memo re article ii

8/3/2019 Memo Re Article II

1/13

IN THE

\,:'" ,REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES '.'Ti' .. ; : / ~ 5 : I ' r ! ! ' l P CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (0([,,, of f ~ , ; S m ' . I " r ~ SENATE

'12 JIlN 25 /\10 :08SlnlNG AS AN IMPEACHMENT COURT

1,>-:' .... " ' < ~ l g y : J ~ 4 1 MAnER OF THE

IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTUCE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, LORENZO R.TANADA, III, REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, ET AL.,

Complainants.

CASE NO. 002-2011

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

MEMORANDUM(Re: Article II of the Verified Complaint fo r Impeachment)

withOPPOSITION

(To: Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoena[Issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares])

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by its Prosecutors, respectfully states:

MEMORANDUM

A.

1. The caption of Article II of the Impeachment Complaint provides:

"II.RESPONDENT COMMITIED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THECONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HEFAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,


2/13

LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART.XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION." (Underscoring ours)

2. In his Memorandum [On Article /I of the Verified Complaint] dated 24 January2012 (the "Memorandum"), Respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("Corona") insists thatinsofar as Article II is concerned, evidence on his "ill-gotten wealth" is "irrelevant, improper andviolative of (his) constitutional rights." He claims that since Article II merely charges him withfailure to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth ("SALN"), any

evidence on the veracity of the contents of the SALN would be immaterial. This view is baselessand shows Corona's misappreciation of the constitutional requirement of filing a SALN.

3. The gravamen of the charge in Article II goes far beyond a mere failure on thepart of Corona to mechanically file or disclose his SALN. His duty to disclose his SALN to thepublic necessarily implies a duty to be truthful, honest, and accurate in the sworn contentsthereof (this is why the law requires the SALN to be under oath). Corona's disclosure of a false,dishonest, and incomplete SALN is as much a betraval of public trust as his failure to disclose hisSALN. Simply put, the "disclosure" contemplated by law is disclosure of a SALN that is true,honest and accurate. Anything less would be a useless, futile exercise; make a mockery of theSALN requirement; and be tantamount to a culpable violation of the constitution and betrayalof the public trust.

4. The significance of the truthfulness of the contents of the SALN cannot beoveremphasized. It springs from the purpose for which this constitutional requirement wascreated in the first place, that is - to curtail a public official's unlawful accumulation of wealththrough graft and corruption. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman v. Valeroso1 isinstructive in this regard, thus:

1 G.R. No. 167828, 2 April 2007, 520 SCRA 140, see also Carabeo v. CA, G.R. Nos. 178000 & 178003, December 4,2009.


3/13

"Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evilsought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates fulldisclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimedparticularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruptionand maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. 'Unexplained'matter normally results from 'non-disclosure' or concealment of vital facts.SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are themeans to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employeesin the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in thefortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verifyundisclosed properties and wealth." (Underscoring ours)

5. All told, the prosecution's evidence on Corona's accumulation of ill-gottenwealth strikes at the very heart of his failure to disclose his SALN to the public. It shows thatCorona has not been truthful and honest in his SALN, and has therefore violated the very spiritand the letter of the SALN requirement. Such proof is, therefore, very material and relevant.Notably, Corona, through counsel, marked and adopted the SALNs as his own evidence, therebyadmitting that the contents of the SALN are material and relevant to Article II.

B.

6. In any event, Corona's accumulation of ill-gotten wealth and his commission ofgraft and corruption were sufficiently alleged in the Impeachment Complaint, as is evident fromthe following excerpts from the Impeachment Complaint:

6.1 "As Chief Justice, Respondent has been lavish in the spending of publicfunds; blind to ethical standards of behavior expected not only of him, but his family;intrigued and conspired against his fellow justices; and behaved more like a scofflawthan Chief Justice in refusing to disclose his assets and liabilities." (page 6, Complaint);

6.2 "x x x; and even reportedly engaging not only in illiCitlyacquiring assets of high value but even resorting to petty graft and corruption for hisown personal profit and convenience." (page 10, Complaint);

6.3 "Respondent betrayed the Public Trust, committed Culpable Violation ofthe Constitution and Graft and Corruption in the follOWing manner: x x xRespondent committed culpable violation ofthe constitution and/or betrayed the publictrust when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and NetWorth as required under Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution." (page 11 and 22 ofthe Complaint);


4/13

6,4 "I t is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are notincluded in his declaration of his assets, liabilities and net worth, in violation of the antigraft and corrupt practices act." (paragraph 2.3, page 22, Complaint); and

6.5 "Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill -gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with hugedeposits. x x x. Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his incomeas a public official? (paragraph 2,4, page 22, Complaint).

