Talumpati ng Kagalang-galang Benigno S. Aquino III sa La Consolacion College

Talumpati ng Kagalang-galang Benigno S. Aquino III
Pangulo ng Pilipinas
Sa Pulong Bayan ng Pangulo at paggunita sa Tagumpay ng Bayan

[Inihayag sa La Consolacion College, Lungsod ng Maynila, noong ika-16 ng Pebrero 2012]

Magandang umaga po. Maupo ho tayong lahat.

Kagalang-galang na Vice President Jejomar Binay; Secretaries Sonny Coloma, Leila de Lima, Linda Baldoz, Mar Roxas, Edwin Lacierda, Ed de Mesa, Manuel Mamba, Joel Villanueva; members of the EDSA People Power Commission; Mister Cesar Sariño; Mister Ogie Alcasid; Miss Millie Kilayko; Chairman Francis Tolentino; Governor Boy Umali of the League of Provinces of the Philippines; of course, our very generous Sister Imelda Mora; youth leaders from Pilipinas Natin member schools; fellow workers in government; honored guests; mga minamahal ko pong kababayan:

Talaga pong magandang umaga sa inyong lahat.

Dalawampu’t anim na taon po ang nakakalipas mula nang nagtipon ang mahigit isang milyong Pilipino sa Luneta upang ipagdiwang ang Tagumpay ng Bayan. Idineklara nila ang pagwawagi ng aking yumaong ina laban kay Ginoong Marcos sa Snap Elections. Nagpatupad sila ng civil disobedience campaign, at nag-boycott laban sa mga kumpanyang sumipsip sa diktaturya. Ipinaramdam nila na ang kapangyarihan ay nasa kamay ng karaniwang tao. Ito po ang naging unang hakbang ng taumbayan tungo sa rebolusyon ng EDSA.

Narito po tayo ngayon: nagbabalik-tanaw sa nakaraan, hinahamon ng kasalukuyan, at muling tinatawag upang ipaglaban ang atin pong kinabukasan. Huhubugin ba natin ang kinabukasang ito, o magpapakaladkad na lang tayo sa tadhana?

Ikalabing anim po ng Enero nang magsimula ang paglilitis kay Ginoong Corona sa Senado. Pinili ko pong magmasid at manahimik muna ukol sa isyung ito, at buo pa rin po ang tiwala ko sa proseso. Ngunit ano po ba ang nangyayari sa ngayon? Napakarami pong nagpapalit-palit ng kuro-kuro, na tila sadya tayong hinihilo o inililigaw para mawalan ng interes. Magpapa-etsa-puwera na lang po ba si Juan at Juana de la Cruz sa prosesong ito? Hahayaan na lang po ba natin na iilan ang magdesisyon para sa atin pong lahat?

Iyan naman po ang sadya ko sa araw na ito: Liwanagin ang dapat liwanagin, at ituwid ang isyung pilit dinidiskaril ng ilan, upang ang karaniwang tao ay malinawan at makilahok sa usapan. Simple lang naman po ang tanong na nais sagutin ng paglilitis na ito: Dapat pa ba tayong magtiwala kay Ginoong Corona? Masasagot po natin iyan kung titingnan ang mga katotohanang lumalabas na sa paglilitis.

Pag-usapan po natin ang tinatawag na Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth o SALN. Hindi scratch paper po ang SALN: ito po ay sinusumpaan ng bawat pampublikong opisyal. Nakasaad po sa Saligang Batas, sa Article 11, Section 17: Ang isang pinuno o kawaning pambayan, sa pag-upo niya sa katungkulan at sa limitasyon ng panahong maaaring itadhana ng batas, ay dapat magsumite ng pinanumpaang deklarasyon ng kanyang mga ari-arian, pananagutan, at aktwal na kabuuang ari-arian.  Sa kalagayan ng Pangulo, Pangalawang Pangulo, mga Kagawad ng Gabinete, ng Kongreso, ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman, ng mga Komisyong Konstitusyonal at ng iba pang katungkulang Konstitusyonal, at ng mga pinuno ng Sandatahang Lakas na may ranggong heneral o pamandila, ang deklarasyon ay dapat isiwalat sa madla—ulitin ko po—ay dapat isiwalat sa madla sa paraang itinatadhana ng batas.

