PopTrendZ eSSeNTiaLS: February 2012

Renato C. Corona was named to the 150th member of the Supreme Court also by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on April 9, 2002. A graduate of the Ateneo Law School, the 63-year-old native of Tanauan City, Batangas holds a Master of Laws degree from Harvard Law School and a doctoral degree in civil law from the University Santo Tomas, summa cum laude. Rappler.com has said the conferment of the doctorate was questionable.

Corona joined the government in 1992 as President Fidel V. Ramos' Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs and concurrent head of the Malacañang Legal Office. In 1994, he was promoted to Deputy Executive Secretary and later became Ramos' Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and member of the Cabinet.

After the Ramos presidency, he joined Arroyo, then the vice president, as her chief of staff and spokesman. When Arroyo assumed the presidency following the ouster of impeached President Joseph Estrada in January 2001, she named Corona Presidential Chief of Staff, Presidential Spokesman and later Acting Executive Secretary.

Corona is married to Cristina Roco, with whom he has three children. He is a grandfather of five.

Eight Articles of Impeachment Against Corona

1. Betrayal of public trust: Corona's track record was marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice which continued to his dubious appointment as a midnight chief justice and up to the present.

Midnight appointments violate Section 15, Article VII of Constitution.
In Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., the Supreme Court held that the prohibition does not apply to the Supreme Court but only to executive department and other courts lower than Supreme Court.
A Newsbreak report said he has consistently sided with the (Arroyo) administration in politically significant cases. Newsbreak, which tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, also said "Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor of Arroyo."
A table shows that Corona's voting pattern in 10 cases involving Arroyo government's frontal assaults on constitutional rights before he was appointed Chief Justice.
As Chief Justice, Corona sided with Arroyo in the following cases: (1) Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive (revoking midnight appointments) and (3) Aquino v. Comelec (redefining districts of Camarines Sur)

2. Culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust: Corona failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

Some of Corona’s properties are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Chief Justice is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits (among others, a 300-square-meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig).

3. Culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust: Corona failed to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that “[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” in 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 regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Corona previously served Arroyo as her chief of staff, spokesman when she was vice president, Presidential Chief-of-Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary.
Flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP v. PAL on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Estelito Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities vs. COMELEC)
Corona compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007 from Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corp. (JHMC) in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct.
Serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow board members because of acts of misconduct and negligence. Instead, on acting on the complaint, the complainants were removed and Mrs. Corona promoted as OIC board chair.
Corona has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures.
Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case, which was then pending before the Supreme Court, and accused fellow Justice Antonio Carpio for lobbying for acquittal, in violation of Code of Conduct and Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corp. case under suspicious circumstances.

4. Betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court blatantly disregarded 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 Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

Corona railroaded the proceedings in the Gutierrez case in order to have a status quo ante order issued in her favor.
Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the petition after the deliberations; while three justices (Presbiterio Velasco Jr., Lucas Bersamin and Jose Perez) who voted to issue the status quo ante order received the petition a day after the status quo ante order was granted.
The issuance of the order violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating impeachment proceedings.

5. Culpable violations of the Constitution: Through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata 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.

Corona violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (flip-flopping) known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-parte communications addressed to him:
League of Cities v. Comelec case involving the creation of 16 new cities
Navarro v. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province
FASAP v. Philippine Airlines Inc., et al.

6. Betrayal of public trust: Corona arrogated 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. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

In Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committed by the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.
It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Corona, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee thereby arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court.7.

7. Betrayal of public trust: Through partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-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.

The Supreme Court, under Corona, immediately acted upon the petition and granted the TRO despite the fact that there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo’s petition,
It appears from reports that the ponente to whom the petitions were raffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente. In view of certain objections against the grant of the TRO, a holding of a hearing within the short period of five days was recommended. Despite this recommendation, Corona engineered a majority of eight votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO in favor of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules.
Despite the conditions laid by the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO, Corona allowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact there was noncompliance of an essential pre-condition.
Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its Nov. 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote of 7-6, found that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO. Consequently, for failure to comply with an essential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a vote of 7-6, the Supreme Court decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlier resolution.
However, the Supreme Court decided that the TRO was effective despite noncompliance with an essential condition of the TRO. It is notable that Corona did not chastise Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation.
Worse, Corona did not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect the agreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations on Nov. 18, 2011.8.

8. Betrayal of public trust and/or graft and corruption: Corona failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

Corona has reportedly failed and refused to report on the status of the JDF Funds and the SAJ collections.
There is likewise the reported failure of Corona to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.
The annual audit report of the Supreme Court contained the observation that unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38 billion.
The Special Allowance for Judiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of P559.5 million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparation of bank reconciliation statements and non-recording /uncorrected reconciling items.

Defense Counsel of Corona

Retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas is Corona’s lead counsel. The 15-member defense team also includes Eduardo de los Angeles, Ramon Esguerra, Tranquil Salvador III and Karen Jimeno. Lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. and former Court of Appeals Justice Hector Hofilena earlier resigned as the Chief Justice’s counsels.

Impeachment Judgment

Judgment in impeachment trials are limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted will still be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

PopTrendZ eSSeNTiaLS

Saturday, February 25, 2012

eBooks

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Corona Impeachment