Ill-gotten Wealth of Chief Justice Renato Corona

The defense panel of Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona on Monday admitted that the Chief Justice only owns five out of the 45 alleged ill-gotten wealth presented by the prosecution.

Among these alleged properties is the 800-square-meter unit in Bellagio Condominium in Taguig City worth P14.5 million.

During their opening statement before the Senate Impeachment Court, the defense team led by retired SC Associate Justice and erstwhile Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Serafin Cuevas, said that the alleged properties are immaterial to the impeachment trial.

Likewise, the defense also said that President Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III is “antagonistic” to the SC because of the Hacienda Luisita ruling.

The SC en banc has ruled that some 4,000 hectares of land of Hacienda Luisita should be distributed to some 6,000 farmworker-beneficiaries to be undertaken by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

The defense said that the SC is “transparent” about the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) as well as the SALN (statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth).

“SC and the Chief Justice are not biased toward GMA. In fact, there were decisions which opposed CGMA,” they said.

Executive Order No. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission violated the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution, they noted.

The Truth Commission was supposed to investigate into allegations of graft and corruption committed during the Arroyo administration such as the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, the botched US$ 329-million NBN-ZTE contract, and the “Hello Garci” scandal, among others.

They also said that the SC’s temporary restraining order (TRO) on Mrs. Arroyo’s watchlist order (WLO) was justified.

It can be recalled that the SC en banc issued a TRO on the DOJ’s WLO against the former President and her husband former First Gentleman Atty. Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo paving the way for the medical treatment abroad of Mrs. Arroyo.

However, the TRO was not recognized by the DOJ on the same day because of the non-receipt of the official copy of the SC ruling.

Incoming search terms:

Tagged as:

What is your reaction?

What is your comment?