Paano po ba tinupad ni Ginoong Corona ang batas na ito? Ayon sa mismong testimonya ng kanyang Clerk of Court na si Ms. Vidal: sabi po, galing sa isang Binibining Acia, ipapasa ito kay Binibining Vidal, na ibibigay naman sa isang Binibining Albano. Ilalagay po ito sa isang locked—uulitin ko po—isang locked filing cabinet, at huling lalanding sa isang nakakandadong vault.

Tanong naman po: Kailan pa po ba naging bahagi ng publiko ang isang locked filing cabinet? Paano mabubusisi ang laman ng SALN na ito kung nakasilid sa isang vault? Habang lumalabas ang katotohanan, lumilinaw naman ang dahilan ng pagkukubli ni Ginoong Corona sa kanyang SALN. Isang halimbawa po: noong 2010, nagdeklara siya ng cash na 3.5 million pesos. Ayon sa mga testimonya ng pangulo ng PS Bank at branch manager ng BPI Ayala, sa tatlong account pa lang na naisiwalat sa impeachment, si Ginoong Corona ay may nakatagong 31.5 million pesos na hindi po idineklara.

‘Di ho ba tayong lahat ay mapapasabing: naman. Maliwanag pa po sa sikat ng araw: Ginoong Corona, ang sinumpaan mong salaysay ay hindi tugma sa natuklas na pag-aari mo. Maski saang paaralan po, hindi lang sa Pilipinas kundi sa buong mundo, 3.5 million pesos does not equal 31.5 million. Alin po ba ang totoo, Ginoong Corona?

Bago po kayo naitalaga sa Supreme Court, may isang kaso noong 1997 na ang ngalan ay  Rabe versus Flores. Tungkol ito sa Court interpreter mula sa Davao Regional Trial Court na hindi idineklara ang pagmamay-ari niyang puwesto sa palengke—uulitin ko po—hindi idineklara ang pagmamay-ari niyang puwesto sa isang palengke, kung saan nakakatanggap siya ng renta. Dahil daw sa paglabag niya sa RA 6713 o ang Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, inirekomenda ng Office of the Court Administrator na sisantehin si Delsa Flores. Nawala sa kanya ang kabuhayang pinagkukunan ng suweldo at benepisyo.

Sa isang court interpreter, iyan po ang batayan. Magkano po kaya ang upa sa isang puwesto sa palengke? Sa Punong Mahistrado po ba, dapat naiiba? Kung si Ginang Flores po ay sinisante, ano pa kaya ang dapat hatol kay Ginoong Corona? Kailangan pa po bang tanungin kung impeachable offense ang ginawa niya?

Kung wala kang ginawang mali, wala kang dapat itago. Kayo nga po ang tanungin ko: Ganito ba umasta ang isang taong dapat walang katakutan? Pahirapan ang paghagilap sa kanyang SALN, at hanggang ngayon, pilit niyang inililihim ang kanyang mga accounts tulad ng mga dollar accounts. Sabi niya, in due time ilalabas niya ang mga dokumento. Mawalang-galang na po, Ginoong Corona, marami pang naunang taon na nagpasa kayo ng SALN na puno ng katanungan. Kailan po ba ang due time? Mukha po yatang overdue ka na.

Nagpapasalamat ako, at nagpapasalamat tayong lahat, kina Ginoong Corona at Justice Cuevas, dahil sila ang naging susi sa lalong paglabas ng katotohanan. Dahil sa mga discrepancy sa SALN ni Ginoong Corona, napagtuonang-pansin ang kanyang ‘di pa naipapaliwanag o maipaliwanag na yaman. At noong nanghingi po ng year-end balance ang Senado, si Justice Cuevas pa ang umapela na gawing monthly ito. Sana nga po hindi lamang aksidente ito at tuloy-tuloy na nilang makita ang liwanag. Ngunit sa tinatakbo ng mga pahayag ni Ginoong Corona, mukhang malayu-layo pa bago siya matauhan.

Kayo nga po ang sumagot: sa tingin po ba ninyo, ang Chief Justice ay exempted sa mga batas na kailangan nating lahat sundin? Kapag ba nasa poder na ay bawal nang tanungin, bawal nang usisain, at bawal nang batikusin?

Ginoong Corona, sana naman po ay huwag n’yo na kaming paikutan. Alam naman namin kung bakit ka isiniksik ni Ginang Arroyo sa Korte Suprema: iyan po ay para pagtakpan ang katiwalian niya. ‘Di ba nagsimula lang naman ang lahat ng ito nang muntik ka nang magtagumpay na patakasin si Ginang Arroyo?

Tandaan lang po natin: Punong Mahistrado mismo ang nagpilit na puwedeng umalis ng bansa si Ginang Arroyo. Ang isinampang kaso ng electoral sabotage, 2007 diumano naganap. Ayon sa batas, mapapaso ito kung hindi makapagsampa ng kaso sa loob ng limang taon. Ibig pong sabihin, sa pagpataw ng TRO sa watch list order natin, binigyan ng pagkakataong magtago si Ginang Arroyo; sakaling natuloy siya sa pagtakas at bumalik ng hindi mas maaga sa Mayo ng 2012, hindi na po natin siya mapapanagot sa diumano’y mga sala niya.

Lilinawin ko lang po: Walang personalan dito; sistemang pangkatarungan ang ipinaglalaban dito. At dahil malaki ang pagbabagong ating hinahangad, malaki rin po ang kinakabangga natin. Tingnan na nga lang po natin ang Defense at Prosecution: maraming batikos ang inabot ng ating prosecution panel; parehas ba ang laban? Alam naman po natin ang napakalakas na impluwensya ng hukom sa sistemang pangkatarungan. Nasa kanila ang pasya sa bawat kaso.

Kung nasa Defense ka, ‘di ba’t ngiti ang isasalubong sa iyo ng mga tiwaling hukom, dahil ipinagtanggol mo ang isa sa kanilang uri? Manalo, matalo, panalo ka parati. Kung nasa Prosecution ka naman, simangot ang pambungad sa iyo dahil sa pangangahas mong kalabanin ang Punong Mahistrado. Ipagpapasa-Diyos mo na lahat ng kasong hahawakan mo. ‘Di kaya’t babalot iyan sa isip mo habang naglalatag ng argumento, na itinataya mo ngayon ang pinagmumulan ng kakainin ng iyong pamilya’t anak?

Ang katarungan ay sinasagisag ng isang babaeng nakapiring at may hawak na timbangan. Bulag ang hustisya upang hindi masilaw ng kapangyarihan; patas ang timbangan dahil pantay ang hustisya para sa lahat. Kung ikaw si Delsa Flores, ano kaya ang mararamdaman mo ngayong may isang taong may mas malaking halagang itinago sa kaniyang SALN?

Simple lang naman po ang kailangan nating pagpasyahan ngayon. Papayag ba tayo na magpatuloy ang sistema kung saan may nanlalamang at nilalamangan? Hahayaan ba nating magkatotoo ang sinasabing dalawang mukha ng katarungan sa Pilipinas—isa para sa makapangyarihan, at iba para sa mga nasa laylayan? Kuntento ka bang hindi patas ang laban? Hindi ba sulit na ituwid ang ganitong klaseng kalakaran? ‘Di po ba’t malinaw ang mga alituntuning kailangang sundin ng lahat?

Ang tungkulin natin ngayon ay ibalik ang piring ng katarungan, at gawing balanse ang timbangan. Huwag na po sana nating hintayin na tayo mismo ang maagrabyado. Manindigan na po tayo ngayon.

