Corona Trial momblogger, Guest Contributors, Press Releases, BlogWatch.TV

Creative Commons - BY -- 2012 Dedication

Be in the know. Read the first two weeks of the Corona Impeachment trial Acknowledgements

Guest contributors, bloggers, social media users and news media organizations Table of Contents Blog Watch Posts 1 #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution 1 #CJtrialWatch DAY 7: Memorable Exchanges, and One-Liners, AHA AHA! 10 How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage? via @cmfr 12 @senmiriam Senator Santiago lays down 3 Crucial Points for the Impeachment Trial 13 How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage? via @cmfr 14 Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts 14 Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan 18 Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions 22 Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials 26 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) 36 #CJTrialWatch: Your role as Filipino Citizens 38 Video & transcript: Speech of Chief Justice at the Supreme Court before trial #CJtrialWatch 41 A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the 43 Making Sacred Cows Accountable: Impeachment as the Most Formidable Weapon in the Arsenal of Democracy 50 List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint 53 Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona 62 Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona 66 Archives and Commentaries 70 Corona Impeachment Trial 70 Download Reading materials : Corona Impeachment trial 74 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

Lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of said the prosecution panel needs the more than 100 witnesses it intends to call to prove its case against Corona.

“The list of witnesses and documents contained in our compliance filed with the Senate should be taken without manifestation that we will present a very strong, solid case against the Chief Justice within a reasonable period of time,” he said.

Among the witnesses are “two Supreme Court justices, Jose Midas Marquez, spokesman of the high court, five journalists, doctors of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Justice Secretary , who the prosecution plans to call when its tackles Article of Impeachment No. 7, which deals with Corona’s alleged partiality in issuing a temporary restraining order against the inclusion of Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel, in a travel watch list.”

Tranquil Salvador III, one of the spokespersons of the defense panel, “said it is the prosecution panel’s own lookout if they proceed with their plan of presenting all the witnesses they listed and revealed during a press conference last Friday.”

According to Salvador, there are many complications that could arise once they start asking for subpoenas for these people.

“Our concern is that those witnesses may not be competent to testify. Do they have relevant information or direct connections to the case?” Salvador said.

According to Salvador, what the prosecution panel may be trying to achieve with its disclosure of its list of witnesses last Friday is to sway public opinion, just like what they have been doing since the start of the trial.

“They are playing up to the public. They probably want to tell the public ‘look at how many witnesses we have, support our cause now.’ But with all modesty, we are not worried about the numbers,” Salvador said.

“Calling the Justices as witnesses will make them testify not only for or against the Chief Justice but also against each other,” Lagman said. “It would also pierce and violate the time-honored confidentiality of the deliberation of the Justices in the disposition of cases.”

1 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

We intend to present the following witnesses:

1. Raissa Robles, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

2. Criselda Yabes, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

3. Marites Vitug, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA, the research she has on the Supreme Court inner processes and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

4. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima - who will testify, among others: (1) That various criminal cases have been filed against GMA and FG; (2) That GMA intends to travel for other reasons aside from health (3) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) That petitioners attempted to leave the country on November 15, 2011; (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

2 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

5. Principal Physician of former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. Mario Ver – who will attest to GMA’s continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after 6 to 8 months and that there is no medical emergency warranting an immediate flight.

6. Supreme Court Process Server – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the Temporary Restraining Order was filed beyond working hours.

7. Supreme Court Process Cashier – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the conditions set were submitted beyond working hours.

8. Ina Reformina and a Mediaman/Journalist – who will testify, among others: (1) That the TRO allowing GMA to leave the country was issued before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (2) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (3) That Compliance with TRO requirements, such as the posting of the bond, among others, was made after 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) Statements made by the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court; (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

9. Deputy Clerk of Court - who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011; (2) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; (3) That such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust; (4) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

10. Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court En Banc – who will testify, among others: (1) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; (2) Suppress the dissent of Justice Sereno; and (3)On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

11. Assigned Process Server or Sheriff – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked him to do overtime and to immediately serve the Notices to the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General;

12. Araceli C. Bayuga, SC Chief Judicial Officer - who will testify, among others: (1) that respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked them to facilitate the payment of the bond to ensure compliance; (2) the time and manner of payment (3) the time that they informed the Office of the Clerk of Court of the payment of the bond.

3 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

13. “Juliet” of the Office of the Clerk of Court – that it was only at 8:55am of November 16, one day after GMA attempted to leave, that they received information of the payment of the Bond.

14. Jay Francis P. Baltazar, Notary Public of Magallanes, City (Hostile Witness) - will testify as to the time and manner that the Special Power of Attorney made in favor of was notarized.

15. Assigned Cashier to Receive Payment - who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO asked them to receive the payment of bond; (2) The other circumstances surrounding the payment of the money.

16. Justice – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v) Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

17. Justice Jose Midas P Marquez (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v) Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

18. Justice Presibetero J. Velasco, Jr. (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of

4 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v) Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; and (3) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case. (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

List of Witnesses Names Corona Impeachment

Among the witnesses are two Supreme Court justices, Jose Midas Marquez, spokesman of the high court, five journalists, doctors of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who the prosecution plans to call when its tackles Article of Impeachment No. 7, which deals with Corona’s alleged partiality in issuing a temporary restraining order against the inclusion of Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel, in a travel watch list.

In an Interaksyon report, Representative Juan , one of the prosecution’s spokesmen, broke down the number of witnesses for each article of impeachment:

1) Partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time he was appointed as associate justice to the time of his midnight appointment as chief justice — six witnesses

2) Failure to disclose to the public his statements of assets and liabilities and networth as required under Section 17, Artcle XI of the 1987 Constitution – 13 witnesses

3) Failure to meet and observe the stringent standards under the Constitution that require a member of the judiciary to be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence by allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters 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 cases pending in the Supreme Court — 26 witnesses)

4) Blatant disregard of the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman — seven witnesses

5 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

5) Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata, or resurrecting decided cases, and in deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province — eight witnesses 6)Arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate an alleged erring member of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him — six witnesses

7) Partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO — 22 witnesses

8. Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary collections — five witnesses

Final List of Witnesses in Corona Impeachment Trial

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED Description: Order of consolidation of cases or Minutes of En Banc Session where such consolidation was allowed

6 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011;

(2) the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; and

(3) such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of bias and prejudice and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Travel Tickets of Respondent Corona on November 2011 To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO Bureau of Immigration Entry and Exit of Respondent Corona To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO Leave of Absence of Respondent Corona To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO

Description: Resolution dated 15 November 2011, as published

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona rushed the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Description: Minutes of En Banc Sessions dated 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 29th of November 2011

Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by the Arroyos in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.” Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1) Arroyo and her husband Mike failed to comply with the Resolution dated 15 November 2011; and

(2) the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the submission of the SPA, a condition precedent to the issuance of the TRO.

Description:Receipt issued by the Supreme Court for the Two Million Pesos Cash Bond of the Arroyos

7 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

Purpose:To show, among others, that the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the completion of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the TRO. Affidavit from Media who witnessed the following: i. Issuance of the TRO before 6 p.m. ii. Service of the TRO to the Department of Justice before 6 p.m. iii. Compliance with TRO requirements after 6 p.m.

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1) the issuance of the TRO was made before 6 p.m.;

(2) the service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was made before 6 p.m.;

(3) compliance with the requirements for the issuance of the TRO was made after 6 p.m.;

(4) respondent Corona facilitated and expedited, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); and

(5) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description:Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 18 November 2011 that TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, petitioners can travel out of the country immediately. Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2) respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; and

(3) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution.

Description: Typed-written draft of Justice Velasco referring to the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the clarificatory Resolution subject of the En Banc meeting on 18 November 2011. (This was also referred to in the Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio) Purpose:To show, among others, that:

8 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

(1) respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(2) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. Justice Carpio’s Modifications of Justice Velasco’s Typed-written draft

Description:Respondent Corona’s handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution of Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated.

Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio

Resolution dated 22 November 2011, as published on 29 November 2011

Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 29 November 2011 that the Supreme Court has always considered the TRO to have not been suspended, and that this ruling was clarified by a 9-4 vote. Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2) respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(3) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. Memorandum dated 05 December 2011 of Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal for the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona suppressed the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and

(2) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description: Letter dated 06 December 2011 of Justice Sereno to respondent Corona formalizing her request to be apprised of the legal basis for the non-promulgation of her dissenting opinion, unduly depriving her of her constitutional right as an associate justice.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published on 13 December 2011. Purpose:To show, among others, that:

9 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

(1) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This was made possible through respondent Corona’s individual acts of: a. consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; b. facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); c. distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; d. suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and e. providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information.

#CJtrialWatch DAY 7: Memorable Exchanges, and One-Liners, AHA AHA! from: Adolfo Mortera

DISCOVERY OF THE DAY: Senator Enrile authored the Internal Revenue Code and he highlighted specific provisions which the witness, BIR commissioner Kim Henares, couldn’t answer. Also, I noticed Tupas talked less today. LOL!

10 Blog Watch Posts #CJtrialWatch DAY 7: Memorable Exchanges, and One-Liners, AHA AHA!

MEMORABLE EXCHANGES

1. SEN. SANTIAGO TO PROSEC LAWYER ARTHUR LIM: ‘Don’t override me. Don’t revise your questions. Don’t talk like that. Don’t argue with me. Read the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, letters a to k.” Lawyer Arthur Lim complied. SANTIAGO: “Now, where in these provisions fall your verified complaint? Lim mentioned all. The senator retorted: “Ano ba ang batas na ini invoke mo? You’re engaging in colloquy.”

2.. SEN. JOKER TO KIM HENARES: “The ITRs are confidential. Why were they released? We should caution both prosecution and defense not to release documents until they are offered as evidence.” TUPAS: “We haven’t released them. We released the Bellagio documents only.” SEN. PIA: “But I saw people flashing these on tv. Using them for the media is deceiving the public.” ENRILE: “Release of the documents could be a basis for mistrial.”

3. ESCUDERO: “Should there be only one specific complaint for each of the 8 hhis appointment? ENRILE: “That’s for advicement. No definitive ruling on that.”

4. WITNESS KIM HENARES: “Corona’s daughter is not capable of buying the property.” CUEVAS: “That’s your opinion, and it’s not allowed.”

ONE-LINERS:

1. ALAN CAYETANO: “The alleged ill-gotten wealth is explainable. There’s presumption of innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove otherwise.”

2. CUEVAS: “There is nothing in their complaint about acts constituting a violation. Misleading questions. (smile impishly)

3. 3. JUSTICE CUEVAS, asking witness Kim Henares about her meeting with the Palace to seek authority to release Corona’s ITRS: “Did they tell you “Durugin mo si Corona?”

4. ENRILE: “Incapacity to buy is not absolute evidence of ability to purchase.”

5. HONASAN: “The trials outside proceeds faster than inside this court.” What about the presumption of innocence of the respondent, and the honor and reputation of the family of the respondent?

6. SEN. SANTIAGO TO WITNESS KIM HENARES: “You’re an ordinary witness: you’re not allowed to form an opinion.”

7. ENRILE’S LECTURE TO TUPAS: “Specify documents to be requested from the banks. You were requesting all kinds of documents from real estate developers. You give the impression that you are fishing for evidence.”

11 Blog Watch Posts #CJtrialWatch DAY 7: Memorable Exchanges, and One-Liners, AHA AHA!

8. SEN. ENRILE TO ARTHUR LIM: “You’re too jumpy.”

AHA! AHA! :

1. GRAMMAR POLICE TAKE NOTE: Citing a paragraph in SALN form, Cayetano noted the following typo errors: “I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his DULY REPRESENTATIVE to INCLUSE…”

2. ENRILE: “Witnesses to be called later should be placed in a CONFINEMENT AREA so they won’t hear. ESTRADA: May TV ba dun sa confinement area?

3. I wonder why documents are marked Quintuple C, Quintuple F, etc. as I don’t remember those marked as Quadruple in previous days.

4. CUEVAS TO WITNESS KIM HENARES: “Were you in conference with Tupas?” KIM. Yes, I met HER in one of the meetings.” Confirmed!

Used with permission

How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage? via @cmfr

@cmfr posed the question on twitter “How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage?”

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) is organized to support the work of enhancing ethical and professional values in the Philippine press.

It is day 7 of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona started and it is time to assess the coverage.

Since Jan. 16, CMFR has been asking online media users their thoughts on the press coverage of the impeachment trial. CMFR has also asked their opinion on the role of the press in the issue.

So far, these are some of the concerns raised on the press and its coverage.

“Tell it like it is”

A curation of these tweets are placed on storify by the @CMFR

[View the story "How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage?" on Storify]

12 Blog Watch Posts How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage? via @cmfr

@senmiriam Senator Santiago lays down 3 Crucial Points for the Impeachment Trial

This is a press release from Akbayan

For the first time after a week-long absence, Miriam Defensor-Santiago appeared as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial of embattled Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The feisty Senator gave her perspective at the beginning of the trial yesterday.

First, Santiago stresses that the impeachment proceedings is not a judicial nor a political process. Rather, it partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial, quasi-political body. The Senator’s view is somehow parallel to the one taken by former Chief Justice who explained in his dissenting and concurring opinion in the case of Francisco vs. House of Representatives that the impeachment proceedings is sui generis.

Consequently, Santiago made her second point that the quantum of evidence required in convicting an impeached public officer should be of having an “overwhelming preponderance of evidence”. This differs from the views taken by both the prosecution and the defense panels. On one hand, Rep. Niel Tupas of the prosecution panel said that only “substantial evidence” is needed for conviction. On the other hand, former Justice Serafin Cuevas of the defense panel stated that it should be “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt” which is that degree of proof, excluding the possibility of error, which produces moral certainty. If the facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and, consequently, the innocence of the accused will prevail. This is the evidence required in criminal proceedings, and this is the most difficult to obtain. “Preponderance of evidence” means the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence of one party is superior to the other party. The only question is which party has the more convincing evidence? This is usually used in civil cases where there are at least two contending parties. “Substantial evidence” refers to evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. This is the evidence required in administrative cases, and is said to be the easiest to obtain.

Santiago went one notch higher by adding “overwhelming” to the phrase “preponderance of evidence”, thereby implying that the evidence presented by the prosecution should be far more greater than that presented by the defense. Santiago pointed out that the framers of the Constitution thought that the penalty given in case of conviction in impeachment trial is not retributory in character; impeachment is not a punishment.

Third, Santiago gave her legal opinion on the imminent issue on whether the impeachment Court should be liberal in the appreciation of evidence. Santiago said that there was no need to go into jurisprudence because

13 Blog Watch Posts @senmiriam Senator Santiago lays down 3 Crucial Points for the Impeachment Trial

the rules expressly provide that a liberal interpretation should be made and technicalities should be brushed aside. A liberal interpretation also implies that any document that is related to a particular article of impeachment (in the case of Article 2, the Income Tax Return of Chief Justice Corona and members of his family) must also be admitted as evidence by the impeachment court. In this way, it would hasten the proceedings of the trial.

How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage? via @cmfr

@cmfr posed the question on twitter “How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage?”

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) is organized to support the work of enhancing ethical and professional values in the Philippine press.

It is day 7 of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona started and it is time to assess the coverage.

Since Jan. 16, CMFR has been asking online media users their thoughts on the press coverage of the impeachment trial. CMFR has also asked their opinion on the role of the press in the issue.

So far, these are some of the concerns raised on the press and its coverage.

“Tell it like it is”

A curation of these tweets are placed on storify by the @CMFR

[View the story "How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage?" on Storify]

Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts

IMPEACHMENT AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ADVOCACY: PARALLELISMS AND CONTRASTS

(Opening Statement of Rep. Edcel C. Lagman at the “Prospects for the Philippines” forum of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) on 19 January 2012 at the Mandarin Oriental, Makati City)

14 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts

Edcel Lagman, photo credit ph.yfittopostblog.com

For some time now the entire nation is focused on the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, particularly on the current trial before the Senate.

It is the daily fare of tri-media as well as of social networking sites. It is the preoccupation of the time, the flavor of the season. Its intensity continues to escalate.

There should be no debate that impeachment is a recognized constitutional process to uphold public accountability and sanction the excesses of high government officials like the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman.

It is also settled that more than a judicial proceeding, impeachment is a political exercise.

Consequently, the Congress of the Philippines, indubitably a political department, plays the stellar role in impeachment proceedings. The House of Representatives impeaches and prosecutes, and the Senate of the Philippines tries the respondent and decides to acquit or convict after trial.

However, the other political department, the Executive Branch headed by the President of the Republic, has no constitutional role. In fact, the Constitution bars the President from extending clemency or pardon to convicted respondents in impeachment cases.

Nonetheless, the rule of law, not the importuning of the mob or the obsession of one man, must be ascendant in all the phases of the impeachment process. It is a political undertaking circumscribed by due process and the tenets of fair play.

Consequently, the Senate as the impeachment court should have conducted a preliminary hearing to determine whether the “verification” of 188 complainants was compliant as a component of due process or was a shameless sham because it was physically impossible for 188 Representatives to have individually and personally “read and understood” in a couple of hours the 57-page complaint as required by the Constitution

15 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts

and the House Rules on Impeachment Proceedings. A valid verification is a condition precedent to impeachment and trial. The purported verification of 1/3 of the Members of the House was the speed vehicle which conveyed with alacrity the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Perforce, a preliminary hearing on the alleged fatal verification was in order.

The Senate should have motu proprio prohibited and sanctioned print media for publishing self-serving full-page paid advertisements which tend to influence Senator-Judges and calculated to sway public opinion on which some Senator-Judges announced they would base their decision.

We commend the Senate for warning the prosecutors and defense counsel not to present and advertise their evidence before the public. Indeed, the only proper forum to adduce evidence is before the Senate as the impeachment court.

We also welcome the ruling of the Senate denying the prosecution’s request to subpoena the kin of the Chief Justice. The majority of the Senator-Judges saw through the malevolent scheme of involving the family of the Chief Justice to inordinately hurt and harass him in order to force him to resign.

Like the impeachment of the Chief Justice, the controversial reproductive health bill has also been regular media fodder. It has consistently received media mileage – both negative and constructive – and partisans from both sides are still enthusiastically airing their opinions on an issue that will affect the health and lives of millions of women and children.

Again, like the ongoing impeachment trial, there seems to be no lukewarm or ambivalent reaction to the issues on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population and development.

One either strongly believes that the impeachment is a farce, a travesty of the rule of law and a direct assault on the Judiciary or that the days of impunity of errant magistrates are over.

The same is true with the reproductive health bill. Critics of the measure have labeled it an instrument of the devil and claim that it would signal the demise of the Filipino family and race. On the other hand, supporters of the bill readily maintain that an RH law would guarantee the right to health of mothers and children and will be instrumental to achieving sustainable human development.

Certainly, passions have run high in both the impeachment trial and the passage of the RH bill. Some quarters may even go as far as claiming that both the current trial of the Chief Justice and the campaign to pass a reproductive health law are so divisive and conflict-ridden that they have struck a discordant note in the Filipino public’s nerve and have polarized the country.

But the striking contrasts between the impeachment proceedings and the RH advocacy are gravely important to underscore.

The impeachment agenda, however noble, has a limited impact on the lives of people, particularly of the

16 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts

poor, marginalized and disadvantaged who care more about the eradication of petty graft like those committed by kotong cops, market collectors and small-time bureaucrats which bedevil their daily existence. On the other hand, the RH advocacy will save and uplift the multitude of women and children as maternal health is improved and infant mortality decreased, consistent with the Millennium Development Goals.

It is in this context that the President must employ the same, if not more, zeal and determination in having the RH bill enacted as he did and is doing to have the impeachment prosper.

He has the vast arsenal of power to convince his allies in Congress to fast track the enactment of a long-delayed legislation for the good of the greater number.

The President has prioritized the RH bill before the LEDAC and the Congress. But “prioritization” is not enough. Perforce, he must assure its immediate enactment by marshalling the resources and forces of his office.

While the impeachment of the Chief Justice is viewed by many as an insidious assault on the independence of the judiciary as a democratic institution, the passage of the RH bill will enhance human institutions, alleviate poverty and make sustainable human development achievable.

The impeachment process against the Chief Justice may result to a collateral damage to legislation and governance.

It appears that legislation, including the enactment of the RH bill, may be put in the back burner as congressional attention and energies are concentrated on the impeachment process.

Likewise, the implementation of national policies may be further stalled or temporized as the Aquino administration is consumed by an inordinate obsession to remove and replace the Chief Justice.

I hope it is not true that the Aquino administration is contriving to use “People Power” to the hilt to oust the Chief Justice in the event he is acquitted by the Senate. Governance should not be forfeited to the rabble.

In contrast, the enactment of the RH bill optimizes governance as the government will be liberated from spreading too thinly limited resources to a ballooning population which may soon hit the 100 million mark.

The enactment of a comprehensive RH law, with adequate funding and willful implementation, will assure that important human development factors like quality education, adequate health care, full employment, stable food security, responsive mass housing and a robust environment will not remain impossible dreams.

Let the impeachment proceedings continue and end as warranted, but we must enact the RH bill with alacrity because it will have more positive far-reaching and long range benefits to the Filipino nation.

Finally, I assure all of you that whatever is the result of the minority intramurals in the House, I am ever

17 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment and Reproductive Health Advocacy: Parellelisms and Contrasts

ready to defend to the utmost the RH bill which is one of my principal advocacies and shepherd it to eventual passage.

Thank you.

Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan

This is a press release from Akbayan.

Impeachment Chronicles Updates on 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4)

Defense’s delaying tactics apparent in the first week of the Senate Trial

The information materials on the impeachment process and on the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona seek to educate the people on the legal processes in and to give updates regarding the trial at the Senate. The ultimate objective of this forum is to assist the people as they participate in this process of making the Supreme Court and its Members accountable to the people, regardless of the outcome of the trial. A recap of the important matters that occurred during the first week of the Senate trial is made below.

Day 1 (16 January 2012):

Exclusive power of the House of Representatives to “initiate” the impeachment case

As expected, the first legal question that the defense team raised at the Senate was on the issue of the verification of the impeachment complaint filed by 188 members of the House of Representatives. Although no motion to dismiss the complaint is allowed at the Senate trial, the defense tried to maneuver around the rule by filing a “motion for a preliminary hearing” (instead of a motion to dismiss) and prayed for the immediate dismissal of the complaint. The defense’s strategy was apparent— to seek an immediate dismissal of the complaint even before the impeachment trial at the Senate has began.

Unfortunately, however, the subject matter of initiation of the impeachment process, including the filing of the complaint, falls under the absolute exclusive power of the House of Representatives. Under the circumstances of this case, the House of Representatives had already passed upon the sufficiency of the complaint in form and substance, and this is deemed to include the aspects of proper verification, favourable resolution and affirmation of at least one-third of all members of the house. The exercise of this power cannot be subject to the scrutiny of the Senate as an impeachment body because the Senate’s power starts

18 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan

with that of “trying and deciding” the impeachment case as already filed before it. And, thus, Senate President Juan Enrile, acting as the Presiding Officer of the impeachment trial, immediately denied the defense’s motion to dismiss (couched as a “motion for preliminary conference”) the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Corona.

Private Counsels may appear for the prosecution

Early on, the Presiding Officer also settled that the private prosecutors are allowed to appear at the trial provided that “they act under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives”. However, the presiding officer disallowed the private prosecutors to argue on questions of law. This means that only members of the panel of public prosecutors, the members of the House, may argue during the proceedings. It seems like this ruling is quite contrary to the provision of Article XIII of Senate Resolution 39[1] which expressly allows private counsels for both the defense and prosecution to “appear and be heard upon an impeachment”.

Corona pleaded thru private counsels

Contrary to Corona’s previous statements that he will answer the impeachment complaint squarely and personally appear at the trial to answer the allegations lodged against him, Corona –despite being present at the trial- passed on to his private counsels the actual entering of a plea of “not guilty” in his behalf. Admittedly, though, the rules allow his representatives to act in his behalf.

Day 2 (17 January 2012):

Improper application of the “Doctrine of Privileged Communication”

19 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan

The Senate, acting as an impeachment Court, voted to deny the prosecution’s motion to issue subpoena ad testificandumto the members of the family of Chief Justice Renato Corona, particularly, his spouse Cristina Corona, his children Carla Corona-Castillo, Francis Corona and Czarina Corona, and his son-in-law Constantino Castillo.

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Corona has the option not to appear before the impeachment court in accordance with his Constitutional right against self-incrimination. In ordinary cases, direct family members also have the option not to testify against one another because their communications are considered confidential. Be that as it may, the prohibition on privileged communications cannot be invoked instantly and in a blanket manner as it may only be invoked when the question being propounded to a witness by the opposing counsel are already incriminating against himself or a member of his/her family. Members of the Congress have clarified this several times in their conduct of investigations in aid of legislation in the past. This means that persons to be summoned by the impeachment court, in this case the members of the family of Chief Justice Corona, cannot refuse the subpoena Viewed in that light, the denial of the subpoena requested by the prosecution can therefore be considered to be premature. Furthermore, it was improper for the Court to also afford the shield of “privileged communication” to the son-in-law of Chief Justice Corona. The law on parental and filial privilege extends only to “children or other direct descendants.”[2] Senator Alan Peter Cayetano was correct in stating that the rule applies only to ascendants or descendants with a common ancestry, not to in-laws.

Impeachment does not take the nature of a criminal proceeding

Although the Presiding Officer agreed that the nature of impeachment proceeding is sui generis (a class of its own)—meaning, it is neither purely political nor criminal in character—he indicated in open court that “it is

20 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan

more akin to a criminal proceeding”.

With due respect to the Presiding Officer, it is opined that the impeachment proceeding is not “more akin to a criminal proceeding”. On the contrary, the proceedings are more political in character. First, the Constitution allocates the power of impeachment to Congress—the right to accuse is exclusively lodged with the House of Representatives, while the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment belongs to the Senate—both of which are political branches of the government. Second, the impeachable offenses are political and not necessarily criminal offenses. Hence, among the grounds of impeachment are “other high crimes” or “betrayal of public trust”. Third, the consequences of impeachment are political punishments and not necessarily penal in character. Fourth, the courts have no power to review the decisions of the impeachment body because they are considered as political in nature.[3]

None other than the former Chief Justice Reynato Puno clarified the nature of impeachment proceedings as neither political nor criminal, but sui generis. Not being a purely criminal proceeding, it does not require “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to convict a person impeached. Thus, the senators may use any quantum of evidence except for “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as basis for their vote in any of the articles of impeachment such as “clear and convincing evidence”; “preponderance of evidence”; or “substantial evidence”.

Prosecution has the right to determine the order of presentation of evidence

It is common knowledge in trial practice that the prosecution is given the flexibility in the manner of presenting the evidence, in the same manner that the defense is accorded the same leeway in presenting their defense. It is thus surprising that Corona’s defense counsels were over eager and wanted to dictate the order of presentation of the articles of impeachment. That move was clearly dilatory.

Day 3 (18 January 2012):

Impeachment Court as a Constitutional Body

The Senate properly issued the subpoena to Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, as well as the production of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of Chief Justice Corona.

The Senate sitting as an impeachment court is a Constitutional body created under Article XI for purposes of impeaching a public officer. This does not pertain to the usual legislative functions of the Senate. To effectively comply with this mandate, the Senate has the power to issue subpoena to a person to testify personally (subpoena ad testificandum) or to produce documents (subpoena duces tecum). This would not result in a Constitutional crisis because this is part of the processes the Senate, as an impeachment body, is allowed to issue under the principle of checks and balances.

21 Blog Watch Posts Impeachment Chronicles, 16-19 January 2012 (Day 1-4) via Akbayan

Senator Judges are allowed to clarify matters

Under the Senate rules, a Senator Judge can put a question to a witness, prosecutor, counsel, and even to the person impeached. Note that each Senator is treated as a Judge in the impeachment trial. He/she has the power to ascertain each fact of the case. The accusations of bias by the defense panel against some of the Senator-Judges who asked questions to clarify some matters are utterly unfounded.

Day 4 (19 January 2012):

Truthful and genuine disclosure

The prosecution started with Article II of the complaint which deals with the non-disclosure of the SALN of Corona. By public disclosure of SALN, the prosecution means the “truthful and genuine” SALN of Corona, not one with hidden or undervalued statements, otherwise, there would be no public disclosure at all as required under the Constitution. Consequently, this article included the investigation of the allegations of ill-gotten wealth and accumulation of other high assets and huge bank accounts.

