Corona urges new graduates to uphold judicial independence

(Speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the Commencement Exercises of the Philippine Law School; 3:00 p.m., March 26, 2012, Philippine International Convention Center.)

Dean Manuel R. Bustamante, Judge Janzen R. Rodriguez, Executive Vice-President Rosalia G. Kapauan, officials and school administrators of the Philippine Law School, members of the faculty, parents, spouses  and friends, graduates, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a warm and pleasant good afternoon to all of you.

This afternoon’s ceremony is a rite of passage. It marks the culmination of an academic journey that will, for all of our graduates, always be associated with hard work, perseverance and sacrifice.  My heartfelt congratulations to you as you celebrate this moment of triumph, for today is your day and it belongs to you and to you alone. Cherish this moment forever.

Thank you for inviting me to be with you this afternoon. Truth to tell, I could not help but feel a little emotional when I received your invitation. You see, my late father, Atty. Juan Molinyawe Corona, was a proud alumnus of this great institution. In the living room of our old ancestral house in Sta. Ana, Manila where I grew up still hangs the Bachelor of Laws diploma of my father, dated March 28, 1936.
That diploma, now wrinkled by the years, has its own story to tell – that of a young man from Tanauan, Batangas who dreamed to become a lawyer and bravely faced the challenges to achieve his dreams.  He came to Manila with grit and determination to make something of himself by becoming a lawyer.

My father remained a very simple and humble man to the very end. Not many knew that he was an intellectual giant, one of the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s recognized experts in estate taxation. Fewer still were aware that he produced three sons, all lawyers like him – a former Secretary of Transportation and Communications, a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a former Vice–President of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation. Indeed it will take long to tell my father’s life story but if there is one thing that is clear, it is the fact that everything started at the Philippine Law School.

Philippine Law School is among the law schools in the country that have produced the most number of bar topnotchers, including one of the bar examination’s early topnotchers, Gregorio Anonas, in 1919.

The most famous alumnus of the Philippine Law School was, of course, the valedictorian (magna cum laude) of Class 1923, who placed 7th in that year’s bar examinations, and who later became the fourth President of the Philippines, the late President Carlos P. Garcia.

It is no coincidence that many lawyers become leaders of our nation, for there is a call upon the legal profession, in the words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, “to do great work for the country.”

During the presidency of Philippine Law School alumnus Carlos P. Garcia, the big issue that gripped the nation was economic independence.  He said:

“If the Filipinos cannot be first in the Philippines, where else can they be first? Only when Filipinos are first in their country will the Philippines be finally truly free. Until then, their independence can only be a sham.  While aliens control the economy, how can Filipinos be said to be masters in their homes or their government  is  sovereign  in  their  lands?  They are mere hirelings, dummies, servants—subservient to the will of others, serving their interest first. How can Filipinos advance their own?”

The Garcia Administration from 1957 to 1961 was known for its “Filipino First Policy” whose objective was “to make the Filipinos first and supreme in the national economic household of the Philippines.”  Today, a different kind of battle for independence is gripping the consciousness of our people. It is the fight for judicial independence.

When we speak of judicial independence, (or independence of the judiciary), we are really referring to two distinct concepts:  first, the powers of the judiciary as distinct and separate from those of the two other great branches of government and second, the judiciary’s unhampered freedom to render decisions without political pressure or outside influence.

As we all know, the judiciary, together with the executive and the legislative, is one of the three co-equal departments of government. The Constitution clearly defined and divided the vast powers of government among these three departments to ensure operational checks and balances, with the avowed purpose of preventing tyranny, as explained by James Madison.

Alexander Hamilton analyzed state power very succinctly:

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.  The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.  The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.  It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

Described as the “weakest” of the three branches of government, the judiciary has been at the receiving end of continued and relentless attacks on its independence, from media-bashing to budgetary cuts and impounding, to impeachment and unending threats of impeachment. All these have only one purpose, and that is to create a compliant and malleable judiciary.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are those, some even in the higher echelons of government, who refuse to acknowledge the role of the judiciary to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.  We are a government of laws, not of men, and the foundation of our laws is the Constitution.  The interpretation of the laws and the Constitution is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

Ang Republika ng Pilipinas ay isang bansa sa ilalim ng batas kung saan ang Saligang Batas ang namamayani.  Walang sinuman ang mas mataas o hihigit pa sa Saligang Batas.

Popular opinion or political expediency does not sway the way we decide cases in the judiciary.  We do not have constituencies whose interests we have to protect nor any agenda we have to espouse.  It is the ability to render independent judgment, without fear or favor, that separates us and makes us distinct from the two other branches of government.

Tulad nga po ng madalas sabihin ng isang tanyag na komentarista, “Wala po tayong kinikilingan.  Wala po tayong pinoprotektahan.”  Tayo po ay narito na may iisang dahilan lamang: ang pairalin ang batas at tiyakin ang karapatan ng mga mamamayan ay naaayon sa Saligang Batas.

When judges are free to decide cases in accordance with their unbiased and uninfluenced interpretations of the law, members of society can expect more predictable decisions and resolutions because outcomes are not based on the whim of those with money or power enough to sway the judiciary.

The independence of the judiciary is meant to empower it as the guardian of the rule of law.   It is neither for its honor nor for its prestige, but essentially for the public interest and the preservation of the rule of law.

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court, often referred to as the Court of Last Resort, must never compromise its duty to safeguard that, in accordance with the fundamental law of the land, sovereignty will always reside in the people and all government authority will always emanate from them. It is therefore of critical importance to our democracy that we uphold judicial independence at all times and under all circumstances. Ang Korte Suprema ay husgado, hindi ng mga namumuno, kundi husgado ng sambayanan!

Many times I have been asked why I submitted myself to the impeachment process, knowing that everything will be thrown at me and my family. My answer has always been simple and direct: I have done no wrong to anyone nor ever violated my oath as a magistrate. My adversaries can fabricate all they want to besmirch me and my family but, in the end, it will still be between me and the Lord God Almighty. That is what I learned from my father, what I want my children and their children to live by and what I now want to impart to this graduating class:  you should be prepared to lose everything when you are fighting for your principles.
I have nothing to gain but everything to lose in this fight. Acquittal will give me nothing new which I already do not have. But if I am not upheld, my life will turn upside down, losing everything that has always been dear to me – my pride, my honor, the stability and peace of our family, my friends even, my retirement pay and pension for which I have worked hard all these years.

And yet, why am I risking all this? Yes, indeed, why? For one reason alone and it is the fact that, in my heart of hearts, I am fighting for democracy and the preservation of the fundamental freedoms that guarantee the preservation of our way of life.

As future lawyers, you shall eventually take your oath to serve the law, to obey the law and to inspire others to respect it.  It would then be our duty as members of this noble profession to wield the law not as an instrument of deceit and oppression but as a social apparatus for the common good. As Philippine Law School’s most illustrious alumnus, President Carlos P. Garcia, said, “Only those who can remain free are worthy of it.  Freedom must be constantly deserved.”

Kung hindi sa ating mga hanay manggagaling ang mga magtatanggol sa Korte Suprema, sino ang aasahan natin mangunguna para mapanatili ang kalayaan ng ating husgado?  Sa mga tulad ninyong maalam sa batas, pairalin ang tama na naaayon sa inyong konsensiya — hindi kung ano ang gusto ng nakararami.  Ipakita nating karapat-dapat tayo sa pagkakaroon ng isang malaya at malakas na demokrasya. Marami ang naniwala sa ating adhikain.   Makiisa at manindigan!

Thank you and congratulations. God bless you all!

I sold my property to Vicente, says Mrs. Corona

The spouse of beleaguered Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona—Cristina—explained on Wednesday that she was not aware of the status of the title since they had sold the 1,700-square-meter property to Demetrio Vicente in 1990.

Cristina pointed out that they have lost contact with Vicente since then.

She said she only saw Vicente 22 years later after learning that the title is still registered under her name.

