Corona Complaint

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House of Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City
IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C. CORONA AS CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C. TUPAS JR., ET AL., (other compl!""t# compr!#!"$ t
le#t o"e%th!r& ('() o* the totl Mem+er# o* the Ho,#e o* Repre#e"tt!-e# re !"&!cte&
+elo./, Complainants.
x---------------------------------------------------x
VERIFIE0 COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT
Undersigned COMP!"#!#$% most respe&tfully file t'is duly (erified Complaint for t'e
"mpea&'ment of t'e Honora)le Renato C. Corona, &urrently t'e C'ief *usti&e of t'e %upreme
Court +'ereafter, ,Respondent-., upon t'e grounds of /etrayal of Pu)li& $rust, Culpa)le
(iolation of t'e Constitution, and 0raft and Corruption, as follo1s2
PREFATOR1 STATEMENT
#ever 'as t'e position of C'ief *usti&e, or t'e standing of t'e %upreme Court, as an institution,
)een so tainted 1it' t'e per&eption of )ias and partiality, as it is no12 not even in t'e dar3 days
of martial la1, 'as t'e &'ief magistrate )e'aved 1it' su&' arrogan&e, impunity, and &yni&ism.
!nd yet, for t'e aut'enti& rule of la1 to prevail, t'e pu)li& must 'ave a)solute trust and
&onfiden&e in t'e 4usti&e, pro)ity, integrity, and impartiality, of t'e mem)ers of t'e %upreme
Court. $o 'ave any 4usti&e, mu&' more, a C'ief *usti&e, 1'o does not live up to t'e expe&tation
of )eing li3e Caesar5s 1ife 6)eyond reproa&'- is to fatally impede t'e a)ility of our institutions
to fun&tion and dispense true 4usti&e to t'e people.
$'e Constitution provides a pro&ess for 'olding t'e 4udi&iary to a&&ount, on t'e prin&iple t'at
,sovereignty resides in t'e people and all government aut'ority emanates from t'em-. $'e
Constitution provides for a me&'anism to remove 'ig' offi&ials 1'o )etray pu)li& trust, &ommit
&ulpa)le violations of t'e Constitution, and graft and &orruption.
On May 78, 9:7:, a little over a mont' and a 'alf )efore t'e ne1 government 1as to )e s1orn
in, Respondent Renato Corona 1as appointed C'ief *usti&e of t'e %upreme Court to prote&t, aid,
and a)et 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo in 'er efforts to es&ape a&&ounta)ility for 'er a&ts as
President of t'e P'ilippines. His appointment 1as made in violation of t'e Constitution and )y
overturning long-esta)lis'ed et'i&al and legal prin&iples for)idding presidents from ma3ing
midnig't appointments. His assumption of t'e position of C'ief *usti&e 1as t'us made possi)le
)y a &om)ination of violating t'e Constitution, and t'en finding 1ays to 4ustify it, 1'ile ignoring
examples of 'onoura)le and et'i&al )e'avior t'at s'ould 'ave made it impossi)le to a&&ept,
mu&' less assume, offi&e under su&' du)ious and dis'onora)le &ir&umstan&es.
$'e %upreme Court itself, in A2to" -. C#t!llo
7
, 1'ere it de&ided to up'old President ;iosdado
Ma&apagal in voiding t'e midnig't appointments of 'is prede&essor, Carlos P. 0ar&ia, paid
tri)ute to one of its former &'iefs. Pointing out t'at President <lpidio Quirino offered a midnig't
appointment to former C'ief *usti&e Manuel Moran2 ,/eing am)assador in %pain and desiring to
return to t'is Court even as asso&iate 4usti&e, Moran 1as tendered an ad interim appointment
t'ereto )y President Quirino, after t'e latter 'ad lost t'e ele&tion to President Magsaysay, and
)efore leaving t'e Presiden&y. %aid !m)assador de&lined to =ualify )eing of t'e opinion t'at t'e
matter s'ould )e left to t'e in&oming ne1ly-ele&ted President.-
"n ta&3ling President 0ar&ia5s midnig't appointments, t'e %upreme Court o)served t'at
demo&rati& respe&t and offi&ial self-restraint s'ould 'ave &'ara&terized 0ar&ia5s a&tions2 ,>'en a
nation em)ar3s on ele&ting its leaders'ip, our Constitution, la1s, 4udi&ial and 'istori&al
pre&edents all emp'asize t'at in&um)ents must )e )arred from a)using t'eir po1ers to give
t'emselves or t'eir partisans undue advantage, t'1art t'e pu)li& 1ill, or 'arass and 'arm a
su&&essor5s administration )y tying its 'ands )y means of mali&iously-motivated appointments.-
?urt'ermore, ,"t is &ommon sense to )elieve t'at after t'e pro&lamation of t'e ele&tion of
President Ma&apagal, 'is 1as no more t'an a @&are-ta3er5 administration. He 1as duty )ound to
prepare for t'e orderly transfer of aut'ority t'e in&oming President, and 'e s'ould not do a&ts
1'i&' 'e oug't to 3no1, 1ould em)arrass or o)stru&t t'e poli&ies of 'is su&&essor,- t'e %upreme
Court said.
>it' t'is pre&edent in mind, and 1it' t'e 'ealt'y attitude to1ards limiting offi&ial po1er at t'e
&lose of an administration, so as not to sa)otage t'e next, t'e present 7AB8 Constitution
ens'rined a &lear pro'i)ition on midnig't appointments. >'en President ?idel (. Ramos tried to
ma3e 4udi&ial appointments in t'e &losing days of 'is administration, t'e %upreme Court voided
t'em
9
, restating t'e stri&t )an on appointments, not 4ust to exe&utive department positions, )ut t'e
4udi&iary.
!nd yet, t'en President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo de&ided to ignore all past pre&edents,
in&luding t'e one esta)lis'ed )y 'er o1n fat'er, President ;iosdado Ma&apagal, in order to
appoint a C'ief *usti&e 1'en )y any measure 6 t'e 'istory of t'e Court, as s'o1n )y t'e
deli&adeza of former C'ief *usti&e Manuel MoranC t'e landmar3 &ase of !ytonaC t'e 7AB8
Constitution itselfC and t'e #ovem)er A, 7AAB en )an& Resolution of t'e %upreme Court voiding
President RamosD midnig't 4udi&ial appointments 6 su&' an appointment 1as vie1ed as
dangerous and inimi&al to aut'enti& demo&ra&y.
$'e de&ision of Mrs. !rroyo 1as premised on RespondentDs proven usefulness, and 'is am)itions
&om)ining 1it' 'er politi&al &al&ulations to ma3e 'im a 1illing partner in Mrs. !rroyoDs plan to
evade and avoid a&&ounting for 'er offi&ial a&tions. His usefulness and rut'lessness 1ere proven
from t'e time 'e served as 'er Presidential C'ief of %taff, Presidential %po3esman, and as !&ting
<xe&utive %e&retary2 all positions of t'e 'ig'est trust, &onfiden&e, and utility to 'er in 'er offi&ial
and personal affairs.
His loyalty and su)servien&e t'us earned 'im an appointment to t'e %upreme Court as !sso&iate
*usti&e at a time 1'en Mrs. !rroyo 1as fa&ing numerous &'allenges and )esieged )y a pu)li&
&lamor for a&&ounta)ility.
?a&ed 1it' a va&an&y in t'e position of C'ief *usti&e, s'e t'en 1ent one step furt'er and
&onspired 1it' Respondent Corona to maneuver 'is appointment as C'ief *usti&e2 )y )rea3ing
pre&edents esta)lis'ed )y 'er o1n fat'er 1'i&' premised midnig't appointments as mali&ious
interferen&e in t'e a)ility of a ne1ly-ele&ted president to 'ave a free 'and in fulfilling 'is
mandate.
"n t'e %upreme Court, Respondent 'as &onsistently a&ted in a manner t'at prote&ts Mrs. !rroyo,
'er legal maneuvers 1'ile in offi&e, and t'e legal and administrative landmines s'e left )e'ind,
so as to impede t'e government5s efforts to exa&t a&&ounta)ility and 4usti&e.
His leaders'ip of t'e %upreme Court 'as severely eroded pu)li& &onfiden&e in t'e very de&ision-
ma3ing pro&ess of t'e Hig' Court, due to t'e manner in 1'i&' t'e Court 'as 'anded do1n
de&isions, only to re&onsider, overturn, and overturn again, t'ose de&isions2 resulting in an
unpre&edented state of flux in terms of t'e verdi&ts of t'e 'ig'est &ourt in t'e land.
!s C'ief *usti&e, Respondent 'as )een lavis' in t'e spending of pu)li& fundsC )lind to et'i&al
standards of )e'avior expe&ted not only of 'im, )ut 'is familyC intrigued and &onspired against
'is fello1 4usti&esC and )e'aved more li3e a s&offla1 t'an C'ief *usti&e in refusing to dis&lose
'is assets and lia)ilities. #ot only 'as 'e )e'aved in a manner t'at is in&onsistent 1it' t'e
dignity and pro)ity expe&ted of a mem)er of t'e 'ig' &ourt, )ut 'as used 'is administrative
po1ers for partisan politi&al ends, to prote&t ot'er offi&ials put in offi&e for t'e same reason 'e
1as appointed2 to Mrs. President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo and ensure s'e evades a&&ounta)ility
for 'er a&ts.
His et'i&al )lindness, introdu&tion of politi&al partisans'ip at t'e expense of due pro&ess, and
intrigue into t'e &ourt at t'e expense of t'e reputation of 'is fello1 4usti&es, 'is undermining
)asi&, and &'eris'ed prin&iples of intelle&tual, finan&ial, and et'i&al 'onesty )y using 'is po1ers
not to arrive at t'e trut', or 'old t'e &ourt to t'e 'ig'est standards, )ut instead, to &over up and
ex&use t'e s'ort&omings of t'e &ourt, 'as )etrayed pu)li& trust )y eroding pu)li& &onfiden&e in
t'e administration of 4usti&e.
Pu)li& offi&e is premised on t'e maintenan&e of pu)li& trustC 'aving )etrayed t'at trust,
Respondent Renato Corona is manifestly unfit to &ontinue as C'ief *usti&e. He must )e
impea&'ed.
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
$'erefore, t'is a&tion for impea&'ment is )roug't against C'ief *usti&e Renato C. Corona in
a&&ordan&e 1it' t'e provisions of %e&tion 9, !rti&le E" of t'e 7AB8 Constitution, on t'e grounds
of2 +a. /etrayal of Pu)li& $rustC +). Culpa)le (iolation of t'e ConstitutionC and +&. 0raft and
Corruption.
THE PARTIES
Complainants are &urrent Mem)ers of t'e House of Representative, responsi)le ?ilipino &itizens
and taxpayers, and are all of legal age. ?or purposes of t'e instant (erified Complaint for
"mpea&'ment, &omplainants may )e served 1it' pleadings, noti&es and pro&esses t the Ho,#e
o* Repre#e"tt!-e#, Co"#t!t,t!o" H!ll#, Bt#" Comple3, 4,e5o" C!t2. $'ey )ring t'is
a&tion for and on )e'alf of t'e People of t'e Repu)li& of t'e P'ilippines )y aut'ority of t'e 7AB8
Constitution, &onsistent 1it' t'eir &ivi& and &onstitutional duties as &itizens, pu)li& servants,
mem)ers of t'e )ar, and Mem)ers of t'e House of Representatives as agents of t'e People, t'e
various se&tors of t'e nation and ot'er people5s organizations.
Respondent RENATO C. CORONA is t'e in&um)ent C'ief *usti&e of t'e %upreme Court of t'e
P'ilippines, and is )eing sued in 'is offi&ial &apa&ity. He may )e served 1it' summons and ot'er
pro&esses at 'is offi&e address at t'e %upreme Court /uilding, City of Manila.
6ENERAL ALLE6ATIONS
>'en Respondent assumed offi&e as C'ief *usti&e on May 78, 9:7:, 'e did so despite a
Constitutionally-imposed )an on appointments 1'i&' t'e %upreme Court made possi)le and
permitted under an interpretation t'at strained &redulity, logi& and &ommon-sense and even
1orse, effe&tively )ro3e t'e la1. $'e *usti&es t'at made t'is possi)le &onstitute a voting )lo&3
t'at Respondent leads as C'ief *usti&e.
