The defense’s debacle


The prosecutors in the on-going impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona owe the defense a mountain of gratitude. After all, it was the defense that proved what the prosecutors could not:  That the chief justice has dollar deposits in the amount of— at least—$12 million, which he failed to disclose in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

 

What on earth was the defense thinking when it called on the Ombudsman as its own witness? Perhaps they thought that the Ombudsman would not honor the subpoena sent to her to testify in the Senate. But why would she ignore such a subpoena when as a retired Supreme Court magistrate, she knows all too well that unlike contempt issued by the courts, a contempt imposed by the legislature may be for a lifetime. Did they think that the Ombudsman would not disclose details of her ongoing investigation, or at least not the documents tending to show the existence of the CJ’s dollar deposits, because to disclose these would be to violate the existing law protecting the confidentiality of dollar deposits without a court order?

 

But why would the Ombudsman not disclose this? To begin with, the secrecy of dollar deposits is only provided for by a law, while the duty of the Ombudsman to “investigate public official” for “illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient” acts and its power to “request any government agency for assistance and information necessary  x x x  and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents” are both provided for by the Constitution. Pursuant to the principle of hierarchy of laws, the Constitutional provisions on the Ombudsman prevail over the prohibition of the FCDU law.

 

What makes the defense act even more perplexing is that from the declarations of the Ombudsman herself, she apparently had no intention of taking the stand in the ongoing trial. When asked by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago to what purpose the Ombudsman could investigate an impeachable officer such as the CJ, the Ombudsman responded that is was only for the purpose of “recommending to Congress the filing of an impeachment complaint after the one-year ban in December of this year.” Ergo, her investigation, if warranted, would have resulted only in a letter to the Speaker of the House perhaps recommending a second impeachment proceeding against the chief justice. This implies that she did not see taking the stand as an option.

 

So the question is: Why did they do it?

 

Lawyer Jose Roy III said it was upon the express order of Corona himself, to know what the Ombudsman has. I guess the defense achieved its purpose—except that in the process, they crucified their client.

 

The defense, after realizing that the Ombudsman dropped a bomb shell against the chief justice, is now saying that the information divulged are: one, not accurate, because the amounts were not verified by the Ombudsman herself; and two, in any case, illegally obtained and hence inadmissible.

 

Such are admirable attempts to contain the consequences of their self-inflicted damage. But these are utterly bereft of merit. To begin with, the Ombudsman divulged the documents only insofar as it forms part of her ongoing investigation about an alleged dollar deposit undeclared by the chief justice in his SALN. Certainly, this was what complainants Rissa Hontiveros-Baraquel et al alleged in their complaint. Moreover, although she has not personally verified the accuracy of the accounts, she is still entitled to presume that a very specialized agency such as the Anti-Money Laundering Council would be discharging its functions regularly. If at all, the AMLC cannot be faulted for heeding the constitutionally mandated power of the Ombudsman to solicit its assistance. Instead, it should perhaps be faulted for not conducting its own investigation even before the impeachment trial.

 

Moreover, the chief justice himself, in the form prescribed for the SALN,  has expressly authorized the “ obtain and secure from all appropriate government agencies, x x x such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections.” How can he now complain about the acts of the Ombudsman?

 

With the testimony of the Ombudsman,  Corona has put the last nail in his own coffin. Ironically, we have the defense to thank for this.

 

The $10 million question


At long last, the die is cast. After repeatedly saying that Chief Justice Renato Corona need not take the witness stand in the impeachment trial against him, his counsel, out of the blue, assured the Senate that the CJ will take the witness stand.

The promise though appeared to have a condition: that is, that the Complainants against the CJ in a pending complaint in the Ombudsman, to wit, former Akbayan Representative Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and Rep. Walden Bello, together with Harvey Keh, and no less than Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales; should be subpoenaed by the Senate to appear purportedly as hostile witnesses in the impeachment trial. After which, the CJ’s counsel promised that his client will take the stand to rebut what these witnesses may say. This is interesting. While the nation has been left wondering about an alleged 700,0000 dollar account with PS Bank allegedly belonging to the CJ and yet undeclared in his SALN,  the nation gasped with horror at the possibility that the CJ may have a lot more in his  dollar accounts. In fact, the amount is mind-boggling: 10 Million or at least 420 Million pesos at today’s exchange rate.

