Corona Impeachment
SC allows GMA travel
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC), in an 8-5 vote, issued Tuesday a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the watch list order (WLO) issued against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, her husband former First Gentleman Jose Miguel T. Arroyo, and others facing investigation on the alleged poll fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections in Mindanao.
The order allowed Mrs. Arroyo to seek medical treatment abroad. However, the SC imposed three conditions for the former First Couple to avail themselves of the TRO, according to SC Spokesman and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez.
First, they have to post a cash bond of P2 million.
Second, they should appoint their lawyers to receive in their behalf all the processes or subpoenas that may be issued by the DoJ in the poll fraud cases or the Office of the Ombudsman in the plunder complaints involving Mrs. Arroyo.
Third, they should report to the Philippine consular offices or embassies in the countries they would be travelling.
De Lima defiant
Despite the TRO, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima remains defiant, saying the TRO only takes effect upon government’s receipt of the order. She immediately directed the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to continue enforcing the watch list order. She also requested Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) Secretary Mar Roxas issue the same order barring the Arroyos from leaving.
De Lima also said that the Department of Justice (DoJ) will file as soon as possible a motion for reconsideration.
Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said that until the government has received an official copy of the SC decision, the Arroyos will not be allowed to leave the country.
But Marquez said the TRO is already executory immediately after the SC releases the order and the Arroyos have complied with the conditions set by the High Court. In a television interview, Marquez said anyone who defies the SC order may be cited in contempt.
Even House Majority Leader and Mandaluyong City Rep. Neptali “Boyet” Gonzales II, a former Arroyo ally before he joined the Liberal Party, said the DoJ may order the BI to hold Mrs. Arroyo should the government decide to file a motion for reconsideration.
Before De Lima’s directive last night, the BI had said that it will allow the Arroyos to leave as soon as it receives a copy of the SC decision.
“We have not yet received the SC order, but we will allow them to go abroad as soon as we get the copy the TRO and they comply with all the requirements prescribed by the High Tribunal,” lawyer Maria Antonette Bucasas-Mangrobang, BI spokesperson, said.
How Justices voted
According to Marquez, the eight justices who voted to issue the TRO were Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., and Jose Portugal Perez.
He said that those who voted to deny the TRO and opted to hear first the position of the government, through the DoJ, were Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Justices Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr., and Estela Perlas Bernabe.
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro is on official trip abroad, while Justice Mariano C. del Castillo is on a wellness leave.
Marquez said the SC set oral arguments on the consolidated cases filed by the former First Couple on November 22. The DoJ was directed to file its comment on the two petitions.
Marquez said the justices who voted to issue a TRO believed that the inclusion of the former First Couple in the DoJ’s WLO “might probably work as an injustice to them without any case being filed against them in court.”
“The issuance of the TRO is consistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” he said.
He pointed out that the TRO was addressed only to the DoJ and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and “not to any court.”
Under the rules, a TRO issued by the SC is indefinite. But it could be lifted anytime if circumstances warrant like a case against the Arroyos is filed in court and that court issues a hold-departure order (HDO) against them. The filing of a case in court and the issuance of an HDO must be manifested before the SC to warrant the lifting of the TRO.
The DoJ, which was the main respondent in the petitions filed by the Arroyos, can file a motion to lift TRO. The lifting depends on the sound discretion of the SC. But SC records showed that the High Court seldom lifts its TRO pending resolution of the case on its merits.
Senators’ reactions
Sen. Joker Arroyo said he is pleased that the SC decided to allow the former President to leave the country to seek medical attention abroad.
At the very least, the High Court, which is the last bastion of democracy in the country, has managed to put a brake on the Aquino administration’s “totalitarian tendencies.”
“My point here is this: the SC has put a stop, put a brake, on the totalitarian tendencies of this government. We already have a creeping martial law here that we don’t only notice,” Arroyo said when asked by reporters.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago commended the SC for issuing the TRO.
“The Supreme Court did a good job, that is an exhibition of judicial sagacity and sobriety,” said Sen Santiago.
“The right to travel is a fundamental right that should not be impaired by anyone no matter how powerful they maybe because it is a constitutionally protected right,” said Santiago, who from the very start said that banning Mrs. Arroyo to travel is unconstitutional
Sen. Francis Escudero said he finds the SC decision “fair and reasonable.”
“The decision of the Supreme Court is fair and reasonable. While I believe that former President Arroyo has to answer for a lot of things, she should be made to do so under the proper constitutional processes,” Escudero said.