$'e appointment 1as met 1it' 1idespread pu)li& indignation and protests as it 1as o)viously
morally du)ious. His appointment &ame 4ust one 1ee3 after a ne1 President 1as already ele&ted,
and 4ust a fe1 1ee3s )efore a ne1 President 1as to formally assume offi&e. ;espite t'e
Constitutional pro'i)ition, t'e pre&edent esta)lis'ed in !ytona v. Castillo, 1'i&' de&lared t'at an
in&um)ent President appointing offi&ials after t'e ele&tion of 'is su&&essor, as President
;iosdado Ma&apagal argued, represented mali&ious sa)otage of t'e expressed 1ill of t'e peopleC
and despite t'e %upreme Court5s o1n 'istory, 1'i&' presented t'e sterling example of a former
C'ief *usti&e, Manuel Moran, 1'o de&lined reappointment to t'e &ourt )y President <lpidio
Quirino as it &onstituted a midnig't appointment, Respondent eagerly a&&epted 'is position. $'is
1as not1it'standing t'e fa&t t'at of t'e t'ree )ran&'es of 0overnment, t'e *udi&iary 1as t'e
most greatly dependent upon moral as&endan&y and et'i&al integrity as t'e foundation of its
po1er and legitima&y. Ho1ever, 'e attempted to &amouflage 'is )razen am)ition )y ta3ing 'is
oat' of offi&e )efore t'en President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo in se&ret, supposedly at ten in t'e
morning of May 78, 9:7:, )eyond t'e s&rutiny of t'e mass media and t'e pu)li&
F
.
Respondent5s voting pattern and a&tions after 'is appointment as !sso&iate *usti&e and later, as
C'ief *usti&e, as dis&ussed )elo1, 'ave )een anyt'ing )ut fair and impartial.
"n t'e year t'at Respondent 'as presided over t'e Court of ast Resort, t'e ?ilipino peopleDs fait'
in t'e 4usti&e system 'as )een greatly undermined rat'er t'an uplifted, t'roug' a series of
du)ious de&isions engineered )y 'im.
"nstead of assuring and strengt'ening t'e independen&e and impartiality of t'e *udi&iary,
Respondent 'as instead demonstrated 'e is predisposed to favor and prote&t Mrs. 0loria
Ma&apagal-!rroyo, 1'o 'ad appointed 'im to 'is position as C'ief *usti&e in )razen disregard of
t'e Constitution.
"n fa&t, results of t'e %o&ial >eat'er %tations %urvey5s net satisfa&tion ratings in t'e t'ird =uarter
of 9:77 indi&ate t'at among t'e &ountry5s top offi&ials, only Respondent5s satisfa&tion ratings
'ave )een a ,zero- sin&e %eptem)er 9:7:, i.e., 'is satisfa&tion rating is &onsistently negated )y
'is dissatisfa&tion rating
G
.
!long t'e 1ay, Respondent, &ontrary to 'is pronoun&ements, 'as allo1ed and even en&ouraged
t'e deterioration of t'e respe&t and trust due to t'e Hig' Court )y putting o)sta&les in t'e pat' of
t'e peopleDs sear&' for trut' against graft and &orruptionC en&roa&'ing on t'e ex&lusive po1er of
t'e House of Representatives to initiate impea&'ment pro&eedings, providing a sem)lan&e of
legal &over to give ?ormer President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo and 'er 'us)and t'e opportunity
to es&ape prose&ution and frustrate t'e ends of 4usti&eC permitting t'e Hig' Court to repeatedly
flip-flop on its o1n de&isions in violation of its o1n rulesC ex&using plagiarism in &ontrast to t'e
stringent standards expe&ted of ordinary &ollege students and tea&'ersC and even reportedly
engaging not only in illi&itly a&=uiring assets of 'ig' value )ut even resorting to petty graft and
&orruption for 'is o1n personal profit and &onvenien&e.
$'e Complainants 'ere)y a&&use Respondent of numerous a&ts t'at &omprise2 +a. /etrayal of
Pu)li& $rustC +). Culpa)le (iolation of t'e ConstitutionC and +&. 0raft and Corruption, t'at render
'im a)solutely unfit for t'e position of C'ief *usti&e of t'e %upreme Court.
6ROUN0S FOR IMPEACHMENT
Re#po"&e"t +etr2e& the P,+l!c Tr,#t, comm!tte& C,lp+le V!olt!o" o* the Co"#t!t,t!o"
"& 6r*t "& Corr,pt!o" !" the *ollo.!"$ m""er7
ARTICLE I
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H HIS TRAC8 RECOR0
MAR8E0 B1 PARTIALIT1 AN0 SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVIN6 THE
ARRO1O A0MINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AN0 UNTIL HIS 0UBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A
MI0NI6HT CHIEF JUSTICE TO THE PRESENT.
ARTICLE II
RESPON0ENT COMMITTE0 CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
AN0(OR BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST 9HEN HE FAILE0 TO 0ISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AN0 NET 9ORTH AS
RE4UIRE0 UN0ER SEC. ':, ART. ;I OF THE '<=: CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE III
RESPON0ENT COMMITTE0 CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
AN0 BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST B1 FAILIN6 TO MEET AN0 OBSERVE THE
STRIN6ENT STAN0AR0S UN0ER ART. VIII, SECTION : ()/ OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT PROVI0ES THAT >?A@ MEMBER OF THE JU0ICIAR1
MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTE6RIT1, PROBIT1, AN0
IN0EPEN0ENCEA IN ALLO9IN6 THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE
LETTERS FILE0 B1 A COUNSEL 9HICH CAUSE0 THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP%
FLOPPIN6 0ECISIONS IN FINAL AN0 E;ECUTOR1 CASESB IN CREATIN6 AN
E;CESSIVE ENTAN6LEMENT 9ITH MRS. ARRO1O THROU6H HER
APPOINTMENT OF HIS 9IFE TO OFFICEB AN0 IN 0ISCUSSIN6 9ITH LITI6ANTS
RE6AR0IN6 CASES PEN0IN6 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
ARTICLE IV
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST AN0(OR COMMITTE0 CULPABLE
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 9HEN HE BLATANTL1 0ISRE6AR0E0 THE
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF PO9ERS B1 ISSUIN6 A >STATUS 4UO ANTEA
OR0ER A6AINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE
CONCERNIN6 THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBU0SMAN MERCE0ITAS
NAVARRO%6UTIERREC.
ARTICLE V
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H 9ANTON
ARBITRARINESS AN0 PARTIALIT1 IN CONSISTENTL1 0ISRE6AR0IN6 THE
PRINCIPLE OF RES JU0ICATA IN THE CASES INVOLVIN6 THE 'D NE9L1%
CREATE0 CITIES, AN0 THE PROMOTION OF 0INA6AT ISLAN0 INTO A
PROVINCE.
ARTICLE VI
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST B1 ARRO6ATIN6 UNTO
HIMSELF, AN0 TO A COMMITTEE HE CREATE0, THE AUTHORIT1 AN0
JURIS0ICTION TO IMPROPERL1 INVESTI6ATE A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF E;CULPATIN6 HIM. SUCH AUTHORIT1 AN0
JURIS0ICTION IS PROPERL1 REPOSE0 B1 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES VIA IMPEACHMENT.
ARTICLE VII
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H HIS PARTIALIT1 IN
6RANTIN6 A TEMPORAR1 RESTRAININ6 OR0ER (TRO/ IN FAVOR OF FORMER
PRESI0ENT 6LORIA MACAPA6AL%ARRO1O AN0 HER HUSBAN0 JOSE MI6UEL
ARRO1O IN OR0ER TO 6IVE THEM AN OPPORTUNIT1 TO ESCAPE
PROSECUTION AN0 TO FRUSTRATE THE EN0S OF JUSTICE, AN0 IN
0ISTORTIN6 THE SUPREME COURT 0ECISION ON THE EFFECTIVIT1 OF THE
TRO IN VIE9 OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPL1 9ITH THE CON0ITIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURTES O9N TRO.
ARTICLE VIII
RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST AN0(OR COMMITTE0 6RAFT
AN0 CORRUPTION 9HEN HE FAILE0 AN0 REFUSE0 TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
JU0ICIAR1 0EVELOPMENT FUN0 (J0F/ AN0 SPECIAL ALLO9ANCE FOR THE
JU0ICIAR1 (SAJ/ COLLECTIONS.
0ISCUSSION OF THE 6ROUN0S FOR IMPEACHMENT
I. RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H HIS TRAC8
RECOR0 MAR8E0 B1 PARTIALIT1 AN0 SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVIN6
THE ARRO1O A0MINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE 9HICH CONTINUE0 TO HIS 0UBIOUS
APPOINTMENT AS A MI0NI6HT CHIEF JUSTICE AN0 UP TO THE PRESENT.
7.7. %e&. 7H, !rti&le ("" of t'e 7AB8 Constitution &learly pro'i)its t'e President from ma3ing
appointments 1it'in t1o mont's immediately )efore t'e next presidential ele&tions and up to t'e
end of 'is term, ex&ept for temporary appointments to exe&utive positions 1'en &ontinued
va&an&ies t'erein 1ill pre4udi&e pu)li& servi&e or endanger pu)li& safety. "n t'e &ase of "" Re
Appo!"tme"t# 0te& Mrch )F, '<<= o* Ho". Mteo A. Vle"5,el "& Ho". Plc!&o B.
Vllrt # J,&$e# o* the Re$!o"l Tr!l Co,rt o* Br"ch DG, B$o C!t2 "& o* Br"ch GH,
C+"t," C!t2
I
, t'e %upreme Court rules t'at t'is provision )ars t'e appointment of
mem)ers of t'e 4udi&iary.
7.9. Ho1ever, in t'e &ase of Art,ro &e C#tro -. J,&!c!l "& Br Co,"c!l "& Pre#!&e"t
6lor! Mcp$l%Arro2o, et. l., I" Re Appl!c+!l!t2 O* Sect!o" 'I, Art!cle VII O* The
Co"#t!t,t!o" To Appo!"tme"t# To The J,&!c!r2, E#tel!to P. Me"&o5, Ph!l!pp!"e Br
A##oc!t!o" -#. JBC, et l
I
. , t'e %upreme Court reversed t'e (alenzuela ruling and 'eld t'at t'e
Constitutional pro'i)ition singularly does not apply to t'e %upreme Court, implying t'at it
applies only to t'e exe&utive department and all ot'er &ourts lo1er t'an t'e %upreme Court.
;espite t'e o)viously negative and &onfiden&e-s'attering impa&t t'at a ,midnig't appointment-
)y an outgoing President 1ould 'ave on t'e peopleDs fait' in t'e %upreme Court and t'e 4udi&ial
system, Respondent eagerly, s'amelessly, and 1it'out even a 'int of self-restraint and
deli&adeza, a&&epted 'is midnig't appointment as C'ief *usti&e )y t'en-President 0loria
Ma&apagal-!rroyo.
7.F !ll 4udges must ,ensure t'at not only is t'eir &ondu&t a)ove reproa&', )ut t'at it is per&eived
to )e so in t'e vie1 of a reasona)le o)server.-
8
"n addition, ,+t.'e )e'avior and &ondu&t of 4udges
must reaffirm t'e peopleDs fait' in t'e integrity of t'e 4udi&iary. *usti&e must not merely )e done
)ut must also )e seen to )e done.-
B
$'ese are re=uired under t1o of t'e most important se&tions
of t'e Code of *udi&ial Condu&t, spe&ifi&ally Canon 9 on "ntegrity. Ho1ever, as a matter of
pu)li& re&ord, from 'is very promotion to t'e 'ig'est position in t'e 4udi&ial 'ierar&'y,
Respondent 'as violated t'ese premier provisions.
7.G. "ndeed, #e1s)rea3 reported t'at t'e voting re&ord of Respondent ,#ho.# tht he h#
co"#!#te"tl2 #!&e& .!th the &m!"!#trt!o" !" pol!t!cll2%#!$"!*!c"t c#e#- +i.e. !rroyo5s
poli&ies and administration.. #e1s)rea3 furt'er reported 1'en it tra&3ed t'e voting pattern of
%upreme Court 4usti&es, ,Coro" lo&$e& h!$h := perce"t !" *-or o* Arro2o- 6 and t'is 1as
)efore 'is midnig't appointment as C'ief *usti&e.
A
7.H. $'is trend &ontinued, even 1orsened, )etraying Respondent5s predisposition to side 1it'
!rroyo or 'er interest at any and all &osts 6 even at t'e &ost of prostituting t'e no)le &ause of
4usti&e.
7.I. $'us, in B!ro$o -. The Ph!l!pp!"e Tr,th Comm!##!o" o* GF'F,
7:
Respondent dealt t'e fatal
)lo1 to <xe&utive Order #o. 7, dated *uly F:, 9:7:, entitled JCreating t'e P'ilippine $rut'
Commission of 9:7:J. %imply, Respondent prevented any su&' )ody from )eing &reated no1 or
in t'e future 6 t'ere)y prote&ting 'is patroness from investigation.
7.8. !not'er &ase2 t'e %tatus Quo !nte Order in B! Omer 0. 0!"l"%L,cm" -. E3ec,t!-e
Secretr2 PJ,!to N. Ocho, Jr,
77
is e=ually appalling. %eemingly on &ue, Respondent5s
%upreme Court 1ould not )e &ontent against simply nullifying <xe&utive Order #o. 7 dated *uly
F:, 9:7:. $o extend !rroyo5s &ontrol and influen&e over t'e ne1 administration done t'roug'
massive last-minute appointments in &riti&al pu)li& positions, Respondent 1ould again find fault
in <xe&utive Order #o. 9 dated *uly F:, 9:7:.
