the prosecution claimed that their strongest case against corona is article 2. however, if we scrutinize article 2, it only alleges corona for non-disclosure of SALN. if that is the case and if we are going to apply article 2 strictly, then corona is cleared from this accusation. it was proven that corona regularly files his SALN submitted to the clerk of court. additionally, many issues raised by the prosecution are not clearly defined or stipulated in their Articles of Impeachment.

the prosecution team, claimed that corona failed to accurately and truthfully include in his SALN the correct valuation of his properties. they further argued that the chief justice deliberately omitted the declaration of the acquisition cost of his properties because this would show higher values than those under the assessed value and current fair market price.

note the prosecution team did not properly allege this accusation in their sloppy impeachment complaint. but since the IC insisted on accepting evidences and testimonies regarding the aforesaid accusation that CJ failed to accurate and truthfully disclose properties in his SALN, the defense would have to answer allegations pertaining to that.

it is the IC literally allowing the prosecution team in picking up accusations out of thin air for which they did not include in their complaint. in an ordinary court, this will not be acceptable since the law is clear in stating that you cannot prove something that you did not properly alleged. the IC is a super special court and unique that it can hear and try cases based on allegations that was not even properly alleged in the complaint filed before them.

one of the properties cited during yesterday's trial was the belagio unit. according to the prosecution, CJ failed to include this in his SALN for the period of 2003,2004, 2005 and 2006. the defense countered this accusation and said that corona corrected this by stating it in his 2010 SALN. if the impeachable officer in this case the CJ, has an intent to hide this property, he should have decided not to declare it in his 2010 SALN.

so, was there an intent to decieve on the part of the CJ? so far, the prosecution failed to prove dishonesty or deliberate intent to hide such property on CJ's SALN. in contrast, the defense was able to prove that CJ has no intent to hide the property in his SALN as it was disclosed only belatedly in his 2010 assets.

on the other hand, the Columns condominium unit in Makati City was “correctly” declared by CJ in SALN only in 2010 owing to the fact that it was not paid for until the year before having been acquired dating back 2004 (installment basis).

some of the properties mentioned by the prosecution was owned by the relatives of corona. prosecution tried to paint a picture that CJ used them as dummies for the said properties. however, the prosecution failed to prove that CJ really owns these properties. their own witnesses have attest to the fact that the proerties are not owned by CJ himself. further, the prosecution failed to prove that the people whom they alleged as dummies of CJ have no financial capabilities to buy those aforesaid properties.

as far as the impeachment complaint is concerned, the prosecutors missed to cite even a single instance where there is evident pattern of dishonesty on the part of the respondent to hide his assets. even the bank accounts of corona was not even included in their accusations.

the old SALN has “no requirement for Corona to indicate bank deposits or bank accounts. failure or omission in SALn has been decriminalized, it should no longer be an impeachable offense according to a senator-judge. moreover, old SALn guidelines do not specify how to properly fill it up. a new SALN form proposed by the Civil Service Commission would prove that the old SALN form is not that clear and specific as to the content that should be contained therein.

taking into considerations facts that i've mentioned, are the senator-judges especially those who are obviously part of the prosecution / pseudo sen-judges are trying to convict corona for the same offense that they have commited?

the law is clear in saying that there's an assumption of good faith on the part of the filer in case he or she failed to properly fill up the SALN. this is the rationale why the law allows correction in SALN of government officials.

since the filers of SALN are entitled to such corrections. then, there is no law that has been violated if in case the filer failed to properly fill up his or her SALN form. perjury is not even applicable. perjury is not an impeachable offense because it is not considered as a hight crime. moreover, failure or omission in SALn has been decriminalized.

is the senate sitting as an IC is trying to hear an impeachment case wherein the law does not even penalize the allegation / the offense.

but my million dollar question would be... is the impeachment court trying to impeach the CJ for an allegation of the "same" offense that most of their members have committed?