Don’t repeat 2nd envelop mistake!

Suppression of the second envelop triggered Edsa 2.

Please allow evidences exposing Corona’s illegal wealth

By Emmanuel Mongaya
(Journalist & blogger)

During the Estrada impeachment trial 11 years ago, majority of the senator-jurors stopped the opening of the second envelop. This opened the floodgates of public anger and triggered Edsa 2.

No, many were not yet convinced of the guilt of former president Erap Estrada until majority of senator-jurors succeeded in junking the entry of what they believed were crucial evidence. The act, in the eyes of ordinary Filipinos, was the smoking gun proving Estrada’s guilt.

Today, the wily defense panel in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona headed by former justice Serafin Corona is trying to maneuver the Impeachment Court into a similar situation. They are invoking one technicality after another against prosecution attempts to present evidence on the Chief Justice’s ill-gotten wealth.

Granting Cuevas is technically correct that Article 2 is limited to only the submission and disclosure of Corona’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) as required by the Constitution and implementing laws.

Does this mean Corona, and any other government official, can submit a SALN with questionable entries?

Won’t the Impeachment Court allow the prosecution to present evidences that Corona’s SALN did not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and implementing laws by submitting a worthless document that is peppered with lies?

Won’t the Impeachment Court allow the verification of Corona’s SALN entries by comparing these with real property documents, tax records, and bank accounts?

Is showing proof that Corona’s SALN has a lot of holes a violation of presumption of innocence and due process? Doesn’t he have the opportunity to contest the evidences that the prosecution can present? Why does Cuevas doing his best to deny the Impeachment Court and the people the opportunity of weighing evidences for and against Corona by preventing the presentation of evidences in the first place?

And would the Impeachment Court allow themselves to be trapped in this Cuevas strategy?

It is clear that Cuevas, in behalf of his client who hid his SALN  for a long time, does not want anti-Corona evidences to be formally presented. The defense camp wants the prosecution evidence out of the Impeachment Court. Indefensible, former justice Cuevas?

Would our distinguished impeachment senator-jurors allow defense panel to do just that? Would that be protecting Corona’s rights or a blatant suppression of evidence? Would the Impeachment Court allow a repeat of the second envelop?

Related articles

• Corona’s World Bank fund ‘anomaly’ (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• Did Corona submit a truthful SALN? (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• Impeachment thrill: Sen. Bong might open his mouth (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• Witnesses vs. Corona lined up (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• Corona has gone political, should run for president: Cebu judge (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• [In the news] Day One: Senate sweeps aside obstacles, signals intent for efficient and fair impeachment trial – InterAksyon.com (hronlineph.com)
• TRIALserye: The Pilot Episode (Corona Impeachment Trial) (rojan88.wordpress.com)
• Corona can beat impeachment? (politika2013.wordpress.com)
• Corona’s Impeachment and The Art of Political Distraction (opinionhub.wordpress.com)
• Impeachment Tele-Serye (chryztyners.wordpress.com)