Canadian teens launch Lego Man into space

A tiny Lego man clutching a Canadian flag has made history of sorts, making the first space flight for Lego-kind aboard a weather balloon rigged by two high school students from Toronto, Canada.

Canadian teenagers Mathew Ho and Asad Muhammad, both 17, attached the figurine – and four cameras – to a helium balloon that went up 80,000 feet into the air, the Toronto Star reported.

When the Lego man and the cameras returned to Earth 97 minutes later, they brought footage from some 24 km above sea level, or three times the typical cruising altitude of a commercial aircraft, the Toronto Star said.

“We didn’t really believe we could do it until we did,” said Ho.

“It shows a tremendous degree of resourcefulness … For two 17-year-olds to accomplish this on their own is pretty impressive,” said University of Toronto astrophysics professor Dr. Michael Reid.

$400 project

The $400 project, which took four months of free Saturdays, was not a school assignment, though the two teens thought it would be cool.

Ho, who has applied to Queen’s University and University of British Columbia for commerce, thought of the project two years ago when he saw an online video of a balloon sent to near space by some Massachusetts Institute of Technology students.

He approached Muhammad – who has a passion for all things flight-related and has applied to an engineering programs at U of T and Centennial College – in the hallway of Agincourt Collegiate Institute, where they are both Grade 12 students.

Since last September, the two spent Saturdays at Ho’s kitchen table in Scarborough, drawing up plans and building the balloon.

Built from scratch

“People would walk into the house and see us building this fantastical thing with a parachute from scratch, and they would be like, ‘What are you doing?’ We’d be like, ‘We’re sending cameras to space.’ They’d be like, ‘Oh, okayyyyy…,’” Ho said.

While Ho assembled a super-light Styrofoam box to carry the cameras, the two scoured Craigslist and Kijiji for used point-and-shoot cameras.

They also produced a rip-stop nylon parachute that they tested by throwing off the roof of Ho’s father’s 40-story condominium unit.

Other parts included an $85 weather balloon ordered online, and $160 worth of helium from a party supply store. Ho bought a special wide-angle video camera.

After assembling the balloon, the boys loaded the Lego man and the cameras, along with a cell phone with a downloaded GPS app.

When the balloon passed seven km above sea level – out of cellphone-tower range – the GPS signal cut out, prompting the boys to go home and make dumplings.

But at 4:12 p.m., Ho’s iPad started to beep, indicating their “Lego-naut” had re-entered the atmosphere. The balloon touched down in a field near Rice Lake, 122 km from its launch point.

The teens calculated the craft had climbed to about 80,000 feet in one hour and five minutes before the balloon exploded, beginning the Lego man’s 32-minute descent.

Reviewing the footage

When the teens got home and uploaded the two videos and 1,500 photos onto a computer for review, they started screaming.

The YouTube footage shows the Lego man spinning at an altitude three times higher than the peak of Mount Everest, before the balloon bursts and he starts to plummet.

“We never knew it would be this good,” says Ho, who turned to Muhammad and said, “Congratulations Asad, we did it,” then shook his hand.

Official congratulations from Lego

UK’s The Guardian said Lego sent a note of congratulations to the boys.

“We are always amazed by the creative ways in which Lego fans use our products, and humbled by how many unsuspecting places we appear, like attached to a helium balloon in … space,” The Guardian quoted the company’s brand relations director, Michael McNally, as saying. — TJD, GMA News

Senate impeachment court junks call for Senator Drilon inhibition

MANILA, Philippines – The Senate impeachment court will not act on the request of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s camp to remove Senator-judge Franklin Drilon from the trial for his alleged bias for the prosecution panel.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the court’s presiding officer, said it’s up to the person being asked to inhibit himself to decide whether he will still participate in the trial or not.

“We will not act on that. I don’t know if they want to discuss it. I will not even present that to the members of the court,” he told reporters on Friday, referring to the defense panel’s motion to inhibit Drilon.

Drilon has said he will not inhibit himself from the impeachment trial.

Enrile said not even the impeachment court can remove Drilon.

“He’s an elected representative of the people. Under the Constitution, he’s entitled to sit in all proceedings in the Senate unless he’s removed in accordance with our rules on ethics,” Enrile said.