Again, the defense has thrown a barrage of objections against the presentation of the land titles allegedly owned by Corona and his family. They are expected to continue with their legal maneuverings in the coming days and prevent the presentation of other documents by the prosecution, thereby further delaying the proceedings of the case.

Admittedly, both prosecution and defense panels are still learning the ropes of the conduct of an impeachment proceeding. And, this is quite understandable because the use of the impeachment process is rare as it is important. It is beneficial though that the Senate sitting as an impeachment body is prepared and able to give guidance to the parties, with Senate President Enrile at the helm.

[1] Resolution adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials.

[2] Section 25, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.

[3] Justice Reynato Puno’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003.

Photo from Philippine Senate

Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions

22 Blog Watch Posts Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions

Speech of Akbayan Rep. Kaka Bag-ao for the 14th Year Anniversary of Akbayan Citizens Action Party, 23 January 2012, Pugad Lawin Hall, City Sports Club,

Distinguished and honored guests, friends of Akbayan, my party-mates in Akbayan Kung Hei Fat Choi!

I welcome this invitation to speak before you today as a refreshing break from the intense preparation sessions of our team of lawyers for the prosecution of Articles 3 and 4 of the Articles of Impeachment. Sa totoo lang po ako’y medyo kinakabahan sa bigat ng hamon sa akin at sa laki ng expectations ng mga mamamayan sa aming mga prosecutors sa impeachment trial ni Chief Justice Renato Corona. But since I do not see the now-familiar faces of the Defense Panel – Former Justice Serafin Cuevas, my former teacher Atty. Jack Jimenez in the hall, I do not expect to be interrupted by any objection, technical or otherwise.

Also, before I begin to discuss some serious stuff, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the misimpression being peddled by a certain Professional Heckler. Ang suot ko noong opening ng Impeachment trial ay hindi galling sa alin man branch ng SM. Yan ay isang kasinungalingan. At kung kailangan kong ipa-subpoena sa witness stand si Manay Gina de Venecia at ang iba pang miyembro ng Association of Lady Legislators upang patunayan ito ay gagawin ko. At bago pa man makapag-object si Congressman Walden Bello, na hindi nabigyan ng terno, ay itutuloy ko na po ang aking speech.

The year 2011 will be remembered as the year of reckoning against the corrupt past of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. “Taon ng pagsingil ng mga mamamayan sa siyam na taong pandarambong at katiwalian ng mga Arroyo.”

We began the year 2011 with a full-court press to dismantle the first line of defense cleverly and maliciously put in place by former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, by impeaching her appointed Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Merci and her cabal single-handedly frustrated all attempts to make GMA accountable to the various graft and corruption charges against her. It took almost half a year, thanks to the TRO issued by the Supreme Court, for us in the House of Representatives to overwhelmingly impeach her.

Without us firing a single shot in the halls of the Senate, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez succumbed to the tremendous pressure both from the public and from the strength of the Articles of Impeachment against her. Thus GMA’s first line of defense crumbled. And because of this historic victory in our mission to make GMA accountable for her crimes against the Filipino people, she is now facing charges for the anomalies that she and her administration committed in the NBN-ZTE scandal and PCSO fund scam. These are just the first gains that we are reaping from Merci’s impeachment. More are still to come.

At this point let me share to you a personal anecdote, one that is close to Akbayan’s heart. When the Articles of Impeachment against Ombudsman Meceditas were being drafted, one article was considered by many as the weakest – the case of Ensign Phillip Pestaño. In fact, nobody was willing to prosecute the article except for the Akbayan team who insisted on its inclusion. We prepared long and hard to prosecute it in the Senate

23 Blog Watch Posts Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions

trial but because of Merci’s resignation, we were denied the opportunity to prove its relevance to the impeachment case. The recent filing of murder charges against the 10 suspects in the murder of Ensign Philip Pestaño by the Office Ombudsman led by Conchita Carpio Morales is a vindication, not only for us in Akbayan but more importantly for his parents, Ka Pepe and Tita Nene and Philip’s siblings and friends. After more than a decade and a half of constant and unwavering push to make the wheels of justice turn, they will have their day in court and the first step towards achieving justice has been taken.

Akbayan’s critical role in the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez cannot be denied. Risa Hontiveros, together with Gen. Danny Lim and Ka Pepe and Nene Pestaño filed the impeachment complaint. Rep. Walden Bello and myself endorsed the complaint and successfully advocated for it in the House Committee on Justice. Akbayan, likewise, took the leadership in the public campaign for Merci’s ouster together with our allies in the Oust Merci Gutierrez Movement (OMG).

With all candor and humility, I claim with pride that we, in Akbayan, were in the frontlines of that battle against the corrupt and inept pawn of GMA and we prevailed.

We have won a battle, we still have a war to win. The next battle has begun and Akbayan’s banner is still waving in the frontlines. In this battle, we stand face-to-face with GMA’s last line of defense, the strongest, brightest and the most loyal among her generals, GMA’s former Chief-of-Staff and now her acting “Secretary of Defense”: Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Much as I want to share with you my thoughts on the merits of the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona, I am gagged. Kaya nga po chubby ang cheeks ko.

Let me share with you my thoughts and reflections on the impeachment of the Chief Justice without dealing and arguing on the merits. Kung nakikita nyo po sina Speaker Belmonte, Cong. , Atty. Ayo Bautista at iba pang miyembro ng prosecution team, paki-distract na lang po sila para di nila marinig ito. Yun pong mga nakikinig nito sa kanilang mga TV at radyo pakihinaan na lang po ang volume dahil secret po ito.

Last January 16 in the morning, a few hours before the impeachment trial in the Senate began, Chief Justice Corona delivered a fiery speech commenting on various points of the Articles of Impeachment and even discussed at length each of the 45 land titles listed and released by the Land Registration Authority. He admitted owning some and denied the others. Nagulat nga ako na inisa-isa nya yun e samantalang may gag din sya. Di ba chubby din ang cheeks nya?

To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised by his show of resolve to argue his own case that I thought he was willing to testify on his own behalf. But this was proven wrong, when his defense objected to the prosecution’s request for the issuance of subpoena for the Chief Justice and his family to testify before the Impeachment Court. Their objection was sustained. I am tempted to present arguments against the ruling here but I am constrained by my cheeks are chubby.

24 Blog Watch Posts Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions

But if the Chief Justice is really serious about defending himself and personally challenge the accusations against him, I challenge him to take the witness stand when the turn of the defense to present evidence comes. It will give him the opportunity to do what he is doing outside the Impeachment Court – rebutting the pieces of evidence and testimony one by one. The witness stand will also give him a bonus. It will also give him the pleasure and opportunity to personally show how inept and inexperienced we, in the prosecution, are.

Let me go to another highlight of his defiant January 16 speech.

In his January 16 speech, Chief Justice Renato Corona bared what is now called “The Conspiracy of 3”. He said it is a conspiracy of three persons: one wants to prevent the distribution of Hda. Luisita, the other one is in a hurry to become vice-president but lost in the election and finally the third, has the ambition to become Chief Justice.

CJ Corona is right. He is right about the existence of a conspiracy but he got his numbers wrongs. It is not a conspiracy of three, neither is it a conspiracy of 188. I daresay it is a “Conspiracy of Millions” – a conspiracy of conspiring to remove him from the post which he abused.

It is not a conspiracy to force the Supreme Court to its knees and follow the will of a dictatorship but rather a conspiracy of millions of people who are desperate to restore the independence of the Supreme Court and free it from any undue influence. It is a conspiracy of Filipinos who are reclaiming the Supreme Court from the clasps of the claws of Corona’s sovereign, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. This is a conspiracy of the Filipino people intent on reclaiming the Supreme Court from the Coronarroyo Conspiracy.

Chief Justice Corona claims that his impeachment is all about Hda. Luisita. Perhaps, Chief Justice Corona has forgotten that we in Akbayan have been working with the farmworkers of Hacienda Luisita and the Department of Agrarian Reform precisely to make its distribution a reality. Perhaps the Chief Justice does not know that among the ranks of the private prosecutors in his impeachment trials are several lawyers of the Hda. Luisita farmers and farmworkers. In trying to sell his theory, the Chief Justice has conveniently forgotten that the Hda. Luisita case was argued and won by the farmers together with the Department of Agrarian Reform. Masyado pong pilit ang iyong teorya CJ Corona.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in my experience all trials can become dull and boring with very few dramatic and explosive moments that are too far in between. In the absence of drama and explosive action, it is very easy to lose focus on the reasons why there is an Impeachment Trial. In this age of reality shows, I cannot blame the public watching the impeachment trial live on national television to shift their focus and take notice of the different realities happening in the Senate floor. In the eyes of the very critical public it is not only the accussed, the impeached Chief Justice who is on trial, but the prosecutors and the senator-judges, as well.

In the first week of the impeachment trial, the contrast between the defense team, composed mainly of high-caliber and experienced veteran litigation lawyers, and the prosecution team composed mainly of politicians who have spent most of their time in elective public offices and outside the court room gained the attention of the public. We, in the prosecution, became objects of criticism and the harsh Filipino sense of

25 Blog Watch Posts Dismantling Coronarroyo, A Conspiracy of Millions

humor especially in cyberspace. I shall offer neither denials nor explanations.

I admit, that in terms of litigation experience, we in the prosecution, especially the public prosecutors are the underdog. In fact most of us in the prosecution team were once students of those in the defense panel. In that respect alone we are oceans apart. Moreover, prosecuting a case with millions of viewers watching your every move and listening to every word you utter is really intimidating.

The defense panel is indeed a Dream Team and their strength lies in their more than 300 years of combined litigation experience. E hindi pa po ako pinanganak Atty. Cuevas na si Justice Cuevas.

However, no amount of trial experience can compensate for the defense’s greatest disadvantage: their client Chief Justice Corona.

Dear friends and comrades, this battle must not only be fought by the prosecutors in the Impeachment Court. The battlefield is not just the plenary hall of the Senate where we have to win hearts and minds of the senator-judges. We also have to wage battle in the public sphere to win the hearts and minds of the people. We need your help in breaking the barriers of legalese and technicalities in the Senate floor and help ordinary people understand the proceedings.

The impeachment process is but a battle that we need to wage to win the war against corruption. For us in Akbayan, our mission goes way beyond this. The present conjuncture provides us with a fertile and favorable political environment to push for the changes that we have been fighting for.

A wave of change is coming. Those who cling to the ways of the past and of the GMA administration, be forewarned. Do not stand in the way.

Kapag Akbayan ang Lumaban, Panalo ang Mamamayan.

Maraming salamat po.

Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

What is the nature of the impeachment proceedings before the Senate? How will the trial proceed? What are the salient features of the Senate Rules?

The impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has already begun and the people are eager to watch, learn and analyze the ongoings. Hence, it is just but fitting that a short rundown of the Senate rules on impeachment trial be made so that the ordinary citizen may be apprised of the rules that govern this all-important proceeding which would ultimately affect the nation and the people’s lives.

26 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

I. Impeachment Proceedings as “Sui Generis”

Before tackling the Senate rules, it is important to understand the nature of the impeachment trial for it has significant implications. There are two views.

The first view is that impeachment proceeding is political in nature. Historically, impeachment proceedings in England and the United States, from which several of our Constitutional provisions relating to impeachment were borrowed, had been dominantly political in nature. In fact, Sections 1-3, Article XI of the Philippine Constitution allocates the power of impeachment to Congress—the right to accuse is exclusively lodged before the House of Representatives, while the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment belongs to the Senate—both of which are political branches of the government. The framers of the Constitution delegated the power over impeachment trials before a political branch, rather than the judiciary, because they chiefly relate to injuries done to the society itself. The Senate, whose members are elected representatives of the people who act on the basis of political consideration, was deemed as the “most fit depositary of this important trust” because its members are representatives of the people.[1]

Second, the impeachable offenses are political and not necessarily criminal offenses. Thus, among the grounds of impeachment are “other high crimes” or “betrayal of public trust”. The offenses are also prosecuted by members of the House of Representatives, also elected officials of the people. Further, the consequences of impeachment are political punishments and not necessarily penal in character.

Third, the courts have no power to review the decisions of the impeachment body because they are considered as political in nature and, thus, non-justiciable except when there are clear violations of the Constitutional provisions on impeachment. Moreover, it is most likely possible that after the successful impeachment proceedings before the Senate, a separate criminal or administrative case would be filed before the appropriate regular courts. The framers of the Constitution deemed it best to have two separate forums before which these cases can be filed to prevent any form of bias and influence on the separate cases. Lastly, a review by the courts of the decisions of the Senate as an impeachment body would be inconsistent with the principle of Checks and Balances.[2]

The second view, adhered to by some legal scholars like former Justice Isagani Cruz, characterizes the impeachment proceedings as “in a sense judicial and penal in character,” hence, akin to criminal proceedings. It is stated in this view that most of the grounds for impeachment are penal in character, such as treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and if the impeached official is found guilty, he may suffer a penalty of removal from office and disqualification to hold office—some of the penalties adjudged to criminal offenders in ordinary cases.[3]

It is submitted that the correct view of the nature of impeachment proceedings is neither purely political nor criminal in character, rather, it is “sui generis,” which means “a class of its own”. In the words of former Justice Reynato Puno, it is a “commixture of political and judicial components in our reengineered concept of impeachment xxx which has been shaped by our distinct political experience especially in the last fifty years.”[4]

27 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

The importance of distinguishing the nature of impeachment proceedings has its bearing on its legal implications. First, the interpretation of the Senate rules on impeachment proceedings should be made in a liberal manner and technicalities should be set aside because it is not purely a criminal proceeding. Second, the Constitutional rights of the accused in ordinary proceedings such as the right to due process and right against self-incrimination still apply. Third and most important, the nature of the impeachment proceedings will determine the required quantum of evidence required for convicting an impeached official.

II. Procedure in the Impeachment Trial

Sections 1-3, Article XI of the Constitution lay down the rules on impeachment proceedings. The Constitution further obliges Congress to promulgate its own rules to effectively carry out the process. Hence, the House of Representatives approved the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings on 3 August 2010,[5] while the Senate approved Resolution No. 39 (Resolution Adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials) on 23 March 2011. Since the Articles of Impeachment have already been transmitted to the Senate, there is no longer any need for discussing the House Rules and only the salient features of the Senate Rules will be discussed here.

What is the role and duty of the Senate upon receipt of Articles of Impeachment?

Section 3 (6), Article XI of the Constitution states that “The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” Hence, all questions regarding the interpretation of the meaning of the grounds for impeachment and assessment of the evidence—which are unquestionably political in nature—are not subject to review by the courts except for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Constitution.

Once the Senate receives the Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives, the Senate President shall inform the House of Representatives that the Senate shall take proper order on the impeachment and ready to receive the prosecutors.

What are the powers of the Senate?

The Senate shall have the following powers:

1. Compel the attendance of witnesses; 2. Enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs and judgments; 3. Preserve order; 4. Summarily punish contempt of, and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, or judgments; and 5. Make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice;

28 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

Who shall preside in impeachment proceedings?

The Senate President shall be the Presiding Officer except when the President is on trial in which case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside. The Presiding Officer shall have the power to make and issue all orders, mandates, and writs, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises.

Can the Presiding Officer rule on any questions on evidence?

Yes, the Senate President, as Presiding Officer, may rule on all questions on the materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions. The ruling of the Senate President on these matters shall be considered as the ruling of the Senate as a body unless he shall submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate or any member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken. In this case, a vote shall be taken and a majority vote shall prevail. This was what happened during the impeachment case of former President Joseph Estrada where the senators voted on whether to open the second envelope which allegedly contained the evidence regarding the Velarde account. In the Estrada case, a majority of the senators decided not to open the second envelope which enraged the nation which eventually resulted in EDSA II.

How will the person impeached be notified of the Articles of Impeachment?

A Writ of Summons shall be issued to the person impeached notifying him/her of the Articles of Impeachment, the date and time of his/her appearance before the Senate, and ordering him/her to file his/her Answer within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice. The prosecutors may file a Reply within five (5) days from receipt of the Answer.

On the date and time fixed on the Writ of Summons, the person impeached shall be called to appear and answer the Articles of Impeachment against him.

29 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

What happens if the person impeached fails to appear on the date fixed by the Senate?

The trial shall proceed nevertheless upon a plea of not guilty. Note that the rules allow that the person impeached may appear by himself or through an agent or counsel. It is also noted that the person impeached still enjoys the Constitutional right against self-incrimination and right to due process. In any case, the impeachment trial will then proceed.

When will the impeachment trial proceed?

Unless otherwise provided, the trial will start on the day fixed by the Senate, particularly, at 2:00 in the afternoon, and the sessions will continue from day to day (except Saturday, Sundays and nonworking holidays) until final judgment shall be rendered. (In this impeachment trial, the Senate will be conducting hearings from Monday to Thursday only.)

Will the legislative business of the Congress be totally suspended pending the impeachment trial?

No. With respect to the House of Representatives, the ordinary legislative business will continue because only the 11-member panel of prosecutors will be handling the case before the Senate. Notwithstanding the trial, the members of the panel of prosecutors are not prevented from continuing with their legislative advocacies in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, the members of the Senate may continue their legislative affairs in the morning or when the trial is not in session.

How long will it take to finish the trial?

It is estimated that the trial may last from 3 to 5 months, depending on the circumstances of the case, such as when the person impeached will resign from his/her post which may result in the termination of the trial.

30 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

This was exactly what happened to the impeachment proceedings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Guttierez who resigned at the height of the impeachment proceedings against her. It is also recalled that the impeachment proceedings of former President Joseph Estrada was abandoned in the middle of the trial.

Can the impeachment trial proceed despite the resignation of the person impeached during the trial?

It is submitted that the trial may still proceed for purposes of ferreting the truth and ascertaining accountability. Further, his/her disqualification to hold public office in the future may still be a proper subject for the impeachment body to tackle.

What is the role of the House of Representatives in the Trial?

The members of the House of Representatives shall act as the sole prosecutors in the impeachment trial through a panel of 11 members elected by a majority vote in plenary under the rules adopted by the House of Representatives. Under the Senate Rules, however, it allows for the appearance of private counsels to act as prosecutors provided that they shall be under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives.

How will the trial proceed?

The case, on each side, will be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made by 2 persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

How will witnesses be examined?

Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party presenting them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.

Can a Senator ask a question on the witness?

Yes, a Senator can put a question to a witness, prosecutor, counsel, and even to the person impeached. The

31 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

Senator may also offer a motion or order, in writing, which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer.

Can a Senator be called as a witness?

Yes, and he/she shall be sworn and give the testimony standing in his/her place.

May parties or counsels object to any question propounded by a prosecutor, counsel or Senator?

Yes. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial made by the parties or counsel shall be argued and addressed to the Presiding Officer.

What happens after the presentation of the final arguments by the prosecutors as well as the counsels of the person impeached?

After the completion of the trial for all of the Articles of Impeachment, the Senators shall vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. The Presiding Officer shall first state the question and, thereafter, each Senator shall rise and answer: “guilty” or “not guilty”. The vote of the Senate President, when acting as the Presiding Officer, shall be taken after all the Senators have stated their votes. Each Senator may explain his/her vote within 2 minutes.

How shall the voting of Senators be made?

On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and the nays shall be taken on each Article of Impeachment separately. If the impeachment shall not be sustained by the vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered. If the person impeached in such Articles of Impeachment shall be convicted upon the vote of two-thirds of all the Members, the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment of conviction. Hence, a conviction on any of the Articles of Impeachment

32 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

shall be enough to convict the impeached officer.

May the Articles of Impeachment be divisible?

No. The judgment shall be made only after all the arguments of both parties have been concluded. Further, the voting of the Senators shall continue until all the Articles of Impeachment have been read and voted thereon by each Senator.

Is a Motion for Reconsideration allowed?

No. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the Articles of Impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order. In fact, the results of the voting of the Senators shall not be reviewable by the courts as the same is considered political matters and beyond the powers of judicial review. The judgment is therefore final and unappealable.

What is the consequence of conviction in any of the articles of impeachment?

The person impeached shall have a judgment which shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office under the Republic of the Philippines.

May the convicted public officer be pardoned by the President?

No. The Constitution specifically states that impeachment conviction may not be subject to pardon by the President.

After the Senate conviction, may the convicted public officer be prosecuted in ordinary suits?

Yes, the convicted public officer may be prosecuted in ordinary criminal or civil actions in regular courts, as the case may be. When criminally prosecuted, the person cannot plead the defense of double jeopardy.

33 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

In case of conviction in ordinary criminal cases, can the convicted person be pardoned by the President?

In this instance, the convict may be pardoned by the President as in ordinary cases. This is what happened to former Joseph Estrada who was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for plunder before the regular courts of justice after the aborted impeachment trial before the Senate. After his conviction, former President Gloria Arroyo granted Joseph Estrada executive clemency and, thus, he was released from jail. Subsequently, Joseph Estrada again ran for President in the 2010 national elections as he was not barred from running because there was no conviction made during the aborted impeachment trial.

III. Other Salient Features and Gray Areas of the Senate Rules

All Proceedings are Public

Since the issue in impeachment proceedings involves national interest owing to the fact that it is the people through their representatives who are to decide in their sovereign capacity, all the proceedings thereon shall be open to the public.

Political Neutrality

Senators, as judges in the whole proceedings, shall observe “political neutrality”—defined as the exercise of a public official’s duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference—during the course of the impeachment trial. In line with this, they shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial. This “gag order” also applies to the prosecutors, person impeached and to their respective counsels and witnesses. However, being a public issue which concerns national interest, academic discussions on the issue, rules of the impeachment proceedings, issues already presented before the Senate, as well as the political consequences on the impeachment trial may be the subject of public debates. Again, the public has the right to know all proceedings in the impeachment trial.

Evidence Necessary for Conviction

There are four (4) types of quantum of evidence required in arriving at a decision depending on the nature of the proceedings. First, there is “proof beyond reasonable doubt” which is the moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in our prejudiced mind. This is the evidence required in criminal proceedings, and this is the most difficult to obtain. The second type, “clear and convincing evidence”, is that weight of evidence that is clear, positive, and convincing, going beyond mere preponderance of evidence. The third, “preponderance of evidence”, means the superior weight of evidence as determined by the Court considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the witnesses’ manner of

34 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify and personal credibility. This is the evidence required in civil cases. The last type, “substantial evidence”, refers to such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This is the evidence required in administrative cases, and is said to be the easiest to obtain.

As discussed above, the nature of impeachment proceedings is neither political nor criminal, and that it is “sui generis”. Not being a purely criminal proceeding, it does not require “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to convict a person impeached. Hence, the senators may use any quantum of evidence except for “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as basis for his vote in any of the articles of impeachment. This is also the view taken by most of the scholars in American jurisprudence in relation to impeachment proceedings.

Basis of Two-Thirds Vote

The Constitution requires that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. What does the phrase “all the members of the Senate” mean? Is it based on the full membership of the Senate, which is 24, or on the actual incumbent members? This has particular importance only when the number of seats in the Senate is not completely filled as in the present Senate which only has 23 incumbent members. There is no jurisprudence on the matter yet.

*** A lawyer by profession, AKBAYAN Rep. Kaka Bag-ao was the Convenor of the Alternative Legal Group, a network of NGOs providing legal support to marginalized communities. She was the legal counsel of the Sumilao farmers.

[1] Justice Reynato Puno’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,citing Alexander Hamilton and the case of Nixon vs. United States (38 506 US 224 (1993) 122 L ed 1 113 S Ct 732.

[2] Justice Reynato Puno’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,citing the case of Nixon vs. United States (38 506 US 224 (1993) 122 L ed 1 113 S Ct 732.

35 Blog Watch Posts Simplifying the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials

[3] Tupaz, Antonio, R. Fundamentals of Impeachment. 2001 Edition. Phoenix Press, pp. 19.

[4] Justice Reynato Puno’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003.

[5] The Supreme Court decision in Francisco et al. vs. House of Representatives (GR No. 160261, 10 November 2003), states that Impeachment proceedings are initiated upon filing of the complaint and/or resolution and its referral to the Committee on Justice.

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)

This time, for a common Juan and Maria like me and for the majority of the population, another term, another Acronym in our vocabulary, SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth is the talk of the town in relation to the impeachment trial against Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato Corona. The chief was the one who issued or approved the medical treatment abroad of the former President of the Philippines and now under hospital arrest, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. That actually was the start of the suspicion of the Yellow army that leads for them to investigate his relationship to the incumbent Congresswoman of .

It’s been almost one and a half years since we elected the son of the former president of the Philippines. Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino is the only son of the slain hero Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino and one of his programs is to clean the decades of corruption in the Philippines. He swore to start it and from the past months, we prove that he is true to his promise, there’s Reyes, Garcia, Ligot, Guttierez who were all either appointed or under the previous administration.

Let me share to you this article below that I found from the web. This is in relation on why SALN is so important for the transparency of a government official to the Filipino people. I am not a lawyer but I am

36 Blog Watch Posts Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)

aware of the fact that the Philippines is suffering from poverty, which is due from the repeated greed of those we elected. Filipinos for this 2012 is more or less 95 million and because there are no works available for most of us, a lot of people are living below the poverty line.

Let’s read on why SALN is important and is enough for Corona to be impeached if proven a discrepancy on his submitted SALN.

The Experience of Asset Declaration in the Philippines

By: Assistant Ombudsman Pelagio S. Apostol

Office of the Ombudsman Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City Republic of the Philippines

As an effective strategy to combat corruption and promote ethical conduct in public service in the Philippines, as early as June 18, 1955, Republic Act 1379 was passed and approved into law declaring forfeiture in favor of the State any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee. This refers to an amount of property acquired by any public officer or employee during his/her incumbency which is manifestly out of proportion to his/her salary as such public officer or employee and to his/her other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.

In order to effectively implement Republic Act 1379, several legislative measures were installed and one of them is the requirement of asset declaration which is the primary and effective tool to find evidence of illegal enrichment.

On August 17, 1960, Republic Act 3019, as amended, was passed and approved into law, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the Philippines. Section 7 of the said Act, expressly states:

“Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. – Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year; xxx….”(As amended by RA 3047, PD 677 and PD 1288, January 24, 1978) (underlining supplied)

On February 20, 1989, this particular Section of the Act was modified and expanded by the passage of Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as the

37 Blog Watch Posts Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Section 8 of the said Act, expressly states:

“Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.” (underlining supplied)

Asset disclosure is mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, expressly states:

“Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

COVERAGE OF THE LAWS

The requirement of asset declaration covers all public officials and employees, except those who serve in an official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary laborers, and casual or temporary and contractual workers.

This is embodied in Rule VIII (Review and Compliance Procedure) of the Rules Implementing Republic Act 6713.

Corona’s SALNs as SC justice

#CJTrialWatch: Your role as Filipino Citizens

I will be using the hashtag #CJTrialWatch to ensure that citizens get a multiplicity of ideas and perspectives of the impeachment trial. Let me share to you some excerpts presented by Senator on “What to expect from the Impeachment”.

The Role of Every Filipino Citizen

The Constitution provides for various ways in which the citizens can participate in our democratic process, one of them is the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Filipinos have been very vocal about

38 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: Your role as Filipino Citizens

their support or disdain for anything from public personalities to political decisions made by incumbent officials. Clearly, we want to have a role in the impeachment process.

It has been said that “[O]ne of the demands of a democratic society is that the public should know what goes on in the courts by being informed by the press what is happening there, to the end that the public may judge whether our system of administration of justice is fair and right (Trial by Publicity, Arsenio Solidum. Philippine Law Journal, September 1959).

What then can our citizens do?

Support the process set out by the Constitution. Patient but vigilant observation. Critical but fair analysis.

In the formation of one’s opinions, Charles Black states:

“we ought to try to take the same stance of principled political neutrality that we hope to see taken by the House and the Senate as they go about their work (emphasis supplied)

Given the above, what is expected from a senator-judge? That he or she listens to every single opinion offered by friends, strangers or media? Or that we stay true to our oath and base our decisions on the evidence presented? I humbly submit, that despite the interesting theories and conclusions that will surely come out of this trial, we are required to pass judgement based on the evidence presented in the impeachment court.

On making comments and statements about the impeachment:

Senators:

Like a judge in a judicial court, Section XVIII of the Senate Rules on Impeachment requires that the Members of the Senate “refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.”

The same rule applies “to the prosecutors, to the person impeached, and to their respective counsel and witnesses.”

And to the public and those in media. yes, we each have own opinions. In fact, the press have their Constitutional guarantees on freedom of the press. Does that mean we can all say anything we want about the impeachment trial?

39 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: Your role as Filipino Citizens

As a judge, I need to shed myself of all impartialities and take on the neutrality of a disinterested person. In addition I am barred from making any comments on the merits of the trial.

