.

of tql1 ,fri1ipjrlulls
@,nnguss nf flrt Jlfilippinl1s

'12 FEB -1 A10:17
SITTING AS THE 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. ARAYA,
LORENZO R. TANAnA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et ale
i
Casel No. 002-2011
1r __ MMM ___ M ______ ____ __________ w ____ ________ ____________ __________________
OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST
FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAE
I
(pS Bank)
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by cqunsel, to present the bases
of his opposition to a request for subpoena by the J>rosecj.ttion, without waiving his
right to file the appropriate legal remedy to question the leblity of these proceedings,
respectfully states:
I
Opposition to fuquest for Issllance of 5 ttbpoena for P SBank
Page t 0/6
1. In a Request for Issuance "Of Subpoenae d f t ~ d 31 January 2012, the
House of Representatives seeks the issuance of subpdenae ad te.rtijicandflw and
I
I
subpoenae dtlce.r teCIIW to require the President/Manager/oJPer authorized officers of
PS Bank G/F PSBank Center, 777 Paseo de Roxas Ave. comer Sedeiio Street, 1vlakati
,
City, and or any of the PSBank branches which may be involved herewith, to testify
and bring t}:te orig1naI and certified true copies of Specimen SiguatuJ::e Cards of the
bank account which won phpl Million in the PSBank: Monthly Millions Raffle
Promo; Monthly Bank Statements from the time of opening up to January 2012; and
odler bank accounts, including time deposits, money mark"t placements, peso/dollar
accounts and the like, in the name of RENATO COR<DNA and/or CRISTINA
CORONA.
2. At the outset, it bears stressing that the requested documents pertaining
were not pre-marked and have not been mentioned in the proceedings thus far, or in
the very least, there is no indication thereof. The Request' cannot even point to any
document identifying the PSBank as a depositary of CJ Corona, much less identify any
account therein, unless this information is lifted from an officer of PSBank or any
private document in the naD.le of CJ Corona. Indeed, this Request is aking to acting
on suspicion, tumor or reports and other such similar haunqhes or guesswork.
3. The attempt to resort to the compulsory{ process of subpoena to
introduce these documents and related testimony in an aempt to possibly uncover
more definite leads to evidence is a fishing expedition for .evidence that is obviously
irrelevant and immaterial No doubt, this is not sound Ibasis upon which a valid
request for subpoena testijiumdum ad duces tecum can be made. ,
Opposition to Request fir I ssuanee ofS ubpoena for PSBank
Page 2 of6
I
4. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Com1: istates that ce)vidence is
,
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not by'the law or these
rules." Conversely, the Rule advises us that irrelevant is not admissible.
5. It is therefore obvious that the testimony ofl the person named in the
,
Request and the documents identified therein ate dearly iutendedby the prosecution
to prove pa.ragraph 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint, whiFh states:
2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused lof having accumulated
ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values ,and keepirlg bank accounts with
huge deposits. It has becu n'po.tted that Respondcut has, a.hong others, a 300-sq.
mete.!: apa.ttment in a posh Mega World Property at the in Taguig.
Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally required under !Art. Xl, Sec. 17 of the
Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and *et Worth (SALN,)? Is
this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income asl a public official? Since
his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice,1 has he complied with
his duty of public disclosru:e? (Emphasis supplied)
6. However, this Honorable Court already ruledl that the above patagraph
,
i
2.4 does not contain statements of ultimate fact and must pe deemed excluded from
the Impeachment Trial. This Honorable Court disallowed the
i
prosecution from introducing any evidence relating to patagraph 2.4. On this
,
score alone, the subject Request must perforce be [or being irrcievanl;
I
immaterial, and disallowed by this Honorable Court_
7. In this regatd, CJ Corona reiterates that 2.4 is merely based on
I
"reports" and "suspicion", contrary to the joint of the Complainants that
,
!
the "the allegations therein (the Complaint) ate true of own knowledge." The
"reports" and "suspicions" ate also contrary to the req$ements of the Rules of
Opposition to Requestf4r Issuance rrfSubpoena for PSRank
Pagd rrf6
i
i
Court, whidl have suppletoxy application, that allegations inl the Complaint must be of
,
"ultimate facts." (Sec. 3, Rule 3).
8, From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that paragraph . 2.4 of the
!
I
Impeachment Complaint relating to respondent's "ill-gotten wealth, assets
I
of high values and bank accounts 'with huge deposits" was cbrrectly deemed unwritten
I
by tllls Honorable Court in the impeachment complaint.
9. Considering that paragraph 2.4 1S deemed I unwritten, any evidence
I
relating thereto is inadmissible and irrelevant.
10. As always emphasized by CJ Corona, II of the Impeachment
I
Complaint, merely charges CJ Corona with the following:
I
RESPONDENT COMMITTED VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR THE
PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED T<1 DISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT I OF ASSETS,
LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS REqUIRED UNDER
SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUtfION.
I
11. Under Article II of the Grounds for ImpeacHment, CJ Corona is being
I
accused of a single culpable act - his alleged failw:e to Ilisclose to the public his
I
I
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), nothing mote, Article II does
not charge him with accumulating ill-gotten wealth and/or graft and corruption.
I
12. At any rate, even assuming that CJ Corona did win a raffle prize, the
I
I
same does not constitute ill-gotten wealth and/or gra[L and Forruption.
Opposition to Request jJr Issuonce uf Subpoena for PSBank
Page 4 uf6
13. In this case, the testimony of the officers of pSBank 011 the purported
,
;
bank account and raffle w-innings of CJ Corona and! 01 his wife, as well as the
presentation thereof, are cle!!rly :irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether or
not CJ Corona failed to his disclose his SALN to the PUhlib. The presentation of the
i
,
requested bank documents and testimony of the maUers 1ubject of the Request are
therefore improper. I
14. From the it is clear that the Requfst is nothing more but a
1
b11lzen attempt to introduce irrelevant and immaterial in these proceedings,
i
I
in violation of CJ Corona's right to due process.
I
PRAYER
i
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions I of law, jm-isprodence and
I
arguments adduced, it is respectfully p11lyed that this Impeachment Court DENY
I
complainants' Request for the Issuance of Subpoenae datedi31 January 2012.
I
1
i
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the are likewise prayed for.
lVIakati for Pasay City, 31 January 2012.
i
1
Respectfully Submitted by i
Counsel for' . ato C. Cqrona.
JOSEM.R .II .
PTR No. 2643183; 1 /11; Milici City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lif4time)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065 :
.!vIeLE Exemption No. I-000176i
OpplJSiJioll 1<J'di;qUCit fl,r ISllUJIle if{ S ubpoBfla for PSBmlk
Page 5 if{6
DENNIS'P. MANALO
PTR No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makdti City
IBP No. 839371; 3 January City
Roll No. 40950, 12 Apri11996 I
MCLE Compliance No. m-0009471, 26
!
HOOS- ?qOS,f.-d.:.JilON PANEL
Copies furnished:
House of Representatives
Batasan Complex
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
DAn
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building

Pasay City
I
RECEIVED
:
B,,,-' -:;;;;,t..:.--++--
i
OPPOSt'tiOII to Reqttest fl,r of Sttbpoena for PSBank
I p(tgc 6 oj6