7. Corona claims that paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 of the Complaint are conjectural andspeculative, and do not amount to a concrete statement of fact that might require a denial.Corona ignores the reality that these proceedings have long left the realm of pleadings andallegations, and have now reached the stage of the presentation of proof. Today will already bethe sixth day of trial. That said, Corona's arguments are utterly baseless and should berejected. In the first place, Corona has already waived this objection and is now estopped fromrehashing it again and again just to avoid trial and facing the evidence against him. Considerthe following:

7.1 First, if Corona truly believed that paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 were merelyspeculative and conjectural, he should have moved to strike these allegations outrightbefore filing his Answer. 2 He did not do so.

7.2 Second, when he filed his Answer, Corona denied Article II, as a whole,and paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 specifically. He also affirmatively alleged that he "acquiredhis assets from legitimate sources of income, mostly from his professional toils" andthat "he and his wife purchased on installment a 300-sq.m. apartment in Taguig, whichwas declared in his SALN when they acquired it." In other words, Corona "joined" theissues of whether or not the contents of his SALN were, indeed, accurate and/orwhether or not he had accumulated ill-gotten wealth. Upon a joinder of such factualissues, trial and presentation of evidence thereon should necessarily follow.

2 See Section 12, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. This is not an admission that the Rules of Court provisions onpleadings are applicable to these proceedings. It is cited merely because the movant himself (Corona) cites theRules of Court.


5/13

7.3 Third, in his 29 December 2011 Motion for Preliminary Hearing, whichprayed specifically for the dismissal of the Complaint, Corona failed to move for thedismissal of the charges against him for amassing ill-gotten wealth and instead, reliedexclusively on the supposedly defective Verification of the Complaint. Corona's failureto argue the insufficiency of the allegations against him for accumulating ill-gottenwealth prevents him from raising this ground anew in his Memorandum. The "OmnibusMotion" rule3 states that "a motion attacking a pleading x x x shall include allobjections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived."

7.4 Finally, during the 18 January 2012 trial, Corona, through counsel,expressly agreed to "abide" by the Honorable Presiding Officer's ruling to allow theprosecution to present evidence on the Articles of Impeachment despite Corona'sobjections to the sufficiency of the allegations in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of theComplaint, to wit:

"JUSTICE CUEVAS.x x xFirst, the issue of Article II, Your Honor, which is allegedly the

SALN, the illegally acquired wealth, Your Honor, is or could be found inparagraph 10 and 11 of their-In paragraph 10, Your Honor, ...

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.JUSTICE CUEVAS. Paragarah 2.2, Your Honor, it is stated,'Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets,

liabilities and net worth as required by the Constitution.If we go deeper into the import and denotation of this particular

allegation, the essence of the imputation is the failure to disclose.Nothing mentioned about the problem of illegally acquired wealth.

Paragraph 2.3, it states, and may I be permitted to read for therecord, Your Honor, and by way of emphasis, 'I t is also reported: weunderscore the word reported, 'that some of the properties of therespondent are not included in his declaration of assets, l iabil ities and networth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.'

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I give you an additional one minute towind up.

, See Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Again, this is not an admission that the Rules of Court provisions onpleadings are applicable to these proceedings. It is cited merely because the movant himself (Corona) cites theRules of Court.


6/13

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.Paragraph 2.4 say, 'Respondent is likewise suspected and accused

of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets and so on withhuge deposits." It has been reported.

In other words, this allegation gravitates or centers on the allegedsuspicion, on the alleged report which cannot be accepted as validallegations in cases of pleadings required by our Rule of Procedurebecause our Rule of Proceeding states that the pleadings should contain abrief concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the pleaderrelies. On the part of the plaintiff or discourse of action on the part ofthe defendant for his defense.

It has been ruled on so many occasions that report and suspicioncannot form part of allegations of the ultimate fact because they cannotbe relied upon.

Secondly, if we examine the verification that they are claiming inthis case, they never stated they appealed the report and so on and soon.

So, to us, it will be a deprivation of our right to continuepresenting evidence in this court by reason of the fact that they would beallowed to present evidence of this matter without any resolution beforethis honourable court on whether these are in accordance with theprocedure laid down by our Rules of Court and Rules of Procedure, YourHonor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you through, counsel?JUSTICE CUEVAS. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much.THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.The Chair would like to plead for understanding by both parties

about the proceeding. We cannot waste our time arguing with thesetechnicalities.

I am sure that as seasoned lawyers, we can handle the situation asit comes inside a courtroom whether the starting point of thepresentation of the proponent of the case is anywhere within theallegations in the complaint, the defense, I am sure that they areprepared properly could meet the challenge. So. may I appeal to youthat let us proceed with the merits of this case so that the people willno t think that we are delaying this proceeding, The Chair, therefore.rules that since yesterday there was a request to reorder the burden ofproof to be done by the prosecution. which they have done now. let uscomply with that now. and I order that it be so.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Thank you, Your Honor. We will abide."(Underscoring and emphasis ours)


7/13

c.

