My Google Page Rank

Chief Justice honesty must be beyond suspicion

PDFPrintE-mail

 

In criminal cases, to create doubt on the guilt of the accused may cause the dismissal of the case or acquittal as in the case of the Visconde massacre.

This is in line with the doctrine of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

But in the impeachment trial, the more doubts that the prosecution can present on the honesty, probity, integrity and credibility of the respondent supported with the preponderance of evidence, the higher the probability of conviction on the part of the respondent.

In the case of Chief Justice Corona, the prosecution has created doubts on the legality of his appointment being a midnight appointee of former President Arroyo.

There is doubt whether the Chief Justice has filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN) honestly and correctly.

The prosecution has also established doubt on the capability of the Chief Justice to acquire assets beyond his income.

There is also doubt why the Chief Justice was given a discount of 10 million pesos or reduction on the price of the pint house sold by Megaworld condominium.

There is also doubt whether the Chief Justice, being a midnight appointee of GMA, has favored the former president with the issuance of TRO allowing GMA to leave the country while facing charges of electoral sabotage and plunder. Fortunately she was not allowed by the Bureau of Immigration due to the Hold Departure Order issued by DOJ invoking the police power of the state when national interest is at stake.

Other condominium units of the Chief Justice are subject of investigation including his bank deposits.

As Chief Justice his honesty, probity, integrity and credibility must be beyond suspicion for him to have moral ascendancy to remain as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

By Rex Miravite

 




Related news items:
Newer news items:
Older news items: