reply to opposition feb6 p1216

8/3/2019 Reply to Opposition Feb6 P1216

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of tbe Philippines, .:.: sEAlAifE;::

,\'.' i ~ H l f 2 of fr.:' " " r f L H ~

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT'12 FEB -6 Pl2 :16

IN THE MATTERIMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREMEPHILIPPINES,

COURT OF THE

REPRESENTATIVES NIEl C. TUPAS,JR. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA III, REYNALDOV. UMALI, ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et.al.,

Complainants.

Case No. 002 - 2011

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

REPLY(To: OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAEDATED 1 FEBRUARY 2012 TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES [PAL] OFFICERS)

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS,respectfully states:

1. In his Opposition dated 02 February 2012, respondent RenatoC. Corona alleges that the requested subpoenae will violate hisconstitutional right to due process because Article III of the VerifiedImpeachment Complaint does not mention a "PAL Platinum Card in thename of CJ Corona or his wife, and their patronage of Philippine Airline(sic), any act or circumstance pertaining to the procurement of the saidcard, or any benefits or privileges that Chief Justice and Mrs. Coronaobtained from it." He further alleges that said Platinum Card and the


2/5

related documents are irrelevant and immaterial because it is notconnected with the action ofthe Supreme Court in any of its decisions.

2. Contrary to respondent's frenetic objection, the PAL ticketsand related documents have everything to do with Article III.

3. Article III of the Impeachment Complaint charges respondentCorona of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayingthe public trust by failing to meet the constitutional standards ofcompetence, integrity, probity and independence, thus:,

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THECONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BYFAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDSUNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THATPROVIDES THAT "[Al MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE APERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, ANDINDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACTON MERE LEITERS FILED BY A COUNSel WHICH CAUSED THEISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL ANDEXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVEENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HERAPPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSINGWITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THESUPREME COURT.

4. The Impeachment Complaint alleges that respondent failed tomeet these constitutional standards by (inter alia) allowing the SupremeCourt to act on the ex parte letters of the counsel for Philippine Airlines(PAL) which caused the flip-flopping in final and executory cases.Respondent asserted that he has inhibited from the FASAP Case, but theprosecution will prove that despite such inhibition, respondent actuallyparticipated in the proceedings of Flight Attendants and StewardsAssociation of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (FASAPCase), and the issuance of the 04 October 2011 Resolution therein. The

2


3/5

said Resolution caused the recall of an otherwise final decision in the caseon the basis of the ex parte letters of PAL's counsel.

5. With the PAL tickets, PAL platinum card, and other relateddocuments sought to be subpoenaed, it will be shown that respondentavailed of benefits from PAL for himself and his family. This wil l establishthe questionable motive behind respondent's participation (despiteprevious inhibitions) in the 04 October 2011 Resolution which acted on theex parte communication of PAL's counsel. This peculiar deviation from theestablished rules of procedure, under the prevailing circumstances, goesinto the very core of respondent's competence, integrity, probity, andindependence.

6. In other words, it will be shown that despite his previousinhibitions in the FASAP case, respondent Corona actually participatedtherein and directed the recall of the FASAP Decision. Why did he interfereand take part in the recall of the Decision? Because he was impelled bymotives other than impartial dispensation of justice. During the pendencyof the case, respondent accepted free tickets from Philippine Airlines, Inc.,among others. This is where the evidence sought to be procured becomesrelevant and material.

7. With the documents sought to be subpoenaed, it will beshown that respondent Corona's participation in the FASAP case was not aharmless or innocent act. Rather, it was motivated by material gain andadvantage. In short, it was a culpable act.

8. Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issueas to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Relevancy of evidencedeals with the rational relationship between evidence and the fact to beproved. On the other hand, evidence is material if it is the "main fact which

3


4/5

is the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove thatfact." (Acuna vs. Pascua, G.R. No. 144692, January 31, 2005). Materialityhas to do with the relationship between the evidence and the issues raisedat tria I.

9. In this case, the facts to be proved are Respondent Corona'sculpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,particularly on the Constitutional standards of competence, integrity,probity and independence of respondent. The documents sought to besubpoenaed from PAL are evidence to establish the prosecution's claimthat respondent Corona lacks the requisite competence, integrity, probity,and independence. Accordingly, these documents are relevant, material,and pertinent to prove Article III.

10. Applicable to this case is the impeachment of Judge Robert w.Archbald of the Commerce Court in 1913 in the United States. JudgeArchbald was removed for serious acts of misconduct stretching over manyyears, including using his office to obtain advantageous business deals andfree trips to Europe1 and improper business relationship with litigants.2

1 Impeachment, United States Senate, Available athttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/historv(common/briefiog/SenatelmpeachmentRole.htm (last accessed 03 February 2012)2 Impeachment of Federeal Judges. United States Federal Judicial Center. Available athttp:Uwww.fic.gov/h istory/home.nsf/page/iudgesimpeachments.html(last accessed 03 February 2012)

4


5/5

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the House of Representatives prays that thisHonorable Court ISSUE the subpoena requested on 01 February 2012.

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.

Pasay City, Metro Manila, 02 February 2012.

Copy Furnished:

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESRepublic of the Philippines

By:HOUSE OF REPRESE TATIVES PROSECUT RS

Justice Serafin R. Cuevas (Ret.) et al.Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato CoronaSuite 1902 Security Bank Centre6776 Ayala AvenueMakati City, Philippines 1226

5

reply to opposition feb6 p1216

Documents