liver every
day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day, Mrs. Arroyo is now detained –
bound, if you must – in a hospital awaiting her fate in the hands of the courts.

We are now all too familiar with Mrs. Arroyo’s attempts to leave the country which was
thwarted by the Aquino government, in particular by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, the TRO
issued by the Supreme Court, the faster than lightning issuance by the COMELEC of a resolution
approving the filing of a case for electoral sabotage against her, the equally fast issuance by the
court of a warrant of arrest and now the breakneck impeachment of the Chief Justice. All these,
inconsistent with the normal experience of the Philippine justice system, were accomplished in
record time.

The whirlwind incarceration and indictment of Arroyo and the resultant impeachment of
Chief Justice promise to stay at the forefront of the present administration’s major concerns in
the foreseeable future. While the administration is downplaying its political and economic
effects, many believe that the executive and the judiciary have effectively locked horns
portending havoc in inter-institutional harmony and potentially causing political divisiveness and
economic instability in the country
.
The impeachment trial of the Chief Justice will hug the headlines for a long time.
Impeachment is often described as a political process. This is precisely the reason why the allies
of this administration in Congress were able to muster enough votes to impeach the CJ. In effect,
as is often said, it is a numbers game. Impeachment is neither criminal nor civil in nature; hence,
it is sui generis, a class by itself. It takes the place of administrative disciplinary proceedings
against impeachable officers because, under the Constitution, there is no other authority that can
administratively discipline impeachable officers. The power of impeachment is a way of
checking certain officials of government who having been elected or appointed in office for a
fixed term. As such they enjoy security of tenure to insulate them from the vagaries of political
conditions and to ensure that they are able to perform their functions efficiently and without
undue interruption. But this is not to grant them carte blanche authority to exercise their power
whimsically and capriciously. Even as they cannot be removed from office by ordinary means,
they still have the duty to uphold the public trust. The solution prescribed by the Constitution to
arrest governmental abuse committed by these specified government officials is impeachment.

With the Senate trial of Chief Justice Corona beginning yesterday, serious concerns has
been raised about its impact on the political and economic stability of the nation. Corona himself
stated that while he is willing to submit to the impeachment trial, he believes his impeachment is
nonetheless a virulent assault on the integrity and independence of the judiciary as an institution,
equating it to a creeping dictatorship. Some portray the impeachment as a collision between the
great branches of government – the executive, the legislative and the judicial. If this is true, we
are in for a lot of trouble. Imagine if the judiciary can no longer function with impartiality
because it perceives the executive as an enemy or worst because it is under the influence or
afraid of the President or of Congress. The consequences for the future are unimaginable under
this scenario.

Fortunately, most people see Chief Justice Corona’s impeachment as a simple case of
accountability. While there may be clashing personalities involved, it is not seen as a dispute
between the two co-equal institutions that the two officials represent. It is simply one man being
hailed by the judges-senators to answer some serious charges. Impeachment may be a political
process which may at times be divisive yet it is a constitutionally recognized process of
accountability. In this sense, it is good for the nation. I must caution though that the process
being political does not mean it is partisan or that it is arbitrary and unjust. I expect the
prosecutors from the House to behave with decorum and dignity; I have high hopes that the
Senator-Judges will be fair and decide on the basis of evidence and what is good for the country.

Chief Justice Corona is being charged for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of
the Constitution spurred by the belief of the President and the House of Representatives that he
(Corona) has consistently shown in his decisions partiality towards the former president; that,
because of his long association with his former boss, he is too beholden to decide against her. In
short, the perception is that the Chief Justice can no longer perform his duties as a magistrate
with impartiality and independence.

Did Chief Justice Corona play Epimetheus, the brother of Prometheus, who would do
everything to protect his kin? Is the impeachment the Pandora’s jar that will unleash all sorts of
troubles for this country as the naysayers and doomsayers are often singing nowadays?

As for me, as I have written elsewhere, I intend to approach the impeachment trial with
sobriety, caution, and the perspective of the independent observer. I will not take sides regardless
of my personal feelings. My public position on Corona appointment as Chief Justice has always
been that it is unconstitutional and I continue to believe this is the case while recognizing that the
Supreme Court had affirmed its validity.

In our Greek story, Pandora, after realizing the gravity of what she has done, hastened to
close the lid of the jar. But it was too late because the jar was emptied of its contents except one
that remained at the bottom which is - Hope. Surely, we can only hope that the incoming trials
would not unleash the evils of Pandora’s Jar but instead transform this nation into a strong
Republic.

Corona Impeachment: 8 Markers of a Good Trial

Dean Tony La Viña
(Rappler)

In a repeat of events a little over a decade ago, the nation is once again gripped with the
drama surrounding the impeachment trial of a high official; this time, Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona. Whether one agrees or not, the impression from the street as well as from learned
opinion is that this is a monumental event in politics, either in the name of improving
accountability, or because of its potential to disrupt Philippine democracy. I don’t disagree with
the significance of the impeachment, yet precisely for that reason I choose to approach this
highly sensitive, critical subject with sobriety, caution, and the perspective of the independent
observer. I choose not to take sides even if I have strong personal feelings for or against some of
the protagonists. My public position on the appointment of Corona as Chief Justice has always
been that it is unconstitutional and I continue to believe this is the case while recognizing that the
Supreme Court had affirmed its validity.
There are eight grounds that the House of Representatives alleges in its Articles of
Impeachment. In this article, I propose 8 markers for a good trial – for a process the country
could benefit from and we would be proud of.
First, and to me most important, I would like the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Corona to be conducted with dignity and respect. Impeachment is a serious matter. Section 2,
Article XI of the Constitution provides a very selective list of impeachable officials - the
President and Vice-President, Supreme Court Justices, Constitutional Commission members, and
the Ombudsman. The responsibilities of these officials are intimately tied to the Constitution. In
the case of the President and his second, they had sworn an oath to uphold and defend it; in the
case of the Justices, this is precisely because of their power of judicial review, a grave
responsibility to interpret the laws of the land against the Constitution.
Second, related to the need for dignified proceedings, I strongly encourage the Senate and
particularly Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who will preside, to ensure discipline in the
conduct of the impeachment trial. The Senate should not tolerate misbehavior by the prosecution
and/or the defense. If necessary, strong sanctions should be imposed where rules are transgressed
including contempt, disqualifying evidence, and other substantial measures. There should be zero
tolerance particularly for trial by publicity.
Third, the impeachment trial must not be unduly disruptive of the nation’s business. The
survivors of Sendong for example should not be made to wait for much needed help while this
process is going on. Of course, there will be an impact to the legislative work of both the Senate
and the House, and the executive branch, in spite denials, will be following the trial closely and
will also be affected. Nevertheless, impeachment is an important business of government and we
should take the time and do everything necessary to this well and right.

