Quantcast
Latest Stories

188 solons impeach CJ Corona

Senate trial to be held next year–Enrile

By ,
Loading the player...


UNDER HEAVY FIRE “I assure you I do not intend to leave and do as they please,” says Chief Justice Renato C. Corona LYN RILLON

Allies in the House of Representatives, seeking to appease an angry President Benigno Aquino III, on Monday swiftly impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona for interfering in the prosecution of former President  and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“This is very important, grave and historic,” Speaker Feliciano Belmonte declared after a hastily called caucus of the ruling Liberal Party and its coalition partners and party-list groups that  three hours later produced the articles of impeachment against Corona.

“We realize the gravity of this decision,” Belmonte added.

He said the 57-page document was signed by more than the one-third of the 285 House members, a requirement under the Constitution to impeach the Chief Justice without going through the plenary debates.

By late Monday night, the count had reached 188, according to Representative Niel Tupas Jr., chairman of the justice committee which initiated the process.

The grounds for Corona’s ouster included betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption, citing specifically in the eight articles of impeachment his “undue closeness” to Arroyo who is under hospital arrest for electoral sabotage.

Belmonte explained that since the representatives’ signatures had been verified by the House secretary general, the case could be sent directly to the Senate either later Monday night or on Tuesday in the short-circuited process.

He said the 11-member prosecution team would be formed by Wednesday and would bring the case formally to the Senate.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said it was likely that the 24-member Senate would constitute itself as an impeachment court next year. The Senate and the House are due to take a Christmas break on Wednesday and will resume sessions in January.

“I think we would no longer have time for the rest of the year,” Enrile told reporters.

Blackmail

House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman called the move “the mother of all blackmails.”

“The Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed not to decide pending cases against the Aquino administration, otherwise the wrath of impeachment will be on them,” Lagman said.

“The derogation of our democratic institutions is almost complete with the emasculation of the House of Representatives, the violation of civil liberties, the impairment of the rule of law and now the destruction of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.”

Fast and furious

Belmonte and another Liberal Party stalwart, Cavite Representative Joseph E.A. Abaya, revealed that a “furious” President Aquino wanted a “fast” impeachment against Corona after he and seven other Arroyo appointees had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the travel ban against Arroyo.

“He was infuriated after the SC issued the TRO. He called me up and told me how he felt bad that the SC was intervening in behalf of Arroyo. He felt that this should stop,” Belmonte said in an interview. “This is our own game plan, we just had his support.”

Abaya said in an interview that the President had told him that he felt Corona was the “last stumbling block” to his core reform agenda and that Mr. Aquino did not want to spend the next five years in office clashing with the high tribunal.

“He gave the general direction, we followed because we believe this is the right thing,” Abaya said.

After gathering forces in the Liberal Party,  Mr. Aquino moved to consolidate his allies from other parties, according to Abaya.

Belmonte and Abaya said the House leaders went to work immediately to build a case against Corona “and go to every detail and ensure that it will stand on strong legal ground.”

Mr. Aquino monitored the caucus, according to Belmonte. “I texted him about results that we had already reached 172. And he said, ‘thanks,’”

The Speaker said the majority had been talking about Corona’s impeachment for weeks prior to yesterday’s caucus and they only decided to push through with it after getting at least 95 supporters.

8 cases in complaint

The impeachment complaint listed eight issues against Corona:

Partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court associate justice up to his dubious midnight appointment as Chief Justice and up to the present.

Failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Section 17 Article XI of the Constitution.

Failure to meet and observe the stringent standards under the Constitution that provided 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 cases pending in  the Supreme Court.

Blatantly disregarding 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 Gutierrez.

Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata, or resurrecting decided cases, 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;

Arrogating 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 are properly reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

Partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of 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.

Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary  collections.

Corona will be the third high official to be impeached by Congress but the second under the fast-track method after then  President Joseph Estrada in 2000. In March, former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached through voting on the floor after going through the committee process. With reports from Cathy Yamsuan, PDI and Maila Ager, INQUIRER.net

Originally posted at 04:42  pm | Monday, December 12, 2011


Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter


Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Tags: Benigno Aquino III , chief justice , Congress , Corona Impeachment , Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo , Government , House of Representatives , Impeachment , Judiciary , Philippines , Politics , Renato Corona , Supreme Court

  • Victor Magallanes

    Is this because of the TRO or because of the Hacienda Luisita decision?

    “the President had told him that he felt Corona was the “last stumbling block” to his core reform agenda and that Mr. Aquino did not want to spend the next five years in office clashing with the high tribunal”– this statement is really disturbing.

    Based on the premise that Corona and 7 other justices were appointed by Arroyo therefore they are subservient to her wishes, impeaching only Corona will not achieve the goal. If Pnoy can manage to impeach the other 7, then he will not anymore clash with the high tribunal during his term.

    However, the question is, what kind of court will we have then? All Aquino appointees? Shades of 1987? Will there be a new selection and appointment process for the SC?

    The president must not and should never waver if he is really serious about his core agenda. People conveniently forget that the court affirmed the postponement of the ARMM elections which was a move initiated by the president based on his core agenda.

    This move may have gained tremendous support from those who do not see beyond the horizon but very little from those who do.

  • Anonymous

    ood job yellow zombies… 2 down( congress & SC) … one more to go (
    “D” senate)… year 2013 its all yours yellow zombies… I just hope
    after that your yellow boss will not turn 360 degrees.. and start
    killing u…. mabuhay ang dilaw na bansa… mabuhay sa mga yellow
    zombies… wish after this, philippines will not be a dumb to the eyes
    of the world… wawangpinoy parin ang kawawa sa huli… . for sure.

  • Anonymous

    The first time in history that a chief justice is impeached. Thank you to our representatives in Congress.

    Impeaching corona is just right. Under him, the Supreme Court is now known as the
    FLIP FLOPPING SUPREME COURT, the first time in history that the highest
    court is so degraded and lacked public trust and approval

  • Anonymous

    Asan si Pacman?

    • Anonymous

      Samarutan, si pacquiao ay bata nina chavit singson at lito atienza na mga tuta ni arroyo.

  • Anonymous

    The flip flopping coronaroyo supreme court has the lowest public trust
    and approval rating in history. This is because of its increasing lack
    of credibility and integrity that resulted from its bias for arroyo.

    It is the will of the sovereign Filipino people that the coronaroyo
    justices be impeached by Congress who represents the people. They should
    be impeached before they totally destroy the credibility and integrity
    of the SC.

    The sovereign people is more supreme than the supreme court.

    The voice of the people is the voice of God. Vox populi vox Dei.

    • Anonymous

      NANGYARI YAN DAHIL FIDEL CASTRO DEMONIZE THE SUPREME COURT

  • http://twitter.com/jonting Johnny Ting

    Why mother of all blackmails Cong. Lagman?  Did 188 congressmen walk out of meeting with paper bags filled with 500k pesos?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AYITA5V33GYZSLC3G37UCVNTKA Ben

    Unfortunately, this case affects the minority, and in the future if the majority becomes the minority I`m sure they will do the same to protect the SC independence….. for we are talking about principle here according to the constitutional rights, if the minority of congress happened to be in support of SC because of the danger of violating the bill of rights, wether you are guilty or not, the law protects all. Corona is not an issue here, but how the laws are being sidelined and that minority actually should protect that right…..

    The UN Universal declaration of Human rights
    Article 7.
    • All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

    Article 10.
    • Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

    Article 11.
    • (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    • (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed

    The Philippines is a signatory to these rights and any violations can be elevated to the UN…

  • Anonymous

    HAHAHAHA  MALILINIS BA ANG MGA  188 NA KONGRESMAN NA YAN????

  • Anonymous

    10% OF PORK BARREL FUND???????

  • alienpatriot

    Take a look at the cosntitution of the Philippines – section VII:Section 15. Two months immediately
    before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
    President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except
    temporary
    appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein
    will
    prejudice public service or endanger public safety.When Corona was appointed it occurred within this time frame. The Supreme Court members present sided with Corona, saying that this provision did not apply to the Supreme Court but were unable to provide evidence to back their claim. Clearly, Corona was not legally appointed ,,,, and most of the SC deliberately gave an incorrect judgement to appease their patron, GMA.Why is Corona being impeached? That is easy to see. What is not so clear is why so few others are being held accountable.

    • Anonymous

      If you keep on reading to Article VII, Section 16 (of the Constitution) it clearly alludes to “executives” as being part of the President’s cabinet (department heads). I am not a lawyer or someone versed in explaining the texts of the Constitution but I believe this is the root-cause of why the rest of the justices decided in favor of accepting Corona (as a GMA appointee).

      Simply put the Constitution did NOT explicitly cited/included a judicial appointment restriction with the 2-month rule. Hence it was NOT unconstitutional for him to assume the post for as long as he met the qualification reqs of the position (Article VIII, Section 7), which he did.

      • alienpatriot

        Corona had the numbers and thus his court was able to interpret the words surrounding “executive” in a manner that suited its purposes. Other judges would interpret it differently I am sure.
        I have little doubt that those writing the constitution did not intend to exclude judicial appointments. My interpretation of the wording is different to those of the judges. One key is the lack of a comma.
        If a comma is placed after the word “appointments” then the meaning is changed so that the rule applies only to executive appointments. That is what Corona et al did. They changed the punctuation to alter the meaning.
        I have four reasons for seeing this interpretation as invalid.
        Firstly, if the ban applied only to executive positions, the words “to executive positions” would have been placed earller in the sentence. It would have read as :

        “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments TO EXECUTVE POSITIONS, except temporary appointments when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

        I have emphasised the words moved. If the constitution had read as above, the SC would have been correct in their order. This was not the case, however.

        Secondly, there seems no reason to exclude judicial appointments. The idea that certain types of appointments were excluded has no basis. The wording as it stands quite clearly states that the rule only excludes temporary appointments to executive positions and even then it only applies when continued vacancies would cause a problem.

        Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier, there is a matter of a missing comma. To interpret as Corona et al did requires many changes.
        Fourthly, even if the required changes are made, the court would need to be able to show that waiting until a new Chief Justice was appointed would “prejudice public service or endanger public safety.” I do not believe that it would.

        I can see how Corona was able to misrepresent the constitution in this case. He did not intend to find the correct interpretation, merely a means of arriving at an interpretation and conclusion arrivied at prior to the decision. The issue becomes one of whether the SC did believe that their interpretation was correct (incompetence on their part in understanding English grammar) or whether, like the other associate facing impeachment, it sought to deliberately misrepresent. I believe the latter, but it seems inappropriate to accept incompetence also.

      • alienpatriot

        Section 15 mentioned executive branch only to say that the only exception to the ban on midnight appointments is that temporary executive appointments CAN be made. Judicial ones are NEVER allowed.
        Why the constitution would need to specifically mention judicial appointments is a mystery. It does not specifically mention people with large noses either but the same applies to them also.
        The Judges were wrong …. and I suspect chose to give the wrong decision as it suited them to do so. They simply wanted an excuse to use for allowing Corona and that silly line about not specifically including judicial appointments did the job.



Copyright © 2013, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement

News

  • 3 cops hurt as PNP chopper crashes in Kalinga
  • Cops catch ‘motel skipper’ in Makati
  • Gov’t agencies declare war on fish ‘invaders’
  • Man stabs cousin dead over gay slur
  • Heard on Radyo Inquirer 990AM
  • Sports

  • Co fulfills coaching dream with Cardinals
  • Archers Yap, Chipeco still on target, bag 2 golds
  • Avena paces PH Senior by 2
  • Paras leads 9 PBA Hall of Fame nominees
  • SEA Games: PH fielding no more than 200 bets
  • Lifestyle

  • Amanda Griffin Jacob is PH’s sexiest vegan
  • Dan Brown’s ‘Inferno’ No. 1 on Apple’s iBookstore
  • 1335 A. Mabini St.–from colonial mansion to contemporary landmark
  • An expat’s ‘wife-trepreneur’s’ bright idea is fast catching on
  • Pio Abad’s art of archeology
  • Entertainment

  • Zsa Zsa Padilla still singing sad songs
  • Marvin Agustin on his love for cooking
  • Postscript to Cannes
  • I am a proud show pony
  • Same fest, same stars
  • Business

  • DOTC set to seal Terminal 3 deal
  • ALI eyes offering of P21B in long-term retail bonds
  • Illegal cigarette trade seen to cost gov’t P8B a year
  • BOP surplus down to $75M in May
  • Economic growth may exceed gov’t expectations
  • Technology

  • Internet balloons to benefit small business—Google
  • Dating site for broody singles launches in Denmark
  • Facebook CEO meets SKorean president
  • Chinese supercomputer named as world’s fastest
  • Echoes can reveal the shape of a room
  • Opinion

  • Mending nets
  • The Great Flood
  • What’s in a name?
  • CComedia’s statement on the cruel rape joke
  • It’s way past time for action
  • Global Nation

  • CBCP lauds probe on OFWs’ sexual abuse, says problem not only in Mideast
  • PH overseas labor exec in sex scandal says human traffickers out to destroy him
  • AFP confirms re-provisioning, troop rotation activities in Ayungin Shoal
  • PH Golan peacekeepers to stay for now
  • 3 Chinese nabbed in buy-bust operation, P135-M shabu seized
  • Marketplace
    Advertisement
    Azure Skin Ad
    Azure Skin Ad
    © Copyright 1997-2013 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved