This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Congress of tbe Philippines
, .:.: sEAlAifE;::
,\'.' of fr.:»'
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
'12 FEB -6 Pl2 :16
IN THE MATTER
IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.
CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
COURT OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES NIEl C. TUPAS,
JR. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III, REYNALDO
V. UMALI, ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et.
Case No. 002 - 2011
(To: OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAE
DATED 1 FEBRUARY 2012 TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES [PAL] OFFICERS)
The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS,
1. In his Opposition dated 02 February 2012, respondent Renato
C. Corona alleges that the requested subpoenae will violate his
constitutional right to due process because Article III of the Verified
Impeachment Complaint does not mention a "PAL Platinum Card in the
name of CJ Corona or his wife, and their patronage of Philippine Airline
(sic), any act or circumstance pertaining to the procurement of the said
card, or any benefits or privileges that Chief Justice and Mrs. Corona
obtained from it." He further alleges that said Platinum Card and the
related documents are irrelevant and immaterial because it is not
connected with the action ofthe Supreme Court in any of its decisions.
2. Contrary to respondent's frenetic objection, the PAL tickets
and related documents have everything to do with Article III.
3. Article III of the Impeachment Complaint charges respondent
Corona of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betraying
the public trust by failing to meet the constitutional standards of
competence, integrity, probity and independence, thus:,
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY
FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS
UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT
PROVIDES THAT "[Al MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A
PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND
INDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT
ON MERE LEITERS FILED BY A COUNSel WHICH CAUSED THE
ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND
EXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVE
ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER
APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING
WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THE
4. The Impeachment Complaint alleges that respondent failed to
meet these constitutional standards by (inter alia) allowing the Supreme
Court to act on the ex parte letters of the counsel for Philippine Airlines
(PAL) which caused the flip-flopping in final and executory cases.
Respondent asserted that he has inhibited from the FASAP Case, but the
prosecution will prove that despite such inhibition, respondent actually
participated in the proceedings of Flight Attendants and Stewards
Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (FASAP
Case), and the issuance of the 04 October 2011 Resolution therein. The
said Resolution caused the recall of an otherwise final decision in the case
on the basis of the ex parte letters of PAL's counsel.
5. With the PAL tickets, PAL platinum card, and other related
documents sought to be subpoenaed, it will be shown that respondent
availed of benefits from PAL for himself and his family. This will establish
the questionable motive behind respondent's participation (despite
previous inhibitions) in the 04 October 2011 Resolution which acted on the
ex parte communication of PAL's counsel. This peculiar deviation from the
established rules of procedure, under the prevailing circumstances, goes
into the very core of respondent's competence, integrity, probity, and
6. In other words, it will be shown that despite his previous
inhibitions in the FASAP case, respondent Corona actually participated
therein and directed the recall of the FASAP Decision. Why did he interfere
and take part in the recall of the Decision? Because he was impelled by
motives other than impartial dispensation of justice. During the pendency
of the case, respondent accepted free tickets from Philippine Airlines, Inc.,
among others. This is where the evidence sought to be procured becomes
relevant and material.
7. With the documents sought to be subpoenaed, it will be
shown that respondent Corona's participation in the FASAP case was not a
harmless or innocent act. Rather, it was motivated by material gain and
advantage. In short, it was a culpable act.
8. Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Relevancy of evidence
deals with the rational relationship between evidence and the fact to be
proved. On the other hand, evidence is material if it is the "main fact which
is the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that
fact." (Acuna vs. Pascua, G.R. No. 144692, January 31, 2005). Materiality
has to do with the relationship between the evidence and the issues raised
at tria I.
9. In this case, the facts to be proved are Respondent Corona's
culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,
particularly on the Constitutional standards of competence, integrity,
probity and independence of respondent. The documents sought to be
subpoenaed from PAL are evidence to establish the prosecution's claim
that respondent Corona lacks the requisite competence, integrity, probity,
and independence. Accordingly, these documents are relevant, material,
and pertinent to prove Article III.
10. Applicable to this case is the impeachment of Judge Robert w.
Archbald of the Commerce Court in 1913 in the United States. Judge
Archbald was removed for serious acts of misconduct stretching over many
years, including using his office to obtain advantageous business deals and
free trips to Europe
and improper business relationship with litigants.
1 Impeachment, United States Senate, Available at
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/historv(common/briefiog/SenatelmpeachmentRole.htm (last accessed 03 February 2012)
2 Impeachment of Federeal Judges. United States Federal Judicial Center. Available at
http:Uwww.fic.gov/history/home.nsf/page/iudgesimpeachments.html(last accessed 03 February 2012)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the House of Representatives prays that this
Honorable Court ISSUE the subpoena requested on 01 February 2012.
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.
Pasay City, Metro Manila, 02 February 2012.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESE TATIVES PROSECUT RS
Justice Serafin R. Cuevas (Ret.) et al.
Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona
Suite 1902 Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City, Philippines 1226