8. Even assuming arguendo that Corona can still question th e sufficiency of th e

allegations at this late stage, th e fact is that th e allegations in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 aresufficient.

9. As early as 1960, the Supreme Court in th e case of Abe v. Foster WheelerCorporotion: held that a complaint is sufficient "if it contains sufficient notice of th e cause ofaction even though the allegations may be vague or indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, inwhich event the proper recourse would be, not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill ofparticulars." The test therefore is whether the allegations in th e complaint are adequateenough to put th e defendant. accused or respondent on notice of the charges or claims against

10. This rule applies regardless of the type of proceeding - be it civil, criminal oradministrative. Thus, in People v. Elamparo, 5 a criminal case for violation of the DangerousDrugs Act, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is not the designation of th e offense in th eInformation that is controlling but th e allegations therein which directly apprise the accused afthe nature and cause of the accusation against him.,,6 In Santos v. Spouses De Leon 7, a civil casefor forcible entry, th e Supreme Court reiterated th e doctrine that "a complaint is sufficient if itcontains sufficient notice of the cause of action even though the allegatians may be vague andindefinite.,,8 Further, the complaint "does not have to establish or allege the facts proving theexistence of a cause at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of th ecase."g Also in Domingo v. Rayala,10 an administrative case, the Supreme Court held that th edesignation of th e offense charged is not controlling. Rather, the description of the offense and

4 G.R. No. L-14785 & L-14923, November 29, 1960.5 G.R. No. 121572, March 31, 2000.'/d., Emphasis supplied.7 G.R. No. 140892. September 21,2005.8 Id., Emphasis supplied.'Id.10 G.R. Nos. 155831, 155840 & 158700, February 18, 2008.


8/13

the particular fact recited therein are to be taken into consideration. The acts or omissionscomplained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of commonunderstanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court topronounce proper judgment.l l

12. Here, the Impeachment Complaint (including paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 thereof)sufficiently apprised Corona that he is being charged with amassing ill-gotten wealth, to wit:

"2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent areno t included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, inviolation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts withhuge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort inTaguig. Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec.17 of the Constitution in his Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth(SALN)? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as apublic official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, ChiefJustice, has he complied with this duty of public disclosure?" (Emphasis andunderscoring ours)

13. There is also no merit in Corona's claim that the allegations in paragraphs 2.3and 2.4 are improper as they "expanded" the charges stated in Article II. They are referring tothe caption/heading of Article II. But the caption/heading of Article II should be read inharmony and together with its supporting allegations. Indeed, the Constitution expressly statesthat it is the Verified Complaint (taken as a whole). and not the mere captions or headingstherein, which constitutes the Articles of Impeachment. 12 Article XI, Section 3(4} of theConstitution expressly provides:

"(4). In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment isfiled by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shallconstitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwithproceed."

"Id., citing People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005, 469 SeRA 647,666-668.12 1987 Constitution. Article XI, Section 3(4).


9/13

13.1. If it is true that, as Corona now claims, the charges should only be limitedto the specific captions/headings of the Articles, why did he file a 79-page Answer,denying, admitting, and refuting all the allegations in the Impeachment Complaint?

14. Corona further argues that his Constitutional right to due process of law will beviolated if the Prosecution will be permitted to introduce matters "outside" Article II. This claimis patently baseless.

15. Impeachment does not involve a deprivation of life, liberty or property. Rather,impeachment is a mechanism for determining the continued fitness of a high official to holdpublic office. It does not involve the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment or fine. Neitherdoes it involve a deprivation of property, since a public officer has no proprietarv claim overpublic office.13 Rather, public office is a mere privilege, which can be revoked anytimeespecially if there is a showing of unfitness to hold office. As explained by Fr. Joaquin Bernas(citing Justice Story), impeachment is "a proceeding, purely of a political nature, is not so muchdesigned to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross poli tical misdemeanors. Ittouches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity."

16. More importantly, the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard."What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereofand lack of opportunity to be heard. 's In the instant case, even if this Honorable Court allowsthe prosecution to present evidence on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint, there arenumerous avenues and opportunities for Corona to be heard and defend himself, includingraising objections in the course of the presentation of the prosecution's witnesses, vigorouscross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, and the presentation of defense evidence.

17. Corona also argues that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint are not inaccordance with the "law on pleadings" or the Rules of Court. He ignores Rule VI of Resolution" De Leon. The Law on Public Officers and Election Law (2008), p.3.14 Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 93868, February 19, 1991).15 Jd., citing Tajonero v. Lamarosa, 110 SCRA 438 (1981),


10/13

39, otherwise known as the Senate Rules on Impeachment, which states that the Rules of Courtshall apply suppletorily on questions of evidence. There is nothing in the Constitution, theSenate Rules or in jurisprudence, which states that the Rules of Court should strictly apply withrespect to the pleadings filed in an impeachment proceeding.

