Enrile showing prosecution's 'fake' document
Why is Malacañang vouching for the authenticity of the documents supposedly on the bank accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Philippine Savings Bank submitted by the prosecution to the impeachment court?
That document, which PSB Katipunan branch manager Annabel Tiongson, said was fake became the basis of the subpoena issued by the impeachment court for the information on Corona’s bank accounts.
An ABS-CBN report quoted Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda as saying, “Ano ba ang fake? Fake ang account number e mayroong account number doon sa PSBank eh. Kung signature card, pirmado naman po ni Chief Justice Corona ‘yun. So I suppose they’re protecting their bank because there’s a violation of the Bank Secrecy Law so I would assume that the bank will do everything to protect itself from liability from the Bank Secrecy Law. But what has been proven is that it is not fake insofar as the account numbers, insofar as the figures are there.”
Must Lacierda vouch for the prosecution’s documents? Why can’t he let the prosecution do their job in the impeachment court?
We understand Malacañang’s desire to have Corona removed as part of their crusade to institute reform in the judiciary. Although we do not believe the defense panel’s tale of P100 million per senator to oppose the High Court’s temporary restraining order on Corona’s dollar accounts, we know that the prosecution team, composed of members of the House of representatives, is getting a lot of help from Malacañang. But can’t they do it more discreetly?
Malacañang’s indiscretion is not doing the prosecution a favor.
Lacierda’s statement makes one wonder, was the fake document Malacanang’s handiwork?
This was the part last Monday’s hearing that made Enrile ask the prosecution explain why they did something unethical:
Enrile: Are you saying that these documents are false documents?
Tiongson: Yes, Sir. It seems fake.
Enrile: Huh?
Tiongson: They are fake documents, Sir.
Enrile: They are fake documents. Are you sure?
Tiongson: Yes, Sir.
Rep. Niel Tupas, head of the prosecution panel, said in their request, they never claimed the document, which they said came from an anonymous source, to be authentic.
Yesterday, Sen. Miriam Santiago went ballistic again scolding the prosecution panel for submitting an unauthenticated document to the court. She said it happened in a regular court, a judge would order the sheriff to haul the lawyer to city jail.
As to the reasoning of the prosecution that they felt it was their duty to bring the document to the attention of the impeachment court, Santiago remarked, “Duty, my foot! It is not your duty. It is your liability.”
It is of interest to many how the authenticity of the document submitted by the prosecution would affect the information from Corona’s bank accounts that were revealed as a result of the subpoena issued by the court.
The subpoena resulted in the disclosure by two bank executives that Corona as of Dec, 31, 2010 had at least P32 million in the banks. He stated in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 2010 that he had only P3.5 million in cash and investments.
The prosecution may lose some points in the impeachment court on this issue of submitting fake documents. Enrile even warned them that their lack of evidence can prove to be a “fatal error.”
But in the court of public opinion, they scored big with the disclosure of those multi-million peso bank deposits. To many senator-judges that matters a lot.