For every other citizen, the Constitution and our rules are silent. But if you expect fairness from your judges, then perhaps the same principle of political neutrality will go along way in helping each other understand the issues without being swayed by personal or political leanings. This will then elevate the discussion and would go a long way to help the Senators focus on the evidence on hand and not on public perception.

(End of Senator Pia Cayetano notes)

Here are 5 ways that I will do/or have done to understand the impeachment process and the rule of law:

1. Understand the impeachment process. Read and Compare these two primers masterfuldeceit.blogspot.com/ and spacelab.2720.tv/infographics/Corona

2. Read the Full text of the Articles of impeachment . You can also download the document.

Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

3. Read reply of CJ Corona to impeachment complaint

Full Text of the Reply of CJ Corona to the Impeachment Complaint

4. watch live proceedings via livestream

Live stream - Senate: www.senate.gov.ph/videos/live2.asp - PTV : PTVPhilippines

- Twitter hashtags : blogwatch.tv/livestream

5. Watch this video explain that the President, the Senate and Congressmen are there for the people because they were elected but it doesn’t mean they are God and dictate the law without due process. (Take note that this is produced by those that oppose the actions of the administration)

4. Share your views based on facts using #CJtrialWatch hashtag

5. Read archives of videos, blog posts and other opinions at blogwatch.tv/corona-impeachment-trial

40 Blog Watch Posts #CJTrialWatch: Your role as Filipino Citizens

[View the story "#CJtrialWatch" on Storify]

Video & transcript: Speech of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Supreme Court before trial #CJtrialWatch

‘Walang atrasan ‘to,’ Chief Justice Corona said before the first day of the impeachment trial at the Senate started.

Here is his speech in two videos via ABS CBN News

Following are excerpts of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s speech (Via Interaksyon) at the Supreme Court, delivered in front of his supporters Monday morning, a few hours ahead of the start of the impeachment trial against him.

Sa kagustuhan nilang ako ay magresign, wala nang magawa kundi ako’y takutin nang takutin. Ako raw ay hadlang.

Tama, isa akong malaking hadlang. Malaki akong hadlang sa mga nagnanais na hindi maipamahagi ang lupain sa Hacienda Luisita. Malaki din akong hadlang sa nagmamadaling maging bise-presidente ngunit talo

41 Blog Watch Posts Video & transcript: Speech of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Supreme Court before trial #CJtrialWatch

noong 2010. At huwag na tayong lumayo: malaki din akong hadlang sa matagal nang nagaambisyong maging Chief Justice. Sila pong tatlo ang nagsasabwatan upang mapatalsik ako sa pwesto.

At higit sa lahat malaki akong hadlang sa pagtatag ng diktatura. Pati ba naman ang pinaghirapan kong Doctorate in Civil Law na nakamit ko sa Unibersidad ng Sto. Tomas tila ay kinaiingitan. Ang UST ay pinakamatandang pamantasan sa Pilipinas na napakagaling at napakataas ng pamantayan. Ang hirap makatapos dito ng isang kurso dahil sa dami ng kailangan matutunan. Nung hindi tumalab ang paninira nila sa aking doctorate in civil law, naghanap na naman sila ng bagong ibabato sa akin. Naglabas sila ng listahan na galing sa Land Registration Authority, 45 na titulo daw ang aking pagaari.

Naniniwala ba kayo dito?

Malaking kasinungalingan itong ginawa nilang ito. Ang sa atin ay lima po lamang. Lima.

Wala po akong kasalanan sa pangulo, wala po akong kasalanan sa taong bayan. Wala po akong ninakaw kanino man. Lahat po ng paratang nila ay kathang-isip lamang nila. Marahil ay para may mapagbalingan ng kanilang mga kakulangan.

Ang lahat po ng mga paratang sa akin ay napatunayan ko sa aking sagot na walang basehan. Malaki po ang tiwala ko sa senado, at malakas po ang aking pag-asa na ito [ako] po ay mapapawalang-sala sa lalong madaling panahon.

Ako po ay nagsusumamo sa inyong lahat na ituloy po natin ang laban na ito para sa Korte Suprema. Para sa hudikatura, para sa rule of law, at para sa isang malayang bansa.

Ito pong laban na ito ay hindi na para sa akin, at hindi na para sa pamilya ko. Kung para sa akin lamang ito, marahil noon pa ay nagbitiw na ako sa tungkulin. Wala na po akong magagawa, kung kaya’t itinataya ko na po ang lahat ng ito sa laban na ito. Ang aking pamilya, ang aking pangalan, katauhan, karangalan at dignidad sa laban na ito.

Wala na pong atrasan.

Ito pong laban na ito ay nagigiit… tunay pong malakas at maimpluwensya ang ating mga kalaban, ginagamit po nila ang ibat ibang ahensya ng gobyerno upang kami’y apihin, gipitin at parusahan.

Marami nga po doon ay hindi po sa amin, sa pag-aari ng taong hindi ko kilala. Ang iba naman po ay sa mga balae ko. Yan po ang sinasabing accountability.

Yan din po ang sinisira sa ating mga institusyon ng demokrasya. Dapat po nating tutulan ang paghari-harian nila sa hudikatura at sa kongreso. Ipagtanggol natin ang senado. Panatilihin po nating malaya ang tatlong pantay-pantay na sangay ng gobyerno.

42 Blog Watch Posts Video & transcript: Speech of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Supreme Court before trial #CJtrialWatch

Nais ko pong pasalamatan ang aking defense team na pinangungunahan ni Justice Serafin Cuevas. Maliban po sa sila’y magagaling, matatapang po sila at tapat sa kanilang tungkulin sa ilalim ng saligang batas.

I love you all.

A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

Photo credits: edangara.com

By: ATTY. AMADO F. MARALIT, LLM, MPA, CEO VI (Senate Parliamentary Counselor)

1. What should the Senate do upon receipt of articles of impeachment?

Upon receipt of articles of impeachment: a) The Senate shall specify the date and time for the consideration of such articles. b) The Senate President shall inform the House that the Senate shall take proper order on the subject of impeachment and shall be ready to receive the prosecutors on such time and date as the Senate may specify. c) If it is the Chief Justice that shall preside, notice shall be given to him by the Senate President of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, with a request to attend. d) The Senate shall organize itself as an Impeachment Court.

2. How does the Senate Organize itself into an Impeachment Court?

Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment:

43 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

The Presiding Officer shall be administered the prescribed oath or affirmation.

The Presiding Officer shall administer the prescribed oath or affirmation to the Members of the Senate then present and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it is to take the same.

3. What happens after the organization of the Senate?

A writ of summons shall be issued to the person impeached, reciting or incorporating said articles, and notifying him/her to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and to file his/her Answer to said articles of impeachment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof; to which the prosecutors may Reply within a non-extendible period of five (5) days there from and to stand and abide by the orders and judgments of the Senate.

4. How should the writ of summons be served?

The writ shall be served by personal service. The writ of summons shall be served by such officer or person named in the order thereof, not later than three (3) days prior to the day fixed for such appearance of the person impeached, by delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person impeached.

5. If personal service cannot be done, what other mode of service may be availed?

Service may be made by leaving a copy of the writ of summons with a person of sufficient age and discretion at his/her last known address or at his/her office or place of business.[9]

6. If service of the writ of summons fails, shall the proceedings abate?

No. Further service may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct.

7. Shall the impeachment trial proceed even if the person impeached fails to appear before the Senate or fails to file his/her answer to the articles of impeachment?

Yes, the trial shall proceed nonetheless as upon a plea of not guilty if, after service, the person impeached shall fail to appear, either in person or by counsel, on the day so fixed or though appearing, shall fail to file his/her Answer to such articles of impeachment.

8. If a plea of guilty is entered, shall trial nevertheless proceed?

No. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.

9. What shall the Secretary do upon the date and time designated by the Senate for the return of summons against the person impeached?

44 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

The Senate Secretary shall administer the oath or affirmation contemplated under the Rules to the returning officer. This oath or affirmation shall be entered at large on the records.

10. What is the duty of the Secretary upon the hour of the day appointed by the Senate for the trial of an impeachment case?

The Senate Secretary shall give notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the trial of the person impeached in the Senate Chamber.

11. What is the duty of the Senate President upon the hour of the day appointed by the Senate for the trial of an impeachment case?

The Presiding Officer shall cause the proclamation to be made that the business of the trial shall proceed.

12. What powers may the Presiding Officer exercise? a) The power to make and issue, by himself or by the Senate Secretary, all orders, mandates, and writs authorized by these Rules or by the Senate; and b) The power to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize to provide.

13. How long will the impeachment trial last?

Unless the Senate provides otherwise, it shall continue in session from day to day (except Saturdays, Sundays, and nonworking holidays) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be necessary.

14. Should the Senators observe political neutrality?

Yes, during the course of the impeachment trial. “Political Neutrality” shall be defined as the exercise of a public official’s duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation.

15. How shall the proceedings of the impeachment court be recorded and reported?

The Senate Secretary shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.

16. Are the parties on either side entitled to counsel?

Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment: Provided that counsel for the prosecutors shall be under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of

45 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

Representatives.

17. To whom shall all motions, objections, requests or applications be addressed?

All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only.

18. Is it necessary that all the motions, objections, requests or applications mentioned above be in writing?

As a general rule these are not required to be in writing. But if the Presiding officer or any Senator shall require it, these shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.

19. May the Senate compel the attendance of witnesses?

Yes.

20. How shall witnesses be examined and cross-examined?

Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.

21. May a Senator be called as a witness?

Yes. If a Senator is called as a witness, he/she shall be sworn, and give his/her testimony standing in his/her place.

22. If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness how long may he do so?

The Senator shall put a question to the witness within two minutes. He/She may also offer a motion or order in writing which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer.

23. May a Senator put a question to a prosecutor or counsel?

Yes. He/She may also offer a motion or order in writing which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer.

24. Is the impeachment trial open to the public?

At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment, the doors of the Senate shall be open to the public. Silence shall be observed by the visitors at all times, on pain of eviction from the trial venue.

46 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

25. May the Presiding officer and the Senators make any comments and disclosures in public about the merits of the trial?

They shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.

26. Does the above rule also apply to prosecutors, to the person impeached and to their respective counsel and witnesses?

Yes, they shall also refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.

27. How long may preliminary or interlocutory questions, and motions be argued?

They may be argued for not exceeding one (1) hour on each side, unless the Senate orders otherwise.

28. How many persons may open the case on each side?

Only one on each side may open the case.

29. How many persons on each side may make the final argument on the merits?

The final argument on the merits may be made by two (2) persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

30. When should Senators vote on the final question (on whether or not the impeachment is sustained)?

The Senators vote on the final question after the trial of all the articles of impeachment shall have been completed.

31. How shall the vote on the final question be taken?

The vote shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately.

32. When shall a judgment of acquittal be entered?

Judgment of acquittal shall be entered if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members.

33. When should the Senate proceed to pronounce judgment of conviction?

47 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

The Senate shall do so if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any of the articles of impeachment by the vote of two-thirds of all the Members. A certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the Office of the Secretary.

34. Is a motion for reconsideration of the vote of judgment for acquittal or conviction in order?

A motion to reconsider the vote by which an article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

35. What procedure is to be followed when there is an objection to any order or decision of the Senate?

All orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection. If objection is heard, the orders or decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject however, to the operation of Rule VI. In that case, no Senator shall speak for more than once on one question, and not for more than ten (10) minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen (15) minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate. A motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth (1/5) of the Senators present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment.

36. May the Senate enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs and judgments?

Yes.

37. May the Senate punish for contempt?

The Senate shall have the power to punish in a summary way contempt of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandate, writs, or judgments.

38. Does the Senate have the power to make orders, rules, and regulations?

Yes, it was the power to make such lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.

39. Is the Sergeant at Arms allowed to employ aid and assistance for the enforcement and execution of the lawful orders, mandates, and writs of the Senate?

Yes. He may do so under the direction of the Senate President.

40. What type of questions may the Senate President or Chief Justice, when presiding on the trial, rule on?

48 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

Either may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions.

41. Shall the ruling of the Senate President or Chief justice on the aforesaid questions stand as the ruling of the Senate?

Yes, unless a Senator shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision after one contrary view is expressed.

42. May the Presiding Officer in the first instance throw the question to the Senate?

Yes, he/she may submit any such question to a vote of the Senators.

43. For how long may the motion for a vote on the question and a contrary opinion take?

Said motion and the contrary opinion shall take not more than two (2) minutes each, with a one-minute rebuttal allowed for the proponent of the motion.

44. Will the Rules of Court and the Rules of the Senate find application in the impeachment trial?

The provisions of the Rules of the Senate and the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner whenever applicable.

45. How is the question put on each article of impeachment?

The Presiding Officer shall first state the question. Thereafter, each Senator, as his/her name is called, shall rise in his/her place and answer: guilty or not guilty.

46. When does the Presiding Officer vote?

The vote of the President of the Senate on each article of impeachment, when acting as the presiding officer, shall be last taken after all the Senators have stated their votes.

47. May a Senator explain his/her vote?

Yes if he/she so wishes, for not more than two (2) minutes.

48. Who shall serve all process?

All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.

49. May the Senate enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs and judgments?

49 Blog Watch Posts A Primer on the New Rules of Procedure Governing Impeachment Trials in the Senate of the Philippines

Yes.

50. If the Impeachment Court fails to sit on the hour fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment what may the Senate do?

The Senate may by an order to be adopted without debate, fix a day and hour for resuming consideration.

51. Has the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials been published?

Yes, in the 26 March 2011 of the Bulletin (p.9) and the Manila Times (p.A7). The Rules can be accessed at the Senate website: www.senate.gov.ph

Making Sacred Cows Accountable: Impeachment as the Most Formidable Weapon in the Arsenal of Democracy

What is an impeachment? Was the Constitutional process fully complied with regard the impeachment complaint filed by the 188 members of the House of Representatives against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona?

The Philippine democracy, young as it is, has weathered several challenges and has also given rise to a few innovations, so to speak. Among the more important ones is the concept and practice of “people power” which more than 25 years ago helped give back the power to the Filipino people and gave birth to the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Since then, despite certain weaknesses in the fundamental law and unfortunate abuse by officials, both appointed and elected, Philippine democracy has been “tried and tested” and constantly emerged victorious, embattled but reinforced. The cornerstone of this democracy is the fact that the electorate, the Filipino people are always considered to be the ultimate source of power and that public welfare is the be all and end all for all public officials. Thus, breaking the public trust, even by the highest officials of the land had always been met not only by criticism but by reformatory action, which although considered drastic is always within bounds of the law and supported by the people themselves.

