VERA Files’ Corona on trial

If you missed the impeachment trial hearings last Monday (Jan. 30) and Thursday (Jan. 26), please visit VERA FILES’ Corona Impeachment trial page.

The official record of the proceedings on those days are in VERA Files Corona Impeachment section.

http://verafiles.org/2012/01/31/jan-30-senate-impeachment-court-record/

http://verafiles.org/2012/01/31/jan-26-senate-impeachment-court-record/

There are also analysis of documents presented in court.

Below is the manifestation of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV last Jan. 30:

First, as regard the nature of impeachment, with all due respect to all those who have stated their different opinions, I have also researched extensively on the subject and I am convinced that it is a political process with a judicial character. It is where the public participates through their representatives in the formulation of a public policy to resolve a policy issue of whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona is in the best interest of the country.

I agree that it is a class of its own; but in my own personal experience, it is akin to one of the most sacred traditions in the Philippine Military Academy which is the Honor Committee Trial. It is where a cadet who is accused of violating the tenets of the Honor Code is tried by a jury of eight members of the Honor Committee, and only a unanimous vote of guilty can convict an accuse. The only difference I can see with this impeachment trial is we don’t have brilliant lawyers like the ones performing before us, and it is the reason why we don’t have technicalities in our attempt to ferret out the truth. Again, then again, that is in a laboratory setting.
Secondly, as to the standard of proof, as a former soldier, Navy officer, I will not even venture into defining and distinguishing between what is proof beyond reasonable doubt and substantial evidence because that is well within the expertise of my more seasoned colleagues. But what I do know and what I will apply in this impeachment trial is the basic sense of justice that God has given by every human being born in this planet.

Lastly, as regards the issue raised by Senator Chiz Escudero as to whether the acts committed by the Chief Justice prior to his appointment in the Supreme Court should be covered in this trial, my position is yes. We should cover them all because I believe part of what we’re trying to find out in this trial is the moral fitness of the Chief Justice to remain in office. Being a justice of the Supreme Court is different from being an elected public official in the sense that elected officials are subjected to periodic election to renew their mandate. So you can have the worst possible moral record but once you are elected into public office, it is presumed that the public already accepted your past and probably they voted for you for other qualities. But the justices of the Supreme Court, whose principal mandate is to administer justice to every citizen of this republic, should possess the highest possible moral standards for public officials.

The Global Call to Action Against Cancer

Will the Philippines respond and Move As One?

By Cecilia Llave,MD.

Cecilia Llave

Traditional view holds that infectious diseases cause more deaths than cancer does. Recent findings have shown this to be false.

Researchers Colin D. Mathers and DejanLoncar, in a study funded by the World Health Organization and published in 2006, have found that it is cancer, not infectious diseases, that has been killing more people worldwide.

They observed that in 2002, infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – altogether killed 5.3 million people. Cancer, however, well exceeded this, accounting for some 7.2 million deaths worldwide.

The number of cancer cases, moreover, is growing. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that from 12.9 million worldwide in 2009, cancer cases in 2020 will reach 16.8 million – an enormous number of ill people that surpasses the entire population of Metro Manila by some 5 million more.

In the Philippines 82,468 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2010, according to the Philippine Cancer Facts and Estimates. That does not include Filipinos who had previously been diagnosed of the disease. During the same year, according to the estimate, nearly 52,000 Filipinos died due to the disease.

Staggering as they are, the Philippine statistics may still be an underestimation. The uncertainty is rooted on the fact that the Philippine data were derived from only two cancer registries – one in Metro Manila and another that covers Metro Manila and Rizal Province. Not captured in the statistics is the rest of the country, particularly some Visayas and Mindanao areas that are known to be the Philippines’ poorest locales.

Experts have long conceded that poverty has much influence on cancer incidence and fatalities. They observed that cancer is likely to arise and progress to death in areas where the facilities and know-how for the prevention, early detection, and treatment of the cancer are unavailable, inaccessible or unaffordable.