There’s an obvious difference between the circumstances behind the 700,000-dollar placement and this later 10 Million deposit. In the case of the smaller amount, it was the Prosecution that asked the Court to subpoena PS bank to bring and present to the Court the documentary evidence for such an account. When asked by the Court where the Prosecution obtained its information about the account, the Prosecution panel claimed that a “small lady” in the gallery of the Senate gave it to Rep. Reynaldo Umali. It would later turn out that Rep. Jorge Banal of Quezon City had previously gone to the Katipunan branch of PS Bank to inquire about this 700,000-dollar account. Rep. Banal in turn, claimed that an unknown person left the documents at his residence.

The Supreme Court then came to the rescue of the embattled CJ when in a petition filed by PS Bank, the Court issued an indefinite temporary restraining order which effectively stopped the impeachment court from compelling the bank to produce all relevant documents relative to the $700,000 account. This time, the $10 Million dollar deposit was not even by reason of any document, even information, provided by the Prosecutors. Instead, what is  clear on the basis of newspaper reports are: One, as alleged by veteran Journalist Ellen Tordesillas in a story published by Vera files, the Ombudsman allegedly had asked the Anti-Money Laundering Council to provide her with a copy of the documents establishing that the CJ has an undisclosed amount in  dollar deposits in  undisclosed banks. This, according to Tordesillas, the Ombudsman did in response to the complaint filed by Hontiveros et al.

Two, in a story carried exclusively by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the CJ was allegedly asked by the Ombudsman to explain in writing within 72 hours how he acquired several peso and dollar accounts, described as  “grossly disproportionate” to his salary. Quoting from Carpio’s order, the PDI reported that the CJ was allegedly asked to explain, among others, how he acquired dollar deposits with an “aggregate amount of at least US$10,000,000”.

It was because of this second story that Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago opined that the Ombudsman could conduct a parallel investigation with the impeachment court on the CJ’s concealed dollar deposits. Senator  Edgardo Angara , for his part, said that the impeachment court could accept evidence emanating from the Ombudsman in this regard. The legal basis for both Senators’ opinions is found in the Ombudsman law, which provides that the said office may investigate even impeachable officers for the purpose of recommending to Congress the initiation of impeachment against them.

Apparently, this was the game changer. While the CJ, through his lawyers, lawyers ignored the show cause letter of the Ombudsman arguing that the said office has no jurisdiction over an impeachable officer such as the Chief Justice, the results of such an investigation was nonetheless, the reason why the CJ will now take the stand. According to his counsel last Tuesday evening, this was to “rebut the testimonies” of Hontiveros and the Ombudsman et al, which presumably, will be adverse to the CJ. Obviously the nation will be glued to the proceedings specially when the Ombudsman takes the stand, which she has said she will. And the obvious question will no longer be whether such a huge deposit exists, which for all intents and purposes, appear to be admitted. The issue now is why he did not declare such an amount and how he acquired this huge sum.

The plot thickens. It’s definitely more fun in the Philippines!