While acknowledging the Arroyos right to travel, Senate President Pro Tempore “Jinggoy” Estrada still said he fears the couple would never return once they leave the country.
Estrada and Sen. Franklin Drilon said it is high time state prosecutors file a strong case against the Arroyos so a formal hold departure order (HDO) can be issued against the couple.
“I’m not surprised by (the SC’s decision). They tested the limits of her (Secretary De Lima’s) power. She tested the limits of the presidential power, the power of the Executive branch, but at the end of the day it is the SC that will decide what are the limits,” Drilon said.
“The only remedy left is for them to file cases now. They should file a criminal case that is supported by evidence before the proper courts para maka-release na ng HDO,” added Drilon.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said De Lima mishandled the case because jurisprudence states that it is only the courts that can prohibit a citizen from traveling abroad.
Although he is not a lawyer, Lacson refuted De Lima’s stand that national interest prevails over the Constitution, particularly on the constitutional right of the Arroyos to travel.
“That is a wrong proposition,” Lacson said, indirectly stating that it is the other way around.
Lacson stressed that De Lima should have studied case carefully, particularly on constitutional issues before she acts.
The Arroyos had to go to the SC after Mrs. Arroyo’s request for an allow departure order (ADO) was denied by De Lima.
The Arroyos, in their petitions, also pleaded the SC to resolve, once and for all, the constitutionality of the WLOs issued by the DoJ.
Earlier, government lawyers had opposed the plea for a TRO made by the Arroyos on their two petitions.
In two urgent manifestations filed by Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, the SC was asked to give the government reasonable time to respond to the two petitions filed by the Arroyos, to deny the plea for TRO, and to hold oral arguments on the cases.
In seeking the nullification of the WLO, the former President said she would suffer irreparable injury if the implementation of the WLO issued against her is not nullified immediately.
“The inability of petitioner GMA to leave for abroad to alleviate, or, at least, prevent the aggravation of her hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone disorder has given rise to the danger that the said conditions afflicting petitioner GMA may become permanent and incurable,” Mrs. Arroyo said in a petition filed by former Justice Minister and Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza.
“Having been immobilized by a debilitating condition for the last few months, and having been subject to long operations and their complications, she seeks other experts’ perspective and to receive optimum care to ensure that she will not be disabled for the rest of her life and that her recovery will no longer be impeded by complications, which she has unfortunately experienced for the last few months,” the petition also stated.
In his petition, Mr. Arroyo told the SC the issuance of a WLO against him constitutes a violation of his freedom of movement and his right to travel.
But former President Joseph Estrada said that more than former President Arroyo’s “constitutional right to travel is her constitutional right to stay in the country.”
“The Supreme Court made a decision based on a debate on rights but they (Justices) should have also considered the importance of one’s duty as a public official,” Estrada said.
Last August 23, the SC stopped the DoJ from implementing the first WLO issued on August 4 against Mr. Arroyo on request of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in its investigation into the acquisition by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009 of alleged second-hand helicopters reportedly owned by the former First Gentleman.
In stopping the implementation of the August 4 WLO, the SC – in a unanimous vote – ruled that the WLO issued against Mr. Arroyo “violates his constitutional right to travel.”
Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides that the “right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety and public health, as may be provided by law.”
As this developed, the former First Couple were “no-shows” for the Singapore Airlines flight SQ919 that they were booked on Tuesday afternoon. The flight departed for Singapore a 5:10 p.m., but the Arroyos did not show up.
The next flight of Singapore Airlines bound for Singapore is scheduled to depart at 7 p.m. but as of press time, no booking or reservations for the Arroyos have been made. (With reports from Genalyn D. Kabiling, Hannah L. Torregoza, Rio Rose Ribaya, Jun Ramirez, Mario B. Casayuran, Rolly T. Carandang, Anjo Perez, and Samuel P. Medenilla)
Hacienda Luisita is the bone of contention
You have to be blind not to see that the President Noy-CJ Renato Corona is a conflict about Hacienda Luisita. The rest is subterfuge. On one hand you have a president whose family owns Hacienda Luisita, on the other you have a chief justice in whose wake the Hacienda Luisita has finally returned the land to the farmers as stipulated in the contract that allowed the family to use it. Chief Justice Corona made the decision even if a Cojuangco is in power. That sucks!
I was surprised when Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda declared soon after the decision that “there will be no motion for reconsideration.” Why is a government spokesman speaking in behalf of the Cojuangco family? I thought President Noy had divested his part in the ownership when he became the President of the Philippines. It seems to me that the statement should have come from the Cojuangco family who owns the land.
Was that a slip of the tongue or was it for real? Is Lacierda now also the spokesman for the Cojuangco family? Is the Hacienda Luisita — public or private? He also added that in the absence of any further appeal to the Supreme Court decision Hacienda Luisita will be distributed among 6,296 farmers.
Good. But before making the statement, the presidential spokesman also revealed that they would have to consult first with the President and Lacierda’s statement will depend on what he will say about it.
We may not have been privy to what the president said after the SC decision but we can guess what it was. Recent events with the executive going hammer and tongs against the judiciary, hint at what it might have been. The SC decision orders the owners of Hacienda Luisita not only to distribute the land among the farmers, it also ordered the President’s family to pay P1.33 billion to the farmer-beneficiaries.
This will be a financial catastrophe to the family but it is also a decision that will have far reaching consequences on government policy if the rule of law is followed. Since there is no motion for reconsideration, it should now be implemented unless political maneuvering intervenes, one of them being the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona.
The decision allowed farmer stockholders to choose whether to be paid in land or remain stockholders of Hacienda Luisita.
Interestingly, the vote for the decision was unanimous with one abstention — Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is said to be Aquino’s candidate for Chief Justice if Corona is removed.
The Corona-led Supreme Court has been praised for its courage in laying down a decision against a powerful family, one of whose members is the President who is all-powerful. President Noynoy must know that this is a triumph for the disadvantaged and powerless people that he calls his boss. Let’s see what he does for his boss.
I don’t know if the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) will be “surveyed” but the farmers group has hailed the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision as “a victory of the militant struggle of Hacienda Luisita farmworkers.” Since the poor in the Philippines greatly outnumber the rich, a properly conducted survey should reveal a favorable sentiment for the Supreme Court decision made under the wake of the beleaguered Corona.
The trouble is that the workers’ triumph over the landowner will be buried in the Senate impeachment proceedings over so many other issues, some of them depressingly personal. Those of us who know better should make sure that focus on the Hacienda Luisita decision is not lost because after everything has been said and done “this is the bone of contention.”
* * *
I remember during the protests against Marcos before he declared martial law students chanting slogans against what they called fascism and feudalism. It was the banner that the young people waved high in the First Quarter Storm. Alas, the young have become old and we need the next generation’s young to take up a forgotten cause.
I find Rich Gibson’s description of fascism in his website helpful in appreciating the Supreme Court’s decision on Hacienda Luisita and resonates with what is happening in the Philippines today.
“Fascism is the unchecked rule of a class of the privileged, or relatively rich, in power — a full-scale assault on poor and working people. (The strikers shot and killed in Hacienda Luisita). Parliamentary institutions are usually set aside, or so demeaned as to be meaningless. (The 188-vote by congressmen who did not even read what they were told to sign because of the unprecedented haste). The Holocaust was legal.”
“Elites issue direct orders, frequently through a populist leader. (Damn the Cojuangco owned Pulse Asia, SWS). Wages, any social safety net, working hour laws, labor laws; all come under legal (and extra-legal) attack. The stick replaces the carrot. Even between capitalists of the same nation, struggle intensifies.
Fascism in its early stages has been popular among masses of people mystified by nationalism, racism, and sexism. (In the Philippines the euphemism is the fight against corruption!) These ideas are key to the construction of fascism. But, “war means work” for some, which may also explain its historical popularity.
Fascism is an element of the modern era, which carries forward elements of feudalism. Fascism has taken the form of state capitalism in Japan, Germany, and in more sophisticated ways, the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. But fascism has also grown in less developed countries, Romania, Bulgaria, most of Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile; and taken significantly different forms.”
There you are — for those still in doubt what Filipinos should fight for. It is not about P-Noy vs. GMA, much less between P-Noy vs. Renato Corona.
It is about strengthening democratic institutions like due process, rule of law, presumption of innocence and the check and balance between the three branches of government all of which are under assault today. But as Gibson adds fascism is not inevitable. It can be fought back.
4 p.m. – House majority members begin exiting Andaya Hall. Deputy Speaker Jesus Crispin Remulla said members of the majority were asked to voluntarily sign the impeachment complaint against Corona. Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño divulged that Corona is being impeached based on three offenses: betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption and culpable violation of the Constitution.
4:40 p.m. – House majority ends caucus. Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., House justice panel chair, enumerates articles of impeachment to the media, and revealed that more than 100 lawmakers have already signed the complaint. ACT Teachers’ party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio said congressmen lined up to sign the impeachment complaint.
5 p.m. – House Minority Edcel Lagman criticizes the majority’s move to impeach Corona, describing it as “the mother of all blackmails.” He claimed that lawmakers who signed the complaint were threatened that their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel” will be withdrawn if they will not approve Corona’s ouster.
5:10 p.m. – Belmonte, Gonzales and Tupas hold a press conference to explain how the House majority decided to send the impeachment complaint against Corona straight to the Senate for trial. At the end of the briefing, more than 160 lawmakers had already signed the complaint. House Secretary General Marilyn Baura-Yap also begins verifying the signatures on the complaint.
6 p.m.— Deputy Minority Leader Danilo Suarez warns of the “bad design” of the Aquino administration to remove its opponents from government posts. He said Corona is being pressured to step down from his post, similar to what happened to former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who quit her post days before she was scheduled to face a Senate trial.
7:16 p.m. – Copies of the impeachment complaint were released to the media.
7:30 p.m. – At the House plenary, Gonzales moves to endorse the impeachment complaint, which was signed by a total of 188 congressmen, to the House secretary-general. Deputy Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella, who was presiding over the session, ordered the House secretary-general to transmit the complaint to the Senate despite opposition from the House minority. – Andreo C. Calonzo/KBK/HS, GMA News
On Sunday [12/11/11], Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said political forces are out to destabilize the high court by “[fomenting] public distrust and resentment towards [it],” In exchange for “ruthless political objectives,” some quarters are doing it even at the risk of sacrificing the country’s constitutional stability, he said.
He explained that Section 2, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings does not allow this.
The rule dictates thus: “Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice of: (a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or (c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House.”
MANILA, Philippines – Here is a complete list of congressmen who signed the articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona furnished to Gil Cabacungan of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:
1. Niel Tupas Jr. (Iloilo)
2. Reynaldo Umali (Mindoro Oriental)
3. Joseph Emilio Abaya (Cavite)
4. Antonio Del Rosario (Capiz)
5. Arlene Bag-ao (Akbayan)
6. Marcelino Teodoro (Marikina City)
7. Winston Castelo (Quezon City)
8. Ma. Evita Arago (Laguna)
9. Roilo Golez (Paranaque City)
10. Jay Lacson Noel (Malabon)
11. Aurora Cerilles (Zamboanga del Sur)
12. Emi Calixto Rubiano (Pasay City)
13. Walden Bello (Akbayan)
14. Jim Hataman SAliman (Basilan)
15. Nancy Catamco (North Cotabato)
16. Scott Davies Lanete (Masbate)
17. Rodolfo Valencia (Mindoro Oriental)
18. Florencio Noel (An Waray)
19. Llandro Mark Mendoza (Batangas)
20. Rex Gatchalian (Valenzuela City)
21. Aurelio Gonzales (Pampanga)
22. Jeffrey Ferrer (Negros Occidental)
23. Daisy Avance Fuentes (South Cotabato)
24. Isidro Rodriguez Jr. (Rizal)
25. Victor Yu Jr. (Zamboanga del Sur)
26. Zenaida Angping (Manila)
27. Rogelio Espina (Biliran)
28. Deogracias Ramos Jr. (Sorsogon)
29. Julieta Cortuna (A Teacher)
30. Florencio Garay (Surigao del Sur)
31. Ma. Carmen Zamora-Apsay (Compostela Valley)
32. Roger Mercado (Southern Leyte)
33. Herminia Roman (Bataan)
34. Janette Garin (Iloilo)
35. Neptali Gonzales II (Mandaluyong City)
36. Georgina De Venecia (Pangasinan)
37. Enrique M. Cojuangco (Tarlac)
38. Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Bagong Henerasyon)
39. Tupay Loong (Sulu)
40. Ma. Jocelyn Bernos (Abra)
41. Nur-Ana Sahidulla (Sulu)
42. Pangalian Balindong (Lanao del Sur)
43. Agapito Guanlao (Butil)
44. Mylene Garcia Albano (Davao City)
45. Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan)
46. Kimi S. Cojuangco (Pangasinan)