18. And even assuming arguendo that the Rules of Court would apply in matters ofpleading, the same specifically states that the rules shall be construed liberally - in order topromote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action and proceeding.16 This is supported by a long line of cases wherethe Supreme Court permitted the liberal interpretation of the rules so as not to frustrate theends of substantial justice, viz;

"The fundamental purpose of procedural rules is to afford each litigantevery opportunity to present evidence on his behalf in order that substantialjustice is achieved. Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and aliberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullestopportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth. Thedispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate grievances should not bebarred by technicalities. 17" (Underscoring ours)

D.

19. In the final analysis, the nation's search for truth should not be obstructed byone man's blind and reckless adherence to technicalities (contrary to his previous boast that heis ready to face trial in the Senate18). In Corona's own words as the ponente in the case ofRepublic v. Sandiganbayan: 19

"In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG, this Court hasseen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities that merely serve to delay orimpede judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved onthe merits at the Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the Filipino people

16 Rules of Court, Rule 1, Section 2.17 Metro Rail Transit Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 166273, September 21, 2005.18 "Haharapin ka nang buang tapang at talina ang mga walang basehang paratang na ita, punta par punta, saSenada. Handanghanda akang humarap sa paglilitis." (Dec. 14, 2011 speech)19 G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003.


11/13

and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, shouldnow be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost two decades have passed sincethe government initiated its search for and reversion of such ill-gotten wealth.The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. Iithere is proof of illegal acguisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud orilli cit conduct, let it be brought ou t now. Let the ownership of these funds andother assets be f inal lv determined and resolved with dispatch. free from all thedelaving technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks." (Underscoringours)

OPPOSITIONTo Respondent's Motion to Quash(Subpoena issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares)

20. The Prosecution adopts the foregoing discussion in support of its hereinOpposition to Corona's Mot ion to Quash (Subpoena issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Henares).

21. In the said Motion to Quash, Corona argues that the income tax returns (ITR's)and other tax-related documents are "irrelevant and immaterial." This is baseless. The ITR'sand other documents subject of the instant subpoena are very relevant and material to thecharges against Corona under Article II of the Impeachment Complaint (and even to some ofthe other Articles for that matter). He is accused of acquiring ill-gotten wealth. Therefore, it ishighly material to determine whether the numerous expensive properties he has acquired,under his name or that of his family, can be explained by his declared sources of income in hisITR's. Under Section 2 of R.A. 1379 or the Forfeiture Law, properties of a pUblic officer whichare "manifestly out of proportion" to his lawful income, are "presumed prima facie to havebeen unlawfully acquired." Notably, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, which was penned byno other than Corona himself, the Supreme Court considered the therein respondents' ITR's indetermining whether the properties amassed by them during their incumbency in public officewere derived from their lawful income.

22. Corona's SALN's have now been presented and marked in evidence by both theProsecution and the Defense. In his SALN's, Corona has admitted under oath, his assets and


12/13

liabilities during the periods covered therein. To ascertain the truthfulness and accuracy ofthese sworn admissions in his SALN's, it is necessary to examine the ITR's which he, his wife andhis family members have been filing during the same period. The ITR's will show Corona's {andhis family's} financial abil ity or inability to legally acquire the assets he indicated in his SALN's.

23. Corona also argues that the ITR's of his children and son-in-law are irrelevant, asthey are not named in the Impeachment Complaint. This reasoning is both simplistic andflawed, because under the Forfeiture Law {RA 1379}, unlawfully acquired property may include

not only those in the name of the respondent public official, but also those which are"concealed by [their] being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse,ascendants, descendants, relatives, or any other person."

24. Accordingly, the instant Motion to Quash, based solely on the ground ofirrelevance, should be denied.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that: {l} the reliefs prayedfor in Corona's Memorandum be denied; {2} the Prosecution be allowed to continue presentingevidence on Article II, including paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4, of the Impeachment Complaint and onall the Articles and their supporting allegations in the Impeachment Complaint; and {3} theMotion to Quash Subpoena {Issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares} be denied andthat she be allowed to testify and present in evidence the documents subject of the subpoena.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, 25 January 2012.


13/13

By:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESPRO ECUTORS

EL C. TUP , .Lead Prose or

Copy furnished (By Personal Service):

PRIVATE PROSECUTORS

PTR No. 3184702, Jan. 09, 2012, Makati CityLifetime IBP No. 00060, Makati CityRoll of Attorney's No. 30196MCLE Compliance No. 1110008479,2-9-2010

JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET), ET AL.Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato CoronaSuite 1902 Security Bank Centre6776 Ayala AvenueMakati City, Philippine 1226

memo re article ii

Documents