Group Members:

Adan, Queenie Kate

Bono, Leo Joselito E.
Calang, Princess V.
Famor, Jewel Jade
Magaso, Jovita Andelecia
1. What are the Articles of Impeachment against former Supreme Court
Justice Renato Corona?
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
Respondent betrayed the Public Trust, committed Culpable Violation of the
Constitution and Graft and Corruption in the following manner:
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 NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.
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 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 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.
2. What Articles were submitted for resolution/verdict by the Senate
Impeachment Court?
Only the 2nd, 3rd and 7th articles were considered; after the required two-thirds
vote to remove from office was reached on the first article (2 nd) being voted upon,
the Senate decided not to pursue voting on the last two articles (3 rd and 7th.)
Betrayal of public
Failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets,
trust
and/or
2 liabilities, and net worth as required under the
culpable violation
constitution.
of the constitution

Failing to meet and observe the stringent standards

under 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
3 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.

Betrayal of public
trust
and/or
culpable violation
of the constitution

7 Partiality
in
granting
a temporary
restraining Betrayal of public
order (TRO) in favor of former president Gloria trust
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.

3. What was the verdict of the Senate Impeachment Court?

The Senate Impeachment Court has found Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Renato Corona guilty of the charge with a judgment promulgated on May 29,
2012 as follows:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PASAY CITY
Impeachment Court

JUDGMENT
The SENATE sitting as an Impeachment Court, having 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, has found him guilty of the charge under Article
II of the said Articles of Impeachment: Now, therefore, be it
ADJUDGED, That Renato C. Corona be, and is hereby, CONVICTED of
the charge against him in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
WHEREFORE, in accordance with Article XI, Section 3 (7) of the
Constitution, the penalty of removal from office and disqualification to hold
any office under the Republic of the Philippines is hereby imposed upon
respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
SO ORDERED.
29 May 2012
(SGD. ) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
4. Write a concise, well-informed and reflective Reaction Paper on the
Corona Impeachment, with emphasis on ethical lessons learned.
Reaction Paper
An action for impeachment is brought against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,
on the grounds of: (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) Culpable Violation of the
Constitution; and (c) Graft and Corruption.
The Senate Impeachment Court has impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Corona was found guilty with a total of twenty(20) senators who voted for his
conviction while only three(3) senators voted for his acquittal. This is for the first
time in Philippine history that the very head the judiciary who is supposed to
uphold the law of the land had been put on trial for impeachment.
It is absolutely one of the most significant political and legal events that took
place in Philippine history. Many people have different views and opinions on
whether Chief Justice Corona is guilty or not. On survey results, the public are
divided on the Chief Justice fate.

The Filipinos have expressed delight and celebrated the impeachment as this
connotes the beginning of a new journey towards upholding a higher standard
and that the law must be strictly followed. On the other hand, others believed that
the conviction was not fair and that politics prevailed over law.
Renato C. Corona was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by the
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. When President Benigno Aquino III
assumed office, the appointment of the Chief Justice became a vital issue,
believing that the Corona, influencing other Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, would impose bias against his administration. As stated under the
Complaint for Impeachment against the Chief Justice:
His appointment came just one week after a new President was
already elected, and just a few weeks before a new President was
to formally assume office. Despite the Constitutional prohibition, the
precedent established in Aytona v. Castillo, which declared that an
incumbent President appointing officials after the election of his
successor, as President Diosdado Macapagal argued, represented
malicious sabotage of the expressed will of the people; and despite
the Supreme Courts own history, which presented the sterling
example of a former Chief Justice, Manuel Moran, who declined
reappointment to the court by President Elpidio Quirino as it
constituted a midnight appointment, Respondent eagerly
accepted his position.
As a member of the judiciary, he is obliged to uphold the law of the land.
However, this is ironic because it can be shown from the foregoing that despite
the Constitutional prohibition of such appointment which is even a decided case,
the Chief Justice accepted his appointment. It is disappointing to know that a
person who represents the justice system of our country is the exact person who
violated the law itself that should be followed by each individual whatever their
status may be in the society. Instead of assuring the public the independence
and impartiality of the Judiciary, Corona during his term as Chief Justice had
been acting in favor of the former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had
appointed him to his position. Moreover, as embodied in the complaint against
him, there are also other instances that would tend to show that Corona betrayed
the public trust and committed violation of the Philippine Constitution.
The Constitution and our statutes oblige every public official to make and
submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities, and net worth in order to
suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. Chief Justice Corona has
failed to comply with his constitutional duty. He has lost his moral fitness to serve
the people. He has betrayed the public trust.
Contained in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, under
Canon 2, which covers integrity, are two sections: 1. Judges shall ensure that not
only is their conduct above reproach but that it is perceived to be so in the view
of a reasonable observer. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm
the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary.
The present Constitution also provides that a Member of the Judiciary must be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. He is
therefore expected to maintain high ethical principles and a sense of propriety to
ensure the faith of the people in the Judiciary. However, Corona demonstrated
bias and manifest partiality for the former president Arroyo basing on his voting
pattern even prior to his dubious appointment as Chief Justice.
In addition to that, Corona further compromised his independence when his wife,
Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March 23, 2007 from Mrs. Gloria
Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of the Bases Conversion Development
Authority (BCDA), a government-owned-and-controlled corporation created
under Republic Act No. 7227.

In the words of the Verified Complaint of Impeachment against Chief Justice

Corona:
Mrs. Coronas appointment is a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct
that
provides:
Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial
office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests
of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge. [Sec. 4, Canon 1; emphasis and underscoring supplied]
Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office
to advance their private interests, or those of a member of
their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit
others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position
improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.
[Sec. 8, Canon 4; emphasis and underscoring supplied]
The New Code of Judicial Conduct further provides that it is
unethical for a magistrate and members of his family to ask for or
receive any gift in exchange for any act done or to be done by the
judge in the course of his judicial functions:
Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done
or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with
the performance of judicial duties. [Sec. 8, Canon 4; emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections
with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches
of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a
reasonable observer. [Sec. 5, Canon 1; emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
Because of the appointment of Chief Justice Coronas wife in her position, there
could be a reason to believe that it was meant to secure the loyalty of Corona for
the former president Arroyo. In that respect, a mutually beneficial relationship
was created between Corona and Arroyo. This is improper for Corona since as a
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he is expected to observe higher standards.
His acts of favoring Arroyo showed a lack of qualification as a Chief Justice as he
has demonstrated a lack of competence, integrity, probity, or independence.
Another instance that violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct was when
Corona admitted that various persons were able to communicate with him in
connection with a case(G.R. No. 186711 ) that was pending before him. Their
approach was to influence the Chief Justice over the pending case. He allowed
people to approach him despite the knowledge that their intention was to
influence him. As a member of the judiciary, he is expected to decide a case
without the influence of others. He is obliged to keep in mind his Independence,
Integrity, Impartiality and Propriety in drafting a decision for that case. However,
by allowing people to try to influence him, he violated the following: (a)Sections 1,
4 and 5 of Canon I(Independence); (b) Sections 1,2 and 3 of Canon II(Integrity);
(c)Section 2 of Canon III(Impartiality); and (d)Section 1 of Canon IV(Propriety).
The Members of the Judiciary are given the responsibility to perform the duties
entrusted to them with ethical standards that should be followed by each one of
them. This is to gain the confidence of the people that the justice system of the
country is existing for the benefit of all the people and not just for a limited
number of people who belong to the higher class. However, based on the
foregoing, the other way around is happening in the Judiciary. The people who
have deeper knowledge of the present Constitution and the laws of the country
are the ones violating them for personal reasons which is contrary to the public
service that is expected from them. Moreover, there are ethical guidelines
provided for the public servants. However, the case of Corona is a concrete

example of the violation such guidelines despite the knowledge they have of
such standards expected from them.
It is speculated that this impeachment complaint is merely a battle between the
current President and the Chief justice because of the Courts decision to
distribute the parcel of lands in the Hacienda Luisita to the tenant farmers who
have been working there that is owned by the Conjuangco family, where the
President is a part of.
This national event, has brought out the best and worst of people. We saw in the
televised proceedings how senators, lawyers and other public officials stood up
for what they believe in. However some engaged in propagandas that trampled
the right of the Chief Justice. They seem to forget that the foundation of the law,
and law making is ethics.
All public officials are public servants. Regrettably for us, many of our public
officials do not take to heart the true meaning of their status as public servants.
It is clear that based on the doubt cast on his competence to dispense justice
and do his duty, he is no longer fit to preside over the highest court. As much as
the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, he in return has the
responsibility to be the epitome of a public servant with the highest ethical
standards. He must be removed from office after having been found guilty of two
serious and impeachable offenses: Culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust.