What are the Articles of Impeachment against former Supreme Court

Justice Renato Corona?

ARTICLE I
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY
PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE
TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND UNTIL HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT
AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE TO THE PRESENT.
ARTICLE II
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE
PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,
LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE III
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED
THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING 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.
ARTICLE IV
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN HE 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 NAVARROGUTIERREZ.
ARTICLE V
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND
PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IN THE CASES
INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A
PROVINCE.
ARTICLE VI

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY ARROGATING UNTO HIMSELF, AND TO A

COMMITTEE HE CREATED, THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO IMPROPERLY INVESTIGATE A
JUSTICE 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.
ARTICLE VII
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO 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 COURTS OWN TRO.
ARTICLE VIII
RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF)
AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

What Articles were submitted for resolution/verdict by the Senate

Impeachment Court?
The prosecution withdrew articles 1,4,5,6 and 8, thus, the senate continued to deliberate on
articles 2, 3 and 7.
In relation to Article 2, Corona failed to declare in his assets, liabilities, and net worth, some of
his properties which violate the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He was also suspected of
acquiring assets valued at a high price, accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, and keeping various
bank accounts with huge deposits like the 300-square-meter apartment house in the Fort in
Taguig, Philippines.
In relation to Article 3, Corona was, before being the Chief justice, serving the Arroyo as her
Chief-of-Staff and spokesman long before when Arroyo was still the Vice President of the
Philippines which create a doubtful environment on the public for being an excessive
entanglement with former-president. Furthermore, Coronas Court was also questioned on the
Flip-flopping of decision done on FASAP v. PAL which was cause by a mere letter from the
Philippine Airlines counsel Estelito Mendoza and which was also done in the case of League of
Cities v. Comelec. Corona also violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to his
independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, was appointed, in which the latter accepted on
March 23, 2007 from then the President Arroyo, to the Board of the John Hay Management

Corp. (JHMC). Thereafter, Complaints was filed by the other board members against Mrs.
Corona on the ground of the latters misconduct and negligence, yet upon acting on such
complaint, it is the complainants who were removed from the Board and Mrs. Corona promoted
as the Officer-In-Charge and Chairman of the Board. Aside from these anomalies done, Corona
was also reportedly using judicial funds as his own personal expense account, charging such to
the judiciary personal expenditures.
In relation to Article 7, Due to the Arroyo clear failure to comply with the requisites for the grant
of the injunctive relief, the Supreme Court en banc in its Nov. 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote
of 7-6, decided that there was no compliance with the requisites of the Temporary Restraining
Order. Thus, resulted for failure on complying an essential condition, the TRO is not effective.
However, The Supreme Court decided that the TRO was effective despite the noncompliance
with the requisites. The former-Chief Justice did not rebuke nor reprimand the SC spokesperson
Midas Marquez for this blatant and obnoxious false information and public misrepresentation.
Further, Corona chose not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the
pronouncement was clearly did not reflect the agreement made by the Supreme Court in there
Nov. 18, 2011 deliberations.

What was the verdict of the Senate Impeachment Court?

The SENATE sitting as an Impeachment Court, tried Renato S. Corona, Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, upon three Articles of Impeachment charged against him by the House of
Representatives, by a guilty vote of 20 Senators, representing at least two-thirds of all the
Members of the SENATE, and found him guilty of the charge under Article II of the said Articles
of Impeachment.

Reaction
The judiciary is the final bulwark of liberty. It is the bastion of justice and legal order. It is where
all citizens though from different walks of life become and are treated as equal. It is where the
scales tilted by oppression are balanced to attain justice. It is thus important to maintain public
confidence in the institution and to do this all judges must exhibit and promote high standards of
judicial conduct for it to be reinforced.

The infamous event of the removal from office of the former Chief Justice Corona falls back to
the fundamental principle of being a public servant holding a public office. In relation to such, it
is no other but the highest law of the land, the Constitution, states that, Public office is
a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives. clearly Coronas acts and omission brought forth the trial for
his impeachment.
One of such is his violation of the code on judicial ethics in his independence on the complaint
filed against his wife which resulted to the removal of not his wife but rather the complainant
which resulted to his wife being the new Chair of the board of director of John Hay Management
Corp. Moreover, Corona also violated the code on his act in discussing with litigants, Lauro
Vizconde and Dante Jimenez, in regards to the Vizconde Massacre Case, which was then
pending before the Supreme Court. The focal point for the filing of the removal of the Chief
Justice maybe the omission of the former Chief justice to correct the misrepresentation of the
decision done by the Supreme Court spokesperson in relation to the Arroyos TRO.
These are clear violation on the Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct states, A Judge
should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary and Canon 3 states, A Judge
should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
We are now confronted with the problem if such actions and omissions of Corona would
tantamount to his impeachment from his office. Any other form of penalties would not have gave
birth to such controversy for the reason that the grounds for an impeachment as provided by
nonetheless the Section 2 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution does not include as a ground the
violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. In allowing such, it would result to the law of the
land only being inferior to the Code of Judicial Conduct which is not should be.
Nevertheless, Such violation of the code can be argued to the last stated ground for
impeachment, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust in which some of us would dissent
and would concur with the discussion of Senator Defensor-Santiago where she applied a basic
rule in Statutory Construction of Ejusdem Generis on the last ground in which such should
also be as grave and heavy as those enumerated with the statement being construed. In addition,
of the three articles presented to the impeachment trial, only the mere failure of Corona to state
correctly his numbers on his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth. Yet some of us
would concur on the violation of the New Code of Judicial conduct falls fairly on the ground on
Graft and Corruption for failure to present correct the properties in his SALN.