Tandaan na lang po natin, karamihan po sa bulwagang ito ay nasa age bracket po namin ni Ogie Alcasid. [Laughter] O ayaw n’yo akong tanggapin sa inyong hanay? Ang buhay ko po: ako po’y 52 na. Mayroon po natitirang more or less 30 years sa aking buhay. Tama po ba?  Kayo naman siguro ay 21 and below, tama? May mga 60 years pa kayo: na either matutuwa sa kinabukasang hinuhubog natin ngayon o malulungkot at mas matagal na magtitiis sa sistemang bulok na hindi natin napalitan. Maliwanag po dapat sana ang direksyon. Iyong bukas, gagawin ngayon. Kumilos na po tayong lahat

Magandang araw po. Maraming salamat sa inyong lahat.

Maraming salamat po. (abs-cbn)

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.

Don’t be presumptuous and arrogant, SC spokesman tells Palace on looking for Corona’s replacement

“Do not be too presumptuous and arrogant,” Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said following Malacañang announcement that it is already looking for Chief Justice Renato Corona’s replacement.

“Let’s not be too presumptuous. Let’s not be too arrogant. We should exercise a degree of humility,” Marquez said.

Palace Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said President Aquino is looking for a potential replacement for Corona, one who is a proven person of integrity and probity such as Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Lacierda said the President has asked his legal advisers to come up with a list of possible nominees for chief justice as Corona faces an impeachment trial by the Senate in January.

But Marquez pointed that the Chief Justice position is not yet vacant.

“The impeachment process is about to start only next month,” Marquez said adding that Malacañang has no authority to screen possible applicants to the Judiciary.

He said while the President has the power under the Constitution to appoint members of the Judiciary, it is the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) under the Constitution who has the authority to screen applicants to the Judiciary and the Ombudsman post.

“The authority to screen is with the JBC,” Marquez said.

Under Article 8 Section 8(5) of the Constitution, JBC “shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.”

The same provision under Section 9 provides that “the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.”

“Let us wait for the impeachment court to rule on the impeachment complaint,” Marquez said.

 

Being Carpio’s frat brods is merely incidental, ex-IBP presidents say

The five former Presidents of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said being a fraternity brother of the most senior member of the Supreme Court is merely incidental to their stand of supporting the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Raoul Angangco (National President from 1995-1997), Jose Aguila Grapilon (1997-1999), Arthur Lim (1999-2001), Teofilo Pilando (2001-2003) and Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz (2003-2006) are all members of the Sigma Rho fraternity where Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio is also affiliated.

Carpio became the strongest contender for the Chief Justice position after the retirement of Chief Justice Renato Puno and is likely to replace Corona should he be impeached.

“We, being Sigma Rhoans is merely incidental. We are also former national presidents of the IBP and our stand is for the Constitution to be followed,” Grapilon said.

They also pointed that the fact that some of them are government officials or founder of an influential law firm has no bearing on their stand, Cadiz is the head of the Office of the Solicitor-General while Pilando is Deputy Executive Secretary while Angangco is one of the founding members of the Carpio, Villaraza, Angangco Law office.

“We have a consistent stand and that is for the Constitution. Yes, Antonio Carpio is a sigma rhoan but we must also remember that it is the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) who nominates. It may not even nominate Carpio and even if nominated, it is the President who will choose among 3, 4, 5 nominees,” Cadiz said.

 

Palace looking for new CJ is improper

Malacanang’s move of looking for a possible replacement for Chief Justice Renato Corona is “not a sound decision and improper,” Law professor and former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said.

Lawyer Jose Aguila Grapilon said Malacanang should not conduct a search for Corona’s replacement because the Chief Justice position is not yet vacant.

“Masyado naman yatang pre-emptive yon. I do not think they should be doing that,” Grapilon told reporters.

Grapilon is one of the five former IBP Presidents who said that Corona’s impeachment is healthy for democracy.

However, Grapilon said looking for Corona’s replacement when the impeachment trial has not yet started is not proper.

“I don’t think its proper. It is the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) who will conduct the interviews and they will do that only when there is a vacancy,” he added.