Fourth, I hope we will see the presentation of relevant and well-researched evidence
during the trial. The allegations against Chief Justice Corona are: “partiality and subservience in
cases involving” Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; failure to disclose Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth; and for failing to meet Constitutional standards of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence through his conduct as a Supreme Court
Justice. Do these allegations hold enough water to merit conviction and removal from office?
Will the evidence support the allegations?
Fifth, while the impeachment process by definition is political, it should not be overly
partisan. While we cannot separate politics from the trial, here there is hope that politics is either
moderated or restrained by due process of the Rules of Impeachment. In the trial, we have an
opportunity for all parties concerned—the prosecution, defense, and the Senator-judges—to
conduct themselves, in full public view, with the upmost professionalism and sagacity. Instead of
this debate being conducted unchecked in the court of public opinion, executed with vehemence
and hostility, the impeachment trial allows the prosecution the arena to prove their allegations
against Corona, and the latter to defend himself, within a structured and reasoned setting, on the
merits of the case.
Sixth, related to the preceding marker, the impeachment trial should be conducted in fair
and just manner. While I have stressed the importance of accountability in our nation’s political
maturity and recovery, I have also always emphasized that accountability must be executed with
a level-head, a respect for due process and the rights of all, and always on the merits of the case
at hand, on the arguments made and evidence presented. Nobody will benefit from a proceeding
that is perceived to be unjust and arbitrary.
Seventh, the Senator-Judges, who will decide on conviction or acquittal, should weigh
the evidence presented, listen to the arguments of both sides, but ultimately must decide solely
on the basis of national interest. The evidence is important because if there is no factual basis for
conviction, it is certainly not in the national interest for the Senators to vote for conviction as that
would prove that the impeachment case is nothing but an attack on the Judiciary (aside from
being a grave injustice against a person and his family). On the other hand, if the evidence
supported conviction, then Chief Justice Corona must be removed from office as an imperative
of national interest. In any case, the Senator-Judges should not decide on the basis of what is
popular or more politically beneficial to them.
Eighth, and finally, I hope that the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona will be a
giant lesson in civics and politics for the country. This can be achieved with the help of a
responsible media that would be fair, accurate, informative and educational in its reporting. I am
a vocal advocate of social accountability: to find positive, constructive means of ensuring good
policy outcomes and the proper use of public resources, and so that we don’t have to readily
resort to extraordinary measures like People Power revolution or for that matter impeachment.
Impeachment is not and should not be business as usual for Philippine democracy. But
accountability is. In this spirit, we, the Filipino people, should also conduct our selves by the
same high standards, to observe and monitor the proceedings, to judge according to the merits,
and to hold all parties accountable for its outcome.
Impeachment is a dangerous path to take for a body politic. Yet as the philosopher Martin
Heidegger wrote, “Where the danger lies, therein also lies the saving power.” Despite all
emotion and conflict, the trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona may yet be Philippine
democracy’s shining opportunity to demonstrate maturity, wisdom, and the desire to heal old
wounds with the light of the truth. It is time to let justice be done properly, and for the business
of Philippine democracy to be done well.

EAGLE EYES – Dean Tony La Viña

14 February 2012, Manila Standard Today

Love in time of impeachment

“It was inevitable: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited
love." For love stories, this line from Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Love in the Time of Cholera is
the best opening line ever written. With the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona in
the headlines, I keep recalling this narrative of the passionate love between Florentino Arizo and
Fermina Daza, extending over 50 years in an unnamed Carribean city (recognizable as
Cartagena, Colombia). A reviewer once wrote: “love flows through the novel in many wonderful
guises - joyful, melancholy, enriching, ever surprising.”

Now how is love relevant at all to impeachment – especially in the way it is unfolding in our
country – ugly, mean, judgmental, divisive and potentially destructive?

Everything. Impeachment, through the eyes of love – for neighbor, the law, and above all
country, assures us that the country is not on the road to perdition.

Take for instance Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin
Cuevas. In presiding over the trial, Senator Enrile has been wise and fair; one may disagree with
him but he cannot be faulted for being biased. Enrile has done many things in his long public life
that many do not like but history and a grateful country will remember him most for this trial if it
ends justly. Justice Cuevas taught many of us in the UP College of Law the rules of evidence and
other remedial law skills – but most of all, because he treated as well, indeed like his children, he
showed us how to be good (not just skillful) and gentle lawyers. He continues to do that in this
trial with his sharpness, persuasiveness and humility.

Watching these two octogenarians contradicts a character in the Garcia-Marquez novel that
observed “Wisdom comes to us when it can no longer do any good.” The same can be said for
Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Joker Arroyo, Edgardo Angara and Franklin Drilon. In fact,
the Senate as a whole has acted with prudence and restraint. I only wish the men and women of
the Supreme Court would do the same.

I also want to honor the young lawyers, on both sides, who have taken huge risks in participating
in the impeachment trial. It is public knowledge for example that Karen Jimeno, the defense
spokesperson, postponed her honeymoon to work on this trial, motivated by her love of the law
and of country and the challenge to be part of history. On the prosecution side, I believe that both
House and private prosecutors are motivated also by love of country. I know some of them
personally. Niel Tupas and Sonny Angara were my students at the UP College of Law while I am
an admirer of Miro Quimbo, Erin Tañada, Neri Colmenares and Kaka Bag-ao. These are serious
reform-minded politicians; they mean well even as they need to become more focused and
strategic in how they will pursue the prosecution case.

Finally, let me say something about the two main protagonists: President Aquino and Chief
Justice Corona.
I am convinced that President Aquino is motivated only by love for country in pursuing
impeachment. I hope however that the President will do everything also to avert a constitutional
crisis that nobody, least of all his administration, will benefit from. Out of love of neighbor, if
not of country, I wish the President would rein in the strong hand of the state that has subjected
the Corona family to a scrutiny that very few politicians and high-level government officials, in
all administrations, can withstand.