7.B. <xe&utive Order #o. 9 1as issued pre&isely to revo3e Midnig't !ppointments made )y t'e
!rroyo !dministration in departments, agen&ies, offi&es, and instrumentalities, in&luding
government-o1ned or &ontrolled &orporations. $'ese Midnig't !ppointments 1ere made
possi)le )y Mrs. !rroyo &'urning out appointments for plum posts in government o1ned and
&ontrolled agen&ies, on a daily )asis and )a&3dating t'em to )efore t'e &onstitutional )an on
appointments during an ele&tion period.
79
?urt'er, su&' appointments 'ad t'e effe&t of eroding
t'e integrity of t'e exe&utive. i3e1ise, t'e same 1as made in &omplete disregard of t'e intent
and spirit of t'e &onstitutional )an on midnig't appointments, effe&tively depriving t'e ne1
administration of t'e po1er to ma3e its o1n appointments to t'ese positions. "t 1as for t'ese
reasons t'at an Order from t'e <xe&utive needed to )e made in order to prevent t'e furt'er
degradation of t'e people5s trust and &onfiden&e in our government institutions.
7.A. Ket, &onsistent 1it' 'is pattern of supporting 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo, Respondent5s
%upreme Court issued a %tatus Quo !nte Order to prevent t'e implementation of <xe&utive
Order #o. 9. !gain, t'e instant &ase refle&ts an affront to t'e independen&e of t'e 4udi&iary. "t is
li3e1ise a &ase of 4udi&ial overrea&' upon a &o-e=ual )ran&' of government meant to derail its
efforts to &ur) &orruption )y su&&essively nullifying its issuan&es.
7.7:. !s !sso&iate and C'ief *usti&e, Respondent 'as ignored et'i&al pre&edents, )e'aved 1it' a
la&3 of integrity, &asting t'e %upreme Court in disrepute. *udges are expe&ted to )e )eyond
reproa&', finan&ially, et'i&ally, and t'e use of t'eir aut'ority and po1ers. Partisans'ip, a 1ilful
refusal to re&use 'imself so as to avoid any possi)le imputation of a &onfli&t of interest, in&luding
t'e paying )a&3 of de)ts of politi&al gratitude or loyalty, are a )etrayal of pu)li& trust and
&ontrary to t'e &anons of 4udi&ial &ondu&t.
7.77. !s for t'e &ase of /enigno %imeon !=uino """ v. Commission on <le&tions, supra, t'e
%upreme Court denied t'e petition of t'en %en. /enigno %. !=uino """ against R! #o. A87I
&reating andLor redefining t'e first and se&ond distri&ts of Camarines %ur. "t 1as 1idely )elieved
and &onfirmed )y su)se=uent events, t'at t'e distri&ts 1ere re-defined and &reated to assure t'at
t'e President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo5s son, ;ato !rroyo, &ould run and 1in in t'e ne1ly
&reated distri&t to avoid a &ontest )et1een t'e president5s son and ;/M %e&retary Rolando
!ndaya 1'o 1anted to return to Camarines %ur to run in 'is old distri&t. $'is ne1 distri&t 1as
up'eld &ontrary to t'e expli&it &onstitutional re=uirement
7F
t'at mandates a minimum population
of t1o 'undred fifty t'ousand +9H:,:::. for t'e &reation of a legislative distri&t.
7.79. $'en %en. !=uino argued t'at Repu)li& !&t #o. A87I &reating t'e first and se&ond distri&ts
of Camarines %ur 1as un&onstitutional, )e&ause t'e proposed first distri&t 1ould end up 1it' a
population of less t'an 9H:,::: or only 78I,FBF. ;espite t'is &lear fa&t, Respondent Corona
voted in violation of t'e Constitution against t'en %en. !=uino5s petition.
7.7F. >orse, Respondent, 1'o at t'at time 1as already )eing &onsidered )y Mrs. !rroyo as t'e
next C'ief *usti&e, did not in'i)it 'imself. $'e simple fa&t is Respondent5s patroness, 1as t'e
mot'er of t'e prin&ipal )enefi&iary of t'e &reation of t'e ne1 distri&t. $'us, a vote in favor of t'e
ne1 distri&t 1as a vote in favor of Mrs. !rroyo5s son and, 1ould t'us endear 'im more to Mrs.
!rroyo and ensure 'is appointment. "n simplest terms, Respondent 1anted and needed
somet'ing from Mrs. !rroyo +i.e., 'is appointment as next C'ief *usti&e.C Mrs. !rroyo, in turn,
1anted or needed somet'ing for Respondent +i.e. to &reate a ne1 legislative distri&t for 'er son,
;ato !rroyo.. $'e People &an do t'e mat'.
7.7G. /elo1 is a ta)le t'at tra&3s Respondent5s voting pattern in &ases 'ig'ly impressed 1it'
pu)li& interest and involving t'e !rroyo government5s frontal assaults on &onstitutional rig'ts
prior to 'is appointment as C'ief *usti&e. !s t'e ta)le 1ill s'o1, Respondent5s vote is di&tated
not )y 'is &ons&ien&e )ut 'is loyalty and su)servien&e to 'is appointing po1er2
C#e S,preme Co,rt R,l!"$ Coro"E# Vote
Information Technology v.
COMELEC and Mega
Pacific +*anuary 7F, 9::G.
Mega-Pa&ifi& &ontra&t voided for not
undergoing pu)li& )idding
;issented
Sanlakas v. Executive
Secretary +?e)ruary :F,
9::G.
$'e President, in issuing Pro&. #os. G98,
GFH, and 0en. Order #o. G, did not ex&eed
'er po1ers as C'ief <xe&utive and
Commander-in-C'ief
Con&urred
Tecson v.
COMELEC+Mar&' :F,
9::G.
;ismissed petitions to dis=ualify
?ernando Poe, *r. +!rroyo5s rival
&andidate for t'e presiden&y. as a
;issented
C#e S,preme Co,rt R,l!"$ Coro"E# Vote
presidentia)le on t'e ground t'at 'e is not
a natural-)orn ?ilipino
Pimentel v.
Ermita+;e&em)er 7F, 9::H.
$'e President may ma3e appointments
,in an a&ting &apa&ity- 1it'out see3ing
&onfirmation from t'e Commission on
!ppointments even 1'en Congress is in
session+i.e., not 4ust ad
interimappointments..
Con&urred
Senate v. Ermita +!pril 9:,
9::I.
<O GIG issued )y Mrs. !rroyo 1'i&'
allo1ed exe&utive department 'eads to
invo3e exe&utive privilege is valid
Con&urred
udani v. Senga+!ugust
7H, 9::I.
$'e presidential dire&tive 1'i&'
pro'i)ited &ertain offi&ials of t'e
<xe&utive )ran&' and t'e !?P from
appearing in Congressional 'earings
1it'out t'e President5s &onsent, is valid
Con&urred
Lam!ino v.
COMELEC+O&to)er 9H,
9::I.
am)ino5sL%iga1 ng /ayan5s petition for
COM<<C to allo1 a people5s initiative
to amend t'e Constitution +to &onvert our
form of government from presidential to
parliamentaryC t'us, giving !rroyo t'e
opportunity to )e&ome t'e prime minister
and evade t'e Constitutional pro'i)ition
on re-ele&tion as President. 1as dismissed
for 'aving failed to &omply 1it' t'e
Constitutional re=uirements of &ondu&ting
a people5s initiative.
;issented
"avid v. #rroyo +May :F,
9::I.
Presidential Pro&lamation #o. 7:78 is
partly &onstitutional, partly
un&onstitutional
;issented
+*oined $inga5s dissent.
Tinga voted to dismiss all the
$etitions on the follo%ing grounds2
7. %in&e PP 7:78, infosar as it is an
exer&ise of t'e President5s &alling out
po1ers, is similar to PP G98, it s'ould
li3e1ise )e sustained, follo1ing t'e
ruling inSanlakas v. Executive
Secretary+9::G.
9. $'e ta3eover of t'e ;aily $ri)une
is no longer a 4usti&ia)le issue.
#evert'eless, $inga also &ommented
on t'e President5s emergen&y
ta3eover po1ers in t'is 1ise2 1'ile it
is fundamentally sound to &onstrue
!rt. E"", %e&tion 78 of t'e 7AB8
Constitution as re=uiring
&ongressional approval )efore a
ta3eover may )e effe&ted, its 1ording
is am)ivalentC t'us, it is also
&onstitutionally permissi)le for t'e
President to exer&ise ta3eover
po1ers even withoutCongressional
approval in ex&eptional instan&es,
su)4e&t only to 4udi&ial revie1.
C#e S,preme Co,rt R,l!"$ Coro"E# Vote
F. ;issented from t'e ma4ority ruling
t'at t'e over)readt' and void for
vagueness do&trines apply only to
fa&ial &'allenges of free spee&'
statutes. Only &riminal statutes, and
not free spee&' &ases, may )e
&'allenged on t'e ground t'at t'ey are
void for vagueness. ?ree spee&' &ases
are more properly &'allenged on t'e
ground of over)readt'. ?urt'ermore,
PP 7:78 ,neit'er &reates nor
diminis'es any rig'ts or o)ligations
1'atsoever-.
G. 0eneral Order #o. H is li3e1ise
valid )e&ause even if premised on a
state of emergen&y, it ,&annot
aut'orize t'e military or poli&e to
ignore or violate &onstitutional or
statutory rig'ts, or enfor&e la1s
&ompletely alien to t'e suppression of
la1less violen&e.-
H. $'e %upreme Court s'ould not pass
upon t'e individual &laims of in4ury
arising from an examination of PP
7:78 and 0O H as applied, sin&e it is
not a trier of fa&ts
Chave& v.
on&ale&+?e)ruary 7H,
9::B.
>iretapped &onversations )et1een
!rroyo and 0ar&illano not pro'i)ited
from airing
;issented
'eri v. Senate +Mar&' 9H,
9::B.
#eri not lia)le for &ontempt for not
appearing in %enate 'earings on #/#-
M$< ;eal, 1'i&' 1as lin3ed to !rroyo
and 'er spouse, )e&ause 'is testimony is
&overed )y exe&utive privilege
Con&urred
#k!ayan v. #(uino+*uly 7I,
9::B.
*P<P! &ommuni&ations &overed )y
exe&utive privilege exer&ised )y Mrs.
!rroyo, and not for pu)li& dis&losure
Con&urred
)enigno Simeon #(uino
III v.Commission on
Elections, 0.R. #o. 7BA8AF
+!pril 8, 9:7:.
;enied t'e petition of t'en %en. /enigno
%. !=uino """ and up'eld R! A87I
&reating t'e first and se&ond distri&ts of
Camarines %ur +t'e distri&ts 1ere &reated
to assure t'at !rroyo5s son, ;ato !rroyo,
1ill run un&ontested sin&e t'en ;/M
%e&retary Rolando !ndaya 1as returning
to Camarines %ur to run again for
Congress. &ontrary to t'e expli&it
&onstitutional re=uirementN7Ot'at re=uires
a minimum population of t1o 'undred
fifty t'ousand +9H:,:::. for t'e &reation
of a legislative distri&t. $'en %en. !=uino
argued t'at Repu)li& !&t #o. A87I t'at
&reated t'e first and se&ond distri&ts of
Camarines %ur is un&onstitutional,
Con&urred 6 did not in'i)it despite
)eing already &onsidered as one of t'e
nominees for t'e next C'ief *usti&e
)y t'e mot'er +t'en P0M!. of t'e
prin&ipal )enefi&iary of t'e &reation
of t'e ne1 distri&t. $'us a vote in
favor of t'e ne1 distri&t is a vote in
favor of t'en P0M!5s son and, t'us,
0M!.
C#e S,preme Co,rt R,l!"$ Coro"E# Vote
)e&ause t'e proposed first distri&t 1ill end
up 1it' a population of less t'an 9H:,:::
or only 78I,FBF. ;espite t'is &lear fa&t,
Corona voted against t'en %en. !=uino5s
petition in violation of t'e Constitution.
7.7H. !side from t'e spe&ifi& &ases 'erein dis&ussed, t'e follo1ing &ases de&ided )y t'e Court
1it' Respondent as C'ief *usti&e furt'er )etray 'is &onsistent la&3 of independen&e and )ias
to1ards prote&ting !rroyo2
C#e S,preme Co,rt R,l!"$ CJ Coro"E# Vote
)iraogo v. The Phili$$ine
Truth Commission of *+,+,
0.R. #o. 7A9AFH
+;e&em)er 8, 9:7:.
<xe&utive Order #o. 7 &reating t'e $rut'
Commission 1as de&lared
un&onstitutional.
Corona &on&urred.
)ai Omera ". "ianalan-
Lucman v. Executive
Secretary Pa(uito '.
Ochoa. /r., 0.R. #o.
7AFH7A +O&to)er 79, 9:7:.
<O9 %tatus Quo !nte Order 6 $'e
%upreme Court re=uired t'e parties to
o)serve t'e %$!$U% QUO prevailing
)efore t'e issuan&e of <xe&utive Order
#o. 9 dated *uly F:, 9:7:.
$'e Corona %C on&e again t'1arted
t'e government5s efforts to =uestion
t'e midnig't appointments made )y
!rroyo to various positions in
government, and t'ro1 a mon3ey
1ren&' at t'e ne1 administration5s
efforts to re-organize t'e government
and get rid of &orrupt government
offi&ials.
loria Maca$agal-#rroyo
v. 0on. Leila de Lima. et
al., 0.R. #os. 7AA:FGC /ose
Miguel T. #rroyo v. 0on.
Leila de Lima. et al., 0.R.
#o. 7AA:GI +#ovem)er 7H,
9:77.
$emporary restraining order +$RO. issued
against t'e 1at&'list order issued against
t'e !rroyos.
$'e 3no1n !rroyo voting )lo&3 in t'e
%upreme Court, led )y Respondent,
'astily issued a $RO against t'e
1at&'list order, t'ere)y giving an
opportunity for t'e !rroyos to es&ape
from t'e 4urisdi&tion of t'e
P'ilippines. $'e $RO 1as issued
despite t'e glaring in&onsisten&ies in
t'e petition of former President
!rroyo, as &ited )y !sso&iate *usti&e
%ereno. $'e same voting )lo&3 'eld
t'e $RO immediately exe&utory
despite non-&omplian&e 1it' a pre-
&ondition.
II. RESPON0ENT COMMITTE0 CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
AN0(OR BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST 9HEN HE FAILE0 TO 0ISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AN0 NET 9ORTH AS
RE4UIRE0 UN0ERSEC. ':, ART. ;I OF THE '<=: CONSTITUTION.
9.7. "t is provided for in !rt. E", %e&tion 78 of t'e 7AB8 Constitution t'at ,a pu)li& offi&er or
employee s'all, upon assumption of offi&e and as often t'ereafter as may )e re=uired )y la1,
su)mit a de&laration under oat' of 'is assets, lia)ilities, and net 1ort'. "n t'e &ase of t'e
President, t'e (i&e-President, t'e Mem)ers of t'e Ca)inet, and ot'er &onstitutional offi&es, and
offi&ers of t'e armed for&es 1it' general or flag ran3, t'e de&laration s'all )e dis&losed to t'e
pu)li& in t'e manner provided )y la1. -
9.9. Respondent failed to dis&lose to t'e pu)li& 'is statement of assets, lia)ilities, and net 1ort'
as re=uired )y t'e Constitution.
9.F. "t is also reported t'at some of t'e properties of Respondent are not in&luded in 'is
de&laration of 'is assets, lia)ilities, and net 1ort', in violation of t'e anti-graft and &orrupt
pra&ti&es a&t.
9.G. Respondent is li3e1ise suspe&ted and a&&used of 'aving a&&umulated ill-gotten 1ealt',
a&=uiring assets of 'ig' values and 3eeping )an3 a&&ounts 1it' 'uge deposits. "t 'as )een
reported t'at Respondent 'as, among ot'ers, a F::-s=. meter apartment in a pos' Mega >orld
Property development at t'e ?ort in $aguig. Has 'e reported t'is, as 'e is &onstitutionally-
re=uired under !rt. E", %e&. 78 of t'e Constitution in 'is %tatement of !ssets and ia)ilities and
#et >ort' +%!#.P "s t'is a&=uisition sustained and duly supported )y 'is in&ome as a pu)li&
offi&ialP %in&e 'is assumption as !sso&iate and su)se=uently, C'ief *usti&e, 'as 'e &omplied 1it'
t'is duty of pu)li& dis&losureP
""". R<%PO#;<#$ COMM"$$<; CUP!/< ("O!$"O#% O? $H< CO#%$"$U$"O#
!#; /<$R!K<; $H< PU/"C $RU%$ /K ?!""#0 $O M<<$ !#; O/%<R(< $H<
%$R"#0<#$ %$!#;!R;% U#;<R !R$. (""", %<C$"O# 8 +F. O? $H< CO#%$"$U$"O#
$H!$ PRO(";<% $H!$ ,N!O M<M/<R O? $H< *U;"C"!RK MU%$ /< ! P<R%O# O?
PRO(<# COMP<$<#C<, "#$<0R"$K, PRO/"$K, !#; "#;<P<#;<#C<- "#
!O>"#0 $H< %UPR<M< COUR$ $O !C$ O# M<R< <$$<R% ?"<; /K !
COU#%< >H"CH C!U%<; $H< "%%U!#C< O? ?"P-?OPP"#0 ;<C"%"O#% "# ?"#!
!#; <E<CU$ORK C!%<%C "# CR<!$"#0 !# <EC<%%"(< <#$!#0<M<#$ >"$H
MR%. !RROKO $HROU0H H<R !PPO"#$M<#$ O? H"% >"?< $O O??"C<C !#; "#
;"%CU%%"#0 >"$H "$"0!#$% R<0!R;"#0 C!%<% P<#;"#0 /<?OR< $H<
%UPR<M< COUR$.
F.7. Respondent 1as appointed to t'e %upreme Court on !pril A, 9::9 )y Mrs. 0loria
Ma&apagal-!rroyo. Prior to 'is appointment, 'e served !rroyo for many years as 'er &'ief of
staff, and spo3esman 1'en s'e 1as (i&e-President, and later as 'er Presidential C'ief-of-%taff,
Presidential %po3esman, and !&ting <xe&utive %e&retary.
F.9. !rt. (""", %e&tion 8 +F. of t'e 7AB8 Constitution provides t'at ,NaO Mem)er of t'e *udi&iary
must )e a person of proven &ompeten&e, integrity, pro)ity, and independen&e.- Mem)ers of t'e
*udi&iary are expe&ted to 'ave t'ese four =ualities mandated )y t'e Constitution )e&ause t'ese
form t'e very foundation for maintaining people5s fait' in t'e *udi&iary. $'us, it 'as )een ruled
)y no less t'an t'e %upreme Court t'at2
,People 1'o run t'e 4udi&iary, parti&ularly 4usti&es and 4udges, must not only )e profi&ient in
)ot' t'e su)stantive and pro&edural aspe&ts of t'e la1, )ut more importantly, t'ey must possess
t'e 'ig'est degree of integrity and pro)ity and an un=uestiona)le moral uprig'tness )ot' in t'eir
pu)li& and private lives.-
!lt'oug' every offi&e in t'e government servi&e is a pu)li& trust, no position exa&ts a greater
demand on moral rig'teousness and uprig'tness t'an a seat in t'e *udi&iary. H!$h eth!cl
pr!"c!ple# "& #e"#e o* propr!et2 #ho,l& +e m!"t!"e&, .!tho,t .h!ch the *!th o* the
people !" the J,&!c!r2 #o !"&!#pe"#+le !" " or&erl2 #oc!et2 c""ot +e pre#er-e&.
F.F. *ust very re&ently, t'e flip-flopping of t'e Corona Court on Fl!$ht Atte"&"t# "&
Ste.r&# A##oc!t!o" o* the Ph!l!pp!"e# (FASAP/ -. Ph!l!pp!"e A!rl!"e#, I"c., et l. 6 t'e
re&all of a %eptem)er 8, 9:77 ;e&ision of t'e %upreme Court5s %e&ond ;ivision denying a
%e&ond Motion for Re&onsideration of t'e 9::B ruling in favor of ?!%!P, on a mere letter from
P'ilippine !irlines5 &ounsel !tty. <stelito Mendoza +1'o is t'e reported lead &ounsel of
Respondent5s patronessC see A""e3e# >FA to >F%)A, infra., and 1it'out re=uiring a &omment
from or noti&e to t'e ot'er parties to 'ear t'eir side, )etray Respondent5s la&3 of et'i&al
prin&iples and 'is disdain for fairness 1'i&' 'as eroded t'e fait' of t'e people in t'e *udi&iary 6
for Respondent 'imself &aused and allo1ed t'e violation of t'e adverse party5s &onstitutional
rig't to due pro&ess.
F.F.7. $'e matter is made 1orse sin&e t'e re&all is reported to 'ave )een at t'e instan&e of
Respondent Corona, 1'o admitted t'at in 9::B, 'e in'i)ited from t'e &ase. Ho1 t'en &an 'e
4ustify 'is interferen&e in t'is &ase todayP >'y ta3e part or interfere no1P
F.F.9. >'at is even more distur)ing is t'at under Respondent Corona5s 1at&' as C'ief *usti&e,
t'e %upreme Court appears to )e a&ting on mere letters 3ept 'idden from t'ose &on&erned and t'e
ot'er parties 6 and all from t'e same la1yer 6 <stelito Mendoza.
F.F.F "t must )e re&alled t'at t'e same <stelito Mendoza 1rote a personal letter to Respondent
1'i&' also &aused t'e flip-flopping in t'e Le$,e o* C!t!e# -. COMELEC &ase. "t must also )e
re&alled t'at <stelito Mendoza is also t'e same person 1'o filed !dministrative Matter #o. 7:-9-
H-%C, and 1as among t'e petitioners in t'e %upreme Court 1'o posited t'at Mrs. !rroyo may
appoint t'e next C'ief *usti&e despite t'e &onstitutional )anC and t'roug' 1'i&' petition, made it
possi)le for t'e %upreme Court to legitimize and provide not only a strained )ut o)viously
erroneous )asis for t'e midnig't and &onstitutionally-pro'i)ited appointment of Respondent.
F.F.G. "n t'is &onne&tion, Respondent5s voting pattern even prior to 'is du)ious appointment as
C'ief *usti&e, &learly proves a )ias and manifest partiality for Mrs. !rroyo. "t must )e noted t'at
under t'e la1, )ias need not )e proven to a&tually existC it is enoug' t'at t'e C'ief *usti&e5s
a&tions lend t'emselves to a reasona)le suspi&ion t'at 'e does not possess t'e re=uired pro)ity
and impartiality. "n 1osauro v. 2illanueva, t'e %upreme Court 'eld t'at2
,! 4udge s'ould not only render a 4ust, &orre&t and impartial de&ision )ut s'ould do so in su&' a
manner as to )e free from any suspi&ion as to its fairness and impartiality and as to 'is integrity.
>'ile a 4udge s'ould possess profi&ien&y in la1 in order t'at 'e &an &ompetently &onstrue and
enfor&e t'e la1, it is more important t'at 'e s'ould a&t and )e'ave in su&' a manner t'at t'e
parties )efore 'im s'ould 'ave &onfiden&e in 'is impartiality. $'us, it is not enoug' t'at 'e
de&ides &ases 1it'out )ias and favoritism. #or is it suffi&ient t'at 'e in fa&t rids 'imself of
prepossessions. His a&tuations s'ould moreover inspire t'at )elief. L!Ke Ce#rL# .!*e, M,&$e
m,#t "ot o"l2 +e p,re +,t +e2o"& #,#p!c!o".- NUnders&oring suppliedO
F.F.H. $'e )ar is 'ig'er for 4udges, and )y inferen&e, 'ig'est for *usti&es and most espe&ially t'e
C'ief *usti&e, )e&ause ,t'e &'ara&ter of a 4udge is per&eived )y t'e people not only t'roug' 'is
offi&ial a&ts )ut also t'roug' 'is private morals, as refle&ted in 'is external )e'avior.- $'us,
, M,&$e #ho,l&, !" pe"&!"$ or pro#pect!-e l!t!$t!o" +e*ore h!m, +e #cr,p,lo,#l2 cre*,l
to -o!& #,ch ct!o" # m2 re#o"+l2 te"& to .Ke" the #,#p!c!o" tht h!# #oc!l or
+,#!"e## relt!o"# or *r!e"&#h!p# co"#t!t,te " eleme"t !" &eterm!"!"$ h!# M,&!c!l co,r#e.-
NUnders&oring and emp'ases suppliedO
F.F.I. "f a de&ision t'at is legally &orre&t or 4ustifia)le &an suffer from a suspi&ion of impartiality,
more so 1ill a de&ision t'at is entirely unsupported )y legal reasoning. $'us, it 'as )een 'eld t'at
a 4udge 1'o ,is ignorant of fairly elementary and =uite familiar legal prin&iples and
administrative regulations, 'as a mar3ed pen&'ant for applying unort'odox, even strange
t'eories and &on&epts in t'e ad4udi&ation of &ontroversies, ex'i)its indifferen&e to, and even
disdain for due pro&ess and t'e rule of la1, applies t'e la1 1'imsi&ally, &apri&iously, and
oppressively, and displays )ias and partiality-, is unfit to )e a 4udge.
F.G. Respondent furt'er &ompromised 'is independen&e 1'en 'is 1ife, Cristina Corona,
a&&epted an appointment on Mar&' 9F, 9::8 from Mrs. 0loria !rroyo to t'e /oard of t'e *o'n
Hay Management Corporation +*HMC.. $'e *HMC is a 1'olly-o1ned su)sidiary &orporation of
t'e /ases Conversion ;evelopment !ut'ority +/C;!., a government-o1ned-and-&ontrolled
&orporation &reated under Repu)li& !&t #o. 8998.