We are at such a challenging juncture again, with the three departments of the government being required to step up to defend democratic institutions and more importantly, to draw the lines clearly on accountability and public service vis-à-vis impunity and blind obedience to sacred cows. The people endured almost a decade of discontent and have been ready to put a stop to the abuse of the system but roadblocks have apparently been left within our democratic institutions to deter change and perpetuate impunity. So, the public officials who wield the power must stand up to represent the people and act in their behalf. That, after all, is what we are here for: to represent the people because of the possible triumph of these actions within the bounds of justice and the law and despite the possible risks of taking unpopular actions against the powerful who refuse to be accountable.

50 Blog Watch Posts Making Sacred Cows Accountable: Impeachment as the Most Formidable Weapon in the Arsenal of Democracy

That is what the impeachment process is all about, nothing more, nothing less. The House of Representatives is taking part in, leading this affront against a public official to make him answer to the people questions about his loyalties and capability of serving the public. It is not about disrespect for the judiciary, a co-equal branch which has time and again proven to be the most credible and which had held the torch for our nation and people throughout dark times. It is, in fact, about protecting that institution which e all revere and look to for firm guidance and resolute ascendancy. So, let no one be mistaken. We are supporting the efforts to purge the judiciary of powerful officials who denigrate the concept of public trust and we do this with the Constitution as our only non-negotiable guiding force and its provisions on Public Trust and Impeachment as our most formidable weapon. We are not looking for petty, baseless, unnecessary battles. We are fighting for the very reasons why our democracy survived. If the Chief Justice proves himself obedient to his oath and to be subservient only to the public trust, then all the better. After all, our only foe is public officials who refuse to abide by the fundamental law and to serve the people with independence and integrity.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment is a remedy sanctioned by the 1987 Constitution[1] for removing the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, and for purposes of this discussion, the Members of the Supreme Court. As the last bulwark of justice, the Supreme Court exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.[2]

How is an impeachment initiated?

The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment based on the following three (3) modes, to wit:

1. A verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives;

2. A verified complaint for impeachment filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member of the House of Representatives;

In both modes, the complaint shall be included in the Order of Business and referred to the proper committee for a hearing. By a majority vote of all its Members, it shall submit its report to the House. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House may affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or override its contrary resolution.

3. A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House.

In the third mode, the complaint or resolution shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and the trial by the Senate shall proceed. Unlike the first two (2) modes, there is no need for a plenary discussion of the complaint in the House of Representatives.

51 Blog Watch Posts Making Sacred Cows Accountable: Impeachment as the Most Formidable Weapon in the Arsenal of Democracy

The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. The concurrence of a two-thirds vote of all the Members of the Senate is necessary to convict the respondent. Its judgment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office.

Was the initiation of the impeachment process in the House of Representatives railroaded?

No, it was conducted in accordance with the constitution and after compliance with the procedures therein. It should be borne in mind that the impeachment process is a political process. However, it does not necessarily mean that this particular impeachment effort was motivated by partisan politics or by ulterior motives on the part of the legislators who supported it.

The verified impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Corona, which was filed on 12 December 2011, was signed by 188 Members of the House of Representatives who come from different parties, with the common goal of pursuing accountability from our public officers who hold their post in public trust. The concurrence of more than the required one-third vote of all the Members of the House of Representatives automatically constituted the verified complaint as the Articles of Impeachment in accordance with the third mode cited above.

It is to be noted that the complaint against Chief Justice Corona differs from the previous impeachment complaint filed against former Ombudsman Merceditas Guttierez which was filed by Risa Hontiveros and endorsed by Representatives from the Akbayan Partylist. The latter complaint apparently used the second mode of impeachment process, hence the need to duly refer the complaint to the Justice Committee of the House of Representatives for proper deliberations.

It is not true that legislators were forced to assent to this or were lured with pork barrel funds to do so. This impeachment was carefully studied and the legislators supporting it are under the belief that an independent and competent Supreme Court deserves a Chief Justice who is subservient to no one else but the law and the people. To stand by and watch while the final arbiter of the law deteriorates and the Supreme Court loses credibility and integrity would be contrary to our sworn duty as legislators to look after the people’s welfare.

The successful impeachment proceedings at the House show that our Constitution is working and that the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government is in place. The impeachment proceeding was done for the very purpose of protecting our democratic institutions for which purpose, unfortunately, Chief Justice Corona failed to contribute. The impeachment trial at the Senate will help educate our people regarding democracy, the duties of public officials and will show them that there are legal means to remove officials of questionable integrity from office and to seek accountability.

*** A lawyer by profession, AKBAYAN Rep. Kaka Bag-ao was the Convenor of the Alternative Law Group (ALG), a network of NGOs providing legal support to marginalized communities. She was the legal counsel of the Sumilao farmers.

[1] Section 2-3, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.

52 Blog Watch Posts Making Sacred Cows Accountable: Impeachment as the Most Formidable Weapon in the Arsenal of Democracy

[2] Preamble, Code of Judicial Conduct.

List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

“Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casiño said the majority of the 188 members who signed the impeachment case were clueless of the eight articles used as the basis to kick out Corona when they entered the majority caucus at 2:30 pm Monday.

Casiño admitted that they were not allowed to read the 57-page document, which they signed on as both complainant and endorser. The signing of the document by 188 congressmen paved the way for the approval of the complaint without having to toil through committee hearing or plenary voting.”

President Benigno Aquino III himself gave the impeachment order in a Japanese restaurant at the Greenhills shopping center in San Juan City in a 10-minute meeting on Sunday with House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II, according to a Philippine Daily Inquirer source. The source said the House leaders were rushing to impeach Corona before Dec. 20 when the Supreme Court was expected to issue a ruling that would allow Arroyo to spend the Christmas and the New Year holidays at her family residence at the fashionable La Vista subdivision in Quezon City.

Below is the list of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint. Also read the text of the Impeachment complaint after the list of names.

List of solons who signed the impeachment complaint against CJ Corona:

Reps. Niel Tupas Jr. (Iloilo); (Mindoro Oriental); Joseph Emilio Abaya (); Arlene Bag-ao (Akbayan); ( City); Winston Castelo (Quezon City); Ma. Evita Arago (); Roilo Golez (Paranaque City); Jay Lacson Noel (; Aurora Cerilles ( ); Emi Calixto Rubiano ( City); Walden Bello (Akbayan); Jim Hataman SAliman (); (North ); Scott Davies Lanete (); Rodolfo Valencia (Mindoro Oriental); Florencio Noel (An Waray); Llandro Mark Mendoza (); (Valenzuela City); Aurelio Gonzales (Pampanga); Jeffrey Ferrer (); Daisy Avance Fuentes (); Isidro Rodriguez Jr. (); Jr. (Zamboanga del Sur); Zenaida Angping (Manila); (); Deogracias Ramos Jr. (); Julieta Cortuna (A Teacher); Florencio Garay () Ma. Carmen Zamora-Apsay (Compostela Valley); Roger Mercado (Southern ); Herminira Roman (); (Iloilo); Neptali Gonzales II ( City); Georgina De Venecia (); Enrique M. Cojuangco (); Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Bagong Henerasyon); Tupay Loong (); Ma. Jocelyn Bernos (); Nur-Ana Sahidulla (Sulu); Pangalian Balindong (); Agapito Guanlao (Butil); Mylene Garcia Albano (Davao City); Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan); Kimi S. Cojuangco (Pangasinan); Ana Cristina Siquian-Go (); (Tarlac); Antonio Alvarez (); Acmad Tomawis (ALIF);

53 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Arnulfo Go (); Eulogio Magsaysay (AVE); Jesus Sacdalan (North Cotabato); ( City); Raden Sakaluran (Sultan Kudarat); Mercedes Alvarez (Negros Occidental); Alfredo Benitez (Negros Occidental); Abigail Faye Ferriol (); Jerry Trenas (Iloilo City); (Western ); Josefina Joson (); Arnulfo Fuentebella (); Jeci Lapus (Tarlac); (Paranaque City); Lucy Torres Gomez (Leyte); Carlo Lopez (Manila); Joselito Mendoza (); Arnel Cerafica (-); Ma. Isabelle Climaco (Zamboanga City); Arturo Robes (San Jose del Monte City); Rene Relampagos (); Tomas Apacible (Batangas); Florencio Miraflores (); Teodorico Haresco (Kasangga); Jesus Paras (); Manuel Agyao (Kalinga); Romeo Acop (Antipolo City); Edgar San Luis (Laguna); Ireneo Maliksi (Cavite); Roy Loyola (Cavite); Angelo Palmones (Agham); Mariano Piamonte (A Teacher); Paolo Javier (); Loreto Leo Ocampos (); Isidro Lico (Ating Koop); Jesus Celeste (Pangasinan); Jose Ping-ay (Coop Natcco); Ryan Luis Singson (); Ponciano Payuyo (Apec); Vicente Belmonte (Iligan City); Eleanor Bulut-Begtang (); Ronald Cosalan (); Nelson Collantes (Batangas); Miro Quimbo (Marikina City); Bernardo Vergara (Baguio City); Fernando Gonzales (); Antonio Lagdameo (); Godofredo Arquiza (Senior Citizen); Antonio Ferrer (Cavite); Baby Aline Alfonso (); Gabriel Quisumbing (); Benjamin ASilo (Manila); George Arnaiz (); Randolf Ting (Cagayan); Henry Pryde Teves (Negros Oriental); Raul Daza (); Joseph Violago (Nueva Ecija); Linabelle Ruth Villarica (Bulacan); Justin Chipeco (Laguna); Rodel Batocabe (Ako Bicol); Aflredo Garbin Jr. (Ako Bicol); Jocelyn Limkaichong (Negros Oriental); Eleandro Jesus Madrona (); Cesar Sarmiento (); David Kho (Senior Citizens); Francisco Emmanuel R. Ortega III (Abono); Neil Montejo (An Waray); Robert Estrella (Abono); (Bataan); Giorgidi Aggabao (Isabela); Daryl Grace Abayon (AT); Roberto V. Puno (Antipolo City); Elpidio Barzaga Jr. (Cavite); Eufranio Eriguel (); Mariano Michael Velarde (Buhay); Irwin Tieng (Buhay); Mariano Piamonte Jr. (A Teacher); Pedro Pancho (Bulacan); Maria Valentina Plaza (); Andres Salvacion (Leyte); Yevgeny Emano (); Nelson Dayanghirang (); Raymond Mendoza (TUCP); Ferjenel Biron (Iloilo); Mark Enverga (Quezon); Salvador Cabaluna III (1-Care); Homer Mercado (1-Utak); Jose F. Zubiri III (Bukidnon); Patricio Antonio (Agbiag); Dakila Cua (); Lord Allan Jay Velasco (); Pedro Acharon Jr. (South Cotabato-Gen. Santos City); Ben Evardone (); Henedina R. Abad (); Emmi De Jesus (Gabriela); Raymond Palatino (Kabataan); Antonio l. Tinio (ACT); Nicanor Briones (AGAP); Neri Javier Colmenares (Bayan Muna); Teddy Casino (Bayan Muna); Juan Edgardo Angara (Aurora); Mary Mitzi Cajayon (Caloocan City); Carol Jayne Lopez (YACAP); Jorge Banal III (Quezon City); Irvin Alcala (Quezon); Benjo Benaldo (Cagayan de Oro City);Jonathan Yambao (Zamboanga Sigubay); Lorenzo Tanada III (Quezon); Peter Unabia (Misamis Oriental); Cresente Paez (Coop-Natcco); Leopoldo Bataoil (Pangasinan); Amado Bagatsing (Manila); Julio Ledesma IV (Negros Occidental); Bai Sandra Sema (-Cotabato City); Rommel Amatong (Compostela Valley); Sharon Garin (Aambis-Owa) Vincent Crisologo (Quezon City); Czarina Umali (Nueva Ecija); Napoleon Dy (Isabela); Michael Rivera (1-CARE); Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (Quezon City); JC Rahman Nava (); Joseph Victor Ejercito (San Juan); Nur G. Jaafar (Tawi-tawi); Marlin Primicias-Agabas (Pangasinan); Rachel del Mar (Cebu City); Jack Enrile (Cagayan); Anthony Golez (Bacolod City); Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis); Renato J. Unico Jr. (); Trisha Bonoan (Manila); Franklin Bautista (); Benhur Salimbangon (Cebu); Red Durano (Cebu); Cinchona Gonzales (CiBAC); and Sherwin Tugna (CIBAC)

54 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

List of Congressmen Who Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Aglipay, Emmeline Y. PL – DIWA

Albano, Rodolfo B. Isabela, 1st District

Alcover, Pastor Jr. M. PL – ANAD

Almario, Thelma Z. Davao Oriental, 2nd District

Amante-Matba, Angelica M. , 2nd District

Andaya, Rolando Jr. G. Camarines Sur, 1st District

Antonino, Rodolfo W. Nueva Ecija, 4th District

Apostol, Sergio F. Leyte, 2nd District

Aquino, Jose II S. Agusan del Norte, 1st District

Arroyo, Diosdado Macapagal Camarines Sur, 2nd District

Arroyo, Iggy T. Negros Occidental, 5th District

Aumentado, Erico B. Bohol, 2nd District

Bagasina, Catalina C. PL – ALE

Biazon, Rodolfo G.

55 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Muntinlupa City, Lone District

Bichara, Al Francis DC. Albay, 2nd District

Binay, Mar-Len Abigail S. Makati City, 2nd District

Bondoc, Anna York P., M.D. Pampanga, 4th District

Bravo, Narciso Jr. R. Masbate, 1st District

Brawner Baguilat, Teddy Jr. , Lone District

Cagas, Marc Douglas IV C. Davao del Sur, 1st District

Calimbas-Villarosa, Ma. Amelita A. , Lone District

Canonigo, Ranulfo P. PL – KAKUSA

Cari, Jose Carlos L. Leyte, 5th District

Castro, Jane T. , 2nd District

Co, Christopher S. PL – AKO BICOL

Dalog, Maximo B. , Lone District

Datumanong ,Simeon A. Maguindanao, 2nd District

Defensor, Arthur Jr. R.

