corona trial article

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

1/7

La Paradoja Del Tribunal Supremo

The following are taken from the statements of former Chief Justice Renato Corona

during his impeachment trial. After each statement or statements is/are fallacies he committed:

Mga minamahal kong kababayan.Ako po ay nandito sa Impeachment Court na ito

upang tumupad sa aking pangako sa sambayanan na ako ay magpapaliwanag ng lahat.

The opening statement of former CJ Corona is fallacious in the sense that it tries to ignore

the main issue, and purposely stated to appeal to the people. This fallacy is known as

argumentum ad populum. Hes supposed to address the issue to the Impeachment Court, but

since this trial was widely followed by the media and the Filipino people in general, the Chief

Justice attempted to appeal for popular sympathy believing that the verdict of the people is more

important than the verdict of the said Court.

Instead,former CJ Corona could address his explanations to the Impeachment Court. The

mere fact that the Court was created to try such case must be given due respect. He could have

said that he is now appearing in the Court to explain his side, and to disprove the accusations of

the Prosecution.

Kailangan po sigurong tanungin ng ating sambayanan kung bakit ba tayo nakaka-

impeachment trial na ito. Hindi naman po kaila sa ating lahat na ginagamit na po ng gobyerno,

ng administrasyon, ang buong makinarya ng gobyerno laban sa akin.Ibinuhos na po ang buong

pwersang pamahalaan paran lamang sa pagtanggal ng isang tao.

There are two fallacies committed from the above statements of former CJ Corona. First

is argumentum ad veracundiam, when he asserted to ask the Filipino people why there is an

impeachment trial. The question should be addressed to the Prosecution instead, because they

have the authority and knowledge why he (former CJ Corona) is being tried in an Impeachment

Court. Second fallacy is known as fallacy of illicit generalization, when he uttered that the

government exploited all the resources they have in order to convict him. This is without basis,

and may lead to a false conclusion.

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

2/7

Instead, former CJ Corona could have said, why dont we ask the Prosecution why

were having an impeachment trial?By this, he is addressing to the proper authority, which

will leave the people to ask themselves bakit nga ba?He could have also said, with regard to

the second fallacious statement, that the government is wasting peoples money and States

resources to make such political drama. This will make the people realize that such proceeding is

far less important than the current social and political problems the Country are facing.

Wala akong pagkakasalang alam ko. At iyan ang dahilan kung bakit ako ay buong loob

na tumitindig dito sa harap ninyo at sa harap ng sambayanang Pilipino nang walang takot,

walang nerbiyos, sapagkat sigurado po ako, siguradong sigurado po ako, wala akong

kasalanan, wla akong ginawang katiwalian, at ako ay hindi nagnakaw sa gobyerno.

Malinis po ang aking kunsensiya at ito po ay sinasabi ko sa sambayanang Pilipino.

Uulitin ko po, malinis po ang aking konsensiya. Malinis po ang konsensiya ng aking pamilya.

Wala kaming ginawang masama; wala kaming ginawang kawalanghiyanan tulad ng pinalalabas

sa ibat-ibang sektor ng media.

Its apparent that the preceding statements are fallacious. It does not follow that when

you presented yourself in front of the Court, and tell that your conscience and your familys are

clean, and that you did no wrong, means youre innocent from any accusations that are being

thrown to you. This is not logical to say that way. Here also, the premises missthe point and

fail to substantiate the conclusion. This fallacy is called non sequitur, where irrelevant

conclusions always follow.

Instead,former SJ Corona could have presented evidence to support his claims that he is

no thief, and that he has good conscience. His confidence in facing the allegations will not prove

his innocence.

Ang tanong ko po ay ito: Bakit po ba? Pondo po ba ito ng bayan? Ito po ba ay ninakaw

sa kaban ng bayan?Ito po ba ay kinurakot ng Punong Mahistrado? Iisa po ang sa sagot diyan.

Hindi po. At uulitin ko, hindi po.

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

3/7

This is a clever rhetoric statement, and sounds good. However, this statement is also

fallacious. This is known as begging the question, where a premise is used to reach the

conclusion.

Instead, he could have presented an evidence to prove that he is no corrupt and the

allegations of the Prosecution are false.

