CORONA vs SENATE

GR No. 200242 July 17, 2012 Ponente: J. Villarama

Leigh Villegas
Petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the impeachment case initiated by the members of the House of
Representatives, being conducted by the Senate of the Philippines
FACTS:
December 12, 2011: Verified complaint for impeachment against CJ Corona was submitted by the House
Committee on Justice. Signed by 188 members of the House on the same day. (more than the required 1/3 vote)
December 14, 2011: Senate convened as an impeachment court
December 15, 2011: Petitioner received copy of complaint

Articles of Impeachment:
1. Betrayal of public trust in his partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration
2. Failure to disclose to the public his SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth)
2.1 Required by law under Art XI Sec 17 of the Constitution
2.2 Petitioner failed to disclose his SALN as required by the Constitution
2.3 Some of the petitioners properties are not included in his declaration of assets, liabilities
and net worth violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act
2.4 Petitioner is suspected and accused of having accumulated ill gotten wealth
3. Allowing the SC to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping
decisions in final and executor cases, in creating excessive entanglement with GMA through her
appointing his wife to office, in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending with the SC
4. Blatant disregard of the separation of powers when he issued a status quo ante order against HOR in
the case regarding Ombudsman Gutierrez
5. Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of Res Judicata in cases
involving the 16 newly created cities and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province
6. Arrogating unto himself and to a committee he created, the authority to investigate a SC Justice to
exculpate the said Justice, when it was the HOR that has the authority and jurisdiction to do so via
impeachment
7. Granting a TRO in favor of GMA and her husband, to give them the opportunity to escape prosecution,
and in distorting the SC decision regarding the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply
with the conditions of the SCs own TRO
8. Failure and refusal to account for the JDF and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections

Senate commenced impeachment trial on January 16, 2012.

o Various witnesses took the witness stand to produce and to testify regarding the petitioners SALN
o Granted the issuance of subpoenas directed to the officers of PS Bank and BPI in which the petitioner
allegedly deposited millions in peso and dollar currencies
o PS Bank filed petition for certiorari and prohibition from the implementation of the subpoena

February 8, 2012: present petition was filed. Impeachment court committed GAD amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in:
1. Proceeding with the trial based on the complaint from the HOR, which was constitutionally infirm
and defective for lack of probable cause
2. Not striking out charges in Art 2 of the impeachment complaint, which was hodge-podge of multiple
charges and do not constitute allegations in law being premised on suspicions and hearsay
3. Violating the petitioners right to due process when the impeachment court allowed the
presentation of evidence on charges of alleged corruption and unexplained wealth
4. Issuance of a subpoena for the production of the petitioners bank accounts, when it is in fact illegal
according to Sec 8 of RA 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act)
Supplemental Petition

1. Right to due process being violated. Senator-Judges have lost their impartiality by acting as
prosecutors
2. Continued presentation of evidence for the prosecution by the allies of Pres. Aquino, without fear of
objection
Solicitor General (on behalf of the respondents)
1. Petition raises matters purely political in character. May be resolved only by the Senate and the
HOR.
Nixon vs. United States: to allow a public official being impeached to raise to the SC any issue
relative to the substance of the impeachment complaint will result in an unnecessarily long and
tedious process
2. Impeachment court has been conducting the proceedings judiciously. No grave abuse of discretion.
3. Submitting the impeachment trial to judicial review defeats the essence of impeachment.
4. Public accountability > confidentiality of deposits. Hence, subpoenas issued were rightfully issued.
5. Injury claimed by the petitioner has no factual and legal basis.

ISSUE:
WON the jurisdiction of the SC may be invoked to assail matters arising from impeachment proceedings and to obtain
injunctive relief for alleged violations of the right to due process of the person being tried by the Impeachment court
HELD/RATIO

Role of judiciary in impeachment cases is important in the effective functioning of the separate branches, in
preserving the structure of checks and balances
Power of judicial review includes power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings (Francisco
vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino Inc.)
Petitioner failed to prove the partiality of the Senator Judges
The question of whether Senate Impeachment Rules were followed or not is a political question
ISSUE HAS BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC no more justiciable controversy
o Petitioner has been convicted by the Impeachment Court
o Petitioner immediately accepted the verdict without protest
o JBC is already in the process of screening applicants for Chief Justice

Present petition is dismissed on the ground of mootness.