“Since we sold the property to him in 1990, we didn’t see him again until 2012 when I was told that the title of this property was still in my name,” Cristina said.

She said they had indeed sold their property in Marikina City to Vicente.

“The sale was made through a broker,” Corona said in a text message.

Corona said, “My Marikina property was sold thru a broker who brought Vicente to my house as her buyer.”

Even if the buyer turned out to be a relative of the chief magistrate, Cristina said they paid the broker’s fee because “we did not sell it directly to him. “

Corona also said that the notary public who used to notarize the documents in SGV was Atty. Beth Mantoya.

“When she resigned from SGV, she joined Romulo Mabanta Law Office,” she added.

Corona further said that the husband of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales— Mr. Kenny Morales—is a first cousin of Mrs. Lita Morales-Vicente, wife of Vicente.

It can be recalled that Vicente told the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday that Ombudsman Morales, former SC Justice, has been to his house in Marikina City. (mlatimes)

Honasan: Too much time spent on PSBank document

MANILA, Philippines – Sen. Gregorio Honasan believes the Senate is spending too much time on determining the authenticity of a document the prosecution attached to a request to open the bank accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“Will it help us prove or disprove the articles of impeachment?” he said on Friday. “Right now, I’m not getting that sense.”

“We have the propensity to focus on things that may not be material,” the senator-judge added.

Honasan said he’d prefer that the Senate focus on the actual merits of the case, considering that they have so much work to do, including legislation.

He added, however, that the impeachment court has no choice but to get to the bottom of the issue.

“Iyon ang ginamit na attachment sa sa request for subpoena. Can you imagine na ang dahilan mo para sabihin na may probable cause is a possibly spurious document? Wasak ang buong premise mo,” Honasan said.

On Monday, Rep. Jorge Banal will be called back to the impeachment court for senators to ask him questions regarding his story that he got a copy of a photocopied document on Corona’s alleged dollar account from an unknown source.

Honasan said he’s giving Banal the benefit of the doubt.

Senators will also tackle in caucus the prosecution panel’s explanation on how it got hold of the document. (abs-cbn news)

Retired Justice Cuevas unhappy with senator-judges

MANILA, Philippines – Following the footsteps of his client Chief Justice Renato Corona, former Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas on Tuesday took a swipe at senator-judges in Corona’s impeachment trial.

Cuevas accused unnamed senators of “practically appearing as private prosecutors” in the impeachment trial.

The debate started after the manager of Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) Ayala Branch, Leonora Dizon, was called back to the witness stand on Tuesday to present Corona’s monthly bank statements in his peso accounts from 2005 to 2010.

Cuevas saw no need for Dizon to testify once more, saying both the defense and prosecution have already finished questioning her.

“We are through with the witness and the witness had been presented. We do not know in what capacity the recall of the witness was made,” he said.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, however, explained that Dizon should remain in the witness stand based on a request by a senator-judge who wanted to ask clarificatory questions.

“There was a request by a member of this court. That is a prerogative of a member of this court according to our rules,” he said.

It was at this point that Cuevas criticized some senator-judges.

“If a senator-judge proceeds to ask questions which to us are objectionable, we cannot just go immediately to the Supreme Court for a relief against that irregularity. They are not merely acting as judges. They are practically appearing as private prosecutors!” he argued.

The defense previously asked Senator-judge Franklin Drilon to inhibit himself from the Corona trial for allegedly assisting the prosecution.

Drilon has rejected the defense’s motion.

On Monday, Corona also filed a supplemental petition before the Supreme Court and questioned the impartiality of Drilon and 4 other senator-judges – Serge Osmeña, Francis Pangilinan, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Teofisto Guingona III.

Enrile, however, told Cuevas that he cannot stop the senator-judges from asking questions, based on the rules of the Senate and the impeachment court.