Lahat po ng aming ari-arian ay pinaghirapan sa malinis na paraan at wala naman

pong naisiwalat o naibintang sa akin na ginawa kong katiwalian. Walang-wala po. Lahat po ng

aming naipundar ay nanggaling sa pagsisikap, paghihirap ng maraming taon, maraming

dekadang pagtatrabaho nang malinis at maayos.

Bago po ako nagsilbi sa gobyerno, ako po ay isang matagumpay na abogado na ng

maraming taon. Hindi naman po ako katulad ng pinalalabas ng prosekusyon na ako ay kung

sino lamang patabi-tabi riyan na biglang yumaman nuong ako ay pumasok sa gobyerno. At ito

po ay sinasabi ko sa inyo: Nagkakamali po kayo.

Again, these statements cannot be admitted as to prove the former CJs innocence. Its

true that this will possibly bring an impression to the Court and to the people that he maybe not

capable of any alleged corruptions against him. However, it still does not follow that his success

being a lawyer, his simple way of life, and his money which was earned thru hard work will

entail that he will do no corruption.

Instead,he could have presented a timeline of his life, to create a concrete idea that he

earned his assets through hard labor. He may state where he was at particular period of his life,

and present evidence to prove the same.

Sa aking pananaw po, tatlo pong dahilan kung bakit ako ay sinasampahan nitong

impeachment complaint na ito. Ang una po, ang matinding galit ng hacienderong Pangulo sa

pagkakatalo niya tungkol sa Hacienda Luisita. Ano po ba ang karapatan ng Pangulong Aquino

na ikagalit sa pamamahagi ng Hacienda Luisita sa magsasaka? Ang lupaing ito ay ipinahiram

lamang sa kanila. Inagaw lamang itong lupang ito sa mga ninuno ng mga kasalukuyang

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

4/7

magsasaka. Halos animnapung taon na pinakinabangan at pinagkakitaan nila ang Hacienda

Luisita, at pagkatapos ngayon, ayaw na nilang isoli?

A personal attack to a person or argumentum ad hominemis a fallacy that focuses on the

personality of the man rather than the merit of his argument. The same fallacy is present in the

statement above. The President was called haciendero, to mean a member of an elite people

who owns a large plantation or farmland. This is to bring the idea that, being elite, the President

may have his own personal interests which manifested when, according to the statement of

former CJ Corona, reacted when the decision to share the land among the farmers.

Instead,the President should be given a respect due him, as he is still the highest leader

of the country. Calling him a hacienderoand attacking his reputation regarding his interest to

Hacienda Luisitawill simply make the water to boil faster. Former CJ Corona could have not

included this statement, and answer directly what is being alleged against him. This is more of a

personal matter between him and the President.

Sabi ni Ombudsman Carpio-Morales, ako raw po ay may US$10 million hanggang

US$12 million po sa 82 bank accounts. Wala po akong kilalang tao na may 82 bank accounts.

Ewan ko lang po kay Ombudsman Morales, baka siya mayroon kaya nakatanim sa isip niya

iyong 82 bank accounts.

Former CJ Corona, having knew no one to have 82 bank accounts, and stating that these

82 bank accounts were in the mind of the Ombudsman cannot give a conclusion that latter

possessed the same. This is a fallacy known as non causa pro causa.

Instead, he should not make any statements without basis. The former Chief Justice could

have proved of not having these accounts, by presenting a logical reason and evidence to prove

the same.

Mayroon po akong tanong kay Ombudsman Carpio-Morales. Ginang Ombudsman,

kayo po ba ay pinapatulog pa ng konsensiya ninyo, kung mayroon po kayo niyon? Alam mo

namang wala akong US$10 million to US$12 million deposits at wala akong 82 bank accounts.

Bakit mo naman pinangangalandakan sa publiko ang kasinungalingang ito?

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

5/7

This statement is an assertion that what is false cannot be proven. A fallacy called

argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Instead, he could have counter argue this allegation to challenge the Ombudsman to

prove his (former CJ Corona) possession of the said amounts of money and number of accounts.

