Fair, relevantReporting the Corona Trial
Vengeance politics
In his May 29 statement on the impeachment court’s guilty verdict, Corona said:
“I know only too well that the President will use all the powers of government including Congress and such agencies as the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Land Registration Authority, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the Ombudsman and others. I also know that he will use the public treasury for a destructive and oppressive media campaign over radio, television and print against me and my family…
“Bad politics has prevailed. I am innocent. There is no truth to the accusations against me in the Articles of Impeachment. My conscience is clear. But the sad political truth is that what the many think may not conform with what really happened, especially when only one person or one group has a monopoly over the entire machinery of government and even the media, and is using these to manufacture fake documents and to publish false information and news to destroy their enemy.”
(Translated from the original Filipino)
The shortcoming of news reports was not partisanship, but the failure to go beyond the daily reporting and to corroborate information released by all parties.
The Inquirer first published the case of a court interpreter who was removed from office because of her failure to disclose in her SALN her ownership of a market stall (“In the Know: Lowly court employee sacked over market stall not declared in SALN”). Several senator-judges cited the case of Delsa Flores in explaining their guilty verdict. It was only after the trial that other news reports followed up with more extensive reports on Flores’ case and others who had been removed from office because of their failure to completely disclose their properties and family ties in their SALN.
The TV Patrol exclusive report on the alleged dollar and euro bank deposits of Corona based on the documents held by Kaya Natin’s convenor Harvey Keh lacked verification. Instead of citing the AMLC report and other possible sources, TV Patrol initially limited itself to saying, based on Keh’s statements during an interview, that Corona had dollar and euro accounts. When Keh was called to the witness stand, his testimony was criticized by the senator-judges and received a lot of flak in the social media.
Corona’s counter-arguments
The news coverage was generally fair and balanced. Contrary to the claims of the defense and some Corona supporters, the news reports on the last 10 days of the trial dutifully reported the counter-arguments of the former chief justice re his alleged bank accounts, real properties, and the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI).
The Basa family (represented by Sr. Flor Maria Basa of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary and Ana Basa, daughter of Jose Maria Basa III), in interviews with the media, explained how the Coronas (represented by wife, Cristina Corona, and daughter, Carla Corona Castillo) had managed to gain control of BGEI shares and finances.
The defense panel presented Former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza to testify on the sale of the BGEI lot in Sampaloc, Manila for Php34.7 million and Sheriff Joseph Bisnar of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 216 on how Castillo bid and bought the 4,839 shares of Jose Ma. Basa III and Raymunda Basa for Php 28,000.
Corona declared a Php 11 million loan from the company in his 2003 and 2004 SALNS as liabilities. According to the defense, the BGEI money was deposited in the Corona couple’s accounts but was not declared in the SALN because the money belonged to the company and not his.
Media and public attention intensified when the defense called Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who testified on the undisclosed dollar accounts (approximately US$10-12 million in 82 bank accounts) as a hostile defense witness.
The news organizations published and aired Corona’s and his defense counsels’ statements on the testimony of Morales either in their entirety or in extensive quotations. The media reported that these statements claimed that:
- The ombudsman’s inquiry into the Corona bank accounts was a “fishing expedition”;
- The Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice;
- Corona did not have a US$10-12 million account; neither did he have 82 bank accounts;
- The testimony of Morales was “black propaganda”, a “lantern of lies”, “another LRA hoax”, and “mind-conditioning”; and
- The Ombudsman’s order was in “clear retaliation” against the Supreme Court for its Hacienda Luisita decision.
Some news reports asked BIR officials and bankers to explain the FCDA and Corona’s bank transactions.
The defense called civil society members and the Ombudsman to the impeachment court as a condition for the former chief justice’s testimony. Corona took the stand twice—he spoke for three hours, excused himself without the court’s leave, cited hypoglycemia and the possibility of a heart attack, and eventually admitted he did not disclose some of his assets/liabilities.
<<Previous Page || Next Page>>
[…] Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile so recently cheered and lionized for his stunningly diligent pursuit of truth in the judgment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Coming to the defense of […]