I have known Chief Justice Corona for many years, although I cannot claim a friendship or
anything more than a professional acquaintance with him. Those that have worked with him in
the Court have told me that he cares about social justice and favors the poor in his decisions. Out
of love of the judiciary and the country, in spite of being unfairly demonized, I hope he will still
be open to a graceful exit that could be best for the country.

Love in the time of impeachment - is all we need. Happy Valentine’s everyone!

Email: Tonylavs@gmail.com Facebook: tlavina@yahoo.com Twitter: tonylavs

Civic duty in the impeachment trial – Dean Tony La Viña

“Duty is the most sublime word in our language.” is a quote misattributed to American
Civil War General Robert E. Lee. Error of quotation aside, those who have to do their duty will
appreciate its gravity. All the more so when we speak of “civic duty,” that which we (civilian or
official) owe to the Filipino people, as opposed to “public duty,” which we can define here as
that expected of the public servant by the law. Civic duty at its core is about love of country,
what a citizen is willing to do, what a citizen is willing to sacrifice for the good of our
motherland.
This impeachment trial has been a test, not just of the public duty of the personalities
involved, but also of their civic duty. Beyond guilt or innocence, or villain-and-hero
characterizations, every character in this political drama has their praiseworthy moment, when
they hear the cry of their civic duty—yes, even those who we accuse of failing their public duty.
As such, praise should go to the Chief Justice himself. His decision to finally testify in his
defense hits precisely at the heart of this impeachment trial, providing the prime opportunity for
accountability. The truth is what the public official owes the people: of his actions while in
office, of the strength and integrity of his character, of his trustworthiness with the powers and
resources of the state entrusted to him—and, in this case, the discrepancies in his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). Of course, as I have written many times, it would
have been much better for the country and for himself if the Chief Justice early on decided to
testify as well as waive confidentiality with respect to his assets and bank accounts.
This is something that cannot be provided by a legal defense, technicalities, or press
releases, but by honest answers to fair questions. Inasmuch as the impeachment trial has raised
fair questions, the Chief Justice serves his country best by providing verifiable answers. Some
may choose to be cynical and dismiss his expected testimony as self-serving. Far better,
however, to welcome this event, even as we remain wary of potential self-serving or evasion.
The impeachment provides the opportunity for Corona to perform this duty—so why make it
hard for him by deterring it with sneers and disbelief?
 We are all in agreement, though, that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales had done
her duty sublimely. Her initiative in investigating allegations of suspicious accounts linked to
Corona, requesting help from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), has not just
changed the impeachment trial’s dynamics, let alone raise new questions for Corona. From the
perspective of duty, she made her mark here in a way that past Ombudsmen have not, raising
new possibilities—and, admittedly, new dangers.
Investigation is the handmaiden of accountability, verifying allegation and deterring
malfeasance. Up until now that deterrence and verifiability has admittedly been weak, especially
against the proverbial “big fish”. Ombudsman Morales’ initiative, working together with Heidi
Mendoza and the rest of the Commission on Audit, opens a new door to accountability, similar to
how the mobster Al Capone was finally brought down using tax evasion charges. Granted, it
does raise questions of the extent of the Ombudsman’s powers, but such questions wouldn’t have
arisen in the first place had Morales not acted as she did, which is the province of pioneering
innovation.
Certainly the Ombudsman was a match (if not more than) for Corona’s lead defense
counsel, former Justice Serafin Cuevas—but this should also stand in praise of Cuevas. As that
Olympics ad once said, “You are my adversary, but you are not my enemy.” This is the defense
attorney’s civic duty, challenging the prosecution to prove their case by the highest standards of
accountability. Just as the prosecution attempts to hold Corona accountable for the allegations in
the Articles of Impeachment, so does the Corona defense team attempt to hold the prosecution
accountable for the bases of those allegations. Justice Cuevas’ and the defense’s gallant
performance, notwithstanding the serious error they committed in presenting the Ombudsman as
their witness, is and should stand, as a testament to the right of all Filipino citizens to the best
legal defense, one of the most basic human rights we enjoy. If the Chief Justice were found
guilty and removed from office, it would not for lack of good and competent counsel.
On that note, we should also express our gratitude towards the prosecution team (both the
Congressmen and the private prosecutors) who had fought tooth and nail for their case to be
made. True, they have stumbled in their performance, being on the receiving end of criticisms of
unpreparedness from the senator-judges. Yet they have managed to present a prima facie case,
providing a firm basis for delivering a verdict on Corona’s culpability. Certainly true after they
had narrowed down their efforts to the three Articles of Impeachment with the best legal
foundation and evidences, Article II (failure to disclose SALN) most especially.
Of the notable parties so far, Harvey Keh fits best the definition of civic duty, precisely
because he is an ordinary citizen. By “duty” I mean the following actions: to file, along with
former Rep. Riza Hontiveros, Rep. Walden Bello and Emmanuel Tiu Santos, before the
Ombudsman the letter-complaints that would later lead to Morales’s initiative, and to respond to
the summons of the Senate to explain himself. He, like any Filipino citizen, is entitled to air his
grievances or on behalf of the grievances of others before the proper forums—and to answer the
fair questions posed before him in such forums. The insults he has faced from some, in response
to his testimony, are unwarranted.
Full disclosure is necessary: Harvey and I are co-workers at the Ateneo School of
Government, where he sits as the Director for the Youth Leadership Social Entrepreneurship
(YLSE) program. I have served as his mentor and advisor on many things, including on the
creation and convening of Kaya Natin which is one of the best things that has ever happened to
Philippine governance. Still, also in full disclosure, I wasn’t consulted on his decision to send the
documents he received to the Senate, or in alerting the media. Had we spoken before the fact, I
would have advised greater caution on this. It would have been very clear to me that the
documents were probably fabricated and more helpful to the defense than to the prosecution. I
probably would have warned him about getting media involved, anticipating Senator Enrile's
statement that he was insulted by what Harvey did. I sincerely hope that this young, idealistic
person has learned the right lessons from this experience without being diminished in his passion
for reforming the country. The experience of being humiliated is actually a good thing if one
learns true humility from what one undergoes.
That said, there is no doubt in my mind that Harvey had acted out of a sincere
appreciation of his civic duty. His behavior under examination by the Senate reinforces this
belief. And on that note, I was disappointed by how some in the Senate had questioned him. The
questions of Senators Defensor Santiago and Estrada have been arguably fair. Both senators have
actually impressed me during the trial - Santiago for daring to speak her mind regardless of
public opinion; Estrada for always being prepared and asking serious questions. What I lament is
the manner of their questioning of Harvey. It sends a wrong signal to future whistleblowers and
other private citizens summoned by the Senate.
Name-calling, counter-accusations, and borderline ad hominem attacks not only
undermine the respectability of the impeachment proceedings and its personalities, they also
threaten to undermine the credibility of the results of these proceedings, and the sobriety with
which the public will receive them. Yet, Miss Manners aside, I still praise the Senate for doing
its civic duty as the arbiter of truth in these trying times. Too pointed the questions may be, in
search of the truth the senator-judges clarifies the allegations, defenses, and evidences presented
before them, much as a jeweler brings the best of each gemstone with the grinding wheel.
And of the senators, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile stands out brightly. Whatever his
past or his ambitions, at the moment he was called to do his duty as Presiding Officer, he rose to
the occasion. The consensus is that he has been even-handed to both sides of the case, strict-but-
fair. Based on my experience, consistently being fair does not come naturally to any person but
in fact requires hard work and effort. I honor Senator Enrile for that. Even in the case of Harvey
Keh, he was forthright but respectful, not for a minute demeaning the person while holding him
accountable. If the impeachment has survived this far without losing its credibility, some credit
must go to his hand at the wheel. Safe to say that this generation will see him in a positive light,
restoring sobriety to a process marred by the collapse of the Estrada impeachment, and thank him
for doing his job.
That, ultimately, is the first and last civic duty of every public official. US President
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.
Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail.” Every character in
this drama of Truth has had their moment to rise. Whatever the result, it is only fair to give them
credit where and when it is due.

