This page contains links and documents pertinent to the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. It is divided into three parts: I. Links to the Constitution; rules of procedure on the impeachment trial; a glossary of legal terms; an infographic guide to impeachment; the articles of impeachment against the chief justice; a link to a page in the Senate website live streaming the trial; and other pages you may find useful.
Links to documents issued by the prosecution and defense; and III. Links to files from the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. Tally of votes: To read the speeches of the Senator-Judges explaining their verdict, click on the image or click here. Corona December 12, In the matter of the impeachment of Renato C. In simplest terms, Respondent wanted and needed something from Mrs.
Arroyo i. Arroyo, in turn, wanted or needed something for Respondent i. The People can do the math. Aside from the specific cases herein discussed, the following cases decided by the Court with Respondent as Chief Justice further betray his consistent lack of independence and bias towards protecting Arroyo:. It is provided for in Art. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.
Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a sq.
Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec. Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?
Respondent was appointed to the Supreme Court on April 9, by Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Prior to his appointment, he served Arroyo for many years as her chief of staff, and spokesman when she was Vice-President, and later as her Presidential Chief-of-Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary. Thus, it has been ruled by no less than the Supreme Court that:. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary.
High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be preserved. Philippine Airlines, Inc. The matter is made worse since the recall is reported to have been at the instance of Respondent Corona, who admitted that in , he inhibited from the case.
How then can he justify his interference in this case today? Why take part or interfere now? It must also be recalled that Estelito Mendoza is also the same person who filed Administrative Matter No. Arroyo may appoint the next Chief Justice despite the constitutional ban; and through which petition, made it possible for the Supreme Court to legitimize and provide not only a strained but obviously erroneous basis for the midnight and constitutionally-prohibited appointment of Respondent.
In Rosauro v. While a judge should possess proficiency in law in order that he can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that he should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before him should have confidence in his impartiality. Thus, it is not enough that he decides cases without bias and favoritism. Nor is it sufficient that he in fact rids himself of prepossessions.
His actuations should moreover inspire that belief. If a decision that is legally correct or justifiable can suffer from a suspicion of impartiality, more so will a decision that is entirely unsupported by legal reasoning.
Respondent further compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March 23, from Mrs. Instead of acting upon the serious complaints against Mrs. Corona, Mrs. Arroyo instructed all members of the JHMC to tender their courtesy resignations immediately. After the resignations, Mrs. Corona was retained and even promoted after President Arroyo expressed her desire for Mrs. Despite the numerous other complaints against Mrs.
Ignatius Village in Quezon City, Mrs. Corona was not removed from her position. Arroyo expressed through several desire letters issued to the BCDA specifically to ensure the election of Mrs.
This also explains why despite the serious complaints against Mrs. Arroyo never removed her from JHMC but instead kept on promoting and protecting her. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct further provides that it is unethical for a magistrate and members of his family to ask for or receive any gift in exchange for any act done or to be done by the judge in the course of his judicial functions:. Clearly, a grossly improper although personally and mutually beneficial relationship between the Respondent and Mrs. Arroyo was created when Mrs. Corona was appointed to the JHMC. The appointment of Mrs. Corona in JHMC as its highest management officer is clearly intended to secure the loyalty and vote of Respondent in the Supreme Court.
Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. Likewise, they are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The Code clearly prohibits judges or members of their families from asking for or accepting, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.
Respondent judge failed to live up to these standards. Respondent should be held to even higher standards because he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Corona received a substantial salary, aside from other perks of the job, including cars and various travel opportunities. In exchange, as discussed above, the voting record of Respondent in the Supreme Court indicate an unmistakable pattern of favoring Arroyo in cases brought before the Supreme Court challenging her policies and actions.
Respondent reportedly dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses. Numerous personal expenses that have nothing to do with the discharge of his official functions, such as lavish lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and fetes and parties, have reportedly been charged by the Respondent to judicial funds.
In essence, Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures. It is therefore apparent that there is reasonable ground to hold Respondent for the reported misuse of public funds, and in acts that would qualify as violations of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act, including malversation of public funds, and use of public funds for private purposes.
In addition, Respondent Corona failed to maintain high standards of judicial conduct in connection with the Vizconde massacre case, in the process, casted doubt upon the integrity of the Supreme Court itself. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue. Despite these strictures, Respondent has directly, deliberately, and shamelessly attempted to destroy the credibility and standing of the Supreme Court with respect to one important and publicly-celebrated case that was before it on automatic appeal: the celebrated Vizconde Massacre case.
During the courtesy call, Vizconde asked the Respondent about the status of the multiple murder case against Hubert Webb and the other accused, which was at the time pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Despite the obvious impropriety, Respondent, instead of rebuffing Vizconde for asking the questions, engaged Vizconde in a personal and ex-parte conversation regarding a case then pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
Worse, in the course of the conversation, Respondent told Vizconde, in the presence of Jimenez, that fellow Justice Antonio Carpio was allegedly lobbying for the acquittal of Hubert Webb. The fact that Respondent spoke with Vizconde regarding a case pending before the Supreme Court is in itself already a serious breach of the rule of confidentiality that must be maintained by the Court with respect to cases pending before it, as well as the deliberations of the members of the Court.
Such confidentiality is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that members of the Court are insulated from lobbying and pressure coming from any of the litigants of a pending case. At the very least, Justice Sabio should have realized that his discussions of court matters, especially those that have not yet been made of public record, with persons who are interested in the case were incredibly indiscreet and tended to undermine the integrity of judicial processes.
Significantly, Respondent signed and concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court. Yet, Respondent Corona committed the same pernicious act of discussing a pending case with interested parties. Worse, however, is the fact that Respondent intrigued against the honor and integrity of a fellow Justice in his absence, in the process, maligning and undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution.
By painting for Vizconde a picture of a Court that is subject to the influence of one out of 15 Justices, and making it appear that the eventual decision of the Court in the case would be attributable to internal arm-twisting and influence, Respondent destroyed the credibility of the very institution that he was supposed to be leading. In trying to pin the blame of a possible acquittal upon a fellow Justice, Respondent was himself sowing the seeds of discontent and distrust of the Supreme Court with a party litigant.
As it happened, Vizconde and Jimenez did raise the supposed internal arm-twisting and influence before the media while the case was in the final stages of decision. By provoking Vizconde to pre-empt the decision with negative publicity, Respondent himself is guilty of directly undermining the trust and confidence of the public in the Supreme Court regardless of what its decision would have later turned out to be. Worse still, is that the act of the Respondent violates Sec.
Given the high profile of the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time of the conservation, the Supreme Court had already begun deliberations on the case, and that Respondent already had a sense of what the decision of the Court would probably be. Respondent Corona with undue haste, impropriety and irregularity, dismissed the inter-petal recreational corporation case 33 under suspicious circumstances.
Respondent was accused by Fernando Campos of unethical conduct when he met ex parte with the lawyer of the adverse party in connection with a pending case before him. In an attempt to defend himself against the complaint for unethical conduct filed against him by Campos, Respondent explicitly admitted violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
In his letter dated February 8, to the Judicial and Bar Council JBC , Respondent refuted the claim of Campos that he allegedly met with a lawyer of Philweb Corporation in connection with a case pending before him but countered that:. I was pestered by calls from different people on his behalf. In allowing himself to be approached by persons which he knew were trying to exercise their influence over him on a particular case pending before him and in failing to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against such actions, Respondent violated basic precepts of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides, among others, that:.
Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Vasquez , 34 the Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to a failure to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of a judge. For emphasis, Respondent signed and concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court. Surely, Respondent, as Chief Justice, cannot be exempt from the same rule and principle. As Chief Justice, he must in fact be held to a higher standard.
The Supreme Court further said of justices:. In my text, I criticized why they were impeaching CJ Corona on what was then turning out to be a mere error in his SALN, which could simply be corrected. Mike happened to be a close friend of the lady student, and he came into contact with Noynoy Aquino.
In short, Noynoy Aquino also courted Mike Musngi to win the object of his heart. Noynoy Aquino appointed him as Sandiganbayan justice. He has been serving in such capacity up to now. Mike was my classmate for four years at the Ateneo de Manila University when we studied for our college degree in political science.
Bordering on insult, his text to me embittered me even more, serving to further disillusion me in the face of the illegitimate assault of his boss Noynoy Aquino.
Since then, I have never again sent even one single text to my erstwhile friend and classmate Mike Musngi. In fact, I never became a political supporter of the Aquino administration even if I have a number of friends with key ties to the Liberal Party. Oddly enough, I became the lawyer of Matobato in , ultimately bringing me to personally file that communication in the ICC in April against President Duterte.
With Senators Trillanes and de Lima backing up Matobato, the public perceived the hand of the Liberal Party-led opposition in the state of affairs. In fact, ever since the Corona impeachment that saw the judiciary being humiliated by an all-too powerful president, I came to detest the Liberal Party which could not have exerted its political dictation and influence upon me.
For me, they represented a valiant stand against what I perceived as presidential abuse against the judiciary. Years after the fall of CJ Corona, the very same senators and congressmen who axed Corona in support of Aquino came to be the very same persons who wanted to axe CJ Sereno in support of the wish of the Duterte government, in the all-too familiar perennial pattern of political turncoatism.
It is now a matter of speculation whether our lawmakers would have also removed CJ Sereno due to the same SALN violations if the impeachment went on.
0コメント