Cancer is no longer a disease of the rich. The IARC’s World Cancer Report 2008 substantiated this observation with numbers. In 1970, the report noted, developing countries accounted for only 15% of new cancer cases in the world. In 2008, however, 50% of new cancer cases were found in developing countries. The report pointed out that if the trend continues, 70% of new cancer cases in the world will be in developing countries by the year 2030.

How many people will be afflicted with cancer in 2030? About 27 million worldwide, according to the IARC report, and deaths from the disease that year will reach 17 million.

The Philippines, being a developing country, stands to suffer much along with other developing countries that will minister to 70% of the cancer patients worldwide 18 years from now.

“Lack of funds” has been the usual plaint of developing countries faced with an impending crisis such as the growing global burden of cancer. Several scientists, however, pointed out in the journal The Lancet less than two years ago that money should not be a problem.

The scientists said the world spent $305 billion in 2009 to conduct study, prevent, and treat cancer. Only 5% of this, however, was spent on and in developing countries. The bulk, 95%, of the anti-cancer resources went to rich and developed countries, which accounted for only 15% of the world population.This great imbalance in the use of global anti-cancer resources can be resolved with the use of innovative global and regional financing mechanisms, they said.

Fighting cancer, particularly in developing countries, need not be expensive, the scientists emphasized. Countries with limited resources and with little or no specialized anti-cancer services can overcome the burden of cancer through the deployment of trained primary and secondary caregivers, low-cost screening and treatment technologies, and through special emphasis on cancer prevention.

These approaches are now embodied in the World Cancer Declaration that is deposited with the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC: http://www.uicc.org/) in Geneva. The Declaration brings to the attention of government leaders health policy makers 11 objectives to be achieved by 2020 to significantly reduce the global burden of cancer. To date, more than half a million people worldwide have signed the Declaration.

In the Philippines, the first organized move to increase public awareness on the burden of cancer and on the World Cancer Declaration will be held at the Diamond Hotel in Manila on February 3 in a forum called “Moving As One, A Global Call to Action : Preventing Cancer To Save Lives.” The gathering will also serve as a prelude to the Philippine observance of the February 4 World Cancer Day, and will feature discussions among leaders of anti-cancer organizations, government health agencies, and foreign and Philippine anti-cancer experts.

About the author:
Gynecologic-oncologist Dr. Cecilia A.L. Llave is a consultant at the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH) and the Asian Hospital. She is the program director for external affairs of the nongovernmental organization Cancer Institute Foundation (CIF), and project director of the Cancer Prevention Clinic, a joint project of Chevron Philippines, the UP-PGH, and the CIF.

Protektado pa rin ng DOJ si Mancao

Habang ang atensyun ng madla ay nasa impeachment trial ni Chief Justice, may nangyayari sa Department of Justice.

Noong Huwebes, nang ina-nunsyo ni Justice Secretary Leila de Lima na itinalaga niya si Regional Prosecutor Nonnatus Caesar Rojas bilang officer-in-charge ng National Bureau of Investigation, kapalit ni Magtanggol Gatdula, ang pinatalsik ni Pangulong Aquino na hepe ng NBI, pumunta kaagad si dating Police Officer Cezar Mancao kay De Lima.

Sabi ng aming source, naka-confine daw sa isang kuwarto sa itaas ng NBI building si Mancao.

Si dating Police Senior Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino ay nakakulong sa NBI rin ngunit nasa ibaba naman.

Hindi na hinintay ni Mancao na arestuhin siya. Halatang tiwalang-tiwala si Mancao kay De Lima.

Noong Lunes lang (Enero 30) nagsimula si Rojas sa NBI ngunit noong Enero 26, wala na si Gatdula.

Nasa alanganin kasi ang sitwasyun ni Mancao ngayon dahil noong Enero 30, idinismis ng Manila Regional Trial Court ang kanyang petisyun na alisin siya bilang akusado sa kaso ng pagpatay sa publicist na si Salvador “Bubby” Dacer at ang kanyang driver na si Emmanuel Corbito noong Nobyembre 2000.