Rape and probable cause against Del Castillo


Voting 38-10, with no abstentions, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice determined the existence of probable cause for betrayal of public trust against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo. This is the latest in the saga of the Malaya Lolas, victims of mass rape during World War II, who have been fighting for redress for the past 60 years. The impeachment, together with the Lolas’ motion for reconsideration pending in the case of Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary, are the last remaining legal attempts to obtain justice for these victims.It was my first time to attend the House proceedings. Last week, four of the Lolas trooped to the Committee to give evidence to prove the existence of probable cause against the magistrate. Unfortunately, in the one and only time I could have spoken on behalf of the Lolas in Congress, I happened to be abroad to deliver plenary remarks in an international conference to mark the tenth year of the International Criminal Court in Sydney, Australia. I would have preferred to talk on behalf of the Lolas in Congress. Unfortunately, my restricted and non-refundable ticket to Sydney had already been issued by the time I received my invitation to the Committee hearing. It was my law partner Joel Butuyan and the Executive Director of Center for International Law, Romel Bagares, who went to represent the Lolas in Congress.But just as the Lolas were giving their testimony in Congress, I too was discussing their plight in the ICC conference. Before an audience consisting of the “ who’s who” in international law, I discussed lessons learned and challenges arising from the Philippine accession to the Rome statute of the ICC. One such challenge is the ability of the Philippines to exercise primary jurisdiction in crimes cognizable by the ICC. I argued that the decision in Vinuya, the Lolas’ case, is evidence of a lack of capacity of our courts to apply the basic principles of international criminal law. This may be a from of “inability” to exercise primary jurisdiction. The good news is that this would justify the ICC prosecuting similar crimes in the future without offending sovereignty.

The audience was in disbelief when told about the Vinuya decision They could not understand why the Court declared that the waiver of further reparations provided in the San Francisco Peace pact should prevail over the jus cogens norm against rape as a war crime and the duty to provide redress to victims thereof. That the women are entitled to reparations despite the waiver of further reparation has been the consistent position of the United Nations, particularly the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Since the pendency of Vinuya, the South Korean Constitutional Court has expressed the same opinion. Only recently, the latter ruled that a failure of the South Korean government to espouse their comfort women’s claim is unconstitutional.

Worse, the audience was baffled with our Court’s opinion that rape only became criminal in the 1990s as a result of the decision of the Rwanda tribunal in the case of Prosecutor v. Akayesu. This was what prompted me to instruct my law associates to look at each and every footnote cited by the Court in Vineyard. Simply put, that conclusion was wrong.

Back to the Congressional hearing, much of the time spent prior to the voting on the existence of probable cause was whether the plagiarism and the twisting complained of by the complainants were serious enough to warrant impeachment. The chairman of the committee, Rep Neil Tupas, started the hearing by reading from the proceedings of the constitutional commission. It was clear from what Tupas read that betrayal of public trust as a impeachable offense is new. It was added to include acts which may not be criminal- but could still affect the fitness of an impeachable officer to hold office.

Yesterday’s ruling was ground breaking not only insofar as the Lolas’ quest for justice is concerned. In Roque v. De Venecia, our Court ruled that the definition of betrayal of pubic trust is beyond the ambit of judicial review and is a political question, The question was given an answer yesterday: 32 counts of plagiarism and the twisting perpetrated by Justice Del Castillo in Vinuya, albeit allegedly without intent, constitute betrayal of public trust.

Future magistrates, beware.

Corona’s (not so) secret account


 

The crown's dollars

 

I expected Annabelle Tiongson, manager of the Katipunan Branch of PSBank, to do as she did. Why shouldn’t she? As Niñez Cacho-Olivarez reported, the bank document that formed the basis for the prosecutors to subpoena Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar account at PS Bank came from Tiongson herself. Had the Senate ignored the court ruling enjoining the opening of this dollar account, Tiongson would have been the Clarissa Ocampo of this impeachment trial. But because the Senate honored the Court ruling, the best course of action for her was to deny its authenticity.But should the nation believe her hook, line and sinker?

Of course not. To begin with, no less than Corona, by seeking an order from his colleagues at the Supreme Court to restrain the opening of his dollar account, has himself admitted that the said exists. If it is but a figment of the prosecution’s imagination, as the defense would want us to believe, what is there to be restrained by the Court? Any which way, the mysterious dollar deposit works in favor of the prosecution, and courtesy of the CJ’s actuations at that.

There is  a presumption in our rules of evidence that he who suppresses the presentation of evidence does so because it is against him. Here, the chief justice’s insistence on secrecy can only be because the existence of the dollar account will prove anew that he failed to declare his dollar deposit in his SALN.