“The inhibition is personal to each senator of the republic,” he added.

The defense asked for Drilon’s inhibition because he allegedly helped the prosecution by using his authority to question witnesses in at least two instances: First, when he made the Supreme Court clerk of court admit that she had with her copies of Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, which she eventually turned over to the Senate; and second, when he made a registrar of deeds confirm that Corona acted as attorney-in-fact for his daughter when she bought a property.

Enrile said senators are free to ask any kind of question, and that he may not restrict them.

“You cannot guide them how to ask their questions. They can ask leading questions. They can ask vague questions if they want,” he said.Ryan Chua, ABS-CBN News

 

Enrile reminds senator-judges to ‘control emotions’

Enrile on Friday reminded his fellow senator-judges in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona to control their emotions during the proceedings.

Enrile was reacting to Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s outburst on Thursday, when she had to go home because of hypertension after berating a member of the prosecution panel on the Senate floor.

“I would like to caution my colleagues to exercise greater civility in dealing with the witnesses, with the lawyers on both sides, as well as with one another in the Senate,” said Enrile, the impeachment court’s presiding officer. “As much as possible we should control our emotions so that we can perform our work in such a manner that there’s no impression that we are for or against anyone.

He added, however, that he understands Santiago’s situation. “She is suffering from some ailment. If you are in that condition, your threshold of stress is very shallow.”

In his case, Enrile said he tries his best to relax and not to be angry or during the trial.

He said he doesn’t feel any stress even if he has to sit long hours and maintain order in the court.

“Sanay ako diyan,” Enrile told reporters. “‘Pag napipikon ka sa husgado, talo ka.”–Ryan Chua, ABS-CBN News

Ex-NBI Chief Gatdula gets TRO on DOJ’s probe

MANILA, Philippines – Sacked National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Magtanggol Gatdula was able to secure a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Manila trial court preventing the Department of Justice (DOJ) from initiating preliminary investigation proceedings against him on charges of kidnapping and serious illegal detention in connection with the alleged abduction and extortion of undocumented Japanese Noriyo Ohara.

The Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the temporary relief citing Rule 58 Sec. 5 (2) of the Rules of Court in a 3-page order.

“The Rules of Court gives this office the discretionary authority to consider the application for the issuance ex parte of a temporary restraining order effective for a period of 72 hours from the time of issuance if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant with suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury,” the order read.

Gatdula filed an urgent petition for certiorari and prohibition after his presidential appointment was terminated by Malacañang last January 19.

He questioned the findings of a DOJ fact-finding panel against him, which also included recommendations for the initiation of administrative proceedings.

The case was raffled to Manila RTC Judge Felixberto Olalia.

Olalia has set a hearing on Monday, January 30.

The DOJ, however, has earlier put on hold its preliminary investigation against Gatdula as Justice Secretary Leila De Lima ordered the fact-finding panel to “evaluate” its recommendations on Gatdula’s alleged criminal liability.–Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News

CHR chair Rosales commends Midas Marquez

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) thanked the Office of the Court Administrator headed by Justice Jose Midas Marquez for helping in the transfer of the case of human rights defender Temogen Tulawie.

In a letter, CHR chair Etta Rosales said: “The people within and outside government who were mobilized to help protect Mr. Tulawie, a staunch human rights defender in Sulu, saw in action how their SC can reach out to protect the vulnerable in society.

“The judiciary’s prompt and effective response to our requests in recent events affirms even more the deep esteem I have held for the institution ever since that first time we worked with it on democratizing access to justice especially for the poor and the powerless,” Rosales said.

Meanwhile, Marquez said he is willing to submit to a possible investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman because he has nothing to hide.

In a statement, Marquez said the request of Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello that he be investigated is premature. Nonetheless, “the Court is still presently addressing the concerns of the World Bank. Just the same, I will submit to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should it see it fit to investigate me.”

Bello wants Marquez investigated for alleged abuse of power.

In a 3-page letter addressed to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Bello said: “Mr. Marquez’ position has given him a unique opportunity, one that he has squandered. As the public face of the Supreme Court, he could have stood for all that is best in the courts and the legal profession: wisdom, integrity, fairness, a zeal for serving the people. Instead, the totality of his acts and omissions encapsulate what unfortunately many now perceive as the institutional failings of the Court: entrenchment into a privileged position, and a refusal to be accountable to the public.”

He alleged that Marquez is acting like “an unofficial defense counsel” of Chief Justice Renato Corona, who is facing an impeachment trial at the Senate.

Bello said Marquez “crossed the line,” when he should be a representative of the court. “Worse, he has marshaled the scarce resources of the Supreme Court and the rest of the Judiciary for the personal defense of the Chief Justice, to the detriment of the public.”

Bello also noted the alleged irregularity in the management of the World Bank-funded Judicial Reform Support Project.

The World Bank earlier said there are “ineligible” expenses in the project.

“It should be noted that the project is funded through a loan, and therefore a liability of the State. As such, they are public funds and subject to Philippine laws designed to prevent their misuse. Whether this new burden to the public can be traced to malice or incompetence, those responsible must be made to answer,” Bello said.

Marquez earlier said: “The Court, through the Judicial Reform Support Program Management Committee, with the assistance of the PMO, is currently addressing the issues and concerns detailed in the Aide Memoire with utmost adherence to the strict guidelines of the Bank.”

He, however, pointed the premature and unauthorized disclosure of the World Bank report contained in an aide memoire. He said such was “highly malicious and reprehensible as it was obviously purposely leaked at the start of the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice.” (abs-cbn news)

De Lima says she’ll testify at Corona trial

MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said she will appear before the Senate Impeachment Court to testify against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“If subpoenaed, yes, I will,” De Lima said.

De Lima met with partylist Representative Neri Colmenares last Wednesday. Colmenares is the lead prosecutor for Article 7 of the Articles of Impeachment against Corona.

“We met and we made initial discussions on the possible parameters of my testimony,” De Lima said.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is mum on the plan of the Prosecution panel to summon Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Presbitero Velasco as well as Court Administrator and Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez.

Inquirer.net sent several text messages and made several calls to Marquez’ office but no response. (tere torres, inqnet)

Prosecution’s List of Witnesses and Documents for Article VII of the Impeachment

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

     We intend to present the following witnesses:

 

1.     Raissa Robles, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

 

2.     Criselda Yabes, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

 

3.     Marites Vitug, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA, the research she has on the Supreme Court inner processes and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

 

4.     Justice Secretary Leila de Lima – who will testify, among others: (1) That various criminal cases have been filed against GMA and FG; (2) That GMA intends to travel for other reasons aside from health (3) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) That petitioners attempted to leave the country on November 15, 2011; (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

5.     Principal Physician of former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. Mario Ver – who will attest to GMA’s continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after 6 to 8 months and that there is no medical emergency warranting an immediate flight.

 

6.     Supreme Court Process Server – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the Temporary Restraining Order was filed beyond working hours.

 

7.     Supreme Court Process Cashier – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the conditions set were submitted beyond working hours.

 

8.     Ina Reformina and a Mediaman/Journalist – who will testify, among others: (1) That the TRO allowing GMA to leave the country was issued before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (2) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (3) That Compliance with TRO requirements, such as the posting of the bond, among others, was made after 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) Statements made by the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court;  (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

 

9.     Deputy Clerk of Court – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011; (2) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; (3) That such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust; (4) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

10.  Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court En Banc – who will testify, among others: (1) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; (2) Suppress the dissent of Justice Sereno; and (3)On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

 

11.  Assigned Process Server or Sheriff – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked him to do overtime and to immediately serve the Notices to the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General;

12.  Araceli C. Bayuga, SC Chief Judicial Officer – who will testify, among others: (1) that respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked them to facilitate the payment of the bond to ensure compliance; (2) the time and manner of payment (3) the time that they informed the Office of the Clerk of Court of the payment of the bond.

13.  “Juliet” of the Office of the Clerk of Court – that it was only at 8:55am of November 16, one day after GMA attempted  to leave, that they received information of the payment of the Bond.

14.  Jay Francis P. Baltazar, Notary Public of Magallanes, Makati City (Hostile Witness) –  will testify as to the time and manner that the Special Power of Attorney made in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was notarized.

15.  Assigned Cashier to Receive Payment – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO asked them to receive the payment of bond;  (2) The other circumstances surrounding the payment of the money.