EAGLE EYES – Dean Tony La Viña

22 May 2012, Manila Standard Today

Nothing but the truth

Today, Chief Justice Renato Corona will appear before the impeachment trial. He
will swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
 As an ordinary citizen who has followed the impeachment proceedings with
objectivity and interest, I hope the defense in their direct examination; the prosecution
during cross-examination; and the senators when it is their turn; would ask the Chief
Justice the following questions:

Since you were appointed a Supreme Court Justice, did you consistently disclose
in your Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) all your income, assets, ad
liabilities including your bank accounts, peso and foreign currency? Did you, by
intentional act or mistake, omit any such income or asset?

Can you clarify to the impeachment court the circumstances involving the
acquisition of certain pieces of property, such as the Bellagio condominium penthouse,
Burgundy Plaza, McKinley Hills, Bonifacio Ridge Condominium, and the Columns
Condominium? Assuming that the McKinley property is now owned by your daughter
Czarina, what is your participation in its acquisition if any? How would you explain the
fact that your daughter Ma. Carla Corona-Castillo was able to buy an 18 million-peso
property from your wife Cristina despite only having a monthly taxable income of 8,478
pesos as testified to by Commissioner Henares of the BIR?

Do you believe that there is no transfer of ownership yet of the Columns

condominium since it has yet to be formally accepted by the buyer although it had
already been paid for? Assuming there was no formal transfer of ownership for lack of
acceptance should the purchase price at least been declared in the SALN for the
corresponding year?

How many active peso accounts do you maintain, if any, and in what banks?
Assuming these accounts are extant, have these been declared at any point in time in your
SALN? Is it true that three of these peso accounts were closed on the day you were
impeached?

What was your role in the Basa-Guidote sale and cases? Did you use your
influence as a high-level executive official and later as a Justice of the Supreme Court to
influence the outcome of this sale and cases? Do you deny the accounts given by the
relatives of your wife on how they were betrayed and disposed? What is your side of this
story?

Can you enlighten us on how your daughter Carla Corona-Castillo became the
owner of 4,839 shares in the Basa Guidote Corporation in 2003 for P28,000? Do you
think it was a sell-out considering that the par value per share of the 4,839 shares was at
100 each? Did you acquire any loan from the Basa-Guidote Corp.? If so was this loan
declared as a liability in the SALN?
 Is it true that you have 82 dollar accounts in various banks? Assuming that you are
only maintaining four (4) of these dollar accounts, as your lawyers claim, have the sums
in these accounts been declared in your SALN? If so, why? How true is the allegation by
the Ombudsman that massive withdrawals were made in these accounts that correspond
to significant national events, such as elections and during your impeachment?

As a sign of good faith and to settle this issue about your foreign currency
accounts, are you willing to waive your right to secrecy and allow your banks to provide
to the Senate the complete information?

In your opinion, should the nondisclosure of assets and liabilities as mandated by

law be considered a serious breach of conduct enough to warrant your removal from
office? Does your position in the Supreme Court require of you a higher ethical standard
than that of other officials and employees in the government? Is it not true that the
Supreme Court in its decisions has been strict in enforcing compliance with the
constitutional requirement on disclosure of assets, such that on previous occasions the
Court severely penalized and even dismissed ordinary employees for failure to declare
their assets in their SALN?

Do you think your effectiveness as the Chief Magistrate has been affected by this
impeachment? Has this process compromised your image as the highest official of the
Supreme Court whose decisions impact on individual persons in particular and the
national life in general?

And finally, and most important, are you morally fit to stay on as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court?

Email: Tonylavs@gmail.com Facebook: tlavina@yahoo.com Twitter: tonylavs

Everything but the truth

(Rappler)

