Liar! Liar! Liar! Hear the Explosive Speech of Senator Judge Ping Lacson.

Explosive Speeches at the End of the Impeachment Trial!


... and the best speech goes to, (drumroll...),  Senator Judge Ping Lacson.  Woooo!  Hoooh!  Clap.  Clap.  He gave the shortest speech and diffused three bombshells!  Yes, three.  That's why the title of this post is Liar! Liar! Liar!, because as the good Senator Judge Ping Lacson said in his speech, "half truths are no better than lies".


I have expected the unexpected.

If you carefully listen to all of the speeches given by the 23 Senator Judges, most of them centered on two points.  They are (1) the "non-declaration" of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona of his 2.4 Million U.S. Dollars and 80 Million Pesos in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN); and (2) the controversial use of Republic Act 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act) that guarantees absolute confidentiality of dollar bank accounts to justify his non-declaration.

So, there's really nothing "unexpected" from the reasons given by the Senator Judges in their speeches in the historic ending of the Impeachment Trial on 29 May 2012.  I have expected as much!

I have also expected the Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to give a clear and comprehensive set of reasons, as well as a detailed backdrop of the proceedings, that justify his verdict of conviction.  His speech for me is one of the best as far as content is concerned.  We are however, treated with special explosive speeches by the other Senator Judges, which are equally outstanding in content and delivery.

Literal and figurative explosions.

There were two "explosive" speeches given.   One is that of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's.  It is "literally" explosive with all her angst brewed into anger that made her ask for a second life from God after asking being stricken dead!  LOL. She said, "strike me dead!".  Then later on asked for another life from God.  She also spoke some profanity.  So, if you will ask me what my reaction is of her speech, I will summarize it in one word, which I borrowed from no less than Senator Santiago herself from her outburst in one of the hearings of the trial.  My reaction is:

Ater that literal "explosion" of anger, I find Senator Ping Lacson's speech even though it is probably the shortest speech of about 3 minutes and 27 seconds, is nonetheless explosive!  Senator Lacson did his homework and asserted that there's more to what we have heard admitted by the Supreme Court Chief Justice in open court about his liquid assets.  He made some simple but keen analysis on the 25 May 2012 testimony of the respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona.  Listen to Senator Lacson's speech.

But before that, yes, you guessed it right.  I recorded again the proceedings of the last day of the Impeachment Trial.  Yes, I recorded it with my cellular phone again from a live TV broadcast.  (Mental note: I have to write a blog post about my awesome Android phone.)  I also transcribed it.  I find it more intimate and more effective in grasping the message of a talk or speech by listening to a recording or podcast while reading the transcript.   Anyway, here it is for those who missed it and for  those who want to learn more about the impeached Chief Justice Corona:

The recording.

Senator Lacson Speech Why he Voted for Conviction by Emohroemlab on Mixcloud

The transcript.

"When a witness takes the stand,  he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  That makes half truths no better than lies.  I have always been an investigator all my public service life.  Modesty aside, I have the uncommon ability to determine if a person is telling the truth or not.

"An error in judgment has no place in this trial because it is final and irreversible.  Equally important to me is the testimony of the respondent particularly in this case because the exalted position of the highest magistrate of the land must shut its door to anyone to desecrate the solemn oath that engulfs a testimony in any judicial proceedings.

"Over the weekend I did my homework and discernment.  Let me share it with you.

"Chief Justice Renato Corona at one point had three million nine hundred seventy seven thousand seven hundred ninety dollars and eighty seven cents (3,977,790.97 U.S. Dollars).  At a given time he had ninety one million two hundred eighty thousand four hundred ninety nine pesos and twenty two centavos (91,288,499.22 Pesos).  If you ask me, so what is the difference between 3.9 million dollars and 2.4 million dollars? Between 91 million pesos and 80.7 million pesos?  My answer is a lot of money!

"Chief Justice Renato Corona used to work as a senior officer of the tax and corporate counseling group of the tax division of a prominent accounting firm Sycip, Gorrez, and Velayo, and company (SGV).  He also taught commercial law, taxation, and corporate law at the Ateneo de Manila University for 17 years.   I find it hard to believe his testimony that he does not understand accounting.

"Chief Justice Renato Corona testified under oath that he invested in currencies and not in properties in the late sixties mindful of the Basa-Guidote family squabble over some real estate property left by their deceased parents.  The fact is, the family feud started in 1989.  One cannot simply learn from the lessons of the future.

"Even if the standards of moral fitness for such a lofty position in government were lowered, an acquittal may still be difficult to justify.

"Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I therefore find the respondent GUILTY AS CHARGED under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment."

-  Senator Judge Ping Lacson

Chief Justice Renato Corona GUILTY as Charged.

The results are in.

I was right with 3 misses.  20 over 23.  Not bad!  I made a forecast yesterday after hearing the prosecution and defense's closing arguments.  After the voting of the Senator Judges, a landmark decision has been made.  Chief Justice Renato Corona is found GUILTY as charged.  An overwhelming 20 Senator Judges voted for his conviction in Article 2 (Failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under the Constitution.) of the Impeachment Complaint.  Only 16 votes are needed to convict the respondent for his removal from office, and 8 votes to acquit him.

Below is the tally of the votes - my forecast against the ACTUAL VOTES of the Senator Judges.

Sidelights in the annals of Philippine politics.

Without a doubt, this decision will go down in Philippine history as the first successful Impeachment Trial.  I am glad that I witnessed it all!  I have been part of history so to speak, even just as a spectator.  I cannot stop looking at the results of the votes.  The votes tell so much!

First, let me tell you why I was wrong with Senator Judge Lito Lapid's vote.  He did not participate much in the trial.  He stood 2 or 3 times only for clarification during the whole trial if I correctly recalled.  Being a known high school graduate and a "senator of the masses", it's natural to surmise that he would seek help from a co-party member to discern the case.  That would be Senator Joker Arroyo of the Lakas-Kampi party.  I am glad that he said he used his "conscience" to vote.  I am glad I was wrong in this case.

Now, let me tell you why I was right with Senator Arroyo's vote.  Senator Joker Arroyo has been very transparent from the beginning.  He reiterated his "concern" in his speech giving his reason why he voted for acquittal.  He already said it from the early days of the trial.  I do not agree with him.  It looks to me that he is afraid of a phantom that's existing only in his mind.  I do not believe that "martial rule" or "dictatorship" could arise from the depose of a corrupt official even if it's through the "hurried" or "rail-roading" process that the House of Representatives has taken.

As for the other hits and misses, here they are:

Need I tell you that Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is not running for office anymore because she is prohibited by the international criminal court where she will serve as a judge?  Therefore, she has no political ambitions (as of  this time).  In her "demeanor" during the impeachment trial, I find her inclined to vote in favor of the respondent.  I was right.  But if she will pursue for a political office here, will you still vote for her?

Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is a no brainer.  It's Aquino vs. Marcos.  Oh, forget it.  I don't need to tell you how his vote is "really" influenced by the deep-seated feud between their political clans.

Senator Tito Sotto is actually hard to decipher because he was the Majority Floor Leader.  He is busy dispensing his duties in the impeachment trial.  I  thought that he would vote for an acquittal but very glad for his vote of conviction.  I guess I am still right about the ultimate gear that shifts decisions to a more popular vote.

I hardly see Senator Villar during the proceedings of the trial.  I remembered he stood once in  the early days of the trial.  I thought he has no more political ambitions after losing the presidency to now President Noynoy Aquino.  Well, after seeing the Villar Foundation ads on TV, I should have known better.

As for Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile's vote, read my post about his foretelling queries to the defense after both panels (defense and prosecution) made their  closing arguments.  Read my blog post Culpa and Dolus.  Foretelling Queries of the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court.

