Corona earned P21 M in 10 years at SC - witness

MANILA, Philippines - The head of the Supreme Court (SC)’s cash and disbursement division testified before the Senate yesterday that Chief Justice Renato Corona earned over P21 million from 2002 to 2011.

On day 28 of the impeachment trial, Araceli Bayuga provided the impeachment court with records of the salaries, allowances and other benefits of the Chief Justice during his entire stint at the High Court.

She said that she was in charge of the payroll and similar records of the SC.

According to Bayuga, she reviewed and evaluated the payrolls, salaries and allowances received by Corona for those 10 years and found that he was able to receive a total of P21,636,781.45.

The total figure she cited covered a wide range of benefits and allowances that Corona received on top of his annual salary.

A year-by-year enumeration of the salaries of the Chief Justice made by Bayuga showed a gradual increase from 2002 to 2011.

From a mere P353,045 annual salary in 2002, this went up to P485,100 in 2003 where it remained constant until 2006.

In 2007, Corona’s annual salary went up to P508,248 then increased further to P627,763 in 2008, P645,653 in 2009, P650,447 in 2010 and P1,147,301 in 2011 when he was already chief justice.

Bayuga noted that the P21.6 million Corona received from 2002 to 2011 covered his salaries, longevity pay, personal equity retirement account, representation allowance, transportation allowance, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance, monthly special allowance, additional cost of living allowance (the Judiciary Development Fund), productivity incentive benefit, clothing allowance, yearend bonus and cash gift, loyalty cash award, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense allowance from the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), expense allowance from PET, fringe benefits and other allowances such as emergency economic assistance, anniversary bonus, productivity enhancement benefit, Christmas cash gift, additional Christmas cash gift, rice allowance, groceries, additional fringe benefit.

She also testified that the so-called alpha list of the Supreme Court for the years 2002 to 2005, which contains the salaries and tax withheld of all the employees of the Court including the justices, was submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as required by law.

“I was the one who brought the alpha list to the BIR. Under revenue regulations we have to submit the annual alpha list wherein the names of the official employees of the court for whom taxes withheld were stated,” Bayuga said.

During her testimony before the impeachment court as a witness for the prosecution, BIR Commissioner Kim Henares said that there was no record of an alpha list filed by the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2005.

Henares clarified that it did not mean that Corona did not pay his taxes for that period.

For most offices with a lot of employees, including the Supreme Court, the BIR allows the filing of the alpha list in lieu of individual income tax returns.

The alpha list would cover all officials and employees of an office and contain the salaries and tax withheld for a given year, which would then be submitted to the BIR.

On checks and balances

Sen. Francis Pangilinan expressed concern that the SC has now taken it upon itself to decide when it would honor and defy subpoenas issued by the impeachment court.

Pangilinan revealed that Bayuga testified yesterday on the strength of a subpoena issued by the impeachment court, in spite of a resolution issued by the SC last Feb. 14 barring the appearance of the court’s officials and employees at the impeachment court.

“I have no issue with the defense. My issue is with the Supreme Court. I was told that the previous witness was subpoenaed, Attorney Bayuga was here on the strength of a subpoena. Previously a court process server was likewise subpoenaed by the court and yet the Supreme Court refused to honor the subpoena and therefore the witness did not appear,” he said.

Pangilinan said his concern is that “we now have a situation where the Supreme Court decides when it will honor our subpoena and when it will ignore our subpoena.”

“This is not an issue whether it is for the defense or the prosecution. It is an issue between this impeachment court, which has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and the Supreme Court, which is an institution that is held accountable by this impeachment court,” he added.

He said the only check on the possible excesses of the Supreme Court is the impeachment court and he fears that “the only check is now being checked by the entity that is supposed to be checked.”

Lead defense counsel retired associate justice Serafin Cuevas noted that the Feb. 14 resolution of the SC only prohibited court officials and employees from testifying on matters that are part of the internal deliberations and actions of the court in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions and duties.

Cuevas pointed out that testimony on matters outside of the court’s adjudicatory functions and duties may be compelled by compulsory process such as subpoenas.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile confirmed that the court issued a subpoena for Bayuga last Feb. 1 upon the request of the prosecution panel.

“She complied, appeared here on Feb. 1 in response to the subpoena issued to her. Maybe the matter that was the subject of her examination today as well as then are not considered confidential by the Supreme Court,” Enrile said.

Barking up the wrong tree

Meanwhile, House prosecutors said Corona has been wasting his time trying to put the House of Representatives on trial since the start of the defense presentation in his impeachment trial last Monday.

“Apparently, for CJ Corona, the best defense is no defense. He wants to offer everything else except the truth,” Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada, a spokesman for the prosecution, said.

“The defense is delaying the trial by presenting immaterial and irrelevant evidence like the testimony of (Navotas) Congressman Tobias Tiangco,” he said.

He said Tiangco’s testimony is not related to the remaining three impeachment charges dealing principally with Corona’s nondisclosure of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, his failure to disclose some properties and bank accounts, and his alleged partiality to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed him head of the SC.

Prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo of Marikina said Tiangco used the impeachment trial to talk about his pork barrel allocation, officially called priority development assistance fund (PDAF).

“It’s about pork barrel. The impeachment court is not the venue for it. What a waste of time for the court and the defense,” he said.

Congressmen who impeached the Chief Justice last Dec. 12 shared the prosecution’s assessment that Corona is not presenting his defense.

“With barely two weeks left before the congressional recess, the defense panel should stop wasting our senator-judges’ time in resurrecting long-settled issues like the validity of the verified complaint, which the Senate Tribunal already upheld way back at the start of the trial,” Movement 188 said, adding that the defense “should not present witnesses like Tiangco whose testimonies are irrelevant to any of the three impeachment articles on which the prosecution had rested its case.”

The movement said it respects the Navotas congressman’s statement that the impeachment complaint lacks probable cause “even if his view seems to be a solitary one as against the conviction of an overwhelming majority of his peers in the House.”

Tañada said only Corona himself can controvert raps filed against him by the House of Representatives.

He said he, along with Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas and Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya, will not testify “to protect the integrity and dignity of the House.”

He said constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas has also refused to testify for the defense. “But we all know the defense will delay this case while they will try to find ways to suborn the senator-judges, to get an acquittal. That has been their way of doing things,” Tañada said.

Tañada also challenged Corona to make good his promise and disclose his foreign deposits. “It will really be good if CJ Corona also makes good his promise by opening and disclosing his foreign dollar accounts, including those he closed before, so that we can get to the truth,” he said.

“Unfortunately, it is CJ Corona who is putting all the roadblocks for truth to be revealed and he is not making himself free,” Tañada said. – With Jess Diaz, Helen Flores