Impeachment trial of judge corona

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:.

Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, members of the bench should freely and willingly accept behavioral restrictions that may be viewed by ordinary citizens as burdensome. On September 13, , Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment proceedings against her.

Respondent railroaded the proceedings in order to have a Status Quo Ante Order issued in favor of Gutierrez. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Court, in issuing the said order, was overly intrusive with respect to a power that does not belong to it by restraining without hearing a co-equal branch of Government. This belief was made more acute by the fact that the order was voted upon in the morning of 14 September , without the benefit of a genuinely informed debate, since several members of the Court, myself included, had not yet then received a copy of the Petition.

A Supreme Court delivery receipt published by the news magazine Newsbreak also showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three 3 justices who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition only on September 15, , a day after the status quo ante order was granted.

These justices were Justices Velasco, Bersamin and Perez. The issuance of the order also directly violates the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from doing its constitutional mandate of initiating impeachment proceedings. The principle of immutability of final judgments is one of the primordial rules for having a credible and effective system of administration of justice.

Under this principle:. As explained by the Supreme Court in its earliest years, such a principle is an important requirement for a credible and effective system of administration of justice, thus:.

The very purpose for which the courts are organized is to put an end to controversy, to decide the questions submitted to the litigants, and to determine the respective rights of the parties. With the full knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit their respective claims for judgment, and they have a right at some time or other to have final judgment on which they can rely as a final disposition of the issue submitted, and to know that there is an end to the litigation.

In the Navarro case, the flip-flop was instigated by the intervention of non-parties who stood to benefit financially and politically from the re-opening of a final and executory judgment to the original case. The League of Cities v. COMELEC case was originally decided by the Supreme Court on November 18, , wherein the Court declared as unconstitutional and void the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities due to failure to meet the legal requirements for income for cities under the Local Government Code.

Upon motion for reconsideration, The Court affirmed its judgment on April 28, , after the Court denied a prohibited second motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities.

The ruling became final on May 21, They filed several pleadings all obviously intended to circumvent the prohibition against second and subsequent motions for reconsideration and to subvert the rule on immutability of final judgments, to wit:. On December 21, , the Supreme Court reversed the decision of November 18, despite the fact that the decision was already final and executory, and that the pleadings and communications that led to the decision were either expressly prohibited pleadings or non-pleadings that have no place in litigation or the Rules of Court.

This prompted the League of Cities to file a motion for reconsideration to reverse the December 21, ruling, calling the attention of the Court to the inconsistency of the decision with the standing Rules of Court and the principles of finality of judgment.

On August 24, , the Supreme Court reversed the December 21, decision and reinstated its original November 28, decision. As Chief Justice and leader of the Supreme Court, he should not have allowed the Court to entertain prohibited pleadings because it undermines the integrity of the Court and its rules of procedure. On February 15, , the Court granted the motion for reconsideration, and reversed the reversal of the reversal of the original decision, i.

The unprecedented flip-flopping of the Supreme Court happened in just a span of six months and under the same tutelage of Respondent Corona. Subsequently, in the case of Navarro v. In this case, the Supreme Court had decided against the constitutionality of the creation of the Province of Dinagat Island back in February 10, The judgment became final and executory, and an Entry of Judgment was made on May 18, According to the Rules of Court, the Entry of Judgment is a ministerial act that records the absolute irrevocability of a decision of a court, after the same has become final and executory.

Beyond all plausible reason, however, the Supreme Court found the means to conduct the verbal gymnastics and semantic contortions necessary to perform a totally unprecedented judicial somersault. This amazing maneuver was accomplished upon the instigation, a full month after the entry of judgment, of so-called motions for intervention by the prospective provincial officials and congressional representatives of Dinagat Island, which were denied by the Court considering that they were not even parties to the original proceedings and intervention cannot be allowed after the case has already been terminated.

So blatantly contrary to all judicial reason was this act of the Court that even Associate Justice Brion pointed out in his Dissenting Opinion that the decision directly violated its own internal rules and at least three major foundations of the administration of justice, particularly:.

Of course, it can similarly be called a miracle as no reversal could have taken place if just one of the series of transgressions pointed out did not take place. How such resurrection can happen in the Supreme Court is a continuing source of wonder! In this case, the Supreme Court had already promulgated a decision dated 22 July , holding that the retrenchment effected by PAL in of more than 1, of its flight attendants was illegal.

And as with the League of Cities v. Canon 2, sec. It is also practically a universal rule among judiciaries worldwide. The Vinuya vs. At least three foreign authors works were allegedly plagiarized. But aside from the issue of plagiarism itself, after copying from the articles, the Court allegedly made them appear to support the opposite conclusion; i.

It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Respondent, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee that determined the culpability of a Justice of the Supreme Court — an impeachable officer.

Respondent had no power to do this since under the Constitution, the power to make accountable impeachable officers belonged to the House of Representatives. Thus, Respondent betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court. To reiterate, such authority and jurisdiction has been reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

By constituting such a committee, and by arrogating unto himself power to determine the culpability of Justice del Castillo and exonerating him in the end, Respondent thereby encroached on the sole power and duty of the House of Representatives to determine, by impeachment, whether Justice Del Castillo was to be held accountable, in violation of the principle of separation of powers of the Legislature and the Judiciary.

The survey only has three questions. Does Corona deserve his position as Chief Justice? Do the […]. When the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona first came out, there were many who expressed their believe that he would be acquitted right off the bat. Reynaldo Umali on Thursday said he is ready to face a possible ethics complaint filed by the House minority for producing an […].

Ito ang sinabi kahapon ni Justice Secretary Leila de Lima sa kanyang pagtestigo kahapon sa impeachment court matapos […]. Corona Impeachment Posted in: Uncategorized.

Love a. Jun Banaag is Turned Off by senmiriam March 1, 2. Similarly, the Chief Justice cannot be held liable for betrayal of public trust.

Father Joaquin Bernas explained that betrayal of public trust implies deliberate intent and perhaps a certain degree of perversity for it is not easy to imagine that individuals of the category of these impeachable officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands.

It must be of the same gravity as the other offenses in the class. In other words, not every violation of public trust is an impeachable offense. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the failure to disclose in the SALN his dollar accounts will not amount to an impeachable breach of trust. Indeed, the penalty of violation of the SALN is only a fine not exceeding P5, or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both which cannot compare with a severe penalties for treason, bribery, and graft and corruption.

More importantly even before we can get the matter of penalty for non-disclosure or non-inclusion, RA itself provides corrective measure under Section 10 thereof: Our force of logic, there is no violation of law where the law itself provides a corrective measure.

All that needs to be done is to call the attention of the Public Officer. This is the remedy of first he sworn—not to punish him much less to remove him from office.

I further wish to point out that pursuant to the separation of powers are constitution vests the important role of impeachment in congress, hoping that it will act independently. In hearing the impeachment of the officials of the other branches regrettably we have witnessed the unusual rubberstamping by the majority of the House of Representatives who never even read the Articles of Impeachment. The blitzkrieg endorsement of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate was principally undertaken by the party mates of the President.

The President then repeatedly declared that he wanted the Chief Justice removed. In support, the Executive Branch then lent its full and awesome powers to interfere in the Impeachment proceedings, to oust the Chief Justice and to intimidate the Supreme Court.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue divulged confidential income tax returns and commenced investigation of the Chief Justice and his entire family.

The Commission on Audit disauthorized the purchase of the Basa-Guidote property after 11 long years. Decadence of their actions imply a conductor. Such a due interference by the Executive Department in order to undermine the Judicial Department is clearly intended to weaken and then control the latter department. To do away with effective checks and balances under a tripartite government system under the pretext that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are impediments to reforms sought by him, the President aims to remove the Chief Justice and make the Supreme Court subservient to his whims.

It is our fervent hope that the Senate will not lend its assistance to this plot. Let not this institution allow the guillotine to fall on the judicial independence.

During the time of U. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a similar situation occurred. After being repeatedly rebuked by the Supreme Court, it peeved President Roosevelt wanted to undermine and control the judiciary by seeking to create additional positions in the U.

Supreme Court so that he could appoint a majority of the members. In refusing to pass the amendment, the U. Finally, the case of the Chief Justice is not complete without reference to the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. We have seen the absolute lack of any damning evidence presented against the Chief Justice, even where it was alleged by the prosecution that his acts are punishable violations.

The defense has shown that the Chief Justice relied on sound, legal basis for his position and in all instances guided by good faith and without malice.