Would you like to know how I came up with my forecast?  It's really simple.  Remember, I followed the impeachment trial from Day 1.  The answer is this.  I came up with the "very close" (LOL) spot-on forecast through a simple analysis of "political ambitions".

You be the analyst.  You be the judge.  I rest my case.

Culpa and Dolus. Foretelling Queries from the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court

Foretelling queries?

After a grueling 43 hearings stretched over a period of 5 months, the Impeachment Trial of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona is now at its end.  On 29 May 2012, Tuesday, the Senate of the Philippines sitting as the Impeachment Court will render its landmark decision on the case.

The presiding officer of the Impeachment Court, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile asked the only questions after the defense and prosecution panels made their closing arguments.

I personally recorded with my cellular phone these questions of the presiding officer and the answers of the defense lead counsel former Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas from a TV broadcast.  I embedded the recoding in this blog post so that those who have missed it can listen to it.  I find it intriguing and a bit informative.

I transcribed the recording for a better understanding of what has been discussed. The transcript can be found below the embedded record player gadget.

After hearing some Roman Law terminologies asked by the presiding officer, I immediately googled them, and found the following definitions:

• culpa lata - intentional wrong, gross negligence
• culpa levis - slight negligence
• culpa levissimo - negligence arising from the slightest fault; slightest negligence
• culpa aquiliana - negligence must be proved by the injured party
• dolus - evil intent embracing both malice and fraud

The salient points asked by the presiding officer is connected to the disclosure of assets in relation to the Foreign Currency Deposits Acts (FCDA), and the probable culpable violation of the Constitution if the first sentence of Section 7 of Article11 of the Philippine Constitution is disobeyed.  It’s better to hear the recording.

The presiding officer said that he asked those questions to guide them in their decision.  Is this foretelling of Senate President Enrile's verdict?  We shall soon see.  Let me know what you  think.

The recording.

Query of Senate President Enrile to the Defense by Emohroemlab on Mixcloud

The transcript.

Note:  SPJPE stands for Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,  DLCSC stands for Defense Lead Counsel Serafin Cuevas, and PHRRF stands for Prosecution’s House Representative Rodolfo Farinas.

SPJPE:     What injury or prejudice may arise if the depositor who is a public officer or employee own a foreign currency deposit would include that deposit or the amount represented by that deposit in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth?

DLCSC:     Well, I am not very sure your honor as to what the extent thereof in so far as damages is concerned.  But that is personal to the...

SPJPE:     No, but the question is what in your opinion would the injury to be prevented or prejudice to be avoided warrantying the depositor of a foreign currency deposit to be permitted not to include his foreign currency deposit in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth if he is a public officer or a public employee?…

DLCSC:     Well, the proba… may I answer now, your honor?

SPJPE:     Yes.

DLCSC:     The probability  of kidnapping, extortion, and so on, may come into the picture your honor, because especially with the present trend of criminality in the country today there is no assurance that one is imbued from any of these offenses, your honor.  That may be one…

SPJPE:     Was that contemplated in your opinion by the framers of Republic Act 6426 as well as its predecessor presidential decrees?

DLCSC:     If we go into the declaration of policy, your honor, declaration of policy is entirely different from the disastrous consequences or unwarranted circumstances that may occur thereafter your honor, because the policy behind it is to encourage.

SPJPE:     Alright. Related to this first question of mine, I will ask you… will a public officer or a public employee who maintain a foreign currency deposit incur the punitive penalty of Republic Act 6426 if he would reflect that deposit in his statement of assets and liabilities?

DLCSC:     I do not see, your honor that probability, but it could amount to a negotiated consent your honor as contradistinguished from voluntary permission on the part of the depositor, your honor.

SPJPE:     You see I asked this question because we are forgetting that the law allows the exposure of the foreign currency deposit by expressed provision of Republic Act 6426 if the depositor himself for do it.  There's no secrecy law in this country, monetary secrecy law that prohibits, or inhibits, or proscribes the depositor from revealing his own deposit.  What is prohibited is for third parties to reveal it. And that's why they're penalized.  But the depositor is not.

My next question is this.  The first sentence of Section 17 - Article 11 of the Constitution.  Do you consider that sentence as a mandatory  provision that requires to be obeyed by a public officer or public employee of the Republic of the Philippines?

DLCSC:     The way I recall, your honor, the provision… it is a general, a general statement…

SPJPE:     I will.. I will… I will… I will state it to you.  "A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be provided by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth."  Do you consider that a command of the people or was it something that can be disregarded?

DLCSC:     I do not think it is  something that can be disregarded your honor.

SPJPE:     It must be obeyed.

DLCSC:     Correct your honor.  But when there are… when there are rights that arises from a different law your honor, I do not see any reason as to why it cannot be availed of by the… by in this particular instance the depositor your honor.  Why the law has granted that is beyond my comprehension your honor.  That is a legislative function.  The policy behind it may only be known to the legislators themselves.  I am not privileged neither can I divine or fathom the reason behind it, your honor. All I know…

SPJPE:     Alright.  That would be our function.  We are just asking if you have any notion about it.  

DLCSC:     Thank you, your honor.

SPJPE:     Alright.  Now, that my next question is… If you teach a command, a sovereign command…  [Austinian] concept of command, if it is a sovereign command, will disobedience of that command constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution?

DLCSC:     Well, I would not… I would not be in a position to do so, your honor, or to make a statement to that unless the actual true facts surrounding the circumstances are known to me.  Because that would be a matter of conjecture or a surmise on the part of my part.

SPJPE:     The Constitution speaks of culpable... culpable violation.  Now, I am sure all of us graduates of U.P. went through a study of Roman Law.

DLCSC:     Yes, your honor.

SPJPE:     Alright, what is "culpa" from where culpable was derived? 

DLCSC:     Meaning intentional, your honor.

SPJPE:     Huh?

DLCSC:     Intentional, your honor?

SPJPE:     No.

DLCSC:     No intent, your honor.

SPJPE:     Culpa.  What is culpa?  There are four types of culpa.  Culpa lata or magna, culpa levis, culpa levissima, culpa aquiliana.  Now, we go to elementary school book in Roman Law.  What is culpa?

DLCSC:     Well, I am not as of this moment, your honor I am not... I am not very well in a position to recall.  Maybe I was absent when it was discussed by my professor, your honor.

(Laughter…)

SPJPE:     Well, that's your bad luck.  And I think that this is material in the consideration of this provision of the Constitution.  What is the difference between culpa and dolus?

DLCSC:     Culpa if I recall…ah.. Dolus is intentional, [di ba?].  Dolus is intentional, your honor, if I recall correctly,   Culpa is negligence, something like that.  I am not very sure…

SPJPE:     Fault.  Reserving of fault. Reserving of blame.

DLCSC:     Yes, your honor.

SPJPE:     Now, disobedience to the provision of Section 17, first sentence, do you consider that as reserving of blame?

DLCSC:     If it is intentional, your honor, then definitely…

SPJPE:     No.  It does not call for any intent.  Where in that provision will you find intent?

DLCSC:     Well, I think this is the provision where a statement as may be required by law, your honor.

SPJPE:     Anyway, I'm asking this question for our guidance.. for our guidance as based on your opinion.  Both sides.  I would like to hear both sides about it.  What is the position of the prosecution?  Can you help us in defining what is culpa?

PHRRF:     Well, when it comes to the culpable violation of the Constitution, Mr. President, according to the records of the Constitutional Commission, "culpable violation of the Constitution is understood to mean willful and intentional violation of the Constitution and not violation committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or through an honest mistake of judgment and it implies deliberate intent, perhaps even a degree of perversity for it is not easy to imagine individuals in the category of these officials would go so far as  to defy knowingly what the constitution commands".  That is what the records of the Constitutional Commission defines or show what culpable violation is, Mr. President.

SPJPE:     Alright.  Thank you very much.  I have no more question.  I do not know about the other members of the court if they have other questions.

END.