47. Ana Cristina Siquian-Go (Isabela)
48. Susan Yap (Tarlac)
49. Antonio Alvarez (Palawan)
50. Acmad Tomawis (ALIF)
51. Arnulfo Go (Sultan Kudarat)
52. Eulogio Magsaysay (AVE)
53. Isidro Ungab (Davao City)
54. Jesus Sacdalan (North Cotabato)
55. Oscar Malapitan (Caloocan City)
56. Raden Sakaluran (Sultan Kudarat)
57. Mercedes Alvarez (Negros Occidental)
58. Alfredo Benitez (Negros Occidental)
59. Abigail Faye Ferriol (Kalinga)
60. Jerry Trenas (Iloilo City)
61. Mel Senen Sarmiento (Western Samar)
62. Josefina Joson (Nueva Ecija)
63. Arnulfo Fuentebella (Camarines Sur)
64. Jeci Lapus (Tarlac)
65. Edwin Olivarez (Paranaque City)
66. Lucy Torres Gomez (Leyte)
67. Carlo Lopez (Manila)
68. Joselito Mendoza (Bulacan)
69. Arnel Cerafica (Pateros-Taguig)
70. Ma. Isabelle Climaco (Zamboanga City)
71. Arturo Robes (San Jose del Monte City)
72. Rene Relampagos (Bohol)
73. Tomas Apacible (Batangas)
74. Florencio Miraflores (Aklan)
75. Teodorico Haresco (Kasangga)
76. Salvio Fortuno (Camarines Sur)
77. Jesus Paras (Bukidnon)
78. Manuel Agyao (Kalinga)
79. Romeo Acop (Antipolo City)
80. Edgar San Luis (Laguna)
81. Ireneo Maliksi (Cavite)
82. Roy Loyola (Cavite)
83. Angelo Palmones (Agham)
84. Jorge Almonte (Misamis Occidental)
85. Mariano Piamonte (A Teacher)
86. Paolo Javier (Antique)
87. Loreto Leo Ocampos (Misamis Occidental)
88. Isidro Lico (Ating Koop)
89. Jesus Celeste (Pangasinan)
90. Jose Ping-ay (Coop Natcco)
91. Ryan Luis Singson (Ilocos Sur)
92. Ponciano Payuyo (Apec)
93. Vicente Belmonte (Iligan City)
94. Eleanor Bulut-Begtang (Apayao)
95. Ronald Cosalan (Benguet)
96. Nelson Collantes (Batangas)
97. Miro Quimbo (Marikina City)
98. Bernardo Vergara (Baguio City)
99. Fernando Gonzales (Albay)
100. Antonio Lagdameo (Davao del Norte)
101. Godofredo Arquiza (Senior Citizen)
102. Antonio Ferrer (Cavite)
103. Baby Aline Alfonso (Cagayan)
104. Gabriel Quisumbing (Cebu)
105. Benjamin Asilo (Manila)
106. George Arnaiz (Negros Oriental)
107. Randolf Ting (Cagayan)
108. Henry Pryde Teves (Negros Oriental)
109. Raul Daza (Northern Samar)
110. Joseph Violago (Nueva Ecija)
111. Linabelle Ruth Villarica (Bulacan)
112. Justin Chipeco (Laguna)
113. Rodel Batocabe (Ako Bicol)
114. Aflredo Garbin Jr. (Ako Bicol)
115. Jocelyn Limkaichong (Negros Oriental)
116. Eleandro Jesus Madrona (Romblon)
117. Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes)
118. David Kho (Senior Citizens)
119. Francisco Emmanuel R. Ortega III (Abono)
120. Neil Montejo (An Waray)
121. Robert Estrella (Abono)
122. Albert Garcia (Bataan)
123. Giorgidi Aggabao (Isabela)
124. Daryl Grace Abayon (AT)
125. Roberto V. Puno (Antipolo City)
126. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. (Cavite)
127. Eufranio Eriguel (La Union)
128. Mariano Michael Velarde (Buhay)
129. Irwin Tieng (Buhay)
130. Mariano Piamonte Jr. (A Teacher)
131. Pedro Pancho (Bulacan)
132. Maria Valentina Plaza (Agusan del Sur)
133. Andres Salvacion (Leyte)
134. Yevgeny Emano (Misamis Oriental)
135. Nelson Dayanghirang (Davao Oriental)
136. Raymond Mendoza (TUCP)
137. Ferjenel Biron (Iloilo)
138. Mark Enverga (Quezon)
139. Salvador Cabaluna III (1-Care)
140. Homer Mercado (1-Utak)
141. Jose F. Zubiri III (Bukidnon)
142. Patricio Antonio (Agbiag)
143. Dakila Cua (Quirino)
144. Lord Allan Jay Velasco (Marinduque)
145. Pedro Acharon Jr. (South Cotabato-Gen. Santos City)
146. Ben Evardone (Eastern Samar)
147. Henedina R. Abad (Batanes)
148. Emmi De Jesus (Gabriela)
149. Raymond Palatino (Kabataan)
150. Antonio l. Tinio (ACT)
151. Nicanor Briones (AGAP)
152. Neri Javier Colmenares (Bayan Muna)
153. Teddy Casino (Bayan Muna)
154. Juan Edgardo Angara (Aurora)
155. Mary Mitzi Cajayon (Caloocan City)
156. Carol Jayne Lopez (YACAP)
157. Jorge Banal III (Quezon City)
158. Irvin Alcala (Quezon)
159. Benjo Benaldo (Cagayan de Oro City)
160. Jonathan Yambao (Zamboanga Sigubay)
161. Lorenzo Tanada III (Quezon)
162. Peter Unabia (Misamis Oriental)
163. Cresente Paez (Coop-Natcco)
164. Leopoldo Bataoil (Pangasinan)
165. Amado Bagatsing (Manila)
166. Julio Ledesma IV (Negros Occidental)
167. Bai Sandra Sema (Maguindanao-Cotabato City)
168. Rommel Amatong (Compostela Valley)
169. Sharon Garin (Aambis-Owa)
170. Vincent Crisologo (Quezon City)
171. Czarina Umali (Nueva Ecija)
172. Napoleon Dy (Isabela)
173. Michael Rivera (1-CARE)
174. Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (Quezon City)
175. JC Rahman Nava (Guimaras)
176. Joseph Victor Ejercito (San Juan)
177. Nur G. Jaafar (Tawi-tawi)