F.G.7. %'ortly after assuming 'er 1ell-paying 4o) at *HMC, serious &omplaints 1ere filed against
Mrs. Corona )y 'er fello1 /oard mem)ers, as 1ell as from t'e Management and ran3-and-file
employees of t'e *HMC. Mrs. Corona5s ele&tion as ;ire&tor and President 1as reportedly
1it'dra1n in a resolution passed )y t'e /oard of ;ire&tors of *HMC )e&ause of a&ts of
mis&ondu&t and negligen&e. Copies of t'e *HMC /oard Resolution 1it'dra1ing Mrs. Corona5s
ele&tion as *HMC President and C'airman, t'e Position Paper prepared )y t'e *HMC
Management, and t'e resignation letter of retired Court of !ppeals *usti&e $eodoro Regino from
t'e *HMC /oard of ;ire&tors, all of 1'i&' &'roni&le t'e serious irregularities &ommitted )y Mrs.
Corona, are atta&'ed 'ereto as A""e3e# >6A, >HA "& >IA, respe&tively.
F.G.9. "nstead of a&ting upon t'e serious &omplaints against Mrs. Corona, Mrs. !rroyo instru&ted
all mem)ers of t'e *HMC to tender t'eir &ourtesy resignations immediately. !fter t'e
resignations, Mrs. Corona 1as retained and even promoted after President !rroyo expressed 'er
desire for Mrs. Corona5s ele&tion as O"C C'airman of t'e *HMC /oard.
F.G.F. ;espite t'e numerous ot'er &omplaints against Mrs. Corona, in&luding one from /aguio
Mayor Reinaldo /autista 1'ere 'e protested Mrs. Corona5s move to repla&e t'e mem)ers of t'e
*HMC Management $eam, in violation of t'e terms of City Coun&il Resolution #o. FI9 1'i&'
prote&ts t'e se&urity of tenure in t'e *HMC of lo&al residents o&&upying 3ey positions in t'e
&orporation +a &opy of 'is letter dated *uly 9H, 9::8 is atta&'ed as A""e3 >JA., and despite
adverse findings in t'e CO! report t'at also esta)lis'ed t'at s'e 1as improperly 'olding offi&e
in %t. "gnatius (illage in Quezon City, Mrs. Corona 1as not removed from 'er position. %'e 1as
even allo1ed to ra&3 up unne&essary expenses totalling %ix Hundred #inety $'ousand !nd One
Hundred <ig'ty-$'ree Pesos +PIA:,7BF.::. 1'i&' s'e spent 'olding offi&e in Quezon City 1'en
*HMC5s operations 1ere all in /aguio City. ! &opy of t'e CO! report is atta&'ed as A""e3 >8A.
F.G.G. Mrs. Corona5s 4o) 1as ensured 1it' spe&ifi& instru&tions of Mrs. !rroyo expressed
t'roug' several desire letters issued to t'e /C;! spe&ifi&ally to ensure t'e ele&tion of Mrs.
Corona to several positions in t'e *HMC, &opies of 1'i&' are atta&'ed as A""e3e# >LA, >L%'A
"& >L%G-. $'is also explains 1'y despite t'e serious &omplaints against Mrs. Corona, Mrs.
!rroyo never removed 'er from *HMC )ut instead 3ept on promoting and prote&ting 'er.
F.G.H. Mrs. Corona5s appointment is a violation of t'e Code of *udi&ial Condu&t t'at provides2
,J,&$e# #hll "ot llo. *m!l2, #oc!l, or other relt!o"#h!p# to !"*l,e"ce M,&!c!l co"&,ct or
M,&$me"t. The pre#t!$e o* M,&!c!l o**!ce #hll "ot +e ,#e& or le"t to &-"ce the pr!-te
!"tere#t# o* other#, "or co"-e2 or perm!t other# to co"-e2 the !mpre##!o" tht the2 re !"
#pec!l po#!t!o" to !"*l,e"ce the M,&$e.- N%e&. G, Canon 7C emp'asis and unders&oring suppliedO
,J,&$e# #hll "ot ,#e or le"& the pre#t!$e o* the M,&!c!l o**!ce to &-"ce the!r pr!-te
!"tere#t#, or tho#e o* mem+er o* the!r *m!l2 or of anyone else, nor s'all t'ey &onvey or
permit ot'ers to &onvey t'e impression t'at anyone is in a spe&ial position improperly to
influen&e t'em in t'e performan&e of 4udi&ial duties.- N%e&. B, Canon GC emp'asis and
unders&oring suppliedO
F.G.I. $'e #e1 Code of *udi&ial Condu&t furt'er provides t'at it is unet'i&al for a magistrate and
mem)ers of 'is family to as3 for or re&eive any gift in ex&'ange for any a&t done or to )e done
)y t'e 4udge in t'e &ourse of 'is 4udi&ial fun&tions2
,*udges "& mem+er# o* the!r *m!l!e# s'all neit'er as3 for, nor a&&ept, any gift, )e=uest, loan
or favor in relation to anyt'ing done or to )e done or omitted to )e done )y 'im or 'er in
&onne&tion 1it' t'e performan&e of 4udi&ial duties.- N%e&. B, Canon GC emp'asis and
unders&oring suppliedO
,*udges s'all not only )e *ree *rom !"ppropr!te co""ect!o"# .!th, "& !"*l,e"ce +2, the
e3ec,t!-e "& le$!#lt!-e +r"che# o* $o-er"me"t, )ut must also appear to )e free t'erefrom to
a reasona)le o)server.- N%e&. H, Canon 7C emp'asis and unders&oring suppliedO
F.G.8. Clearly, a grossly improper +alt'oug' personally and mutually )enefi&ial. relations'ip
)et1een t'e Respondent and Mrs. !rroyo 1as &reated 1'en Mrs. Corona 1as appointed to t'e
*HMC. $'e *HMC is a 0OCC under t'e <xe&utive ;epartment 'eaded )y Mrs. !rroyo. $'e
appointment of Mrs. Corona in *HMC as its 'ig'est management offi&er is &learly intended to
se&ure t'e loyalty and vote of Respondent in t'e %upreme Court. "n a similar &ase, t'e %upreme
Court found it unet'i&al for t'e 4udge to allo1 'is daug'ters to a&&ept t'e )usiness offer of
persons 1'o 'ave a pending &ase )efore t'e 4udge5s &ourt2
,$'e #e1 Code of *udi&ial Condu&t for t'e P'ilippine *udi&iary pres&ri)es t'at 4udges s'all
ensure t'at not only is t'eir &ondu&t a)ove reproa&', )ut t'at it is per&eived to )e so in t'e vie1
of a reasona)le o)server. $'us, 4udges are to avoid impropriety and t'e appearan&e of
impropriety in all t'eir a&tivities. i3e1ise, t'ey are mandated not to allo1 family, so&ial or ot'er
relations'ips to influen&e 4udi&ial &ondu&t or 4udgment, nor &onvey or permit ot'ers to &onvey
t'e impression t'at t'ey are in a spe&ial position to influen&e t'e 4udge. $'e Code &learly
pro'i)its 4udges or mem)ers of t'eir families from as3ing for or a&&epting, any gift, )e=uest,
loan or favor in relation to anyt'ing done or to )e done or omitted to )e done )y 'im or 'er in
&onne&tion 1it' t'e performan&e of 4udi&ial duties. Respondent 4udge failed to live up to t'ese
standards. ;espite 3no1ledge of Onofre and MarianoDs intentions in offering t'e )usiness to 'is
daug'ters, respondent 4udge allo1ed 'is daug'ters to a&&ept t'e offer of )usiness partners'ip
1it' persons 1'o 'ave pending &ases in 'is &ourt.-
F.G.B. Respondent s'ould )e 'eld to even 'ig'er standards )e&ause 'e is t'e C'ief *usti&e of t'e
%upreme Court. %in&e 4oining *HMC, Mrs. Corona re&eived a su)stantial salary, aside from ot'er
per3s of t'e 4o), in&luding &ars and various travel opportunities. "n ex&'ange, as dis&ussed a)ove,
t'e voting re&ord of Respondent in t'e %upreme Court indi&ate an unmista3a)le pattern of
favoring !rroyo in &ases )roug't )efore t'e %upreme Court &'allenging 'er poli&ies and a&tions.
!ll t'ese foregoing fa&ts )etray t'e Respondent5s la&3 of =ualifi&ation as C'ief *usti&e as 'e 'as
demonstrated a la&3 of &ompeten&e, integrity, pro)ity, or independen&e.
F.G.A. Respondent reportedly dipped 'is 'ands into pu)li& funds to finan&e personal expenses.
#umerous personal expenses t'at 'ave not'ing to do 1it' t'e dis&'arge of 'is offi&ial fun&tions,
su&' as lavis' lun&'es and dinners, personal travels and va&ations, and fetes and parties, 'ave
reportedly )een &'arged )y t'e Respondent to 4udi&ial funds. "n essen&e, Respondent 'as )een
reportedly using t'e 4udi&ial fund as 'is o1n personal expense a&&ount, &'arging to t'e *udi&iary
personal expenditures.
F.G.7:. "t is t'erefore apparent t'at t'ere is reasona)le ground to 'old Respondent for t'e
reported misuse of pu)li& funds, and in a&ts t'at 1ould =ualify as violations of t'e anti-graft and
&orrupt pra&ti&es a&t, in&luding malversation of pu)li& funds, and use of pu)li& funds for private
purposes.
F.H. "n addition, Respondent Corona failed to maintain 'ig' standards of 4udi&ial &ondu&t in
&onne&tion 1it' t'e (iz&onde massa&re &ase, in t'e pro&ess, &asted dou)t upon t'e integrity of
t'e %upreme Court itself.
F.H.7. !ll 4udges must ,ex'i)it and promote 'ig' standards of 4udi&ial &ondu&t in order to
reinfor&e pu)li& &onfiden&e in t'e 4udi&iary, 1'i&' is fundamental to t'e maintenan&e of 4udi&ial
independen&e.- $o do so, it is re=uired ,t'at 'is or 'er &ondu&t, )ot' in and out of &ourt,
maintains and en'an&es t'e &onfiden&e of t'e pu)li&, t'e legal profession and litigants in t'e
impartiality of t'e 4udge and of t'e 4udi&iary.- "n&luded in t'is pres&ription of 1'at &onstitutes
a&&epta)le and non-a&&epta)le &ondu&t is t'at rule t'at 4udges ,s'all not 3no1ingly, 1'ile a
pro&eeding is )efore or &ould &ome )efore t'em, ma3e any &omment t'at mig't reasona)ly )e
expe&ted to affe&t t'e out&ome of su&' pro&eeding or impair t'e manifest fairness of t'e pro&ess.
#or s'all 4udges ma3e any &omment in pu)li& or ot'er1ise t'at mig't affe&t t'e fair trial of any
person or issue.- i3e1ise, ,+4.udges s'all not, in t'e performan&e of 4udi&ial duties, )y 1ords or
&ondu&t, manifest )ias or pre4udi&e to1ards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.-
F.H.9. ;espite t'ese stri&tures, Respondent 'as dire&tly, deli)erately, and s'amelessly attempted
to destroy t'e &redi)ility and standing of t'e %upreme Court 1it' respe&t to one important and
pu)li&ly-&ele)rated &ase t'at 1as )efore it on automati& appeal2 t'e &ele)rated (iz&onde
Massa&re &ase.
F.H.F. %ometime in early %eptem)er 9:7:, auro (iz&onde, surviving mem)er of t'e (iz&onde
family 1'o 1ere murdered in 7AA7, and ;ante *imenez of t'e (olunteers !gainst Crime and
Corruption +(!CC. paid a &ourtesy &all upon t'e Respondent in 'is &'am)ers after 'is
appointment as C'ief *usti&e.
F.H.G. ;uring t'e &ourtesy &all, (iz&onde as3ed t'e Respondent a)out t'e status of t'e multiple
murder &ase against Hu)ert >e)) and t'e ot'er a&&used, 1'i&' 1as at t'e time pending appeal
)efore t'e %upreme Court. ;espite t'e o)vious impropriety, Respondent, instead of re)uffing
(iz&onde for as3ing t'e =uestions, engaged (iz&onde in a personal and ex-parte &onversation
regarding a &ase t'en pending &onsideration )efore t'e %upreme Court.
F.H.H. >orse, in t'e &ourse of t'e &onversation, Respondent told (iz&onde, in t'e presen&e of
*imenez, t'at fello1 *usti&e !ntonio Carpio 1as allegedly lo))ying for t'e a&=uittal of Hu)ert
>e)). !&&ording to (iz&onde in a s1orn !ffidavit dated *anuary 98, 9:77, Respondent said t'at
,$alagang )rina-)raso at ini-implu1ensiya'an ni Carpio ang 3anyang mga 3asama para
mapa1alang-sala si >e)) NCarpio 1as really arm-t1isting and influen&ing 'is &olleagues to
a&=uit >e))O,- or 1ords to t'at effe&t. *imenez &orro)orated (iz&ondeDs statement in 'is o1n
s1orn !ffidavit dated *anuary 9I, 9:77.
