Thursday, February 9, 2012

Corona in a no-win situation

9:57 pm | Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Chief Justice Renato Corona’s secret bank deposits did it. The defense team of the impeached Supreme Court Chief Justice, as well as Corona himself and the management of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) where Corona has numerous peso and dollar deposits, finally sought help from his colleagues in the high tribunal itself to prevent the Senate impeachment court from finding out the truth about these bank deposits.
Why are they afraid to disclose the truth about these deposits?
If the money in these deposits were legally obtained and can be explained satisfactorily, why would anyone be ashamed to disclose them? On the contrary, he should be proud of them. After all, such huge amounts in numerous big bank accounts are proof of his success, ability and talent. According to the president of PSBank itself, Corona has at least P24.6 million in five peso accounts in the bank between 2007 and 2010. If I had only a fraction of those deposits, why, I would readily disclose it to the public.
Corona also has five dollar accounts with PSBank, but its president refused to divulge the total ending balances, although I have a copy of the initial deposit in one account, which showed that the initial deposit alone was $700,000. Wow! Get your calculators out and compute how much that is in pesos. Remember, that is only the first deposit. How much more are there in the other deposits? And how many other deposits are there, at the PSBank, at the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and, who knows, many other banks as well?
Why would anybody want to keep his money in so many separate bank accounts? One suspicion would be that he is trying to hide them. Why would anybody want to hide such big proofs of his success and ability if they were legitimately acquired? Your guess is as good as mine.
The prosecution in the impeachment trial said one reason is that he did not include them in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), which is not only a violation of the law but an indication of his lack of honesty. And yet the first qualification required of the chief of the highest court of the land is integrity and honesty.
An indication that Corona’s defense team is afraid of the truth is that it is asking the tribunal not only to stop the issuance by the Senate impeachment court of subpoenas for bank records, but also to stop the impeachment trial altogether. An innocent man would want his trial to proceed quickly so he can prove himself innocent. So why is Corona’s behavior contrary to logic? If the trial is stopped, then he would not be able to prove his innocence.
From the very beginning, the tactic of Corona’s defense is not to present evidence in his defense but to stop the trial from proceeding at all. Why, because Corona and his defense team are afraid of the truth? Have they not heard of the saying that “the truth shall set you free”? Would the truth set Corona free? His defense lawyers seemingly don’t think it would, and so the present tactic of obfuscation and prevention.
In the present conflict on the bank deposits, Sen. Joker Arroyo warned of a possible “constitutional crisis” brought about by the defense’s petitions to the Supreme Court. Sen. Miriam Defense-Santiago warned of a possible bank run because depositors would be afraid that their deposits would be made public.
Of course, that will not happen. The summonses to the banks to reveal Corona’s bank deposits refer only to Corona’s bank deposits. They do not include other banks and other deposits.
And Senator Santiago herself replied with a loud “No” when asked whether the petitions to the Supreme Court would create a constitutional crisis. There would be a crisis only if the Supreme Court goes out of bounds and issues a TRO against the impeachment court.
But can the Supreme Court stop the impeachment court from doing its duty? The Constitution is very clear on this: the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachment cases without stopping. No one can interfere, not even the Supreme Court.
Besides, the impeachment court is not under the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It is not under the jurisdiction of any other branch of the government. It is not part of the Judiciary. It exists on its own, it is special and independent.
Under such conditions, can the Supreme Court ethically entertain those petitions? Wouldn’t it be highly unethical for the magistrates to meddle in an impeachment case where the accused is one of their own, in fact, their chief, who, like most of them, were appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who is now under detention for electoral sabotage and graft?
Suppose the Supreme Court issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the impeachment court and the latter refuses to obey it because the impeachment court is not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? How will the latter enforce its TRO against the impeachment court? Cite all the senators for contempt? How will the Supreme Court enforce that?
And suppose Corona, with the TRO as excuse, refuses to participate in his trial so that the truth will not come out, what will happen to him?
The impeachment court can declare him in default and continue to receive evidence from the prosecution. With no contrary evidence, Corona would surely be convicted and ousted from office. He is in a no-win situation.
The sensible thing for him to do is to quit now while the quitting is good. If he wants to save the nation from a constitutional crisis and from dividing into two opposing camps, he should resign and ride into the sunset. What a statesmanly statement that would make. Then he would be remembered more kindly by the nation and the history books will even praise him.

U.P. LAW DEAN'S TAKE ON TRO OF SC RE CORONA'S DOLLAR ACCOUNT

Passion For Reason

Rules are not made to be broken

"Unfortunately for the Chief Justice, the Bank Secrecy Law lists several exceptions, and one of them significantly is “in cases of impeachment.”"

By: Raul C. Pangalangan
Philippine Daily Inquirer

9:56 pm | Thursday, February 9th, 2012

0 64 64

The brawl over impeachment court subpoenas is no simple black-and-white battle of the forces of light versus the forces of darkness, of the anti-Corona versus the pro-Corona camps, where each side single-mindedly throws everything including the kitchen sink against the enemy and runs roughshod over respected rules in the legal equivalent of ubusan ng lahi. Remember this: This historic impeachment will reinforce or destroy rules that will bind us long after Chief Justice Renato Corona’s tenure ends.
We love the stance of the partisan or advocate who wants the quick score for his client right here, right now. But the Senate sits as judge. Not for it the narrow and short-term agenda of the partisan, but the high moral road, broad-minded and with depth of conscience. For them, the battle over subpoenas shouldn’t be a barren contest over technicalities.
Rules of evidence are not just about finding the truth. They actually balance the pursuit of the truth against other values: husband-wife and parent-child confidentiality; bank secrecy and the reliability of our banking system; the separation of powers scheme in our system of government. Whoever says “the truth must out whatever the cost” still needs to explain what outweighs that cost: the erosion of family and love, the risk of a bank run, or the short-circuiting of constitutional checks and balances.
In traditional constitutional law, we call this the logic of “pre-commitment.” We bind ourselves in advance to certain rules so that, faced with the temptings of the moment, of “hydraulic pressures” that bear on the here and now, we do not lose sight of larger principles, distant, yes, but more enduring. In the classic words of Benjamin Cardozo, we have constitutions precisely to protect us “against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour… the derision of those who have no patience with general principles.”
Even the great Cardozo would salute the Senate on this point. Remember Day 1 of the trial. The Senate denied the prosecution’s motion to compel the Chief Justice and his family to testify. The Chief Justice was protected by his constitutional right against self-incrimination, the principle that eschews the sheer cruelty of being forced to testify against oneself, one that Torquemada’s Inquisition and the Stalinist show trials routinely flouted. His wife was shielded by “marital privilege” because, among other grounds, forcing spouses to testify against one another strains the family, a “basic social institution” that forms the “foundation of the nation.” How else can husband and wife freely confide in one another if their pillow talk can be subpoenaed? The children were also accorded their “filial privilege” which accepts the reality that loved ones tend to cover for one another, and the “incentive to perjure” is inimical to truth-seeking.
Twice this week, the Senate confronted more such dilemmas. On Monday, it was good news for the prosecution: the Senate will compel the banks to disclose information about the Corona bank accounts. On Wednesday, it was the defense’s turn to hear good news: the Senate rejected the prosecution’s request to compel sitting Supreme Court justices to testify and open the Supreme Court’s confidential records.
Both times, the Senate performed a delicate-balancing act. In its Monday ruling, the Senate carefully said it wouldn’t allow a fishing expedition and would subpoena only those documents strictly related to the SALNs, the core of the second article of impeachment.
But most important of all, the Senate went to great lengths to assure the public not to worry about the secrecy of their bank deposits. This is a principle not to be taken lightly. The Bank Secrecy Law long ago encouraged people to put their savings in banks where they can be lent to investors to generate more wealth for the country. Otherwise, they will lie idle inside a wooden baûl, sterile, attractive only to thieves, and vulnerable to fire. We the public all have a stake in bank confidentiality.
Unfortunately for the Chief Justice, the Bank Secrecy Law lists several exceptions, and one of them significantly is “in cases of impeachment.” Thus the Senate’s wording: “[N]ondisclosure of information… is still the general rule [and there is a subpoena only because of the] impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.” To use a metaphor from the Erap impeachment, the second envelope must be opened.
On the other hand, the Senate also refused to subpoena the Supreme Court justices and their records. The Senate order was cleverly written. It affirmed several times that it respects the judiciary, that it will scrupulously stick to its own turf and won’t venture into the Court’s, and won’t pull rank despite its extraordinary perch as “the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
So you think the Senate was being so deferential to the Supreme Court? Not quite. It was actually telling the Supreme Court that it expects the same deference in return now that the Chief Justice and PSBank have asked the Court to step in. After all, if their friendly justices really wish to testify, no order from the Senate is needed. And as Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile himself suggested, whatever facts these justices will recount on the witness stand are already available in the public documents. Denying the subpoena presents no practical setback to the prosecution, but it offers a principled jab should the Supreme Court be minded to circle the wagons around its Chief (pardon the mixed metaphor).
The Senate decision not to issue subpoenas to the Court is a classic pre-emptive strike. The Supreme Court should read between the lines of the Senate order and, having done that, see the writing on the wall.
* * *
Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

MAHATHIR LECTURES EUROPE ONITS ECONOMIC WOES

7 February 2012 Last updated at 17:48 GMT

'Europe is poor so should live within its means'

By Justin RowlattPresenter, Business Daily, BBC World Service

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed

Global Economy

For decades the West has lectured the East on how to manage its economies. Not any more.

Now the emerging economies of Asia look like models of steady, consistent policy and sustained growth while Europe, America and Japan are mired in debt and are growing achingly slowly, if at all.

So what can the West learn from the East?

According to former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, the message is simple but devastating: Europe must face up to the new economic reality.

"Europe... has lost a lot of money and therefore you must be poor now relative to the past," he reasons in an interview with BBC World Service's Business Daily.

"And in Asia we live within our means. So when we are poor, we live as poor people. I think that is a lesson that Europe can learn from Asia."

State of denial

Dr Mahathir is well qualified to pass judgement.

If any Asian leader can make claim to having laid the groundwork for his country's economic expansion, it is he.

During his two decades in power, Dr Mahathir helped transform Malaysia from a sleepy former colony into an economic tiger.

Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version

But his advice will not make happy reading in the capitals of Europe.

Dr Mahathir believes European leaders are in a state of denial.

"You refuse to acknowledge you have lost money and therefore you are poor," he says.

"And you can't remedy that by printing money. Money is not something you just print. It must be backed by something, either good economy or gold."

Dr Mahathir may be 86 years old, but he still holds very strong views.

In particular, he believes Europe and the West must begin the long slow process of restructuring their economies to reduce their dependence on the financial sector.

"I think you should go back to doing what I call real business - producing goods, providing services, trading - not just moving figures in bank books, which is what you are doing."

His big bugbear is still currency trading, which he believes did huge damage to the Malaysian economy during the financial crisis that hit Asia in the late 1990s.

"Currency is not a commodity", he says.

"You sell coffee. Coffee… can be ground and made into a cup of coffee.

"But currency, you cannot grind it and make it into anything. It is just figures in the books of the banks and you can trade with figures in the books of banks only.

"There must be something solid to trade, then you can legitimately make money."

Tough message

But even if Europe takes his advice, Dr Mahathir believes there will be no quick return to economic health.

"To recover your wealth you have to work over many years to rebuild your capacities, to produce goods and services to sell to the world, to compete with the eastern countries," he says.

European workers are overpaid and unproductive, Dr Mahathir believes.

"I think you have paid your workers far too much money for much less work," he says.

"So you cannot expect to live at this level of wealth when you are not producing anything that is marketable."

His message is tough, he acknowledges, before adding with a laugh: "We used to get tough messages from you before, remember?"

"And now, what is the result? Sometimes you undermined our currency and we became very poor. Well, we learn from each other. We were Euro-centric before. I think it should be a little bit Asia-centric now."

A tough message indeed.

DEMOCRACY AT -4 DEGREES. A MANIFESTATION OF THE INDOMITABLE HUMAN DIGNITY AND SPIRIT

I'd like to share an article written by the Nobel Laureate Thomas Friedman. Well said and very timely!

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Freedom at 4 Below
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 7, 2012
Moscow
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

To observe the democratic awakenings happening in places like Egypt, Syria and Russia is to travel with a glow in your heart and a pit in your stomach.

The glow comes from watching people lose their fear and be willing to take enormous risks to assert, not a particular ideology, but the most human of emotions: the quest for dignity, justice and the right to shape one’s own future. I was in Moscow on Saturday morning — just as the demonstrations against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were gathering. It was minus-4 Fahrenheit. A simple rule: Whenever 120,000 people gather to rally for democracy — and you can see your breath and can’t feel your fingers — take it seriously.

Putin’s allies were predicting that only a small crowd would brave the weather. They were wrong, and it underscores something that a lot of cynics regarding these awakening movements just don’t get. They’re like earthquakes or volcanoes. They are totally natural phenomena, and they emerge from a very deep place in people’s souls. Those mounting them are not sitting around calculating the odds of success before they start. They just happen. Anyone who thinks that President Obama could have saved former President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is as delusional as anyone who thinks Obama is behind the protests against Putin. We’re all spectators, watching an authentic human wave.

But that pit in the stomach comes from knowing that while the protests are propelled by deep aspirations for dignity, justice and self-determination, such heroic emotions have to compete with other less noble impulses and embedded interests in these societies.

Take Syria. I have no doubt that many of the Syrians mounting the uprising against the Assad regime — which is dominated by a Shiite offshoot known as the Alawites, who make up about 10 percent of the country — are propelled by a quest for a free and pluralistic Syria. But have no illusions: Some are also Sunni Muslims — who are the majority there — seeing this as their chance to overthrow four decades of Alawite minority rule. Where win-win democratic aspirations stop in Syria and rule-or-die sectarian fears begin is very hard to untangle.

Consider this paragraph from an article about Syria in The Times on Saturday by Nada Bakri, a Beirut correspondent: “A 34-year-old teacher from the Alawite sect said her life had changed in ways she never imagined. Six months ago, she started covering her head like Sunni Muslim women, hoping not to stand out. Her husband, an officer in the Syrian Army, rarely leaves his base to come home. She said she and their two sons had not seen him in months. A few weeks ago, her landlord, a Sunni, asked her to leave the house because his newly married son wanted to move in. ‘Sunnis have begun to feel empowered,’ the teacher said. ‘A year ago, no one would have expected this to happen.’ She had already made plans to return to her village.”

With good reason. There is a lot of pent-up anger there. The Assad family has run Syria as an Alawite mafia syndicate since 1970. While the Assad clan may have been a convenient enforcer at times for Israel and the West, it has also been a huge agent of mayhem — killing Lebanese journalists and politicians who dared to cross Syria, arming Hezbollah, funneling insurgents into Iraq, serving as a launching pad for Iranian mischief, murdering its own people seeking freedom and spurning any real political and economic reform. Syria has no future under Assad rule.

But does it have a future without them? Can this multisectarian population democratically rule itself, or does it crack apart? No one can predict. The Syrian opposition is divided, by sects, by politics, by region, by insiders and outsiders. We need to support them, provided they come together on a pluralistic reform agenda. Opposition leaders owe that to the brave Syrian youths who have taken on this regime bare-handed. The only chance of President Bashar al-Assad agreeing to some kind of peaceful transition, and not endless civil war, is if he is faced with a real united opposition front. It’s also the only hope for reforming Syria.

This will be hard. You can’t have a democracy without citizens, and you can’t have citizens without trust — without trust that everyone will be treated with equality under the law, no matter who is in power, and without trust in a shared vision of what kind of society people are trying to build.

America has that kind of trust because our country started with a shared idea that attracted the people. The borders came later. In most of the Arab states awakening today, the borders came first, drawn by foreign powers, and now the people trapped within them are trying to find a shared set of ideas to live by and trust each other with as equal citizens.

Iraq shows how hard it is to do that — the Sunni-Shiite divide still cuts very deep — but Iraq also shows that it is not impossible.

We often forget how unusual America is as a self-governing, pluralistic society. We elected a black man whose grandfather was a Muslim as president at a time of deep economic crisis, and now we’re considering replacing him with a Mormon. Who in the world does that? Not many, especially in the Middle East. Yet, clearly, many people there now deeply long to be citizens — not all, but many. If that region has any hope of a stable future, we need to bet on them.

ETHICS FOR LIFE (E4L)

Thursday, February 9, 2012