I had hoped that Chief Justice Renato Corona would provide clear answers to the
questions raised by this five-month long impeachment process. In fact, I wrote a column
in the Manila Standard entitled “Nothing but the truth” where I listed the questions I hope
he would truthfully answer. I was, like many Filipinos, in the end, terribly let down. The
truth demands stringent rigor, a burden enough to break lesser men. The Supreme
Court has high responsibility as the adjudicator of the truth in the cases it hears. What
we have seen of the Chief Justice today fails that stringent rigor and that high
responsibility. Instead of hearing nothing but the truth, we heard everything but the truth.
This day’s proceedings, featuring the Chief Justice’s testimony, certainly proved to be
the most dramatic—yet drama, equally certainly, cannot and will not prove anyone’s
case to the members of the Senate impeachment court. Most especially true after
Corona’s sudden and abrupt walk-out from the Senate chamber, right after he made the
submission of his voluntary waiver on his foreign bank accounts conditional on the 188
congressmen and 23 senators signing the same waiver.
Later, Corona, through his defense panel, would offer the explanation that he had
suffered a bout of hypoglycemia, as a result of the day’s pressures and insufficient food
intake. Nonetheless, the episode earned the ire of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,
who had been very liberal in allowing Corona up to three hours for an opening
statement—unusual in such proceedings, but still granted by Enrile out of respect for
the Chief Justice and a desire to get to the bottom of things. I supported that decision of
allowing the Chief Justice to talk as long as he did and I resented those who in Twitter
and Facebook ridiculed and insulted the Chief Justice while listening to his statement.
One thing that has always made me uncomfortable with this impeachment process is
the lynch mob mentality against Corona that I often sensed in these past months. The
self-righteousness of many has been depressing. As I write, I follow social media and
see the incredible personal cruelty inflicted on the Chief Justice and his family even as
he is brought to the hospital. This part of us I do not like. We really must learn to exact
accountability without this mentality, self-righteousness and cruelty.
I also did not like the railroading of the impeachment proceedings in the House of
Representatives. And while not worried about President Aquino becoming a dictator or
controlling the Supreme Court (his personality and history makes this unlikely), and
certainly not accepting the accusation that the Hacienda Luisita case motivated
impeachment, I was worried about precedent and how a future president could use his
or her powers to go after an impeachable official. That is why, even in the face of
criticism by many friends, I have consistently called for due process and defended the
right of the Chief Justice to a good and competent defense. That has not changed in
spite of what happened today.
Drama aside (and it should be set aside), the verdict on this impeachment trial
rests on whether the evidences provided by the prosecution and defense on the Articles
of Impeachment, can answer one simple question: given all the evidence, does he
deserve to remain as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines?
I originally intended not to answer this question. After all, I am not a Senator-
judge elected by the people to render a verdict on impeachment after exhaustive study
of the evidence. However, after what I heard today, I have decided to make my position
known if only to help move the process forward. And I share this opinion not out of
passion or prejudice but from a rational evaluation based on the Chief Justice’s
behavior during his testimony today. If anything else, with his words and acts in the
impeachment court, Renato Corona clearly does not demonstrate the necessary
strength of character we need in a person who sits in the Supreme Court, and specially
as the primus inter pares (first among equals) in the highest court.
First, because he made the assumption that he did not need to declare his dollar
assets in his SALNs due to bank confidentiality laws. Those laws have a purpose but
they were not intended to shield wrong-doing or to be an excuse for not doing one’s
positive duty as a public official. Even considering his assertion that he didn’t have the
82 accounts alleged in Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales’ testimony, but only four,
those four accounts should still have been fully disclosed. This admission, in turn, I
believe he made worse by making his waiver conditional, making it look as though he
were trying to deflect attention.
 No public official, especially in high office, can make that assumption which
Corona claimed. To accept his argument is to negate our laws on the accountability of
public officials. For me, the mere failure of the Chief Justice to disclose any of his assets
in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) is sufficient grounds for
conviction under Article II of the impeachment complaint, not just because it violates the
Constitution, but also because his high position demands equally high responsibility.
The Constitution’s intentions were to behoove public officials to be transparent and
accountable by example, not merely on demand or by convenience. It is not about
whether a public official’s wealth was ill-gotten or not; it’s not about the presumption of
innocence; it is about setting a good example and a demonstration of the official’s good
faith to the Filipino people.
Chief Justice Corona’s assumption of foreign currency accounts non-disclosure
sets a bad example and precedent to all other public officials. His excuse defeats the
purpose of the SALN, if some assets can remain undisclosed in the name of privacy.
This assumption, this attitude is arrogant and condescending, at the very least, setting
one’s self above the law, and the Constitution’s intentions for accountability. We cannot
afford such assumptions and such attitudes—and the men who bear them—in high
office. As fellow lawyer Joan de Venecia posted in Facebook: “CJ says he didn't declare
his dollars in his SALN because they are, by law, absolutely confidential. I'm sorry, but
this is, in my opinion, a disingenuous misreading of the law. That kind of interpretation
subverts the very essence of the sacrosanct Constitutional principle that a public office
is a public trust." For this interpretation to come from the Chief Justice of the Philippines
is simply unacceptable.
My views do not just rest on Corona’s error of assumption, though. His “walk-out”
showed a careless disdain for the impeachment process, the Senate, and even the
Supreme Court and his own health and well-being. Even if we were to admit that his
actions were provoked by the physical and biological effects of hypoglycemia, then this
makes my worries for the office of the Chief Justice justifiably worse. Mens sana in
corpore sano: a sound mind in a sound body. Just as a soldier must keep himself in
tiptop shape, so should have Corona prepared himself mind and body for the rigors of
his testimony. I do not say this uncharitably: a confident, healthy Corona could have
made some difference in the opinions of the undecided Senator-Judges, as well as the
public.
With today’s events, I now find it necessary to call on Renato Corona to resign
and voluntarily relinquish the position of chief justice. I believe that he certainly is
culpable under Article II, given his absolute failure, now admitted, to disclose his dollar
accounts in his SALN. The clarity of conviction would be appreciated, yet I feel that
resignation would be better, as it would spare all—Corona, his defense team and
supporters, the prosecution, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Filipino people—from
further pain, and keep all this from getting worse. This impeachment has been handled
admirably and professionally thus far, especially by the Senate and by its presiding
officer, but I don’t wish to see it derailed by a vicious battle among all parties that would
take its toll, including on Corona’s and the country’s well-being.
Resignation or not, there will be no evasion of accountability—as criminal
proceeding should be pursued through the Ombudsman if warranted by the evidence.
Whether by impeachment or by criminal complaint, the accountability of Renato Corona
as of all public officials is a process which deserves integrity and respect. Indeed, it
would do the country good if all of us, including the critics and supporters of the Chief
Justice – come together now and act, without fear and anger, with charity, and
according to the truth that sets us free.