F.H.I. $'e fa&t t'at Respondent spo3e 1it' (iz&onde regarding a &ase pending )efore t'e
%upreme Court is in itself already a serious )rea&' of t'e rule of &onfidentiality t'at must )e
maintained )y t'e Court 1it' respe&t to &ases pending )efore it, as 1ell as t'e deli)erations of
t'e mem)ers of t'e Court. %u&' &onfidentiality is a)solutely ne&essary in order to ensure t'at
mem)ers of t'e Court are insulated from lo))ying and pressure &oming from any of t'e litigants
of a pending &ase. RespondentDs a&tion, as C'ief *usti&e, is in itself un)e&oming and un1ort'y of
a C'ief *usti&e.
F.H.8. "ndeed, in 1e3 Letter of Presiding /ustice Conrado M. 2as(ue&, t'e %upreme Court
san&tioned a 4usti&e of t'e Court of !ppeals for a similar a&t of dis&ussing a pending &ase 1it'
interested parties for 'aving ,failed to maintain t'e 'ig' standard of independen&e and propriety
t'at is re=uired of 'im.- $'e %upreme Court furt'er 'eld2
,$a3ing 'is &onversation 1it' 'is )rot'er and 'is en&ounters 1it' Mr. de /or4a toget'er, *usti&e
%a)io gives t'e impression t'at 'e is a&&essi)le to lo))yists 1'o 1ould unfairly try to
manipulate &ourt pro&eedings. <ven assuming arguendo t'at *usti&e %a)io 1as not moved )y 'is
)rot'erDs re=uest and t'at 'e re4e&ted Mr. de /or4aDs )ri)e offer, t'e Court feels &ompelled to &all
*usti&e %a)ioDs attention to 'is o1n s'ort&omings under t'e &ir&umstan&es. !t t'e very least,
*usti&e %a)io s'ould 'ave realized t'at 'is dis&ussions of &ourt matters, espe&ially t'ose t'at
'ave not yet )een made of pu)li& re&ord, 1it' persons 1'o are interested in t'e &ase 1ere
in&redi)ly indis&reet and tended to undermine t'e integrity of 4udi&ial pro&esses. >e see no
reason to reverse t'e PanelDs finding t'at *usti&e %a)ioDs &onversations 1it' 'is )rot'er and Mr.
de /or4a 1ere @indis&reet and imprudent5.-
F.H.B. %ignifi&antly, Respondent signed and &on&urred 1it' t'e a)ove-mentioned Resolution of
t'e %upreme Court. Ket, Respondent Corona &ommitted t'e same perni&ious a&t of dis&ussing a
pending &ase 1it' interested parties.
F.H.A. >orse, 'o1ever, is t'e fa&t t'at Respondent intrigued against t'e 'onor and integrity of a
fello1 *usti&e in 'is a)sen&e, in t'e pro&ess, maligning and undermining t'e &redi)ility of t'e
%upreme Court as an institution. /y painting for (iz&onde a pi&ture of a Court t'at is su)4e&t to
t'e influen&e of one out of 7H *usti&es, and ma3ing it appear t'at t'e eventual de&ision of t'e
Court in t'e &ase 1ould )e attri)uta)le to internal arm-t1isting and influen&e, Respondent
destroyed t'e &redi)ility of t'e very institution t'at 'e 1as supposed to )e leading.
F.H.7:. "n trying to pin t'e )lame of a possi)le a&=uittal upon a fello1 *usti&e, Respondent 1as
'imself so1ing t'e seeds of dis&ontent and distrust of t'e %upreme Court 1it' a party litigant. !s
it 'appened, (iz&onde and *imenez did raise t'e supposed internal arm-t1isting and influen&e
)efore t'e media 1'ile t'e &ase 1as in t'e final stages of de&ision. /y provo3ing (iz&onde to
pre-empt t'e de&ision 1it' negative pu)li&ity, Respondent 'imself is guilty of dire&tly
undermining t'e trust and &onfiden&e of t'e pu)li& in t'e %upreme Court regardless of 1'at its
de&ision 1ould 'ave later turned out to )e.
F.H.77. >orse still, is t'at the ct o* the Re#po"&e"t -!olte# Sec. )(K/ o* Rep. Act )F'<, or the
A"t!%6r*t "& Corr,pt Prct!ce# Act, 1'i&' pro'i)its any offi&ial from ,+d.ivulging valua)le
information of a &onfidential &'ara&ter, a&=uired )y 'is offi&e or )y 'im on a&&ount of 'is offi&ial
position to unaut'orized persons, or releasing su&' information in advan&e of its aut'orized
release date.- "t is &lear from t'e &ontext of t'e &onversation 1it' (iz&onde and *imenez, t'at
Respondent 1as signalling t'e latter to prepare for an a&=uittal, and giving t'em someone to
)lame t'erefor. 0iven t'e 'ig' profile of t'e &ase, it is not unreasona)le to assume t'at at t'e
time of t'e &onservation, t'e %upreme Court 'ad already )egun deli)erations on t'e &ase, and
t'at Respondent already 'ad a sense of 1'at t'e de&ision of t'e Court 1ould pro)a)ly )e.
F.I. Respondent Corona 1it' undue 'aste, impropriety and irregularity, dismissed t'e inter-petal
re&reational &orporation &ase under suspi&ious &ir&umstan&es.
F.I.7. Respondent 1as a&&used )y ?ernando Campos of unet'i&al &ondu&t 1'en 'e met ex parte
1it' t'e la1yer of t'e adverse party in &onne&tion 1it' a pending &ase )efore 'im. "n an attempt
to defend 'imself against t'e &omplaint for unet'i&al &ondu&t filed against 'im )y Campos,
Respondent expli&itly admitted violating t'e #e1 Code of *udi&ial Condu&t. "n 'is letter dated
?e)ruary B, 9:7: to t'e *udi&ial and /ar Coun&il +*/C., Respondent refuted t'e &laim of
Campos t'at 'e allegedly met 1it' a la1yer of P'il1e) Corporation in &onne&tion 1it' a &ase
pending )efore 'im )ut &ountered t'at2
,On t'e &ontrary, it 1as Campos 'imself 1'o a&tively tried to pressure me into de&iding 0.R.
#o. 7BI877 in 'is favor. I .# pe#tere& +2 cll# *rom &!**ere"t people o" h!# +ehl*. /y 'is
o1n admission in 'is @exe&utive summary,5 'e as3ed *usti&e !ngelina 0utierrez, %antiago
Qapunan and eonardo Quisum)ing, among ot'ers to inter&ede for 'im.- +<mp'asis supplied.
F.I.9 "n 'is very o1n 1ords, Respondent admitted t'at various persons 1ere a)le to
&ommuni&ate 1it' 'im in &onne&tion 1it' a &ase t'at 1as pending )efore 'im pre&isely in an
attempt to influen&e 'im in 'is resolution of t'e said &ase. "n allo1ing 'imself to )e approa&'ed
)y persons 1'i&' 'e 3ne1 1ere trying to exer&ise t'eir influen&e over 'im on a parti&ular &ase
pending )efore 'im and in failing to ta3e or initiate appropriate dis&iplinary measures against
su&' a&tions, Respondent violated )asi& pre&epts of t'e #e1 Code of *udi&ial Condu&t, 1'i&'
provides, among ot'ers, t'at2
,Canon 7
"ndependen&e
%e&. 7. *udges s'all exer&ise t'e 4udi&ial fun&tion independently on t'e )asis of t'eir assessment
of t'e fa&ts and in a&&ordan&e 1it' a &ons&ientious understanding of t'e la1, free from
extraneous influen&e, indu&ement, pressure, t'reat or interferen&e, dire&t or indire&t, from any
=uarter or for any reason.
x x x
%e&. G. *udges s'all not allo1 family, so&ial, or ot'er relations'ips to influen&e 4udi&ial &ondu&t
or 4udgment. $'e prestige of 4udi&ial offi&e s'all not )e used or lent to advan&e t'e private
interests of ot'ers, nor &onvey or permit ot'ers to &onvey t'e impression t'at t'ey are in a spe&ial
position to influen&e t'e 4udge.
%e&. H. *udges s'all not only )e free from inappropriate &onne&tions 1it', and influen&e )y, t'e
exe&utive and legislative )ran&'es of government, )ut must also appear to )e free t'erefrom to a
reasona)le o)server.-
,Canon ""
"ntegrity
%e&. 7. *udges s'all ensure t'at not only is t'eir &ondu&t a)ove reproa&', )ut t'at it is per&eived
to )e so in t'e vie1 of a reasona)le o)server.
%e&. 9. $'e )e'avior and &ondu&t of 4udges must reaffirm t'e people5s fait' in t'e integrity of t'e
4udi&iary. *usti&e must not merely )e done )ut must also )e seen to )e done.
%e&. F. *udges s'ould ta3e or initiate appropriate dis&iplinary measures against la1yers or &ourt
personnel for unprofessional &ondu&t of 1'i&' t'e 4udge may 'ave )e&ome a1are.-
,Canon """
"mpartiality
x x x
%e&. 9. *udges s'all ensure t'at 'is or 'er &ondu&t, )ot' in and out of &ourt, maintains and
en'an&es t'e &onfiden&e of t'e pu)li&, t'e legal profession and litigants in t'e impartiality of t'e
4udge and of t'e 4udi&iary.-
,Canon "(
Propriety
Propriety and t'e appearan&e of propriety are essential to t'e performan&e of all t'e a&tivities of
a 4udge.
%e&. 7. *udges s'all avoid impropriety and t'e appearan&e of impropriety in all of t'eir
a&tivities.-
F.I.F. $o restate in In 1e3 Letter of Presiding /ustice Conrado M. 2as(ue&, t'e %upreme Court
'eld t'at su&' &ondu&t amounted to a failure to maintain t'e 'ig' standard of independen&e and
propriety t'at is re=uired of a 4udge.
F.I.G. ?or emp'asis, Respondent signed and &on&urred 1it' t'e a)ove-mentioned Resolution of
t'e %upreme Court. %urely, Respondent, as C'ief *usti&e, &annot )e exempt from t'e same rule
and prin&iple. !s C'ief *usti&e, 'e must in fa&t )e 'eld to a 'ig'er standard. $'e %upreme Court
furt'er said of 4usti&es2
,>'ile it may )e true t'at from a psy&'ologi&al stand point ordinary persons &an 'ave a 1ide
variety of valid rea&tions to any given situation, J,#t!ce S+!o #ho,l& +er !" m!"& h!# h!$h
o**!ce # m$!#trte o* the ppellte co,rt #et# h!m prt *rom or&!"r2 per#o"#. Be!"$
the #,+Mect o* co"#t"t p,+l!c #cr,t!"2, mem+er# o* the +e"ch #ho,l& *reel2 "& .!ll!"$l2
ccept +eh-!orl re#tr!ct!o"# tht m2 +e -!e.e& +2 or&!"r2 c!t!5e"# #
+,r&e"#ome.A +emp'asis supplied.
F.I.H. Moreover, Respondent not only s'ould 'ave s&rupulously guarded 'is reputation as a
%upreme Court *usti&e, it )e'ooved upon 'im to 'ave done a positive a&t to ensure t'at Campos
and t'e latter5s emissaries )e dealt 1it' administratively for t'e )razen attempt to influen&e a
magistrate of t'e %upreme Court. $'is 'e utterly failed to do.
IV. RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST AN0(OR COMMITTE0
CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 9HEN IT BLATANTL1
0ISRE6AR0E0 THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF PO9ERS B1 ISSUIN6 A
>STATUS 4UO ANTEA OR0ER A6AINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN
THE CASE CONCERNIN6 THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBU0SMAN
MERCE0ITAS NAVARRO%6UTIERREC.
G.7. On %eptem)er 7F, 9:7:, Om)udsman Mer&editas 0utierrez filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Pro'i)ition )efore t'e %upreme Court see3ing to en4oin t'e Committee on *usti&e of t'e House
of Representatives from pro&eeding 1it' t'e impea&'ment pro&eedings against 'er. 0utierrez5s
sixty-paged Petition prayed for a $emporary Restraining Order against t'e impea&'ment
pro&eedings.
G.9. >it' undue 'aste, t'e follo1ing day after filing, Respondent immediately ta)led 0utierrez5s
Petition despite t'e fa&t t'at not all t'e *usti&es 'ad re&eived or read t'e Petition. Respondent
railroaded t'e pro&eedings in order to 'ave a %tatus Quo !nte Order issued in favor of 0utierrez.