 

‘Corona should go on leave’

Former presidents of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) called on Chief Justice Renato Corona to go on leave while the impeachment process against him is ongoing.

“It is still the call of the Chief Justice whether he would go on leave or not but we believe that it would be best that he concentrate on his defense,” Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, IBP President from 2003 to 2006 said.

“He should do so (go on leave) to remove doubts on actions of the Court,” lawyer Jose Aguila Grapilon (IBP President from 1997 to 1999) said.

The five former IBP Presidents issued a manifesto saying the impeachment of the Chief Justice is healthy for democracy.

Aside from Cadiz and Grapilon, also joining the manifesto include lawyers Raoul Angangco (1995-1997), Arthur Lim (1999-2001) and Teofilo Pilando (2001-2003).

Corona’s impeachment trial is set to start on January 16.

Look who’s talking, prosecutors say on Corona’s reply

“Look who’s talking.”
This was how the House prosecution panel reacted to Chief Justice Renato Corona’s plea for the “outright dismissal” of the impeachment case filed against him for supposedly being rushed and for failing to meet the requirements of the Constitution.

Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, the panel’s spokesperson, said it was “ironic” for Corona to criticize the speed by which the House approved the impeachment case against him, since the chief justice himself has allegedly issued rushed and questionable rulings.

“It is ironic that the chief justice accuses us of rushing our decision when in fact it is he who is accused in the impeachment complaint of having rushed, not just once, but five times the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) without the benefit of hearing the side of the other affected party,” Quimbo said at a press briefing Tuesday.

He cited as example the SC’s decision last November 15 granting former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s request for a TRO halting the implementation of a watch list order against her, just a week after her camp filed a petition for the TRO.

Mrs. Arroyo attempted to leave the country upon issuance of the TRO, but was barred and detained days after due to a poll sabotage charge.

A total of 188 political allies of President Benigno Aquino III at the House of Representatives agreed to swiftly impeach Corona last December 12 for alleged betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption.

Aquino has never fully recognized the legitimacy of Corona, who was appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Chief Justice a few weeks before she stepped down from office last year, barely a week after the elections where Aquino had emerged as the clear winner.

On Monday, the chief magistrate submitted his reply to the complaint, where he asked the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to dismiss the case against him citing constitutional infirmities and bias against him.

Constitutional power

But Quimbo maintained that the House only exercised its constitutional power to hold top officials accountable for their actions when the chamber decided to impeach Corona.

“The impeachment complaint was really just the crystallization or the end product of a long simmering debate that had been on-going among the members of congress in the various committees at the House of Representatives,” he said.

Corona’s impeachment trial at the Senate is expected to formally start mid-January next year. The Philippine Constitution requires the vote of two-thirds of all the senators—or 16 of the 23 current senators—to convict the chief justice and remove him from his post.

Weak argument?

Quimbo likewise pointed out that Corona’s failure to sign his reply to the impeachment complaint further weakens the arguments in the document.

“Nakapagtataka kung bakit di nila [Corona’s defense panel] vinerify… I don’t know what their strategy is, but it’s something that weakens the accountability of the document,” he said.

Corona’s official reply to the impeachment case submitted to the Senate did not bear his signature. Only the six members of his defense panel signed the document.

Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, a member of the House prosecution team, meanwhile said  the panel is already preparing its reply to Corona’s answer to the impeachment complaint.

“The answer is weak and failed to argue against the jurisdiction of the Senate. We will argue that the trial should proceed because the Senate has jurisdiction,” he said in a separate text message.

Colmenares added that the prosecution team will also debunk Corona’s argument that he cannot be impeached based on decisions made by the 15-member high court.

“The fact that other justices may also be partial does not save an accused from being convicted for partiality and subservience to a favored party,” he said.

One of the articles in Corona’s impeachment case accuses the chief justice of partiality towards Mrs. Arroyo, who appointed him to the post weeks before she stepped down of office in May 2010.

