lIf f411 lII4ilippiullS

Qhruguss nf tIfc lII4ilippittcl>

uStnaft
'"'

"
CZHf
1
f& cf g!,:S"nebru
'12 FEB -8 1\9 :09
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF
RENATO C. CORONA AS
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL
C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.,
Complainants.
...
Case No. 002-2011
)(--------------------------------------------------J{
MOTION TO STOP RECEPTioN OF EVIDENCE
(in rdation to FASAP CASE and ARTICLE III)
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (CJ Corona), through his undersigned
counsel, most .respectfully states that:
1. In the Verified Complaint filed by the Complainants, CJ Corona is
being made liable for the alleged flip-flopping of decision by the Supreme
Court in the cases of FASAP v. Philippine Airlines (FASAP Case). Accordingly,
the Prosecution has begun presenting evidence on the afore-mentioned cases.
Pagel qf4
Motion to Exclude Presentation of Evidence
2. As a precautionary measure, and to prevent violation of the
rights of any parties involved in these cases, it must be emphasized that the
F ASAP is still pending before the Supreme Court, hence, covered by the
suijudice rule. In the case of Mo'!fort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation
v. RnlandoV. Ramirez, (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357, 28 March 2001) the Supreme
Court defined the suijudice rule and elaborated on its application, vii;:
S uijudicc is defined as, "under or before a judge or court; under judicial
consideration; undetermined" (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
1990). A case in point is Evan B. Calida vs. Judge fulfael Santa/cds (A.M. No.
RTJ-99-1443, March 14, 2000) wherein the Court made the following
pronouncement:
The issue of whether or not the plaintiff made admissions as to
its liability and whether or not the plaintiff was caught injlagrante
delicto are still suijudicc. The trial of the merits of Civil Case No.
9441 before the regional trial court is still going on and
besides the question poised by these issues are judicial in
character as these go to the assessment by respondent of
the evidence of the parties. In such case the remedy of the
complainant are those found in the Rules of Court and not an
administrative case.
The issues of prior physical possession and lack of sufficient basis in arriving
at a decision in Civil Case No. 822, are st/bjt/dice due to the fact that the
Court of Appeals has yet to render its decision on the matter.
Complainant's remedy regarding these matters is the final resolution of Civil
Case No. 822 which, understandably, cannot be treated in this administrative
case. (Emphasis supplied)
3. The su1:Jildice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or
obstructing the administration of justice\ This matter was raised by CJ Corona
in his Answer to Article V, particularly pars. 15, 16 and 17 which aver:
15. The other two cases-Navarro and FASAP-have not yet been
decided with finality since they are still subject of unresolved motions for
reconsideration. Consequendy, it would be inappropriate and unethical for
the Chief Justice to dwell on their merits in this Answer.
16. Besides, it would also be unfair, improper, and premature for the
1 Regbis M. Romero 11 of ah v. Senator ji'lggI!J E. Estrada dnd Se/Jate Committee on Labor, EmployfIJet1t and Hllmall RJ!lJtlrces
D,whPRleII!, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009
Page 2 0[4
Motion to Exclude Presentation of Evidence
Impeacbm':nt Court to discuss the merits of these two cases since such could
very well influence the result of the case pending with the Supreme Court. At
any rate, if the Impeachment Court decides to look into these two cases, then
it may have to give the parties to the case the opportunity to be heard. This
would amount to an attempt to exercise judicial power.
17. For the above reasons, C] Corona cannot make any comment on
the Navarro and FASAP Cases, for he would be required to take a stand on
the issues. It will be recalled that he inhibited in FASAP. In Navarro, he is
likewise prohibited from making any comment as it is still subjudice.
4. The foregoing discussions places the issue regarding the FASAP
case well within the suo/udiee rule and therefore, any evidence presented in this
regard should not be allowed by the Impeachment Court until the F ASAP Case
is settled before the Supreme Court.
5. At the very least, it would be in the best interests of all concerned
for the Honorable Impeachment Court to consider the implications of any
discussions on cases pending before the Supreme Court, in light of the
principle of separation of powers between the branches of government.
WHEREFORE, it IS respectfully prayed that this Honorable
Impeachment Court stop, disallow and exclude the introduction of any
evidence pertaining to the FASAP Case.
8 February 2012, Makati City for Pasay City.
Respectfully Submitted by
Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
JOSEM. III
PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
Page J '!f4
Motion to Exclude Presentation if Evidence
DENNIS P. MANALO
PTR No. 3175833; 2 January 2012, Makari City
IBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010
Counsel for CJ Corona
Suite 1902 Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue, Makari City 1226
Copies furnished:
House of Representatives
Batasan CompLex
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building ,"'= ..........
Macapagal Highway He; PANEl.
Pasay City
Pag' 4 of4
Motion to Exclude PreJ'6'lttation ifEtJidollce