In any case, the PSBank dollar account is only icing for the prosecution. What is undeniable now is that Corona did not declare a total amount of P31 million cash in his SALN. The defense insists that SALNs are subject to correction. Cuevas should tell that to the court interpreter in a Regional Trial Court in Davao who was fired because he failed to declare in his SALN a market stall. Said the Court “We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the Judiciary x x x Personnel in the Judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.”

I guess Corona believes that the high ethical standards can only be demanded from lowly court employees and not from the Chief Justice himself.  It is obvious that in Corona’s mind, being primus inter pares, or the first amongst equals, is tantamount to a shield of immunity even for criminal acts.

And lest we forget, the undeclared 31 million in cash is over and above the real estate property that he also failed to declare in his SALN. There were at least three pieces of real estate property that he failed to declare: a condominium unit in Spanish Bay Tower, another unit in Makati at the Columns, and a lot in McKinley Hills. There too is the undervaluation of the Bellagio unit by at least 24 million pesos. Altogether, Corona, the Honorable magistrate, did not declare a total of at least P65 million worth of property.

The question is why. Well, the sage and statesman Jovito Salonga, when he wrote the law requiring the filing of truthful SALNs, knew that property which is not proportional to a public official’s salary is presumed ill-gotten under another statute, the unexplained wealth act. Need we say more?

Perhaps Corona should heed the ruling of his own Court. In another ruling ordering the dismissal of a regional revenue officer for failing to disclose two cars in his SALN, the court said: “(T)he SSAL (sworn statement of assets and liabilities) is not a mere scrap of paper. The law requires that the SSAL must be accomplished as truthfully, as detailed and as accurately as possible  x x x  It serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of officials and employees in the government.”

 

Top

SALN


All public officers are required to file their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth on or before 30 April of every year. This is provided by RA No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The rationale for the filing of the same is to enable the public to find out if there has been an appreciable increase in the net worth of a public officer on a year-to-year basis. In turn, under the provisions of the Unexplained Wealth Act, any property that appears to be disproportionate to the annual salary of a public officer is prima facie presumed to be ill gotten and is subject to forfeiture in favor of the state. This is one very rare instance where the law presumes property of a public officer as ill-gotten. Cleary, the requirement to file the SALN is complimentary to the intent of the law to deprive pubic officers of the fruits of graft and other corrupt practices. It is a tool to determine if the net worth of a public officer is within his means as a public officer.I am sure that this is why the prosecution panel in the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona decided to begin introduction of their evidence on Article 2 instead of Article 1 of the impeachment complaint. Stated differently, since the public prosecutors have told the nation that the Chief Justice has very valuable real estate registered in his name, property whose value appears to be beyond his annual income as an Associate Justice and later, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, these may be deemed ill-gotten. One of the grounds for the Chief Justice’s impeachment, in turn, is graft and corruption.Moreover, the filing of the same is mandatory and required to be under oath. Any failure to file the same, or a failure to declare all assets owned by the public officer in the same, will amount to a violation of a public officer’s duty to uphold the laws of the land.  This is also betrayal of the public trust. This is because a public office is a public trust and a public officer’s breach of an existing law is also a breach of the trust reposed in the public officer.

The Constitution further requires that the SALN “shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.” RA 6713 provides for the manner of public disclosure of a public officer’s SALN.  Section 8(C) of said law provides: “(C) Accessibility of documents. — (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours. x x x“(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law. x x x (4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement.”

The crux of the controversy is while the Chief Justice maintains that he has filed his SALN according to law, no one, except for the Court Clerk of Court, has seen them. This is because in an attempt to guard against harassment, the Court, by an en banc resolution, has ruled that these SALN should not be made public and will only be released on “good grounds.”

A legal issue to be resolved by the Impeachment Court is whether the Chief Justice, relying on a court resolution, can claim immunity from Section 8C of the law as quoted above. The House prosecutors obviously believe that he cannot and the refusal to make such SALN public is already a violation of the law — hence, an impeachable offense, that of betrayal of public trust. Corona maintains otherwise.