 

16.  Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

17.  Justice Jose Midas P Marquez (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

18.  Justice  Presibetero J. Velasco, Jr. (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; and (3) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case. (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

            We respectfully reserve their right to present additional witnesses as the exigencies of the proceedings may warrant.

VIII.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

Description	Purpose/s
Order of consolidation of cases or Minutes of En Banc Session where such consolidation was allowed	To show, among others, that: (1)  respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011; (2)  the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; and (3)  such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of bias and prejudice and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.
Travel Tickets of Respondent Corona on November 2011	To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
Bureau of Immigration Entry and Exit of Respondent Corona	To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
Leave of Absence of Respondent Corona	To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
Resolution dated 15 November 2011,  as published	To show, among others, that: (1)  respondent Corona rushed the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.
Minutes of En Banc Sessions dated 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 29th of November 2011
Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by the Arroyos in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.”	To show, among others, that: (1)  Arroyo and her husband Mike failed to comply with the Resolution dated 15 November 2011; and (2)  the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the submission of the SPA, a condition precedent to the issuance of the TRO.
Receipt issued by the Supreme Court for the Two Million Pesos Cash Bond of the Arroyos	To show, among others, that the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the completion of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the TRO.
Affidavit from Media who witnessed the following:                                           i.     Issuance of the TRO before 6 p.m.                                          ii.     Service of the TRO to the Department of Justice before 6 p.m.                                        iii.     Compliance with TRO requirements after 6 p.m.	To show, among others, that: (1)   the issuance of the TRO was made before 6 p.m.; (2)   the service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was made before 6 p.m.; (3)   compliance with the requirements for the issuance of the TRO was made after 6 p.m.; (4)   respondent Corona facilitated and expedited, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); and (5)   respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 18 November 2011 that TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, petitioners can travel out of the country immediately.	To show, among others, that: (1)           respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2)           respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; and (3)           respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution.
Typed-written draft of Justice Velasco referring to the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the clarificatory Resolution subject of the En Banc meeting on 18 November 2011. (This was also referred to in the Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio)	To show, among others, that: (1)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and (2)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Justice Carpio’s Modifications of Justice Velasco’s Typed-written draft
Respondent Corona’s handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution of Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated.
Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio
Resolution dated 22 November 2011, as published on 29 November 2011
Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 29 November 2011 that the Supreme Court has always considered the TRO to have not been suspended, and that this ruling was clarified by a 9-4 vote.	To show, among others, that: (1)  respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and (3)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Memorandum dated 05 December 2011 of Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal for the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices	To show, among others, that: (1)              respondent Corona suppressed the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (2)              respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Letter dated 06 December 2011 of Justice Sereno to respondent Corona formalizing her request to be apprised of the legal basis for the non-promulgation of her dissenting opinion, unduly depriving her of her constitutional right as an associate justice.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published on 13 December 2011.	To show, among others, that: (1)   respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This was made possible through respondent Corona’s individual acts of: a. consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; b. facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); c. distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; d. suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and e.  providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information.

1.     Supreme Court received (with time and date stamp) Petition for Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (G.R. No. 199034) [GMA TRO Petition], including the Annexes thereto;

2.     Supreme Court received (with time and date stamp) Petition for Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as (G.R. No. 199046) [Mike Arroyo TRO Petition], including the Annexes thereto;

3.     Official Leave of Respondent Corona applied for days within the month of November 2011;

4.     Minutes of the Supreme Court Raffle Committee which handled the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

5.     Appointment or Assignment of the Member in Charge of the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

6.     Order of consolidation of cases or Minutes of En Banc Session where such consolidation was allowed of the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

7.     Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 15 November 2011;

8.     Resolution dated 15 November 2011 on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition, as published;

9.     Temporary Restraining Order dated 15 November 2011 issued in the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

10.  Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by GMA and Mike Arroyo in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence” with the official date and time stamp of the Supreme Court;

11.  Official Receipt No. 00300227-SC-EP dated 15 November 2011 issued by the Supreme Court for the Two Million Pesos Cash Bond of GMA and Mike Arroyo  with the official date and time stamp;

12.  November 15 and 16, 2011 Sheriff’s Return of service of the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO dated 15 November 2011 upon the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General;