“We are 23 minds here. We are a body of jurors. In a body of jurors, each one has his own perception and interest in this case in order to make a final judgment. I am not in the position to deny that right to any member of this body,” he said. – report from Ryan Chua, ABS-CBN News; ANC

House prosecutors wary of ‘campaign’ from Corona camp

Members of the House prosecution team on Monday expressed concern over the supposed “smear campaign” being launched against them by the camp of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“Nababahala tayo riyan as far as our public officers are concerned. We hope this is not an ongoing pattern,” Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, one of the prosecution’s spokespersons, said at a press briefing.

Quimbo made this statement after a report on lead public prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr.’s supposed P50-million mansion at Xavierville Subdivision in Quezon City was published on Monday by the broadsheet The Daily Tribune.

The newspaper report said Tupas kept the mansion “hidden from view by getting the construction workers to cover the almost finished exterior of his two-storey house.”

As of posting time, GMA News Online was still trying to get the sides of the defense panel as well as that of Tupas.

Quimbo said he and other members of the panel are aware of a “smear campaign” allegedly being initiated by Corona’s camp.

“This is just a tactic from the camp of Chief Justice Corona to divert our attention away from the trial,” Quimbo said, referring to the ongoing impeachment trial of the chief justice.

Corona is currently being tried at the Senate for betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption. The prosecution has earlier accused Corona of acquiring multi-million peso properties that supposedly cannot be covered by his income.

While refusing to speak for Tupas, Quimbo said he and other members of the prosecution panel are willing to face any probe on their properties.

“It is part of our duty na busisiin ang ating buhay. Bukas tayo riyan,” he said. — Andreo Calonzo/RSJ, GMA News

Number of witnesses vs Corona a cause for concern – Kiko

MANILA, Philippines – Senator-judge Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan on Saturday expressed concern over the number of witnesses that the prosecution plans to present for the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The senator said it could take 10 months for the prosecution to present a hundred witnesses excluding defense witnesses.

“We have had six witnesses in the last two weeks. If we maintain this pace, 100 witnesses will require 10 months of trial. This doesn’t include the witnesses for the defense,” Pangilinan said in a press statement.

He also said that a lengthy trial could affect their other duties as lawmakers.

“Going by this lengthy route is pushing to the limit our ability to effectively govern the nation,” he said.

Pangilinan added that although the Senate impeachment court is open to giving both sides enough leeway to present their case, it is also the duty of the court “to strike a healthy balance between the demands of the trial and that of the national interest.”

The prosecution panel submitted to the Senate on Friday a list of possible witnesses, which include several journalists and members of the Supreme Court.–ABS-CBN News

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.

SC saddened by impeach case vs del Castillo

MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez  on Thursday said he is saddened that an impeachment case against SC Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo continues to prosper in the House of Representatives.

Marquez said he is saddened that lawmakers continue to hear the case against del Castillo despite his being cleared by the Supreme Court.

“Nakakalungkot dahil nagdesisyon na ang Kataas-taasang hukuman tungkol sa kasong iyan. Siyempre ibang sangay ng gobyerno yan. Sana tignan din nila ang naging desisyon ng SC,” he told radio dzMM.

He added: “Siyempre iba ang tinitignan nila diyan. Hindi ko pwedeng sabihing walang merito.”

Marquez said he is carefully choosing his words about the case since del Castillo could question the court proceedings before the SC. He said the SC magistrate could also choose to answer the charges and let the impeachment process continue.

Del Castillo is facing an impeachment complaint before the House of Representatives after allegedly plagiarizing parts of his decision on the case of “comfort women” during World War II. Last October 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the plagiarism charge against del Castillo, saying that it was his researcher who accidentally deleted the footnotes in his decision.

On Thursday, 40 congressmen voted in favor while 7 voted against the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against del Castillo. The House justice committee earlier found the same complaint against del Castillo sufficient in form.

Speaking to ANC, Justice Committee chairman Niel Tupas Jr. said the vote was a bit surprising “because as you can remember last May 18, when we voted on the form, it was a close vote. It was 11 in favor, 10 against. The vote now is 40 against 7.”

He said the committee will now order del Castillo to answer the complaint within 10 days. He said that after the holiday break, the justice committee can vote if there is sufficient grounds and probable cause to impeach the magistrate.