56 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Iloilo, 3rd District

Del Rosario, Anthony G. Davao del Norte, 1st District

Diaz, Antonio M. (†) , 2nd District

Dimaporo, Fatima Aliah Q. , 2nd District

Dimaporo, Imelda Quibranza Lanao del Norte, 1st District

Duavit, Joel Roy Rizal, 1st District

Ecleo, Ruben Jr. B. , Lone District

Escudero, Salvador III H. Sorsogon, 1st District

Fabian, Erico Basilio A. Zamboanga City, 2nd District

Fariñas, Rodolfo C. , 1st District

Fernandez, Danilo Ramon S. Laguna, 1st District

Flores, Florencio Jr. T. Bukidnon, 2nd District

Fua, Orlando B. , Lone District

Garcia, Pablo John F. Cebu, 3rd District

Garcia, Pablo P.

57 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Cebu, 2nd District

Gullas, Eduardo R. Cebu, 1st District

Gunigundo, Magtanggol T. Valenzuela City, 2nd District

Ilagan,Luzviminda C. PL – GABRIELA

Jalosjos, Cesar G. , 3rd District

Jalosjos, Romeo Jr. M. , 2nd District

Jalosjos, Seth F. P. Zamboanga del Norte, 1st District

Kho, Antonio T. Masbate, 2nd District

Labadlabad, Rosendo S. Zamboanga del Norte, 2nd District

Lagdameo, Monique Yazmin Q. Makati City, 1st District

Lagman, Edcel C. Albay, 1st District

Lazatin, Carmelo F. Pampanga, 1st District

Leonen-Pizarro, Catalina G. PL – ABS

Macapagal Arroyo, Juan Miguel PL – AGP

Macapagal-Arroyo, Gloria M. Pampanga, 2nd District

58 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Magsaysay, Ma. Milagros H. Zambales, 1st District

Mandanas, Hermilando I. Batangas, 2nd District

Marañon, Alfredo III D. Negros Occidental, 2nd District

Marcoleta, Rodante D. PL – ALAGAD

Marcos, Imelda R. Ilocos Norte, 2nd District

Matugas, Francisco ‘Lalo’ T. , 1st District

Mellana, Evelyn P. Agusan del Sur, 2nd District

Mercado-Revilla, Lani Cavite, 2nd District

Nograles, Karlo Alexei B. Davao City, 1st District

Obillo, Reena Concepcion G. PL – UNA ANG PAMILYA

Ocampo, Rosenda Ann Manila, 6th District

Ong, Emil L. Northern Samar, 2nd District

Ortega, Victor Francisco C. La Union, 1st District

Osmeña, Tomas R. Cebu City, 2nd District

59 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Pacquiao, Emmanuel D. , Lone District

Padilla, Carlos M. , Lone District

Pangandaman, Mohammed Hussein P. Lanao del Sur, 1st District

Pangandaman, Nasser C. PL – AA KASOSYO

Pangandaman, Solaiman C. (Resigned) PL – AA KASOSYO

Panotes, Elmer E. Camarines Norte, 2nd District

Pichay, Philip A. Surigao del Sur, 1st District

Radaza, Arturo O. Lapu-Lapu City, Lone District

Remulla, Jesus Crispin C. Cavite, 7th District

Rodriguez, Maximo Jr. B. PL – ABANTE MINDANAO

Rodriguez, Rufus B. Cagayan de Oro City, 2nd District

Romarate, Guillermo Jr. A. Surigao del Norte, 2nd District

Romualdez, Ferdinand Martin G. Leyte, 1st District

Romualdo, Pedro P. , Lone District

60 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Romulo, Roman T. City, Lone District

Sambar, Mark Aeron H. PL – PBA

Singson, Eric Jr. G. Ilocos Sur, 2nd District

Singson, Ronald V. (Resigned) Ilocos Sur, 1st District

Socrates, Victorino Dennis M. Palawan, 2nd District

Suarez, Danilo E. Quezon, 3rd District

Sy-Alvarado, Ma. Victoria R. Bulacan, 1st District

Syjuco, Augusto Boboy, Ph.D. Iloilo, 2nd District

Tan, Milagrosa ‘Mila’ T. Western Samar, 2nd District

Tiangco, Tobias ‘Toby’ M. Navotas City, Lone District

Tinga, Sigfrido R. Taguig City, 2nd District

Ty, Arnel U. PL – LPGMA

Villafuerte, Luis R. Camarines Sur, 3rd District

Villar, Mark A. Las Piñas City, Lone District

61 Blog Watch Posts List of Congressmen Who Signed/Did Not Sign the Corona Impeachment Complaint

Yap, Arthur C. Bohol, 3rd District

The Impeachment complaint

Summary of the Corona Impeachment Complaint ]]>

Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona ]]>

Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona

Chief Justice Renato Corona betrayed public trust, violated the Constitution and is guilty of graft and corruption, allies of President Aquino wrote today in their impeachment complaint they filed against Corona. You can the summary of the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona here. Read the full impeachment complaint here.

The impeachment looks like a done deal. A total of 178 legislators signed the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II says that it is a matter of formality. “Formality na lang ang kailangan before we can say he is impeached. Pero ang totoo nyan, it’s all over but the shouting.”

62 Blog Watch Posts Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona

Photo via Joseph Morong

“House Speaker Belmonte said the move has the full support of President Benigno Aquino III, but stressed that he did not give a marching order for the congressmen to go for it. The complaint will be transmitted to the Senate Monday night, although physical transmission could Tuesday or Wednesday. Risa Hontiveros, Leah Navarro and Juan Carlo Tejano, all from the Bantay Gloria Network, witnessed the signing of the complaint.”

Statement from Minority Leader Rep. Edcel C. Lagman:

“The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona is the mother of all blackmails.

“Many of the administration allies in the House of Representatives were blackmailed into signing the impeachment complaint by threatening those who would refuse to sign with the deprivation of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other funding releases for their respective districts.

“The Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed not to decide pending cases against the Aquino Administration, otherwise the wrath of impeachment will be on them.

“We hope the Senators who will act as impeachment judges will be strong and judicious not to succumb to similar blackmails.

“The derogation of our democratic institutions is almost complete with the emasculation of the House of

63 Blog Watch Posts Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona

Representatives, the violation of civil liberties, the impairment of the rule of law, and now the destruction of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.”

List of solons who signed the impeachment complaint against CJ Corona:

Reps. Niel Tupas Jr. (Iloilo); Reynaldo Umali (Mindoro Oriental); Joseph Emilio Abaya (Cavite); Arlene Bag-ao (Akbayan); Marcelino Teodoro (Marikina City); Winston Castelo (Quezon City); Ma. Evita Arago (Laguna); Roilo Golez (Paranaque City); Jay Lacson Noel (Navotas; Aurora Cerilles ( Zamboanga del Sur); Emi Calixto Rubiano (Pasay City); Walden Bello (Akbayan); Jim Hataman SAliman (Basilan); Nancy Catamco (North Cotabato); Scott Davies Lanete (Masbate); Rodolfo Valencia (Mindoro Oriental); Florencio Noel (An Waray); Llandro Mark Mendoza (Batangas); Rex Gatchalian (Valenzuela City); Aurelio Gonzales (Pampanga); Jeffrey Ferrer (Negros Occidental); Daisy Avance Fuentes (South Cotabato); Isidro Rodriguez Jr. (Rizal); Victor Yu Jr. (Zamboanga del Sur); Zenaida Angping (Manila); Rogelio Espina (Biliran); Deogracias Ramos Jr. (Sorsogon); Julieta Cortuna (A Teacher); Florencio Garay (Surigao del Sur) Ma. Carmen Zamora-Apsay (Compostela Valley); Roger Mercado (); Herminira Roman (Bataan); Janette Garin (Iloilo); Neptali Gonzales II (Mandaluyong City); Georgina De Venecia (Pangasinan); Enrique M. Cojuangco (Tarlac); Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Bagong Henerasyon); Tupay Loong (Sulu); Ma. Jocelyn Bernos (Abra); Nur-Ana Sahidulla (Sulu); Pangalian Balindong (Lanao del Sur); Agapito Guanlao (Butil); Mylene Garcia Albano (Davao City); Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan); Kimi S. Cojuangco (Pangasinan); Ana Cristina Siquian-Go (Isabela); Susan Yap (Tarlac); Antonio Alvarez (Palawan); Acmad Tomawis (ALIF); Arnulfo Go (Sultan Kudarat); Eulogio Magsaysay (AVE); Jesus Sacdalan (North Cotabato); Oscar Malapitan (Caloocan City); Raden Sakaluran (Sultan Kudarat); Mercedes Alvarez (Negros Occidental); Alfredo Benitez (Negros Occidental); Abigail Faye Ferriol (Kalinga); Jerry Trenas (Iloilo City); Mel Senen Sarmiento (Western Samar); Josefina Joson (Nueva Ecija); Arnulfo Fuentebella (Camarines Sur); Jeci Lapus (Tarlac); Edwin Olivarez (Paranaque City); Lucy Torres Gomez (Leyte); Carlo Lopez (Manila); Joselito Mendoza (Bulacan); Arnel Cerafica (Pateros-Taguig); Ma. Isabelle Climaco (Zamboanga City); Arturo Robes (San Jose del Monte City); Rene Relampagos (Bohol); Tomas Apacible (Batangas); Florencio Miraflores (Aklan); Teodorico Haresco (Kasangga); Jesus Paras (Bukidnon); Manuel Agyao (Kalinga); Romeo Acop (Antipolo City); Edgar San Luis (Laguna); Ireneo Maliksi (Cavite); Roy Loyola (Cavite); Angelo Palmones (Agham); Mariano Piamonte (A Teacher); Paolo Javier (Antique); Loreto Leo Ocampos (Misamis Occidental); Isidro Lico (Ating Koop); Jesus Celeste (Pangasinan); Jose Ping-ay (Coop Natcco); Ryan Luis Singson (Ilocos Sur); Ponciano Payuyo (Apec); Vicente Belmonte (Iligan City); Eleanor Bulut-Begtang (Apayao); Ronald Cosalan (Benguet); Nelson Collantes (Batangas); Miro Quimbo (Marikina City); Bernardo Vergara (Baguio City); Fernando Gonzales (Albay); Antonio Lagdameo (Davao del Norte); Godofredo Arquiza (Senior Citizen); Antonio Ferrer (Cavite); Baby Aline Alfonso (Cagayan); Gabriel Quisumbing (Cebu); Benjamin ASilo (Manila); George Arnaiz (Negros Oriental); Randolf Ting (Cagayan); Henry Pryde Teves (Negros Oriental); Raul Daza (Northern Samar); Joseph Violago (Nueva Ecija); Linabelle Ruth Villarica (Bulacan); Justin Chipeco (Laguna); Rodel Batocabe (Ako Bicol); Aflredo Garbin Jr. (Ako Bicol); Jocelyn Limkaichong (Negros Oriental); Eleandro Jesus Madrona (Romblon); Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes); David Kho (Senior Citizens); Francisco Emmanuel R. Ortega III (Abono); Neil Montejo (An Waray); Robert Estrella (Abono); Albert Garcia (Bataan); Giorgidi Aggabao (Isabela); Daryl Grace Abayon (AT); Roberto V. Puno (Antipolo City); Elpidio Barzaga Jr. (Cavite); Eufranio Eriguel (La Union); Mariano Michael Velarde (Buhay); Irwin

64 Blog Watch Posts Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona

Tieng (Buhay); Mariano Piamonte Jr. (A Teacher); Pedro Pancho (Bulacan); Maria Valentina Plaza (Agusan del Sur); Andres Salvacion (Leyte); Yevgeny Emano (Misamis Oriental); Nelson Dayanghirang (Davao Oriental); Raymond Mendoza (TUCP); Ferjenel Biron (Iloilo); Mark Enverga (Quezon); Salvador Cabaluna III (1-Care); Homer Mercado (1-Utak); Jose F. Zubiri III (Bukidnon); Patricio Antonio (Agbiag); Dakila Cua (Quirino); Lord Allan Jay Velasco (Marinduque); Pedro Acharon Jr. (South Cotabato-Gen. Santos City); Ben Evardone (Eastern Samar); Henedina R. Abad (Batanes); Emmi De Jesus (Gabriela); Raymond Palatino (Kabataan); Antonio l. Tinio (ACT); Nicanor Briones (AGAP); Neri Javier Colmenares (Bayan Muna); Teddy Casino (Bayan Muna); Juan Edgardo Angara (Aurora); Mary Mitzi Cajayon (Caloocan City); Carol Jayne Lopez (YACAP); Jorge Banal III (Quezon City); Irvin Alcala (Quezon); Benjo Benaldo (Cagayan de Oro City);Jonathan Yambao (Zamboanga Sigubay); Lorenzo Tanada III (Quezon); Peter Unabia (Misamis Oriental); Cresente Paez (Coop-Natcco); Leopoldo Bataoil (Pangasinan); Amado Bagatsing (Manila); Julio Ledesma IV (Negros Occidental); Bai Sandra Sema (Maguindanao-Cotabato City); Rommel Amatong (Compostela Valley); Sharon Garin (Aambis-Owa) Vincent Crisologo (Quezon City); Czarina Umali (Nueva Ecija); Napoleon Dy (Isabela); Michael Rivera (1-CARE); Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (Quezon City); JC Rahman Nava (Guimaras); Joseph Victor Ejercito (San Juan); Nur G. Jaafar (Tawi-tawi); Marlin Primicias-Agabas (Pangasinan); Rachel del Mar (Cebu City); Jack Enrile (Cagayan); Anthony Golez (Bacolod City); Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis); Renato J. Unico Jr. (Camarines Norte); Trisha Bonoan (Manila); Franklin Bautista (Davao del Sur); Benhur Salimbangon (Cebu); Red Durano (Cebu); Cinchona Gonzales (CiBAC); and Sherwin Tugna (CIBAC)

Twitter Reactions

Meanwhile in Twitter, @cassieyamada “did not expect developments on #Corona ‘s possible impeachment to happen this fast! I didn’t know Congress could be so quick. Hello #RHbill” . @rom thinks “now if only that is about RH Bill – it would have made more sense.” @shagamy is just as surprised, “Natulog lang ako sandali tapos impeached na si Corona…” The progressive party-lists hope “.. this impeachment will result not in an Aquino court but in something with integrity.”