$'is 1as &onfirmed )y *usti&e Maria ourdes %ereno in 'er Con&urring Opinion to t'e ?e)ruary
7H, 9:77 ;e&ision 2
,On a final note, t'e issuan&e of t'e %tatus Quo !nte Order in t'is &ase 1as most unfortunate. "t
1as issued over t'e o)4e&tions of *usti&es !ntonio Carpio, Con&'ita Carpio Morales, and myself.
" )elieved t'en, as " )elieve no1, t'at t'e Court, in issuing t'e said order, 1as overly intrusive
1it' respe&t to a po1er t'at does not )elong to it )y restraining 1it'out 'earing a &o-e=ual
)ran&' of 0overnment. Th!# +el!e* .# m&e more c,te +2 the *ct tht the or&er .# -ote&
,po" !" the mor"!"$ o* 'H Septem+er GF'F, .!tho,t the +e"e*!t o* $e",!"el2 !"*orme&
&e+te, #!"ce #e-erl mem+er# o* the Co,rt, m2#el* !"cl,&e&, h& "ot 2et the" rece!-e&
cop2 o* the Pet!t!o".A
G.F. ! %upreme Court delivery re&eipt pu)lis'ed )y t'e ne1s magazine #e1s)rea3 also s'o1ed
t'at most of t'e 4usti&es re&eived t'e Petition after t'e deli)erations, 1'ile t'ree +F. 4usti&es 1'o
voted to issue t'e %tatus Quo !nte Order re&eived t'e petition only on %eptem)er 7H, 9:77, a day
after t'e status =uo ante order 1as granted. $'ese 4usti&es 1ere *usti&es (elas&o, /ersamin and
Perez.
G.G. $'e issuan&e of t'e %tatus Quo !nte Order is a )etrayal of t'e pu)li& trust sin&e it &learly
s'o1ed Respondent5s 'ig'-'andedness, )ias, su)servien&e and partisans'ip. $'e issuan&e of a
%tatus Quo !nte Order against a &o-e=ual )ran&' of government, 1it'out even t'e )enefit of t'e
*usti&esD reading t'e de&ision, is a tyranni&al a)use of po1er to favor a litigant and to o)stru&t t'e
impea&'ment pro&ess. $'e issuan&e of t'e order also dire&tly violates t'e prin&iple of separation
of po1ers sin&e t'e %upreme Court prevented t'e House from doing its &onstitutional mandate of
initiating impea&'ment pro&eedings.
V. RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H 9ANTON
ARBITRARINESS AN0 PARTIALIT1 IN CONSISTENTL1 0ISRE6AR0IN6 THE
PRINCIPLE OF RES JU0ICATA IN THE CASES INVOLVIN6 THE 'D NE9L1%
CREATE0 CITIES, AN0 THE PROMOTION OF 0INA6AT ISLAN0 INTO A
PROVINCE.
H.7. $'e prin&iple of immuta)ility of final 4udgments is one of t'e primordial rules for 'aving a
&redi)le and effe&tive system of administration of 4usti&e. Under t'is prin&iple2
,itigation must end and terminate sometime and some1'ere and it is essential to an effe&tive
and effi&ient administration of 4usti&e t'at, on&e a 4udgment 'as )e&ome final, t'e 1inning party
)e not, t'roug' a mere su)terfuge, deprived of t'e fruits of t'e verdi&t.-
H.9. !s explained )y t'e %upreme Court in its earliest years, su&' a prin&iple is an important
re=uirement for a &redi)le and effe&tive system of administration of 4usti&e, t'us2
,"t is true t'at it is t'e purpose and intention of t'e la1 t'at &ourts s'ould de&ide all =uestions
su)mitted to t'em Ras trut' and 4usti&e re=uire,5 and t'at it is greatly to )e desired t'at all
4udgments s'ould )e so de&idedC )ut &ontrolling and irresisti)le reasons of pu)li& poli&y and of
sound pra&ti&e in t'e &ourts demand t'at at t'e ris3 of o&&asional error, 4udgments of &ourts
determining &ontroversies su)mitted to t'em s'ould )e&ome final at some definite time fixed )y
la1, or )y a rule of pra&ti&e re&ognized )y la1, so as to )e t'ereafter )eyond t'e &ontrol even of
t'e &ourt 1'i&' rendered t'em for t'e purpose of &orre&ting errors of fa&t or of la1, into 1'i&',
in t'e opinion of t'e &ourt it may 'ave fallen. $'e very purpose for 1'i&' t'e &ourts are
organized is to put an end to &ontroversy, to de&ide t'e =uestions su)mitted to t'e litigants, and to
determine t'e respe&tive rig'ts of t'e parties. >it' t'e full 3no1ledge t'at &ourts are not
infalli)le, t'e litigants su)mit t'eir respe&tive &laims for 4udgment, and t'ey 'ave a rig't at some
time or ot'er to 'ave final 4udgment on 1'i&' t'ey &an rely as a final disposition of t'e issue
su)mitted, and to 3no1 t'at t'ere is an end to t'e litigation.-
H.F. Respondent, 'o1ever, 'as turned 'is )a&3 on t'is time-'onored prin&iple of t'e immuta)ility
of final 4udgments in not 4ust one, )ut several, &ases of pu)li& signifi&an&e, t'us allo1ing t'e
Court to gain pu)li& notoriety as a ,flip-flopping- Court. !t least t1o of t'ese flip-flops are
3no1n to 'ave )een instigated t'roug' personal letters or ex-parte &ommuni&ations addressed to
t'e Respondent.
H.G. $'ree &ele)rated &ases 'ave parti&ularly esta)lis'ed t'e %upreme CourtDs ,flip-flopping-
reputation2 t'e Le$,e o* C!t!e# -. COMELEC &ase involving t'e &reation of 7I ne1 &ities, t'e
&ase of #avarro v. <rmita 1'i&' involved t'e promotion of ;inagat "sland from muni&ipality to
provin&e, and t'e ?!%!P v. P'ilippine !irlines, "n&., et al. &ase 1'i&' involved t'e retren&'ment
+previously 'eld to )e illegal. of flig't attendants )y t'e nation5s flag &arrier. "n t'e t'e eague of
Cities and ?!%!P &ases, t'e RespondentDs &ulpa)ility 1as )etrayed )y t'e fa&t t'at t'e flip-flop
1as pre&eded )y personal and ex-parte &ommuni&ations, not pleadings, from a la1yer of a party,
and 1'i&' 1ere granted 1it'out giving t'e ot'er party any noti&e or due pro&ess. "n t'e #avarro
&ase, t'e flip-flop 1as instigated )y t'e intervention of non-parties 1'o stood to )enefit
finan&ially and politi&ally from t'e re-opening of a final and exe&utory 4udgment to t'e original
&ase.
H.H. $'e eague of Cities v. COM<<C &ase 1as originally de&ided )y t'e %upreme Court on
#ovem)er 7B, 9::B, 1'erein t'e Court de&lared as un&onstitutional and void t'e &onversion of
7I muni&ipalities into &ities due to failure to meet t'e legal re=uirements for in&ome for &ities
under t'e o&al 0overnment Code. Upon motion for re&onsideration, $'e Court affirmed its
4udgment on !pril 9B, 9::A, after t'e Court denied a pro'i)ited se&ond motion for
re&onsideration filed )y t'e 7I muni&ipalities. $'e ruling )e&ame final on May 97, 9::A.
H.I. ;espite t'e finality of t'e original 4udgment, as 1ell as t'e standing pro'i)ition against a
se&ond motion for re&onsideration, t'e ,aggrieved- parties persisted in see3ing a reversal of t'e
CourtDs original de&ision. $'ey filed several pleadings all o)viously intended to &ir&umvent t'e
pro'i)ition against se&ond and su)se=uent motions for re&onsideration and to su)vert t'e rule on
immuta)ility of final 4udgments, to 1it2
a. Motion to !mend t'e Resolution of !pril 9B, 9::A /y ;e&laring "nstead t'at Respondents5
Motion for Re&onsideration of t'e Resolution of Mar&' F7, 9::A and Motion for eave to ?ile,
and $o !dmit !tta&'ed %e&ond Motion for Re&onsideration of t'e ;e&ision ;ated #ovem)er 7B,
9::B Remain Unresolved and to Condu&t ?urt'er Pro&eedings $'ereon +Motion to !mend t'e
Resolution of !pril 9B, 9::A.C
). Motion for Re&onsideration of t'e Resolution of 9 *une 9::AC
&. Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending "n&identsC
d. !ppeal to Honora)le C'ief *usti&e Reynato %. Puno and !sso&iate *usti&e !ntonio <duardo /.
#a&'ura to Parti&ipate in t'e Resolution of RespondentsD Motion for Re&onsideration of t'e
Resolution of *une 9, 9::A.
H.8. On *anuary 7A, 9::A, t'e legal &ounsel N1'o is reportedly also t'e lead &ounsel of former
President !rroyo in 'er Plunder and ot'er &ases2 seeA""e3e# >;A to >;%GAO for t'e sixteen +7I.
&ities, <stelito Mendoza, 1rote a personal letter +not a pleading. to t'e %upreme Court, as3ing for
t'e Court to re&onsider its de&ision )y allo1ing t'e parti&ipation of 4usti&es 1'o 1ere not present
during t'e deli)eration of t'e original de&ision dated #ovem)er 7B, 9::B. !not'er personal letter
+not a pleading. 1as sent to t'e %upreme Court, )y t'e lo&al &'ief exe&utives of t'e sixteen +7I.
muni&ipalitiesLprospe&tive &ities.
H.B. On ;e&em)er 97, 9::A, t'e %upreme Court reversed t'e de&ision of #ovem)er 7B, 9::B
despite t'e fa&t t'at t'e de&ision 1as already final and exe&utory, and t'at t'e pleadings and
&ommuni&ations t'at led to t'e de&ision 1ere eit'er expressly pro'i)ited pleadings or non-
pleadings t'at 'ave no pla&e in litigation or t'e Rules of Court.
H.A. $'is prompted t'e eague of Cities to file a motion for re&onsideration to reverse t'e
;e&em)er 97, 9::A ruling, &alling t'e attention of t'e Court to t'e in&onsisten&y of t'e de&ision
1it' t'e standing Rules of Court and t'e prin&iples of finality of 4udgment. On !ugust 9G, 9:7:,
t'e %upreme Court reversed t'e ;e&em)er 97, 9::A de&ision and reinstated its original
#ovem)er 9B, 9::B de&ision. !s C'ief *usti&e and leader of t'e %upreme Court, 'e s'ould not
'ave allo1ed t'e Court to entertain pro'i)ited pleadings )e&ause it undermines t'e integrity of
t'e Court and its rules of pro&edure.
H.7:. ;espite t'is ruling, t'e %upreme Court under RespondentDs leaders'ip t'en entertained an
unusual and totally unpre&edented fourt' motion for re&onsideration filed )y t'e 7I
muni&ipalities on %eptem)er 7G, 9:7:. On ?e)ruary 7H, 9:77, t'e Court granted t'e motion for
re&onsideration, and reversed t'e reversal of t'e reversal of t'e original de&ision, i.e., it
reinstated its 'ig'ly irregular de&ision reversing a 4udgment t'at 'ad long )een final and
exe&utory. $'e unpre&edented flip-flopping of t'e %upreme Court 'appened in 4ust a span of six
mont's and under t'e same tutelage of Respondent Corona.
H.77. %u)se=uently, in t'e &ase of 'avarro v. Ermita dealing 1it' t'e &onstitutionality of t'e
&reation of t'e Provin&e of ;inagat "sland, t'e %upreme Court under RespondentDs 1at&' again
performed 4udi&ial a&ro)ati&s 1'en it reversed its original de&ision even t'oug' it 'ad already
)e&ome final and exe&utory, a status all t'e more 'ig'lig'ted )y t'e fa&t t'at t'ere 1as already an
<ntry of *udgment.
H.79. "n t'is &ase, t'e %upreme Court 'ad de&ided against t'e &onstitutionality of t'e &reation of
t'e Provin&e of ;inagat "sland )a&3 in ?e)ruary 7:, 9:7:. $'e 4udgment )e&ame final and
exe&utory, and an <ntry of *udgment 1as made on May 7B, 9:7:. !&&ording to t'e Rules of
Court, t'e <ntry of *udgment is a ministerial a&t t'at re&ords t'e a)solute irrevo&a)ility of a
de&ision of a &ourt, after t'e same 'as )e&ome final and exe&utory. /eyond all plausi)le reason,
'o1ever, t'e %upreme Court found t'e means to &ondu&t t'e ver)al gymnasti&s and semanti&
&ontortions ne&essary to perform a totally unpre&edented 4udi&ial somersault.