Sabi ni acting Presiding Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina hindi tama na alisin si Mancao bilang akusado at gawing state witness na siyang kanyang kagustuhan dahil sinabi na ng Court of Appeals at Supreme Court na hindi siya credible o kapani-paniwala.

Paano naman kasi, ilang beses siya tumambling sa kanyang testimonya.

Bilang state witness, dapat nasa Witness protection Program na siyang tinatrabaho noon ng mga galamay ni Gloria Arroyo sa DOJ para idiin si Sen. Panfilo”Ping” Lacson. Inabutan sila ng pagbagsak ni Arroyo sa kapangyarihan. Pinawalang sala ng CA at SC si Lacson. Paano ngayon magiging state witness si Mancao.

Ito ngayon ang nakakahilo sa kaso ngayon ng Dacer-Corbito murders. Parehong akusado si Mancao at Michael ray Aquino. Magkaiba silang testimonya. Sinabi ni Mancao may alam siya. Paano niya ngayon panindigan yan?

Paano kaya mani-ubrahin yan ng kanyang abogadong si Ferdinand Topacio, na siyang abogado rin ni Gloria Arroyo?

Kawawa rin sana si Mancao kasi parang hindi na siya naasikaso nang kung sino man ang kanyang dating mga “sponsor”.

Noong hearing nga noong araw pagkatapos hinarang si Arroyo sa airport noong Nobyembre, hindi nakasipot si Topacio. Napagod siguro.

Kung sabagay, nandyan pa naman sa DOJ ang mga galamay ni Arroyo at sila ang nakapaligid kay De Lima.

Unexplained or ill-gotten?

The prosecution’s clumsy preparation of the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona has caught up with them.

Last Wednesday, the impeachment court trying Chief Justice Renato Corona decided to reject the prosecution’s request to present evidence in relation to the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, acting as the impeachment court’s president officer, said:”This impeachment court has arrived at a decision in that caucus that this court will allow the introduction of evidence and impeachment on article 2 paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 but not the introduction of evidence of paragraph 2.4. And so parties must be guided accordingly,” Enrile said.

Paragraph 2.4 states: “Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits.”

Article of Impeachment No. 2 deals with Corona’s non-disclosure of his statement of assets liabilities and net worth.

The impeachment court allowed the presentation of evidence related to paragraph 2.2 of Article 2, dealing with Corona’s failure to publicly disclose his SALN, and paragraph 2.3, regarding the allegation he did not declare a number of his alleged properties in his SALN.

Senator Francis Escudero has pointed out what was wrong with the jumbled issues raised by Article 2.
The prosecution, as expected, was dismayed. That means that all those evidence they claim to have gathered to prove that Corona has ill-gotten wealth would just be presented in press conferences, as they have been doing the past week.

Prosecution Panel spokesman Marikina City Rep. Miro Quimbo said based on what they have presented in the impeachment court, Corona has amassed wealth of at least P10 million which reported income from 2006 to 2010 could not support.

“There is a variance of P10 million. This means that there is an unexplained increase in Corona’s wealth based on what he reported in his SALN, which is also not supported by his salary and that of his wife,” he said in a press conference.

Wait a minute. Quimbo used the world “unexplained”. Have they abandoned, “ill-gotten”?

SaxnViolins, who has patiently illuminated visitors in my blog on the legal intricacies in the impeachment trial has this to say:

“What a difference a phrase makes.“

“What is the difference between “unexplained wealth” and “ill-gotten wealth”? A lot, if you read RA 3019 and RA 7080.

“RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act while RA 7080 is An Act Defining and Penalizing Plunder.

“Unexplained wealth is defined as:

Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

“So unexplained wealth, as stated in the above-cited case of Simplicio Berdon, enjoys a legal presumption. The burden shifts to the Defendant, to prove that he acquired the property legally.

“But “ill-gotten wealth” is defined as follows:

Section 1 d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

“There is no presumption here. By definition, “ill-gotten wealth” is by the means with which it has been acquired, such as:

1) Misappropriating public funds
2) Receiving a commission or kickback
3) Illegal or fraudulent conversion of assets belonging to the National government,etc.
“The prosecution has to prove that property was acquired by the means stated in the definition.

“Article 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment states:

“ 2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. “

SNV further said, “Diyos ko po. Pinahirapan mo naman ang sarili mo Niel Tupas. Had you stated “accumulating unexplained wealth” home free ka na. But now, you need evidence to prove the means of acquisition stated in RA 7080.”

Pangmatagalan na impeachment trial

Thanks to yahoo.ph for photo


May basehan ang pag-alala ni Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan sa sinabi ng prosecution na sobra isang daan daw ang bilang ng witnesses na kanilang i-presenta sa impeachment trial ni Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Sabi ni Pangilinan, na miyembro ng Liberal Party at ka-alyado ng administrasyong Aquino, “Kung seryoso sila (ang prosecution) na ipresenta ang lahat na witness, matatagalan itong trial.”

Sabi ni Pangilinan, sa unang dalawang linggo ng impeachment trial, anim na witnesses na ang naisalang sa witness stand. “Kung ganito ang takbo ng trial, aabutin ng sampung buwan ang isang daan na witnesses.”
Prosecution witnesses lang yan. May sariling witnesses rin ang defense.

Sabi ni Pangilinan, ang ganitong haba ng trial ay hindi nakakabuti sa bayan.

Sabi nga ni Sen. Joker Arroyo, kapag may impeachment trial, 25 porsiyento lang ng kanilang oras ang napupunta sa kanilang regular na trabaho, ang gumawa ng batas. Ang oras nila ay nauubos sa impeachment.

Sabi ni Pangilinan, mahalaga na mabigyan ang panahin ang bawat panig na magpresenta ng kani-kanilang kaso, ngunit kailangan din balansehin ng impeachment court na mas nakakatas na kapakanan ng bayan.

Dalawa ang ibig sabihin ng napakaraming witnesses. Pwedeng sabihin na napakarami talaga silang ebidensya laban kay Corona o medyo nahirapan sila magsuporta ng charges na ginawa nila.

Talaga naman kasing despalinghado ang pagkagawa ng charges. Kahit mga abogado na kampi sa administrasyong Aquino, dismayado sa ginawa nina Rep. Niel Tupas.

May balita kami na sa loob mismo ng prosecution, hindi sila magkasundo sa paraan ng presentasyon.
Paano daw kasi ang inaasikaso ay ang malagay sa media.

Nasa-media nga sila. Nabubulgar naman ang kapalpakan.

Katulad na lang ng Article No. 2 na ang charge ay ang hindi niya pagsapubliko ng kanyang Statement of Assets, Liabilities at Networth na labag daw sa batas. Sa ilalim noon, sinabi na may suspetsa na nagkamal daw ng ill-gotten wealth o nagnakaw si Corona dahil marami daw ang pera sa bangko at maraming nabiling ari-arian katulad ng condominium sa Fort Mckinley.

Ngayon, maraming lumalabas na mga ebidensya tungkol sa ari-arian ni Corona na mukhang nagsusuporta sa kanilang hinala na may ginawa talaga siyang madyik. Kaya lang paano yan ma-presenta, dahil hindi naman kasama sa charges?

Humihingi si Tupas ng konsiderasyun na dapat daw maluwag ang Presidenting Judge na si Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile sa kanya.

Kung magiging maluwag si ang trial Court sa prosecution, hindi naman pwedeng sila lang. Dapat maluwag din doon sa kabila.

Hindi popular si Corona at hindi iiyak ang taumbayan kung matanggal siya sa pwesto. Kaya lang dapat naman sa maayos na paraan. Yung napatunayan ang kanyang kasalanan.