@the_nutbox concurs that “Impeach Corona is definitely better than Occupy Supreme Court. It’s a legitimate constitutional exercise, not mob rule.” @tonyocruz noted that “.. pro-Arroyo turned pro-Aquino turncoats are leading this oust-Corona move in Congress. Dapat sila bweltahan din, di ba?” but @limbertqc is quick to add that “@PresidentNoy Reps have to work fast bcoz PDAF being withheld.”

Will the impeachment prosper in the Senate?

@renaguila thinks ” Corona won’t be impeached. He has at least four supporters in the Senate and they could easily get a blocking minority of nine.”

@limbertqc looks at it this way: “Scenario: CJ tried in Senate. Trial protracted. Economy stalled. Const crisis. Deadlock in governance. SC still anti-Pnoy. Military restive.” @mr_scheez thinks that there are only one of the complaints have solid ground, “sa limang grounds to impeach Corona, isa lang ang solid – non-disclosure of assets. yung iba puro may butas.”

65 Blog Watch Posts Twitter reactions: House of Representatives sign to impeach Corona

View the story “Corona’s impeachment and complaint” on Storify]

Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

As far back as October, Article VIII Jester released a document of the 300-square-meter Mega World apartment at the Fort in Taguig that is owned by Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona and his wife.

Click to enlarge A complaint was filed against Corona and one of this is the above mentioned property. MovePH lists down the rest of the complant

Chief Justice Renato Corona betrayed public trust, violated the Constitution and is guilty of graft and corruption, allies of President Aquino wrote today in their impeachment complaint to be filed against Corona.

The complaint cited eight grounds for Corona’s impeachment. The key complainants named in the document are Representatives Niel Tupas, Joseph Emilio Abaya, Lorenzo Tañada, and Arlene Bag-Ao.

Administration allies are now holding a caucus to tackle the complaint and get at least 95 solons, or one-third of the House of Representatives, to sign the complaint.

“Never has the position of Chief Justice, or the standing of the Supreme Court, as an institution, been so tainted with the perception of bias and partiality, as it is now; not even in the dark days of martial law, has

66 Blog Watch Posts Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

the chief magistrate behaved with such arrogance, impunity, and cynicism,” the complaint noted.

Corona’s “ethical blindness, introduction of political partisanship at the expense of due process, and intrigue into the Court at the expense of the reputation of his fellow justices, his undermining basic, and cherished principles of intellectual, financial and ethical honesty by using his powers not to arrive at the truth, or hold the court to the highest standards, but instead, to cover up and excuse shortcomings of the court, has betrayed public trust by eroding public confidence in the administration of justice,” the complaint added.

The complaint charged Corona with committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betraying public trust based on the following accusations:

1.) Corona failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution. The complaint accused him of accumulating “ill-gotten wealth” through his recent purchase of a posh 300-square-meter Mega World apartment at the Fort in Taguig. “Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally required…in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with this duty of disclosure?”

2.) Corona failed to meet and observe “stringent standards” set by the Constitution for a “member of the judiciary” to be a “person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.” The complaint cited the “flip-flopping” of the “Corona Court” on the case involving the flight attendants and stewards of Philippine Airlines and on the case of the League of Cities, both of which were handled by lawyer Estelito Mendoza. “In this connection, [Corona's] voting pattern even prior to his dubious appointment as Chief Justice, clearly proves a bias and manifest partiality for President Arroyo.” The complaint added: “It must be noted that under the law, bias need not be proven to actually exist; it is enough that the Chief Justice’s actions lend themselves to a reasonable suspicion that he does not posses the required probity and impartiality.”

Corona and his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March 23, 2007 from then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the Board of John Hay Management Corp. (JHMC), to a “well-paying job” as its president and director, the complaint said. The corporation is a government-owned-and-controlled corporation, it noted.

The management and rank-and-file of JHMC filed “serious complaints” against Mrs. Corona for alleged “serious irregularities” when she was at John Hay, the complaint said. Yet, “instead of acting on the serious complaints against Mrs. Corona, President Arroyo instructed all members of the JHMC to tender their courtesy resignations immediately.”

3.) Corona “blatantly disregarded” the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case involving resigned Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. The complaint said Corona “with undue haste” immediately tabled Gutierrez’s petition last year stopping the House from initiating impeachment proceedings against her, even if “not all the Justices had

67 Blog Watch Posts Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

received or read the petition.” It added: “This was confirmed by Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her dissenting opinion to the Feb. 11, 2011 decision stopping the House from impeaching Gutierrez. The latter eventually resigned. Replacing her is one of the justices who voted against the status quo ante order, Conchita Carpio-Morales.”

The complaint cited a Newsbreak story on it, which noted that while a “a Supreme Court delivery receipt showed that most of the justices received Gutierrez’s petition, 3 justices received the petition only on Sept. 15, 2011, a day after the status quo ante order was granted.” The 3 justices were Presbitero Velasco, Luis Bersamin and Jose Perez; they all voted in favor of the status quo ante order that favored Gutierrez. Read the Newsbreak story here: [http://www.newsbreak.ph/2011/03/02/delivery-receipt-shows-justices-voted-on-gutie rrez-petition-before-receiving-copies/]

The complaint charged Corona with betraying public trust in the following cases:

4.) Corona carried a “track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration” from the time he was named Chief Justice in May 2010. The complaint asserted that his appointment was “dubious” since it was made during the ban on appointments before, during and after an election period. Corona was named Chief Justice after the May 10, 2011 presidential race.

Again, the complaint cited Newsbreak’s stories on Corona’s voting record, lodging a “high of 78 percent in favor of Arroyo.” Read the story here: [http://www.newsbreak.ph/2010/02/04/justice-coronas-voting-record-favors-arroyo/]

5.) Corona “arrogated unto himself and to a committee he created” the authority and jurisdiction to investigate plagiarism charges against a sitting justice, . By doing this, Corona “encroached on the sole power and duty” of the House of Representatives to punish erring officials of constitutional bodies. Del Castillo is facing impeachment proceedings in the House.

6.) Corona granted a TRO to Mrs. Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel on Nov. 15, 2011, “to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.” The High Court consolidated the two separate petitions filed by the couple, giving Mike Arroyo “an unwarranted benefit since the alleged urgent health needs of President Arroyo would now be extended to him.” The SC also immediately decided on it despite “clear inconsistencies” in Mrs. Arroyo’s petition that “cast serious doubts on the sincerity and urgency of her request to leave the Philippines.”

It charged the Chief Justice with culpable violation of the Constitution on the following grounds:

7.) Corona showed “arbitrariness” and “partiality” in disregarding the principle of res judicata [a matter already judicially acted upon] by deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving 16 newly created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province. The SC had already ruled on the case and against the creation of these 16 new cities, but under Corona, the High Tribunal changed its mind again, raising protests from the League of Cities, which was a petitioner in the case. The Court acted on

68 Blog Watch Posts Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

a “personal letter” of lawyer Estelito Mendoza, who was counsel for the new cities, the complaint added.

Finally, the complaint charged Corona with betraying public trust and committing graft and corruption based on the following:

8.) Corona failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) Collections. The complaint said that under Corona’s leadership, “the Supreme Court has reportedly failed to remit to the Bureau of Treasury all SAJ collections in violation of the policy of transparency, accountability and good governance.”

——

Summary of the Corona Impeachment Complaint ]]>

Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona ]]>

69 Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

This page contains an archive of blog posts , twitter hashtag stream and videos of the Corona Impeachment Trial. Download background materials here.

Live stream - Senate: www.senate.gov.ph/videos/live2.asp - PTV : PTVPhilippines

Recorded Videos and Blog Posts (Latest articles are posted on the top)

Second week of Impeachment Trial

My letter sent to the prosecution panel by @raissawriter

Media’s hasty conclusions by Megan Flores via @blogwatchdotph

Betrayal of public trust? by Megan Flores via @blogwatchdotph

Corona through Corona’s eyes by @raissawriter

Standard of Evidence in Corona Impeachment Trial by @abogadomo

Day 7 (January 26, 2012)

Some good things never last (BIR files) by @article9jester

Impeachment definition of terms picked up by the ordinary Pinoy via @blogwatchdotph

Prosecution’s lack of teamwork is obvious in Corona’s impeachment trial via Get Real Philippines

DAY 7: Memorable Exchanges, and One-Liners, AHA AHA! by Adolfo Mortrera

The Corona Impeachment Trial: Taking everyone down via @blogwatchdotph

The Corona Impeachment Trial: Cast the first stone via @blogwatchdotph

On sub judice and gag orders by Edsel Tupaz

70 Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

Ex-CSC Chair David questions Corona’s SALN non-disclosures on his wife by @raissawriter

Demystifying the Jargon via @pcijdotorg

SALN or ill-gotten wealth: What is Article II really about? via @pcijdotorg

Day 6 (January 25, 2012)

Article 11 by @sagadasun

Miriam Keeps prosecutors on their toes by Vera Files

Corona’s Ill gotten wealth via @article9jester

Aquino using impeachment trial to cover up ‘crimes’ of his own by @venzie of @blogwatchdotph

Corona impeachment: Prosecution unprepared to follow the rules via Get Real Philippines

Sentido comun por favor by Manuel Buencamino

Was CJ Corona’s wife exempted from filing her SALNs from 2003 to 2006? by Raissa Robles

Day 5 (January 24,2012)

Quote, unquote: Lawyers’ Journal by @pcijdotorg

Of Savvy and “Nasabi Lang” Lawyers By Manuel Garcia Calleja via @blogwatchdotph

Corona impeachment prosecution continues to be out-classed by defense team by @benign0

From his own mouth: CJ Corona’s guidelines in the use of SALNs & ITRs to prove ill-gotten wealth by @raissawriter

The Corona Impeachment Trial: Inhibition of Senator Judges by @abogadomo

LACIERDA PROVES MALACANANG’S HYPOCRISY ON IMPEACHMENT!

Family Feud by @article8jester

71 Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

First week of Impeachment Trial

Gaps between Corona’s SALN and land records via Vera Files

Nagging Impeachment Questions by Vera Files

A matter of the truth Leo Alejandrino

Anti-Corona Mob laments Cuevas’s brilliant wit and ‘star quality’ of defense team by @benign0

The Economy & The Corona Impeachment: A Trip Down the Rabbit Hole by Ben Kritz @benkritz

CJ Corona’s P11M ‘cash advance’ by Raissa Robles @raissawriter

Sinungaling ka, Renato by @article8jester

Freedom Wall: Impeachment trial by @article8jester

The Corona Impeachment Trial: The first week was better than Valium by Dine Racoma @blogwatchdotph

Extreme malice of Corona Prosecutors by Nemesio Antonio Jr.

Will Noynoy Aquino incite rebellion if Chief Justice Renato Corona is acquitted? by @benign0

The Corona impeachment trial – Week 1 via Asian Correspondent

Day 4 January 19, 2012

Posts

Ultimate Facts by @article8jester

Corona impeachment, Day 4: the parade of TCTs and CCTs by @sassylawyer

Impeachment Basis is ‘Ice, Ice, Baby!’ Get Real Philippines

Impeachment as Sui Generis Process by @sagadasun

Corona impeachment: Prosecution team is incompetent not just underdogs by Get Real Philippines

CJ Corona’s SALNs only declared his wife was in government post in 200 by @raissawriter

72 Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

Corona declares P22.9M net worth, 5 properties via Vera Files

Day 3 January 18, 2012

Posts:

Day 3 of Corona Impeachment Trial – SALN Drama by abogadomo.com

Of Politics and the Rule of Law in the Philippines by @EdselTupaz

Corona impeachment: Day 3, direct examination of Clerk of Court Enriquetta Vidal by @sassylawyer

Corona’s worth by @article8jester

Take 5 on the impeachment trial of Renato Corona by @tonyocruz

Day 3 of Corona impeachment: ABS-CBN lawyer bungles questioning of key prosecution witness by @benign0

Corona: do the math via Impeachment Watch

Day 2 January 17, 2012

Posts:

The Senate and the People of the Philippines by @mlq3

A Dearth of talent via Vera Files

Day 2 of Corona Impeachment Trial by abogadomo

Corona Impeachment: Day 2 by @sassylawyer

Context to the circus by Katrina Legarda

Let’s get ready by @article8jester

Day Two: Padre Faura Punts, Prosecution Fumbles by @sagadasun

The Corona Impeachment Trial: Don’t we all know how to count? by Dine Racoma of @BlogwatchdotPH

73 Archives and Commentaries Corona Impeachment Trial

Day 2 of Corona Impeachment: Amazing grace exhibited by defense team by @benign0

Impeachment trial as comedy by Ellen Tordesillas @tordesillas

Chief Justice Corona personally met with World Bank officials, bank documents show by @raissawriter

Day 1 January 16, 2012

Corona Impeachment trial: An open Mind by @Momblogger

Chief Justice Corona Impeachment is Acid Test for Online Reportage via @propinoydotnet

Corona Impeachment trial: Will it be fair by Dine Racoma of @blogwatchdotph

The Presidential Spokesperson on the First Day of the Impeachment Trial by @propinoydotnet

Corona Impeachment: The Late Philippine Senate by @sassylawyer

And so starts the circus of Renato Corona’s trial by publicity by @benign0

Desperado by @article8jester

Day One Ends in Prosecution Win But Will Supreme Court Take Up Corona’s Fight? by @sagadasun

Luisita farm workers wary of Aquino’s motives behind Corona impeachment via Bulatlat

Corona Impeachment Process by abogadomo

Remove that crown of thorns by Joel Rocamora

Who won Day 1 of Corona Impeachment trial via Vera Files

Curated News via paper.li

Twitter Hashtag stream

Corona Impeachment Trial Watch

74 Archives and Commentaries Download Reading materials : Corona Impeachment trial

Download Reading materials : Corona Impeachment trial

Here are some background materials that you can read or download on the Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona Impeachment Trial

Read and compare these two primers masterfuldeceit.blogspot.com/ and spacelab.2720.tv/infographics/Corona

Impeachment Primer. a Political and Historical Guide ]]>

RENATO CORONA: Trial FAQs by VERA Files ]]>

Full Text of Impeachment Complaint Against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona ]]>

Full Text of the Reply of CJ Corona to the Impeachment Complaint ]]>

Summary of the Corona Impeachment Complaint ]]>

Final List of Witnesses in Corona Impeachment Trial

Live stream - Senate: www.senate.gov.ph/videos/live2.asp - PTV : PTVPhilippines

- Twitter hashtags stream : blogwatch.tv/livestream

75

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)