Spirit of truth and love

(Rappler

Next week, perhaps as early as Monday evening and probably at the latest by Tuesday,
the Senate of the Philippines, acting on its constitutional duty to try and judge impeachment
cases, will decide on the fate of Chief Justice Renato Corona. It will be a historical moment; after
all it will be the first time the country will witness the completion of this important political
process that the Constitution ordained as the manner of holding accountable its highest-level
officials. It will be a solemn moment; no less than the head of the judicial branch, the first among
equals of the highest court of the land, will be judged fit or unfit to stay in office. And, for me, it
should also be a moment of truth and love. The Senate decision must be based on the truth as the
trial, imperfect as it has been, has uncovered. The verdict must be rendered out of love for our
nation; in the end, the only question the senators must answer is “What is good for our country
and people?”
In an earlier piece for Rappler, I had earlier recounted why, after Chief Justice Renato
Corona’s testimony to the Senate impeachment court last Tuesday, I could no longer be
confident in his leadership of the Supreme Court. His appearance that day revealed a man who,
at the least, made assumptions too reckless for a Chief Justice to make: holding too strictly to the
letter of the law that, under bank secrecy laws, he didn’t have to disclose his foreign currency
holdings.
I still hold the same conviction now as I did then: I believe the prudent course for Corona
to take is to resign from the High Court, given the premises. I still hold it, even after his
appearance Friday afternoon, following a hospital stay that was the aftermath of the stress and
pains of last Tuesday, where under Senate examination, he apologized for his Tuesday departure,
clarified his defenses, and formally submitted his unconditional waiver of secrecy of his bank
accounts. Ultimately, it is his decision and his right to continue his defense which, along with his
apology and long-awaited waiver, I respect.
While waiting for next week’s conclusion of the impeachment process, I think this is a
good moment to reflect on what the impeachment, and especially last week’s drama, revealed
about us as a people. Specifically, I would like to pose the question, have we become too vicious
for civil, sober political discourse?
When the impeachment begun, I had mixed feelings. I was uneasy about how it seemed
to have been decided on a weekend, in a moment of anger by the President. I was also concerned
that the House of Representatives rushed into a decision, a fear vindicated later by the
unpreparedness of the prosecution. At the same time, I praised the impeachment as a prime
opportunity for accountability and that we needed to do it right. I wanted the impeachment to be
conducted in a structured setting where the prosecution and defense could each argue its case,
and the evidence be weighed, in public view.
I certainly did not and continue not to identify myself with those who seem to me to have
judged the Chief Justice at the outset of the process, those for example who sneer at his
testimony last Tuesday, flippantly dismissive of his defenses, insulting of his person, and even
those of his family. I am objective enough to consider that the Chief Justice, when returned to the
Senate last Friday, was humble and candid even if I completely disagree with his justification for
not reporting the amounts in his dollar and peso accounts.
Not that those who believe, either in the Chief Justice’s innocence, or that the
impeachment was railroaded at the behest of President Noynoy Aquino, are innocent of this
viciousness, either. Practically calling Corona critics “dupes” (or words to the effect), eager to
pick fights with them, including with me when I do not agree with them, that rapidly descend to
ad hominem and non sequitur. They forget that the central issue remains: whether Corona was in
violation of the Constitution with regards to his SALN, among the other Articles of
Impeachment now fallen by the wayside. Dura lex, sed lex. Blurring the issue is a disservice to
the impeachment process and to accountability.
I understand of course that all people have the right to their raw emotions, including to be
angry. Most of those in the anti-Corona camp sincerely believe that accountability must be
exacted no matter how painful to someone or to a family. They assert that we are too forgiving a
people and that is in fact a problem and an obstacle to reform the Philippines. To them, charity
and compassion is misplaced in this process. The failure of our institutions to hold powerful
people accountable has been frustrating and the Corona impeachment provides an opportunity to
change course. The pro-Corona side, on the other hand, sees impeachment as nothing but a
political ploy by the President and his allies to gain the upper hand against former president
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. They are upset about how the administration has inflicted all the
powers of the state against someone they consider a good person and public official.
I wonder how we have become so mean. Is it because we have lost faith in political and
social institutions, all but shattered by a long history of corruption, that we feel that we should
take up their fight for accountability, except with a vigilante’s fury? Binding trust between the
leader and the led ensures efficient governance, with its boons of peace and prosperity—this is
why I’m an advocate for the social accountability approach to governance. This reciprocal trust
is the best way by which President Aquino’s campaign mantra, “Kung walang kurapt, walang
mahirap”, for all its gross simplification, can still hold true. Without that trust, it’s too easy to fall
into the Hobbesian state of nature, all against all, and compromise governance.
Have we become too embittered by the scandals of the Arroyo Administration? Moments
like the impeachment trial—in fact, all judicial proceedings—are specifically designed to allow
these grievances to be vented, and then assessed, in a controlled manner. Apart from that,
freedom of speech doesn’t only guarantee participation in governance and accountability;
expressed in the arts (usually the art of satire), like a pressure relief valve, they also allow people
to vent their frustrations, but to good humor and cheer, certainly a facet of Filipino life since the
Spanish era, if not earlier.
Yet turning the arts of satire and the courtroom into the art of war takes it too far. It
seems that, regardless of the impeachment’s result, many of us have decided to turn him into a
convenient effigy of Arroyo, for us to lay our shame, our frustration, perhaps even our guilt of
the past ten years. Caveat emptor: historically, burning effigies, while they do air grievances, do
not improve governance or restore breached trust. If anything, they tend to drive an even greater
wedge between the parties, the effigy’s subject recoiling from the insult, if Corona’s opening
statement, described by a commentator as “maanghang”, is any indicator. Good governance
cannot float on a sea of such fire.
 Yet I still persist in believing in the better angels of our human nature. We still must
reconcile as a people. In this regard, the reconciliation of the Basa-Guidote family with Cristina
Corona serves as an indicator. Perhaps the pain of the family feud, now caught up in the
whirlwind of the impeachment, finally hit hard and hit home. Even Corona pointed it out on the
stand, that family feuds can be demoralizing as they are destructive. Yet that pain may finally
have been the necessary wake-up call for the divided family. Could it be a wake-up call for a
divided society, too—or will a far worse pain be necessary?
The cynic may say that this reconciliation could be used to cover up the related issues
that were raised during the impeachment. Cover-ups are not in the spirit of reconciliation; neither
should the latter aid the former. Truth-telling is critical for the reconciliation process, as anyone
familiar with the Judaic, Christian, or Islamic tenets of confession will be aware. Without
accountability, the offender cannot be made aware of the breach that exists, or the remedial steps
necessary to restore his relationship with the offended. Reconciliation eases the process of truth-
telling by providing the sober atmosphere necessary for accountability, as evidenced by the
proceedings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We must continue to
defend both the right to and the process of accountability, from those who would deny the truth,
and also from those who would abuse it with vindictiveness and vengeance.
Next week, our country will witness a historical and solemn moment. I believe it is not a
coincidence that the first day of the week, this Sunday, is Pentecost Sunday when Christians
everywhere celebrate the sending of the Holy Spirit among us. It is my prayer that the spirit of
truth and love for our country and for each other come and prevail upon all of us. After all,
believe it or not, there is life after impeachment.