Corona is believed to be closely associated with Mrs. Arroyo, now under hospital arrest on charges of electoral sabotage.

Corona once served as Mrs. Arroyo’s spokesman and chief of staff when the latter was still vice president. When Mrs. Arroyo was catapulted to the presidency in 2001, Corona then assumed various posts — presidential chief of staff, presidential spokesperson, and acting executive secretary.  — RSJ, GMA News

SC urged to stop Corona impeach trial

MANILA, Philippines – A lawyer is urging the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order that will block the Senate from hearing the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

In a petition for certiorari filed before the High Court, lawyer Vladimir Cabigao urged the SC to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on the impeachment trial against Corona.

Cabigao said the Supreme Court must rule as unconstitutional the House of Representatives’ mode of gathering signatures from majority lawmakers without circulating copies of the impeachment complaint.

He cited the statements of Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco that he did not sign the complaint because he was not given a copy of the verified complaint.

Cabigao urged the SC to disregard the rules on technicalities, saying that public interest is involved in the impeachment complaint against Corona.

A total of 188 congressmen signed the impeachment complaint against Corona, which accuses the Chief Justice of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption. With a report from radio dzMM

MANILA, Philippines – A lawyer is urging the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order that will block the Senate from hearing the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

In a petition for certiorari filed before the High Court, lawyer Vladimir Cabigao urged the SC to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on the impeachment trial against Corona.

Cabigao said the Supreme Court must rule as unconstitutional the House of Representatives’ mode of gathering signatures from majority lawmakers without circulating copies of the impeachment complaint.

He cited the statements of Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco that he did not sign the complaint because he was not given a copy of the verified complaint.

Cabigao urged the SC to disregard the rules on technicalities, saying that public interest is involved in the impeachment complaint against Corona.

A total of 188 congressmen signed the impeachment complaint against Corona, which accuses the Chief Justice of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption. ABS-CBN News with a report from radio dzMM

PNoy strongly pushed for Corona impeachment: source

from a report by Jing Castañeda, ABS-CBN News
MANILA, Philippines – President Benigno Aquino pushed aggressively for the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, a source has revealed.

The President did not hide his joy when Corona was impeached by Congress.

According to an ABS-CBN News source, leaders of the majority coalition debated if they will keep a secret Aquino’s role in pushing the impeachment case forward.

Aquino did not want to lie to the public about his role in the issue, especially since he had been openly criticizing Corona.

The Supreme Court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the government’s hold departure order against former President Gloria Macapagl-Arroyo prompted Aquino to give the impeachment the green light, the source said.

Aquino reportedly had one-on-one talks with leaders of the coalition.

House Committee on Justice Chairman Niel Tupas was tasked to finalize the impeachment complaint, while House Speaker Sonny Belmonte and Majority Leader Boyet Gonzales had to ensure that the impeachment complaint will get no less than 95 signatories from the ranks of congressmen.

Strategy meetings

After several weeks, Aquino, Belmonte, and Gonzales had a meeting in a restaurant to create a strategy.

From the restaurant, Belmonte and Gonzales went to the House Speaker’s home to meet with coalition leaders and finalize Corona’s impeachment.

Members of the Liberal Party, the Nationalist People’s Coalition, the Nacionalista Party, party-list groups, and the National Unity Party that was formed by former allies of Arroyo.

The source said the discussion involving Arroyo’s former allies became a heated debate.

However, when Gonzales made a head count, the coalition leaders found out that they have the numbers to approve the impeachment complaint.

They then decided that the impeachment complaint be filed Monday, December 12.

Gonzales denied allegations that they did not explain the complaint to congressmen who signed it.

He said they had a presentation, with party-list Rep. Teddy Casiño even bringing a copy of the complaint to his office to read the document before he signed it.

Gonzales admitted that they had to keep the plan a secret because others may file a bogus impeachment complaint ahead of them.

Aquino’s allies in Congress remain firm that Corona must be removed from the Supreme Court to restore its integrity.

