Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder Feb6 A1019

Consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder Feb6 A1019

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by RG Cruz

More info:

Published by: RG Cruz on Feb 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
,
3Republtc
of
tue
tlUilippine53
!
I
,r,::
,
,;~,)
('
tl
tl
f
F'
Q.Congrtss
of
tbe
llbilippint%
{t)(fHC
of I!!J:';:','rtl"brl:!
~enate
·12
FE8
-6
A10
:19
SITTING
AS
THE
IMPEACHME~TI~OUR!f;:IY;~
I
,
IN
THE
MATTER
OF
THE
IMPEACHMENT
OF
RENATO
C.
CORONA
AS
CHIEF
JUSTICE
OF
THE
SUPREMECOURT
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES
NIEL
C.
TUPAS, JR.,
JOSEPHEMILIO
A.
ABAYA,
LORENZO
R.
TANADA
III,
REYNALDO
V.
UMALI,
ARLENE
J.
BAG-AO,
et
a!.
CasdNo.
002-2011
1
I
I
I
I
I
x
..................
~
..
--
.....
---
.................
---
..
--
.............
-
.........................
---
........
_
...
_
. ___ ......
_
.
_
. __
~'".
__
....
_
.
__
;
.....
____
...
_~
.......
v._
....
_
.....
__
..........................
x
CONSOLIDATED
opPOSr:hON
AND
REJOINDER
I
I
Chief Justice Renato
C.
Corona
("CJ
Corona"), by cbunsel, presents additionalgrounds and arguments to oppose the requests for sUbPolnae
in
relation to certainbank accounts, without waiving his right to
file
the aplroPriate legal remedy to
i
question, among others, the legality
of
these proceedings, respectfully states:
I
1.
Complainants filed,
on
31
January
2012,
1eparate requests for theissuance
of
subpoenac
of
records and statements for bank abcounts
in
the
Bank
of
the
I
Co~solidated
Opposition
and
Rejoinder
I
Page
1
rif12
 
I
Philippine Islands and PS Bank (Requests).
CJ
Corona dIed Oppositions
,
to both
Requests
on
1 February 2012. Complainants filed a Reply
to
the Oppositions, citing
I
ommissions in their Requests arising
out
of
"inadvertencd." Before the Honorable
,
I
Impeachment
Court
could rule
on
the matter, however, Complainants withdrew their
I
I
requests.
On
2 February 2012, Complainants filed their
~upplemental
Request for
!
Subpoenae/Reply.
!
2.
In
their Consolidated Reply, Complainant$argue that, "as chief
,
magistrate, his
bank
accounts, including his accounts in
BPI!
and
PS Bank
* *
must
be
,
shown to have
been
correctly reflected in his SALN, and
he
therefore relevant and
!
material to A1iicle II."!
I
3.
Again, Article
II
deals with non-disclosure
of
~e
SALNs
of
CJ
Corona.
I
I
To
even proceed
to
consider omissions
in
the
declaration~
of
the SALNs is already
I
I
I
eyond the allegation in Article II.
,
4.
Once
again, the Impeachment Court
is
!being hoodwinked intosanctioning a fishing expedition. Indeed, this has grown dresome to the
point that
complainants have
been
publicly warned
''You
can fool
sole
of
tlle people
all
of
thetime, and all
of
the people some
of
the time,
but
you can't
~OOI
all
of
the people
all
of
the time.,,2
THE
STANDARD
REQUIRED
I
i
I
1
Par. 8 of Reply, 2
February
2012.
I
2
This quotation is equally attributed
to
Abraham Lincoln and P. T. Barnum;isee also, Solita Collas-Monsod
inher
Article
Get
Real,Philippine
Daify
Itlquim;
3 February 2012.
i
D10Jidated
Opposition
and fujoinder
I
Page
2
of
12
 
5.
At
the hearing
of
2 February 2012, the
H+orable
Presiding Officerflatly stated the standard required for the issuance
of
subpodnae sought,
vii;:
I
The
Presiding
Officer. I was about to issue the subpoena but, you know,may I request you to canalize things that you
will
require. BecJuse under Section 2
of
the Bill
of
Rights, the inviolability
of
persons and things,
andl
papers,
and
effects
of
citizens
of
this country
is
provided and we cannot conduct any subpoena that might
turn
out
to be an
unreasonable seatch. So, please, when
fou
ask us
to
issue asubpoena, specify the account number and the patticular tr'/nsaction involved andthe documents that you want
to be
subpoenaed.'
I!
I
6.
Plainly, the Impeachment Court
will
not
allot
an unreasonable search.
i
The
rule established by jurisprudence is that a search
is
la~ful
if
there are facts and
,
circumstances that would lead a reasonable, discreet and
p~dent
man to believe thatthere has been a crime committed and the
things
and objedts connected to the crime
I
are in the place to be searched.
4
It
is
insufficient,
therefo~e,
that the Requests for a
!!
subpoena identify a particular account; they must also
idenify
a particular transactionand the relevant documents. Regrettably, the Requests fot subpoenae do
not
state
I
more than the account names and numbers
of
C] Corona
~nd
his children. There is,
I
thus,
no
basis offered to even suspect that these transfctions were
lt1
any wayanomalous
or
illegal.
COMPLAINANTS'
REQUESTS
SEEK
TO
CIRCUMVENT
THIS
HONORABLERESOLUTION
JANUARY
2012.
31SN
of
2
February
2012,
p.
67
COURT'S
DATED
27
4
Pea.
v.
Mamaril,
C.R. No.
171980, October
6,
2010;
Belay,
Sr.
v.
Calif
Jares,
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1608, 28
February
2006, 483 SCRA 435, 444.
i
Consolidated
Opposition
and Rtjoinder
.
Pagc3
'!I12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->