EAGLE EYES – Dean Tony La Viña

26 May 2012, Manila Standard Today

Public office, public trust

As the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona comes to its final
phase, i.e., decision and judgment, it is a good idea for all of us concerned citizens,
including the Chief Justice himself and the Senator-Judges to pause and remember the
basics of public ethics, of what is expected of all public officials, in short public
accountability 101.

Whenever I teach the course Public Officers in the UP College of Law (and
beginning this term in the De La Salle College of Law), I always begin by recalling for
my students what my own professor of this course, the late UP Law Professor and
former Civil Service Commissioner Samilo Barlongay, emphasized to us. The law on
public officers, he used to say, is all about one principle “Public office is a public trust.”
“Remember this,” he said, “and you will do no wrong whether in my class, in the bar
exams or when you yourself will hold public office.”

Taking aside the high-tension drama, the legal wrangling of high caliber lawyers,
and the sound and fury coming from different players, an impeachment case, at the
bottom line, is but an attempt by a people to exact public accountability on public
officials who are perceived to have abused their power and authority or have done acts
which show that they are not fit for the high-level positions they hold. Impeachment is a
bid to give flesh to the constitutional dictum pounded on us by Prof. Barlongay (who by
the way was also a model of what an ethical and effective civil servant is supposed to
be). A public office is not a vehicle for personal aggrandizement, nor is it a license for
abuse; a public office is not private property but one impressed with public
accountability.

We of course have gone beyond this single constitutional principle. In fact, in the
1987 Constitution, a full article (Article XI) is devoted to accountability of public officers.
That article creates the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan and provides the grounds
and procedure for impeachment.

As early as 1960, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. The Revised Penal Code also penalizes certain acts committed
by public officials, such as malfeasance and misfeasance in office, direct and indirect
bribery, frauds and illegal exactions and transactions and malversation of public funds.
And in 1991, R.A. 7080 or The Law on Plunder was passed to penalize any public
official who accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least 50 million pesos.

In 1989, Congress enacted R.A. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Although also mandated constitutionally,
it is this law that elaborates the requirement of filing a Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth (SALN) by requiring all public servants to accomplish and submit
declarations, under oath, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business
interests.

On Chief Justice Corona’s admission that he has four dollar accounts which he
did not report on the ground that bank secrecy and confidentiality laws prevented him
from doing so, take note that both the constitution and the law do not exempt any
asset from the disclosure requirement. The specific foreign currency bank accounts (the
banks where they were deposited and the account numbers) may not have to be
disclosed, but the public officer must still state the total amounts in such accounts. To
allow otherwise is to negate this important tool of public accountability. On this basis
alone, without need of further cross-examination, I believe the Senate can already
make a decision on whether or not the good Chief Justice is morally fit to continue to
hold his high position.

At the end of my Public Officers course, I ask my students a simple question –

why is it that, in spite of our Constitution and all our laws, corruption continues to be
pervasive in our country? It does not require genius to answer this question. Because
we do not implement our laws. Because, to push a metaphor, we allow the big fish to
always swim away and escape accountability. Because we really do not care.

I truly believe the Senate, led by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile - its oldest and,
based on his performance as presiding officer, wisest member, will cut cleanly from our
ugly past and uphold strongly and firmly: “Yes, Juan de la Cruz, a public office is a
public trust.”

Eight lessons from the Corona Impeachment

(Rappler)