178. Marlin Primicias-Agabas (Pangasinan)
179. Rachel del Mar (Cebu City)
180. Jack Enrile (Cagayan)
181. Anthony Golez (Bacolod City)
182. Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis)
183. Renato J. Unico Jr. (Camarines Norte)
184. Trisha Bonoan (Manila)
185. Franklin Bautista (Davao del Sur)
186. Benhur Salimbangon (Cebu)
187. Red Durano (Cebu); Cinchona Gonzales (CIBAC)
188. Sherwin Tugna (CIBAC)
- Midnight Appointments in violation against Sec. 15, Article VII of Constitution
- Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et. al., SC held that the prohibition does not apply to SC but only to executive department and other courts lower than SC.
- Indeed, Newsbreak report showed that “he has consistently sided with the (arroyo) administration in politically-significant cases”. Newsbreak further reported when it tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, “Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor of Arroyo”
- A table shows that in 10 cases show respondent’s voting pattern in cases involving Arroyo government’s frontal assaults on constitutional rights prior to his appointment as Chief Justice.
- During his tenure as Chief Justice, Respondent also sided with Arroyo in the following 3 cases such as in (1) Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive(revoking midnight appointments) and (3) Aquino vs. COMELEC (redefining districts of camsur)
- Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.
- Some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
- Respondent is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits (among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig).
- Respondent 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 vs. PAL on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities v. COMELEC)
- Respondent compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007 from President Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (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
- Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures.
- Respondent Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case, which was then pending before the SC, and accused fellow Justice Carpio for loobying for acquittal, in violation of Code of Conduct and Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
- Respondent Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corporation case under suspicious circumstances.
- Respondent railroaded the proceedings in the Guttierez case in order to have a Status Quo AnteOrder issued in her favor.
- Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices (Velasco, Bersamin and Perez) who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition a day after the status quo ante order was granted.
- Its issuance violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating impeachment proceedings.
- Respondent violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (“flip-flopping”) known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-partecommunications addressed to the Respondent:
- 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.
- Vinuya vs. 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, Respondent, 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.
- The Supreme Court, under the Respondent, 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 (5) days was recommended. Despite this recommendation, the Respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO in favour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules.
- Despite the conditions laid by the SC for the issuance of the TRO, Respondent allowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact there was non-compliance of an essential pre-condition
- Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote of7–6, 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 SC decided that the TRO was effective despite non-compliance with an essential condition of the TRO. It is notable that Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation.
- Worse, the Respondent 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 November 18, 2011.
- Respondent 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 Respondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.
- In particular, the annual audit report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines 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.
elinonapigkit
I Will Make It Happen 