13.  Certification from the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of the Supreme Court dated November 15, 2011 with the date and time it was received by the Supreme Court Clerk of Court showing it to be November 16, 2011 at 8:55am;

14.  Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 18 November 2011;

15.  Resolution dated 18 November 2011 issued on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition, as published;

16.  Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 22 November 2011;

17.  Typed-written draft of Justice Presbitero Velasco (Justice Velasco) of the 22 November 2011 session on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition (Justice Velasco draft);

18.  Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s Modifications of Justice Velasco’s draft on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

19.  Respondent Corona’s handwritten corrections on Justice Velasco’s draft on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition dated 22 November 2011 with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated as received by the Supreme Court Clerk of Court on 23 November 2011;

20.  Resolution dated 22 November 2011 on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition, as published;

21.  Logbook showing the date and time Justice Sereno’s dissent to the 22 November 2011 Resolution was received by the Clerk of Court En Banc;

22.  Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published on 13 December 2011;

23.  Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published;

24.  Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 24 November 2011;

25.  Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 29 November 2011

26.  Dissenting Opinion of Justice Velasco in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published;

27.  Dissenting Opinion of Justice Abad in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published;

28.  Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio addressed to the Chief Justice with title: “Re: GR No. 199034, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima” copy furnished to all Justices and the Clerk of Court.

29.  Memorandum dated 05 December 2011 of Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal for the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices stating that as “per instruction of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Sereno) in the Resolution dated 22 November 2011 shall be taken up in the session of the En Banc on Tuesday, December 6, 2011”;

30.  Letter dated 06 December 2011 of Justice Sereno to respondent Corona formalizing her request to be apprised of the legal basis for the non-promulgation of her dissenting opinion, unduly depriving her of her constitutional right as an associate justice copy, furnished to all Justices and the Clerk of Court;

31.  Agenda and Minutes of the Supreme Court En Banc Sessions dated 06 December 2011;

32.  Certified True Copy of the decision in “Leave Division OCA-OAS vs. Wilma Salvacion P. Huesdens” docketed as A.M. No. P-11-2927, promulgated on 13 December 2011;

33.  Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court Internal Rules;

34.  Certified True Copy of G.R. No. 197930 where the Supreme Court denied Efraim Genuino’s prayer for a TRO against Watchlist Order No. 2011-422, issued under the authority of the same DOJ Circular No. 41 that is the subject of the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petitions;

35.  Official Appointment of Respondent Corona as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court;

36.  Official Appointment of Respondent Corona as Chief Justice;

37.  Official Appointment of Midas Marquez as Spokesperson of the Supreme Court. As stated in the Complaint, the Spokesperson in several instances made misleading statements;

38.  Official Appointment of Justice Arturo D. Brion (Brion) as Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Brion was present in the meetings and may shed light as to who drafted the Resolutions dated November 15 and November 18 2011 on the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition;

39.  Official Appointment of Justice Presibetero Velasco as Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Velasco was mentioned several times in the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published  and he filed a Dissenting Opinion in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published;

40.  Official Appointment of Justice Roberto A. Abad as Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Abad filed a Dissenting Opinion in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published

1.     Bureau of Immigration Records stating the entry and exit in the Philippines of Respondent Renato Corona during the months of October and November, 2011;

2.     Department of Justice received Petition for Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (G.R. No. 199034) [GMA TRO Petition], including the Annexes thereto;

3.     Department of Justice received Supreme Court received (with time and date stamp) Petition for Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as (G.R. No. 199046) [Mike Arroyo TRO Petition], including the Annexes thereto;

4.     All pleadings and motions filed and received in the Mike Arroyo and GMA TRO Petition;

5.     Record of Denial of the Attempted Exit of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) and Jose Miguel Tuason Arroyo (Mike Arroyo) with the Bureau of Immigration on November 15, 2011;

6.     Warrants of Arrest issued by Branch 112 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City against GMA;

7.     Department of Justice received Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by the Arroyos in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.”

8.     Department of Justice received Manifestation or Motion informing them of the Compliance with the conditions set in the 15 November 2011 TRO issued by the Supreme Court in the GMA and Mike Arroyo TRO Petition.

            We respectfully reserve their right to present additional documentary evidence.

This email may be private, privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.