As I’m writing this, Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona was convicted a few hours earlier of “culpable violation of the Constitution” for not disclosing close to 200 million pesos of his wealth as required by law.
The overwhelming vote of 20-3 by the Philippine Senate ended the impeachment saga of the chief magistrate, an appointee and favorite of former President Gloria Arroyo. He will now step down from his post and will be permanently barred from holding public office. He may also be charged criminally for the same violations and possibly for illegally acquiring wealth.
The lop-sided vote came as a bit of a surprise because Mrs. Arroyo, widely accepted here as Corona’s patroness, still has several allies in the Senate. In the end, only three of Arroyo’s allies voted to acquit Corona, way short of the needed eight votes to spare him the humiliation of being removed from office. (The Observer’s guess before the voting was 17 votes to convict and six votes to acquit. Sixteen votes — two-thirds of the Senate’s membership — were required to convict.)
Ironically, Corona himself caused his own doom.
He came to court as the defense’s last witness, after months of trying to evade the senators’ and the public’s clamor for him to testify. His lawyers were loathe to expose their client to the dangers of testifying where he could be lured into a trap by the prosecution lawyers and the senator-judges (who are allowed to directly question witnesses).
As it turned out, it was indeed Corona’s statements that sealed his fate in the senator-judges’ minds.
Through the five-month length of the trial, Corona and his lawyers insistently denied that he owned millions and millions in undeclared wealth, which is a violation of the law for public officials. But, when he was finally forced to take the witness stand, Corona testified that he had US$2.4 million (more than 100 million pesos) and P80 million in undeclared funds in banks. The amounts were lower than what a witness had alleged (up to $12 million) but, since it was hidden wealth, it was enough to convince the senator-judges to convict Corona for violating the Constitution.
Several of the senators also mentioned as basis for their decision to convict the dismissal (by the Supreme Court!) of a court interpreter from her job because she had failed to disclose in the requisite statement of assets a small stall in a public market. The senators’ reasoning was that if a lowly court employee was sacked for not disclosing all her assets, then Corona, who is the nation’s chief arbiter of the law, must also be dismissed basically for the same offense.
At press time, Corona’s lawyers were reported to be mulling the idea of contesting his conviction before the Supreme Court (Corona’s own branch of government!). This means that this epic may not yet be over.
This is rushed breaking news for Balita readers, but in the paper’s next edition, the Observer will have a more expansive analysis of Corona’s impeachment trial.
***
A case of rape. This was the original topic of this issue’s Observer column, until the chief justice’s impeachment came to its climax. Here is the story.
Another case of alleged rape of a young Filipina by a foreigner hit the headlines here recently. As before, the foreigner has successfully fled the country.
A 20-year-old Filpina, being protected by the name “Pamela,” alleges that she was raped by a Panamanian functionary at his country’s embassy in the latter’s condo last April 23. The Panamanian, Erick Bairnals Shcks, claims the sexual encounter was consensual.
Here are the facts, you judge if it was rape. The pair had met days before the alleged rape. On April 23, they went out for drinks and some dancing at a Makati (a posh suburb of Manila) nightspot. Everything seemed in order, they seemed to be enjoying the evening.
Bairnals then invited “Pamela” to his condo, an invitation she accepted. The Panamanian has released closed-circuit television footage showing them in the condo’s lobby in a happy mood, and inside the elevator kissing. Nothing coerced there, the Panamanian asserted in a message to Philippine media recently. Indeed, the mood appeared congenial.
But, a few hours later that evening, in the early morning time of April 24, “Pamela” went to the police to accuse Bairnals of rape. She underwent forensic evaluation at the police station. Based on the police investigation, Bairnals was arrested and charged with rape.
Bairnals, being attached to the Panamanian embassy, invoked immunity from arrest.
Police checked with the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), which initially declared that Bairnals cannot claim immunity because he is really not a diplomat but only a member of the technical staff of the embassy.
A couple of days later, though, the DFA reversed itself and granted Bairnals immunity. Police had to let him go, upon orders of a local court which claimed helplessness in the face of the DFA’s declaration that Bairnals is immune from legal suit.
Filipino observers were aghast. The Philippine Senate moved to investigate. Senators castigated the DFA and the Department of Justice for letting Bairnals skip town (he left the Philippines in the company of the Panamanian ambassador himself).
Nothing could be done, the alleged rapist had already flown the coop. As before, another foreigner has fled the country after being charged with raping a young Filipina.
Several years ago, an American sailor on liberty from his ship in Subic Bay was charged and convicted of raping a Filipina. The sailor was jailed but later was spirited out in the middle of the night, apparently with the consent of the then-government of President Gloria Arroyo. The sailor was able to leave the country.
The raped young woman didn’t pursue the case anymore, probably out of frustration over her long and painful ordeal. There was also talk that she was bribed with permanent residence in America for her silence.
And now this latest case.
Consider the facts. “Pamela” went to the police only a few hours after the alleged rape. She underwent the unpleasant and humiliating procedure of being physically “processed” to ascertain rape. And then she filed a case, risking public shame and humiliation.
Question: Would anyone be willing to face such public scrutiny and shame if it wasn’t really rape? What would she get out of this kind of personal ordeal?
Let’s play devil’s advocate for the sake of argument. What if she wanted money from Bairnals, the Panamanian, after their “consensual” intercourse and he refused? Would that be enough reason to allege rape and suffer public ridicule in the process? I’m a man and I can only imagine the public torment and private anguish a woman undergoes in this kind of personal trial. It must be hell.
So, the question again, consensual or rape? What do you think?
Iconic One Pro Theme | Powered by Wordpress