Kim Henares or Leila de Lima as Chief Justice--good choices

Today is a wonderful day for me because I read an interview about President Noynoy Aquino toying with the idea of appointing an outsider as Chief Justice. Aquino is considering either Justice secretary Leila de Lima or BIR chief Kim Henares as possible replacements for the impeached Atty. Renato Corona. 

This shows that Aquino is really intent on cleansing the judicial bureaucracy and allowing it to regain public trust. An outsider like de Lima or Henares would surely bring reform to the fore in the judiciary. This would also eliminate malicious feelings which people had at the start of this impeachment against Corona--that the impeachment had a political color or ring into it mainly due to the suspicion that Aquino favors Associate Justice Antonio Carpio as Corona's replacement. 

Now that the President intends to appoint an outsider, there is no more suspicion that all these maneuverings were meant to prop up Carpio as the new Chief Justice. Yes, he is right now, the acting Chief Justice. There are news to the effect that Carpio intends not to serve as permanent Chief Justice, although if we follow tradition, the most senior Associate Justice normally transcends the rung when a Chief Justice retires. 

However, the fight is definitely not over.

The public should not rest. Fact is, the public should train its sights squarely on what Carpio intends to do during this time when he serves as the acting Chief Justice. Carpio, according to several legal eagles, is more lethal than Corona, his former colleague. Lethal here means unsavory. The people should check what cases are pending right now in the Supreme Court for which Carpio or his firm had an interest on.

Chief Justice Impeachment Trial is as simple as getting an apple from the ref and not telling your mother what you did

If this impeachment trial of Chief Justice is as simple as determining whether or not he declared every single thing in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, then, this should have been over since the very first admission of the defense that (1) indeed, the Chief Justice maintains local bank accounts and properties not entirely listed and (2) instead of 82 bank deposit accounts, the Chief Justice maintains just four or five. Whether it is five or four accounts or just one, the question is very simple---did he declared these bank accounts in his SALN? 

Why is it very important that the Chief Justice or anyone answer this question? This is the main reason why he was impeached by Congress and the very same reason why he is being tried by the Senate. 

By not declaring these things in his SALN shows a flaw in his integrity and honesty as a government official.

By purposely glossing over these things, and skirting the issue of declaration, the Chief Justice has very well answered the basic or core issue. 

But no, this is not solely about the Law, this impeachment trial is also political. Why is he being asked to formally declare every thing he own in his SALN? Because someone wanted to hit him. And that someone happens to be Malacanang.

Corona, in his speech says that the reason why he did not declare his foreign bank deposits is his differing view about the law on SALN. Corona invoked a martial law rule which says that foreign bank deposits are confidential; hence, no one, except the Courts can compel someone to disclose these deposits before the public.

That law is as old as Cuevas, and since it was made during Martial law, it is now superceded by the new 1987 Constitution. There is a provision in the basic charter which says that those laws which contravene the spirit and intention  of the Constitution are rendered unconstitutional.

The SALN law is one of the measures thought of by several of our legislators for one thing and one thing alone---to be able to curb graft and corruption and for the people to be able to see whether a government official has enriched himself while in office.

Which between the two is paramount---the right to confidentiality or the right to disclosure?