Corona's downfall

I am what you can say, a mediocre law student ; I get a few units every semester, I failed two subjects three semesters  ago, I dropped once, and I attend my classes not as a law student, but just like how I did in my undergraduate  classes– no wonder that I am a year delayed. I blame myself, my other commitments, and some of my law professors for this. It cannot be denied, however, that even with some ‘mediocre’ law professors who attend our classes only four times in a semester, or those who prefer telling their life stories and favorite viands rather than really teaching us; there were a few gems in every Law School that have drilled us with legal principles that will, from time to time, appear as the legal truth.

When the impeachment trial of Corona started, we were excited to see an actual application of what we learned in our first year’s Political Law subjects. Finally; we can make sense of the concepts and doctrines which our professors taught us for hours. We were excited to witness a live telecast of the relevance of ‘Checks and Balances” in our system. I must confess though that I have pre-judged Chief Justice Corona simply because he was appointed by former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (who is one of the most corrupt presidents in our history), especially because his appointment created division among the members of the Supreme Court and necessarily planted suspicion on the public mind. It is not because I am a Pnoy fanatic (I did not vote for him), even if there is truth that the impeachment is a crafty machination of a vindictive and single-minded executive in an effort to protect his family and personal interest. This has no bearing since Corona once penned a decision which suggests that "impeachment is inevitably political in nature". Personally, I still believe that the impeachment is still a necessary process in checks and balances provided by the constitution.

As the prosecution conceded to the imperfect conception of the complaint, it still managed to raise one issue that has given relevance to their case: The declaration/non-declaration of assets in his SALN. Even a Barangay Kagawad like me was advised, actually ordered, to fill it up with necessary honesty, we even subscribe and swore to it - as Enrile pointed out; "it's an order directed to public officials". Thus, I even declared my guitar and cell phone (and there was actually a waiver for the Ombudsman to look into my records and employ it’s given powers to check other government agencies to ascertain if I am telling the truth or not). Now, if the Chief Justice, the head of the last bastion of justice and truth, or the highest court of the land, will not do this, or have failed to do this, then what message does this give to even the lowest public officers like us?

When former Justice Morales dropped the bomb (thanks to the defense team), it created strong waves that forced CJ Corona to attend the impeachment hearing to answer queries from the senator-judges and the prosecution team. He appeared however with a script and a drama in his last effort to sway public opinion on his side, he acted more like a politician than a magistrate – he did not stick to the issues immediately. In law school, that will fail you automatically; even that one moment of going around what is not relevant to the issue will cost a student points in recitation, and worse, even a semester. And after the walkout and the drama and the obvious stage act, I thought I have imagined another Angelo Reyes on the making.

The last hearing ended with admissions, more drama, more admonitions, and that rare increase of anticipation. There were foreign accounts, period. It was an asset, period. It was not declared in the SALN, period. It is a violation of a constitutional mandate for public officers, period. It is something alleged in the complaint and a necessary issue in the case, period. As law students, we were trained to give the highest regard to the courts, especially to the highest court of the land and its officers. Hence, his reasons for not doing it (for years) because it was co-mingled funds, or that it was forbidden by another law to disclose it was unsettling, much more to us who thinks that he must possess the highest standards of legal knowledge as the Chief Justice. The point is, he did not declare it. The purpose of disclosure sprouts from the public need to know about their officials' transactions and accumulation of wealth, thus, discouraging them in committing corruption or any illegal means of acquisition. It is a precaution, and it is also a means to repair the system. As an official, he has to know the essence of it. That may decide his moral fitness, integrity, and honesty in this case. If a mere judicial 'employee' was removed from office because of non-declaration of a sarisari store, then how much more for "millions and millions" of pesos and dollars?

In the last interview with Angelo Reyes before he committed suicide, he spoke these words that might have helped the Chief Justice in contemplating what he might have done with the case against him;

“Coming clean, on the other hand, cannot be done without giving up something. I have decided to come clean, bare my heart and speak the truth. The truth can cut two ways: 1. If you are guiltless, you can embrace the truth and hope that it will protect you; 2. If you are NOT guiltless, speak the truth and it shall set you free.”

“Honor is above all else. More valuable than freedom or even life itself. Therefore, honor must be guarded/defended with your life.”

“Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself.”

Indeed. What is the essence of living a life without it? When you have been doing something that has purged it, sliced it, and burned it all away? He could have told the truth earlier, in the initial stage of the proceedings, and walked away from it had he chose to like former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.The public can accept bravery, and acknowledgment of mistakes and omissions. There is no half truth, and three-fourths truth - he could have admitted guilt, or even simply step down and it would have led to a better result - it could have set him free. Life is too short. 

But because he did not, he is doomed.

If he is convicted, in which he can no longer appeal to the Supreme Court, because on matters of Impeachment, it is the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court that is actually the Supreme Court (although former Judge Cuevas opposed this view), and because he has already submitted to the process, and rejecting the result from the process is absurd; he will still be written as a precedent to future events of history...it is simply a disgrace. If he is acquitted, the people will still judge him for his deliberate or intentional ignorance of the law – whatever personal reasons he must have. He is after all, the Chief Justice, and he should know more. Whatever the decision is, CJ Corona has already tainted the image of the Supreme Court and the institution of laws and justice. He was already judged.

 The lesson here is simple; "students must hold on to even that smallest bit of idealism that they might have, even until they get to rise to the ranks of the real world". In the movie based on John Grisham’s book; The Rainmaker, it shows a side story of how law students enter lawschool with a certain amount of idealism, only to forget them all and become like the people they criticize before. In the final scene that ended the movie, Rudy Baylor, the protagonist contemplated on the reality of every lawyer who attempts to climb the post. He said; “Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn't really mean to cross... it just happens... And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you're nothing but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water."