Ako po ba ay may itinatago? Sinasabi ko po sa inyo at tumitingin ako ng diretso sa mga

mata ninyo, wla po akong itinago sapagkat kung ako ay may itinago, hindi ko po ilalagay sa

pangalan ko ang kuwarta kong ito. Kung ako ay may itinago, hindi ko ilalagay sa pangalan ko

ang mga perang ito. Dekada na po ang binibilang buhat noong kami ay nag-invest sa foreign

exchange. Ako naman po ba ay may peso deposits?

The former CJ is emphasizing that he has nothing to hide, and thus trying to reach the

conclusion that what hes saying are true, and that he is of no capability to do what are being

alleged to him. This is begging the question.

Instead, he could have explained his investments.

I am humbly asking-I am humbly asking all 188 complaints from the house of

Representative, led by the congressmen in the Prosecution Panel, and Senator Franklin Drilon

to join me in a moment of truth as a gesture of transparency and reconciliation with the Filipino

people and to one another. I am asking them to sign these blank forms and join me sapagkat

hiling po ito ng bayan. Let us face the people together. The nation is at a standstill. Our People

are watching all of us. Our people have been drawn into this intriguing web of dissension and

divisiveness.

There are two fallacies present from the above statement. One is argumentum ad

populum and the otherisargumentum ad baculum. He is involving the people in this challenge,

again to get a public sympathy. At the same time putting the moral pressure to other public

officials to sign the form, and be transparent to the public.

Instead,prove what is needed to be proven. Theres no need to invite the other public

officials to do the same if former CJ believes that hes not guilty of any accusations against him.

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

6/7

We or this proceeding has divided the nation. We owe it to the people. Let us together

show them that we are first and foremost their public servants. And we surrender to their call for

transparency and accountability. Let us rise to the occasion and prove to them that we deserved

their trust, that we are willing to answer to them whatever the consequences.

This is a fallacy of argumentum ad populum, where expressive language is used to excite

the emotion of the people.

Instead,appeal to the Court and answer should be willingly given to the same. He could

have said that, he will be transparent as the Impeachment Court have demanded it,and let the

people be informed. He is obliged to do such act because he is the accused here, with due respect

to former Chief Justice.

I beg you, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen of the Prosecution, not to engage me in any

arguments about who is on trial here. We, you and me, are all on trial here. Let us stop all the

posturing and show the Filipino nation what we are made of. This is no trick or manipulation.

This is an invitation, a challenge for public accountability made only with the hope that we can

altogether give our nation one shining moment in public services.

You may choose to turn down this invitation, this challenge for whatever reason,

whatever. But if you decline, then you will affirm to me watching that there is, in fact, no legal

obligation or duty to disclose foreign currency holdings and deposits.

The preceding statements aim to put moral pressure to other public servants, inviting

them to reveal themselves before he reveals his.

Instead, omit these statements as these are not necessary to include in a testimony.

Stating such is a strategy to shift the issue.

If any of you should to decline, I regret that there is no point in my waiver because it

will only allow the completion of the persecution that I suffered. I am no thief; I am no criminal;

I have done no wrong. But Honorable Senators, I am also no fool. I pray that these gentlemen

5/24/2018 Corona Trial Article

7/7

will accept my invitation; otherwise, I stand by my actions as being completely founded on the

law itself.

Being no thief, no criminal, and having done no wrong can be proved only by the

necessary documents requested by the Impeachment Court. And such declarations are without

any basis without those requested evidences, and thus creating the fallacy of illicit

generalization.

Instead,he could have presented the necessary documents to disprove the Prosecutions

allegations. Honesty and being a good public servant could only be proven in a proper way or if

the situations demands.

Conclusion:

Former Chief Justice Renato Corona could have defended himself well, as he is

presumed to be a legal expert. Adding to this is his team of well-collaborated and brilliant

counsels. However, he chose not to. Why? Because he knew that he will be convicted. He knew

that the impeachment process will be driven by politics. And that among the things he can do is

to appeal to the people and excite their emotions, which he did.

These were all manifested in the way he presented his statements. There were personal

attacks to the people and authorities who did the same against him.

He tried to explain his side and tell his story, built his reputation, and appealed for

humanitarian consideration. The trial being so popular among the Filipino people, these steps

taken by the former CJ were reasonable. Otherwise, he will be judged according to the

information fed by the media to the people.