The conviction of Renato Corona under Article II of the impeachment complaint against
him should count as a victory in Philippine governance—first, by the successful completion of
the impeachment process, and second, by setting the standard of accountability that should be
met by our public officials. When the impeachment trial began, I wrote and Rappler posted an
article where I shared what I thought were 8 markers of a good impeachment trial. In this article,
I closed my series on impeachment by reflecting on 8 lessons from the impeachment of Mr.
Corona
Lesson 1: The Constitution is supreme.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. While this statement is easy to make, the
Corona case shows how dangerously easy it is to reach conflicting conclusions, even without
malicious intent. There have been cases cited during the impeachment where failures of SALN
(Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and net Worth) disclosure have led to removal of rank-and-file
personnel. Yet society has alarmingly overlooked the lessons there and then. Because until the
issue recently involved a “big fish”, it never seized the public’s attention or agenda the way it did
now. As with the Parable of Talents, it behooves us to be faithful in the small matters—the small
cases—as we feel we should be in large matters, or the more sensational cases. It determines the
consistency of the Constitution’s interpretation—and sets a signpost for all public officials to
follow.
In addition, we can say that the successful conclusion of the impeachment has
demonstrated the strength of our constitutional institutions (or at least of impeachment), and the
faith of the Filipino people in the same. While it is not a perfect faith, it is a start—and a marked
improvement in the mood of the country compared to eleven years ago, when our faith was so
shattered some refused to see the process through.
Lesson 2: Preparation is essential.
Impeachment may be sui generis and the rules may be different from a criminal trial. Yet
like any trial, one’s case must be made carefully and thoroughly. Early on in the proceedings,
this lack of preparation became the prosecution’s weakness, fencing against an able defense team
led by former Justice Serafin Cuevas. In the end, it came down to facts—but the convoluted path
to those facts, as the impeachment complaint was trimmed down, the accusations of “fishing for
evidence”—threatened to discredit the prosecution’s argument in the eyes of the Senator-Judges.
Throughout the trial, I criticized the prosecution for its lack of preparation. But it is also
important to give credit to where it is deserved; as sloppy as it was, the prosecution was able to
prove a prima facie case at least on Article 2 which in turn forced the defense to present
witnesses – Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and Mr. Corona himself – that backfired
against their case.
Lesson 3: Professionalism should be norm.
At times this impeachment had felt vindictive, certainly emotional, with passions
proverbially running over on both sides (and even the Senate as well). Although some of
history’s best lawyers are also masters of the thespian arts (the Roman statesman and republican
Cicero is notable for exhaustive rhetorical preparations), in the end the true credibility of any
argument partly rests on its professional delivery.
Himself a lawyer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile certainly gave a command
performance, especially in the proceedings’ most critical moments (e.g., Corona’s sudden
departure from the stand; the closing arguments and his interpellation of Justice Cuevas), but the
greatest mark of that performance is his professionalism, marked by his attitudes of mutual
respect, stern fairness, and learned reference to jurisprudence. This gave the impeachment a
defined structure that all could reasonably follow, and the gravitas to command respect and
credibility.
Lawyer Mario Bautista’s rebuttal to Corona’s accusations of evidence-manufacture last
May 22 should also be remembered in this light: “We are lawyers here”: a sharp reminder of the
lawyer’s obligation under the law. Win or lose, lawyers can be likened to poker players: you play
with the hand you have (or on the law and on the facts), and let the game (the jury) decide the
results. Both the prosecution and the defense have played their hands to the utmost. If the
impeachment has ended on a clear and concise note, then to them both is given due credit for
their professionalism. It should also serve as an inspiration to the rest of government—elected,
appointed, and employed—to do our duty, even in the face of all odds.
Lesson 4: Respect, among government institutions, should be maintained.
Pundits—including myself—have previously warned that, if this impeachment had gone
badly, it could have resulted in a constitutional crisis, particularly between the Supreme Court
and the Senate. Thankfully, the process had managed to avert such a crisis, out of mutual respect
between said parties. That is one of the impeachment’s great triumphs: the respect accorded to
other agencies of government, through the respect of due process, jurisdiction, and reasoned
argument.
Some (with reason) have also described the impeachment as an Executive-Judiciary
conflict, given President Aquino’s own beliefs on the matter. I argue that he is entitled to those
beliefs, as we are to our own. Substantively, there is no dangerous conflict here—the Senate’s
professionalism and respect has seen to that. My worry, however, was the vehemence of his
criticisms against Corona. Especially coming from the President of the Republic, his passion
might have provoked (or more likely failed to appease) the dark, vindictive mood in society
accompanying the impeachment. As I have written also in Rappler, the impeachment should be a
moment of truth and love, of country and of all the parties concerned. As the leader of Filipinos,
President Aquino can best set the example to follow: to highlight the need for governance
reform, and to heal the wounds of the process.
Lesson 5: The role of citizens can be crucial.
Government respecting its citizens should be elemental and fundamental. There were
times the Senate had dropped the ball on this one. Harvey Keh comes to mind. For example/
While the questions and critiques posed to him were fair, the manner by which Senators Santiago
and Estrada posed their comments was not. The best example was still Senator Enrile who, while
certainly and rightfully angered, maintained his respect for the witness throughout his critique.
The government also deserves due respect, even given its flaws and inadequacies. This
respect I speak of is not that demanded by a despot, but that freely given by a civic-minded
freeman. It is the mark of a citizen’s readiness to engage in civic dialogue, policy deliberation,
and its execution. Private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre’s famous reaction to Senator Santiago,
amusing as it was, even earning sympathies from some in society, in the long run is unhealthy
for democracy, as is the vindictiveness of some of our netizens who may have invested too much
passion into the impeachment proceedings. Civil discourse is at its richest and most productive if
we listen to each other, despite our differences.
Lesson 6: Full Disclosure by public servants must be absolute.
While the defense had argued that Corona’s exclusion of his dollar accounts from his
SALN was in “good faith”—meaning that he had no malicious intention in doing so—we should
recognize that this is a very dangerous interpretation of “good faith.” As I’ve argued before, as a
precedent it opens the wrong door for other public servants to follow through. Moreover, a
lawyer and justice with Corona’s length of service would be aware of that danger, even if he
minimized it in favor of privacy.
That is water under the bridge now, with the verdict. The real consequence of note is how
the rest of government will follow through. Even if one may decry Corona’s challenge for a
mutual waiver on bank confidentiality as a stunt in his interest, no one may deny that it’s in an
honest public official’s best interest, even the honest ones, to actively disclose his SALN, to be
voluntarily transparent, rather than to leave his obligation slaved to what can be called the
“autopilot of procedure and legal minimums.” It is the best show of good faith that the
Constitution’s framers would have applauded. Some public officials have declared they’ll meet
Corona’s challenge. Publicity stunt or not, perhaps that’s a start.
Lesson 7: The Freedom of Information Act must be enacted.
Of all the lessons from the impeachment of Renato Corona, this is one of the more
critical. The Philippines needs the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, Bill, or Law. The fruits of
the impeachment will be best preserved if the Filipino people can help ensure that we don’t have
to get to the point where we have to impeach another high official again, if we can create a
culture of accountability and trust between the leader and the led. FOI is a powerful tool to
achieve that, to preempt corruption by improving deterrence and enhancing citizen participation
in governance.
Government is not the only one who can learn lessons here, though. FOI is also an
equally critical component of the social accountability approach, which puts the details of policy
execution-monitoring and feedback in the hands of trained private citizens. The approach also
cultivates the healthy leader-led relationship so essential to public support and trust in
government. With the impeachment of Renato Corona, we have shown the viability of
accountability from on-high. We, the Filipino people, must now complete the picture, and
provide the accountability from down-low. From penalizing officials, we must now help them
make Philippine governance and accountability work.
Lesson 8: Impeachment is only the beginning of reform.
With the end of the impeachment trial, we are tempted to over-celebrate and think that
the work of governance and judicial reform is done. Far from it; in fact, business as usual is
likely unless we cement the gains. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of its acting chief
Antonio Carpio, has started the ball rolling by releasing all their SALNS (including that of
judges). For Congress, as discussed earlier, the passage of the freedom of information act is
critical. And for the president, no other decision is as important as making the right choice for
Chief Justice. As I have written elsewhere, choosing the right chief justice will cement the
straight road of good governance and ensure that Aquino’s legacy will last a long time. How sad
it would be if all the political will and capital spent is thrown away by choosing a chief justice
that is an accommodation to political interests rather than one who has the qualities to lead the
judiciary and the Supreme Court to a new era of accountability and reform.
Summary: Living the lessons of the Corona impeachment
Monumental as the conviction is, though, let it not blind us to other fruits of the
impeachment, fruits which do not center greatly on Corona’s conviction, but which bear long-
term effects on Philippine governance. There is a term called “counting coup”: to win prestige in
battle without having to injure your opponent. Having secured the verdict of the impeachment
court, we must now look beyond the ends of the court, or its purpose of rendering a verdict. In
the final analysis, on these lessons we can safely say that President Noynoy Aquino’s hopes for
change and reform rest, as do the maturation of our democratic and governance cultures.

Email: Tonylavs@gmail.com Facebook: tlavina@yahoo.com Twitter: tonylavs

Email: Tonylavs@gmail.com Facebook: tlavina@yahoo.com Twitter: tonylavs