But a startling event happened yesterday when the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court refused to turn over Corona’s SALN to the Senate despite a subpoena issued for them. Obviously, much of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint may be proven by the production of Corona’s SALN’s in the custody of the Clerk of Court. But the Clerk, alleging that the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government with its own internal rules, initially refused, pleading that the Court en banc must give her authority to surrender them to the Senate.

A constitutional crisis was averted when Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile rightfully ordered the Clerk of Court to surrender the SALN to the Senate. If this is a portent of things to come, we’re bound to have many more potential constitutional crises in the course of this impeachment.

The lesson is clear: let us elect a President who will make responsible appointments particularly to the Judiciary. Never again should we allow a person with no mandate to govern. And by God, let’s make our elections clean and safe especially from high-tech cheats!

The wrong IBP statement


IBP President Roan Libarios

Was both sad and disappointed when the Integrated Bar of the Philippines took the stand that the impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona was an affront to the independence on the Judiciary. Sad because I hold the IBP very dearly, having served as its Presidential Assistant for Human Rights for two years during the incumbency of President Feliciano Bautista. Disappointed because knowing almost all of its national officers personally, including its incumbent President Roan Libarios whom I had the pleasure of serving with when he was National Vice-President of the IBP, I do not understand how they can misread the importance of impeachment as a constitutional tool for public accountability of public officers. It was indeed a wrong statement.

The IBP anchored its stand on the false belief that any and all means to promote accountability on the part of our magistrates is an affront to the Judiciary. Nothing can be farther from the truth. When the Constitution made the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of government, it did so mindful that there was a need to promote both independence and accountability of our magistrates. To achieve independence, the Constitution gave the Court both fiscal autonomy and security of tenure for all magistrates to serve until age 70. But to balance this independence, the Constitution included the remedy of impeachment to remove magistrates with otherwise fixed terms should they commit culpable violations of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption. To provide the Court only with means to make it independent but bereft of an instrument of accountability would be to make a monster out of our courts. Hence, contrary to the position taken by the officers of the IBP, impeachment is a constitutional tool to promote accountability and not the sword of Damocles that it portrayed it to be.

Furthermore, as I argued in my paper which I delivered only this month in Hong Kong University on the occasion of the 4th International Conference of the Asian Society of Constitutional Law, the impeachment is a tool by which our policy makers, both from the House of Representatives and the Senate, can uphold the supremacy of the Constitution particularly on the issue of Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice. Normally, legal formalism demands that we accept as final and executory decisions made by the Supreme Court particularly where it interprets the Constitution. In Angara v. Electoral Tribunal, the Court declared that when it declares an act of any branch or instrumentality as unconstitutional and hence, null and void, this is not an exercise of “judicial supremacy”, but one that “upholds the supremacy of the Constitution”.

But what happens when the Court abdicates this duty to uphold the Constitution as it did in De Castro v. JBC when it resorted to constitutional draftsmanship in upholding Corona’s appointment as a midnight Chief Justice in a manner contrary to the language and intent of the Constitution? Are all the other branches of government precluded from defending the Constitution? Certainly not.

All public officers from all branches of government took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Here, the remedy is clearly impeachment, as the issue to be resolved by our policy makers will include that of the correctness and the wisdom of the Court’s ruling in De Castro. Surely, the people that gave life to the Constitution did not intend to grant unto the Court a monopoly of upholding the supremacy of the highest law of the land.

As correctly observed by Senator Joker Arroyo, Article 1 of the articles of impeachment will involve purely legal issues which includes the constitutionality of Corona’s acceptance of the post of Chief Justice.

I would also have appreciated it if the IBP’s leadership attempted to consult its members prior to issuing its statement against the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona. Certainly, as the compulsory national organization of lawyers, there is virtue in hearing what its members, all of whom are trained in constitutional law, have to say before issuing a statement that appears to bind all of its members. As it turned out, I am a bona fide member of the IBP and I have been whole-heartedly supporting the impeachment of Corona as a means of strengthening the constitution and the Court as an institution. My leaders in the IBP did not consult me before they issued their official position despite the fact that the articles of the IBP do contain a provision on consultation with its members. I am now constrained to put on record the fact that I do not approve of the IBP stand and that I have not authorized them to speak on my behalf on this particular issue. This is sad, but necessary.

In any case, I am pleased that the House of Representatives chose lawyer Mario “Ayo” Bautista to lead its panel of private prosecutors in the impeachment trial. Ayo was my boss during my first year of litigation practice and I know him to be a brilliant and dedicated litigator. With him on board, I am sure that the people’s interest would be promoted and safeguarded in the impeachment trial.

I’m sorry to write a serious article for my last column for the year. Rest assured, I will try to be less serious in the upcoming New Year.

Happy New Year to one and all!

Morality in the impeachment process


Am very much bothered by pronouncements made by the members and the chairman of the House Committee on Justice that they will abandon the impeachment proceeding against Justice Mariano del Castillo. The reason given was that the House could not handle the prosecution of the Corona impeachment and that of del Castillo at the same time. This is a lame excuse. To begin with, it is the constitutional duty of the committee to deal with all impeachment complaints and act as prosecutors for all impeachment proceedings. For the committee to abandon an otherwise meritorious impeachment complaint because they’re doing too much already is itself an abdication of a constitutional mandate. Worse, it may send the message that the impeachment of the Chief Justice Corona is not about justice, but as Gloria Arroyo and her cohorts have been saying, part only of a political vendetta. Why?

Del Castillo’s impeachment is all about morality. It is about what is right and what is wrong. It is good versus evil. It is wrong to steal, be it under the laws of God or the laws of men. Plagiarism, any which way you look at it, is thievery. It became robbery when Del Castillo’s ponencia even twisted the already plagiarized work of others to support the exact opposite of the thesis submitted by the plagiarized authors: that is, that victims of mass rape during World War II are entitled to the legal remedy of reparations. It may even be akin to genocide not only because the root word of “plagiarism” was derived from murder, but also because on its face value, the Del Castillo ponencia added insult to the injury of the victims when the decision declared that there was no non-derogable prohibition on rape as a war crime during World War II. Ergo, it may have been allowed. It even insinuated that rape committed against civilian populations was not even criminal during World War II.

 

It was precisely this kind of a ponencia that made the whole nation to think about the fitness of the justices of the High Court to sit where they do today. In the minds of many, why bother to have a Supreme Court when they are not able to give the victims of gross injustice, even the semblance of a legal remedy?

 

This will also explain why despite legal formalism which requires the people to accept the decisions of the high court as being final and executory, the people questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Truth Commission and the temporary restraining order on the watch-list order against Mrs. Arroyo. These decisions, like the exoneration of Del Castillo for plagiarism and the court’s order to admonish the UP 37, were deemed to be contrary to morality and natural justice. It was the Del Castillo impeachment complaint that opened the public’s mind to the reality that while the court is referred to as “supreme”, its decisions need not be infallible. Without the Del Castillo impeachment complaint and the ensuing public debate surrounding it, it would have been impossible to rally the people around President Aquino today in damning an Arroyo court.

 

And lest we forget, Mrs. Arroyo and her cronies are now highlighting that Corona’s impeachment is all about political vendetta. The latest pronouncement is that the Corona impeachment was the President’s way of getting even with the court for awarding Hacienda Luisita to its farmer beneficiaries. Of course I don’t believe this. On the contrary, I have maintained that Corona should have been impeached on Day One of PNoy’s presidency. But pubic opinion is not what lawyers and professors believe. It is about what the average person in the street thinks. Abandon the Del Castillo impeachment and Juan de la Cruz will think that perhaps, Arroyo and her cohorts are correct—that the Corona impeachment is not about what is right or wrong. It is about decisions that proved to be painful to the powers that be. And yes, Rep. Arroyo still commands billions in resources sufficient to support a public relations campaign to portray the Corona impeachment as nothing but vendetta. Dismiss the Del Castillo complaint and you remove the moral dimension in the impeachment process. This is exactly what the Arroyo public relations machinery needs. Could it be that this is the real plan of those who want the earlier impeachment complaint to be dismissed?

 

***