Corona’s critics in Senate asked to inhibit from impeachment trial

KIMBERLY JANE TAN, GMA News

The senators who have been critical of Chief Justice Renato Corona should inhibit from the impeachment proceedings against the magistrate, a member of the law academe said Tuesday.

“Dapat ang mga senador ay hindi dapat magdadakdak muna kasi they become judges eventually.  And as in any process, that would be grounds they get on asking for inhibition from Corona. They should also ask for [the] inhibition of (Sen. Franklin) Drilon and the likes of him,” Father Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the Graduate School of Law, San Beda College, said during an interview aired over GMA News TV’s “News To Go.”

Drilon, along with Sen. Francis Pangilinan, earlier asked Corona to inhibit from all cases related to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in order to remove perceptions that the high court is allegedly biased for the former President.

Drilon explained that Corona was an Arroyo appointee and had worked for the former President for a long time. In a subsequent statement, he also said that Corona had always voted in favor of Mrs. Arroyo without fail.

Impeached

On Monday, the House of Representatives impeached Corona for alleged graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives transmitted the Articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The senators will sit as judges of the impeachment court.

Despite this, Drilon told GMA News Online on Tuesday said that he sees no reason for him to inhibit.

“No, I will not inhibit. I have never called for Corona’s impeachment or resignation but only in his inhibition in the cases involving ex-PGMA due to public perceptions of partiality. Per media reports, complaint cites eight grounds. I have not prejudged him on any of these eight charges,” Drilon said in a text message.

In a separate text message to GMA News Online, Pangilinan said that they will address the issue “at the proper time.”

“We have to say, however, that the impeachment trial is a political proceeding and therefore the requirements of inhibition are not the same. In the Erap impeachment, former Sen. Tito Guingona in a privilege speech accused the former president of wrongdoing yet went on to act as a senator judge during the trial. Now is not the time to decide on the issue. We will decide on the matter should the issue be raised during the trial,” he said.

In a statement released Tuesday, Sen. Koko Pimentel likewise said that it would be “prudent” for senators to refrain from making any comments on the issue.

“It would be proper that senators withhold any comments to avoid criticisms of prejudgments,” Pimentel said.

“I believe the impartiality of the Senate as a possible impeachment tribunal would be preserved and maintained if senator judges would not comment on matters involving removal of impeachable officials,” he added.

‘Rule of Omerta’

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, for his part, had also said that he does not want to talk about the matter because it will be elevated to them eventually.

“I cannot talk about the case because it will come to us. I want to have a clear mind about the whole thing,” he said in an interview.

“I will not make any statement, one way or the other. This time, I will employ the Rule of Omerta. Silence,” he added.

But Enrile said they are ready to stand as an impeachment court.

“We are always ready. That’s our duty. We have the Rules, the Session Hall,” he said.

The Senate will go on a month-long break after December 16. — RSJ, GMA News

House drafts impeachment complaint vs Chief Justice Corona

by Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBN News
A draft impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona is awaiting signatures of members of the House of Representatives.

The draft complaint obtained by abs-cbnNEWS.com  cites eight grounds for impeaching the chief justice, including betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Representatives Niel Tupas Jr., Joseph Emilio Abaya, Lorenzo Tañada III, Reynaldo Umali and Arlene Bag-ao are among those expected to file “an instant verified complaint/resolution of impeachment against [Corona]…[and in accordance with rules]…to transmit to the Senate of the Philippines the [complaint] to serve as the articles of impeachment for trial.”

They are to be joined by private complainants Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel, Rodolfo Lozada Jr., Juan Carlo Tejano, and Lea Lopez Navarro.

The eight grounds cited  in the complaint are as follows:

– Corona allegedly betrayed the public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice and until his dubious appointment as a “midnight” chief justice to the present.

– Corona allegedly committed culpable violation of the constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as required under Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

– Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that “[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”

– Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the constitution when it blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then- Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

– Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerry-mandering in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

– Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

– Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in 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’s own TRO.

– Corona allegedly betrayed the public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund (JDF) and special allowance for the judiciary (SAJ) collections.