H.7F. $'is amazing maneuver 1as a&&omplis'ed upon t'e instigation, a full mont' after t'e entry
of 4udgment, of so-&alled motions for intervention )y t'e prospe&tive provin&ial offi&ials and
&ongressional representatives of ;inagat "sland, 1'i&' 1ere denied )y t'e Court &onsidering t'at
t'ey 1ere not even parties to t'e original pro&eedings and intervention &annot )e allo1ed after
t'e &ase 'as already )een terminated. $'is 1as follo1ed )y an ,Urgent Motion to Re&all <ntry of
*udgment- dated O&to)er 7:, 9:77 filed )y t'ese non-parties, 1'i&' t'e Court t'en granted,
paving t'e 1ay for a re&onsideration and reversal of t'e 4udgment 1'i&' 1as already final.
H.7G. "n so doing, t'e %upreme Court, under RespondentDs leaders'ip, 'as made a travesty of its
o1n rules of pro&edure, and demonstrated t'at t'ere is a&tually only one important rule2 ,1'ere
t'ereDs a 1ill +and &onne&tionP., t'ereDs a 1ay.- !nd everyt'ing t'at la1yers 3no1 a)out 4udi&ial
pro&edure, &ommon sense, fair play, and *usti&e 1ill )e&ome moot and a&ademi& 1'en
&onfronted 1it' t'is perversion of t'e Rules of Court. %o )latantly &ontrary to all 4udi&ial reason
1as t'is a&t of t'e Court t'at even !sso&iate *usti&e /rion pointed out in 'is ;issenting Opinion
t'at t'e de&ision dire&tly violated its o1n internal rules and at least t'ree ma4or foundations of
t'e administration of 4usti&e, parti&ularly2
a. t'e rule on re&onsideration )y allo1ing a motion for re&onsideration &ontrary to t'e rule
against se&ond motions for re&onsideration and after t'e pro&eedings 'ad already terminatedC
). t'e rule on finality of 4udgments, )y re-opening a &ase t'at already attained finality t'roug' t'e
artifi&e of a motion to ,re&all entry of 4udgment-C and
&. t'e rule on intervention )y allo1ing intervention after t'e pro&eedings 'ad already terminated.
H.7H. "n fa&t, !sso&iate *usti&e /rion &ould not 'ide 'is a)solute disgust 1it' t'e CourtDs ruling in
'is dissent, &losing it as follo1s2
,Unli3e t'e &ase of azarus 1'o rose from t'e dead t'roug' a mira&le, ;inagat resurre&ted
)e&ause t'e Court disregarded its o1n rules and esta)lis'ed 4urisprudential prin&iples. Of &ourse,
it &an similarly )e &alled a mira&le as no reversal &ould 'ave ta3en pla&e if 4ust one of t'e series
of transgressions pointed out did not ta3e pla&e. Ho1 su&' resurre&tion &an 'appen in t'e
%upreme Court is a &ontinuing sour&e of 1onderS-
H.7I. $'ese t1o &ases on gerrymandering are, of &ourse, on top of t'e &ase of 4#S#P v.
Phili$$ine #irlines. Inc. , 1'i&' s'o1&ases t'e %upreme Court5s pen&'ant for issuing flip-
flopping de&isions. "n t'is &ase, t'e %upreme Court 'ad already promulgated a de&ision dated 99
*uly 9::B, 'olding t'at t'e retren&'ment effe&ted )y P! in 7AAB of more t'an 7,G:: of its flig't
attendants 1as illegal. $'is de&ision )e&ame final after t'e %upreme Court denied, 1it' finality,
P!5s Motions for Re&onsideration on :9 O&to)er 9::A and :8 %eptem)er 9:77. Curiously,
'o1ever, t'e Resolutions denying P!5s Motions for Re&onsideration 1ere re&alled )y anot'er
Resolution in 1'at seemed to )e a separate administrative &ase, !.M. #o. 77-7:-7-%C, on t'e
sole )asis of a personal letter su)mitted to t'e %upreme Court )y <stelito Mendoza, P!5s
la1yer. !nd as 1it' t'e eague of Cities v. COM<<C &ase, no opportunity 1as given to t'e
ot'er party to respond to <stelito Mendoza5s personal appeal letter. >'at t'ese flip-flopping
de&isions &learly esta)lis' is t'at t'e %upreme Court, under Respondent Corona5s 1at&', is
1illing to )end over )a&31ards to a&&omodate mere letters )earing t'e signature of ?ormer
President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo5s la1yer.
VI. Re#po"&e"t Betr2e& the P,+l!c Tr,#t B2 Arro$t!"$ U"to H!m#el*, A"& To A
Comm!ttee He Crete&, The A,thor!t2 A"& J,r!#&!ct!o" To Improperl2 I"-e#t!$te A"
Alle$e& Err!"$ Mem+er O* The S,preme Co,rt For The P,rpo#e O* E3c,lpt!"$ H!m.
S,ch A,thor!t2 A"& J,r!#&!ct!o" I# Properl2 Repo#e& B2 The Co"#t!t,t!o" I" the Ho,#e o*
Repre#e"tt!-e# -! Impechme"t.
I.7. Canon 9, se&. 7 of t'e #e1 Code of *udi&ial Condu&t demands extremely 'ig' moral
standards of all 4udges and *usti&es2 t'ey must ,ensure t'at not only t'eir &ondu&t is a)ove
reproa&', )ut t'at it is per&eived to )e so in t'e vie1 of a reasona)le o)server.- $'is is )ut
&onsistent 1it' a very long line of 4urispruden&e laid )y t'e %upreme Court t'at 4udges s'ould
avoid all forms of impropriety, in&luding t'e appearan&e of impropriety. "t is also pra&ti&ally a
universal rule among 4udi&iaries 1orld1ide.
I.9. $'e 2inuya vs. Executive Secretary &ase &on&erned a petition )y ot'er legal s&'olars on
)e'alf of t'e surviving ?ilipino ,&omfort 1omen- +1omen pressed into sexual slavery )y
o&&upying *apanese for&es during t'e %e&ond >orld >ar., on t'e t'eory t'at t'e pro'i)ition
against rape and sexual a)use in times of 1ar is 4us &ogens in international la1, and t'erefore t'e
%tate 'ad a duty to pursue t'eir &laims from t'e *apanese government. Upon revie1 of t'e
CourtDs de&ision denying t'e &omfort 1omenDs petition, it 1as alleged t'at rampant plagiarism
1as &ommitted )y t'e ponente, !sso&iate *usti&e Mariano del Castillo.
I.F. $'e alleged plagiarism in (inuya &omprised t'e ver)atim lifting, 1it'out attri)ution and
en&ompassing )ot' t'e original aut'orsD 1ritten text and footnotes, of signifi&ant portions of
)oo3s and arti&les from international la1 4ournals t'at supported t'e t'eory. !t least t'ree foreign
aut'ors 1or3s 1ere allegedly plagiarized. /ut aside from t'e issue of plagiarism itself, after
&opying from t'e arti&les, t'e Court allegedly made t'em appear to support t'e opposite
&on&lusionC i.e., t'e Court used t'em to deny t'e petition, 1'ereas t'e materials per se s'ould
'ave )een seen to favor t'e grant t'ereof.
I.G. "t appears t'at, 1it' a &lear intent of exonerating a mem)er of t'e %upreme Court,
Respondent, in violation of t'e Constitution, formed an <t'i&s Committee t'at determined t'e
&ulpa)ility of a *usti&e of t'e %upreme Court 6 an impea&'a)le offi&er. Respondent 'ad no po1er
to do t'is sin&e under t'e Constitution, t'e po1er to ma3e a&&ounta)le impea&'a)le offi&ers
)elonged to t'e House of Representatives. $'us, Re#po"&e"t +etr2e& the p,+l!c tr,#t +2
rro$t!"$ ,"to h!m#el*, "& to Comm!ttee he crete&, the ,thor!t2 "& M,r!#&!ct!o" to
!"-e#t!$te " lle$e& mem+er o* the S,preme Co,rt. To re!terte, #,ch ,thor!t2 "&
M,r!#&!ct!o" h# +ee" repo#e& +2 the Co"#t!t,t!o" !" the Ho,#e o* Repre#e"tt!-e# -!
!mpechme"t. /y &onstituting su&' a &ommittee, and )y arrogating unto 'imself po1er to
determine t'e &ulpa)ility of *usti&e del Castillo and exonerating 'im in t'e end, Respondent
t'ere)y en&roa&'ed on t'e sole po1er and duty of t'e House of Representatives to determine, )y
impea&'ment, 1'et'er *usti&e ;el Castillo 1as to )e 'eld a&&ounta)le, in violation of t'e
prin&iple of separation of po1ers of t'e egislature and t'e *udi&iary.
I.H. "t may )e re&alled t'at t'e original aut'ors separately &omplained to t'e %upreme Court
a)out t'e in&ident, 1'ile t'e petitioners filed a motion for re&onsideration, )ut t'e Respondent,
spea3ing t'roug' t'e Court !dministrator, initially announ&ed t'at no a&tion 1ould )e ta3en on
t'e matter. $'is 1as despite t'e re&eipt of t'e &omplaints from t'e first of t'ree aut'ors. Only
1'en t'e num)er of aut'ors 'ad in&reased to t'ree did t'e Respondent de&ide to a&t )y
announ&ing t'e formation of an <t'i&s Revie1 Committee &omprised of mem)ers of t'e Court to
investigate t'e matter.
VII. RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST THROU6H HIS PARTIALIT1
IN 6RANTIN6 A TEMPORAR1 RESTRAININ6 OR0ER (TRO/ IN FAVOR OF
FORMER PRESI0ENT 6LORIA MACAPA6AL%ARRO1O AN0 HER HUSBAN0 JOSE
MI6UEL ARRO1O IN OR0ER TO 6IVE THEM AN OPPORTUNIT1 TO ESCAPE
PROSECUTION AN0 TO FRUSTRATE THE EN0S OF JUSTICE, AN0 IN
0ISTORTIN6 THE SUPREME COURT 0ECISION ON THE EFFECTIVIT1 OF THE
TRO IN VIE9 OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPL1 9ITH THE CON0ITIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURTES O9N TRO.
8.7. $'e %upreme Court, under t'e Respondent, inexpli&a)ly &onsolidated t'e separate petitions
filed )y former President 0loria Ma&apagal-!rroyo and 'er 'us)and Miguel !rroyo in order to
=uestion t'e validity of t'e >at&' ist Orders issued against t'em )y t'e ;epartment of *usti&e
pursuant to ;O* Cir&ular #o. G7 ironi&ally issued )y t'e ;O* under !rroyo5s administration. /y
&onsolidating t'e petitions, t'e %upreme Court under Respondent unduly gave Miguel !rroyo an
un1arranted )enefit sin&e t'e alleged urgent 'ealt' needs of President !rroyo 1ould no1 )e
extended to 'im.
8.9. >orse, t'e %upreme Court, under t'e Respondent, immediately a&ted upon t'e Petition and
granted t'e $RO despite t'e fa&t t'at t'ere are &lear in&onsisten&ies in former President !rroyo5s
petition t'at &asts serious dou)ts on t'e sin&erity and urgen&y of 'er re=uest to leave t'e
P'ilippines. !s detailed in t'e dissent of *usti&e Ma. ourdes %ereno, President !rroyo presented
Jin&onsistent, and pro)a)ly untrut'ful statementsJ a)out 'er situation. *usti&e %ereno &ited
do&uments su)mitted )y t'e former presidentDs do&tors )elying 'er &laims of t'reat to life. !side
from &'anges in t'e list of &ountries s'e 1anted to visit, President !rroyo 1as also planning to
parti&ipate in t1o &onferen&es. Hen&e, *usti&e %ereno noted2 J"t seems in&ongruous for petitioner
1'o 'as as3ed t'e ;epartment of *usti&e and t'is Court to loo3 1it' 'umanitarian &on&ern on
'er pre&arious state of 'ealt', to &ommit 'erself to attend t'ese meetings and &onferen&es at t'e
ris3 of 1orsening 'er p'ysi&al &ondition.J
8.F. Moreover, it appears from reports t'at t'e ponente to 1'om t'e petitions 1ere raffled 1as an
!sso&iate *usti&e. Under t'e "nternal Rules of t'e %upreme Court, a $RO &an only )e &onsidered
upon t'e re&ommendation of t'e ponente. <vidently, in vie1 of &ertain o)4e&tions against t'e
grant of t'e $RO, a 'olding of a 'earing 1it'in t'e s'ort period of five +H. days 1as
re&ommended. ;espite t'is re&ommendation, t'e Respondent engineered a ma4ority of B votes
+as against five dissenters. t'e immediate grant and issuan&e of t'e $RO in favour of former
President !rroyo and 'er 'us)and in )latant violation of t'eir o1n internal rules.
8.G. "t also appears from t'e &oordinated a&ts of t'e !rroyos t'at t'ey 1ere &oordinating 1it'
Respondent5s Court. ?or 'o1 &an it )e explained t'at t'ey made multiple )oo3ings on t'e same
day expe&ting t'at t'ey &an leave t'e &ountry on t'e very same day t'eir plea for a $RO 1as to
)e de&idedP "t is not diffi&ult to see t'at t'e 'asty issuan&e of t'e $RO 1as a )razen
a&&ommodation to t'e !rroyos. #ot only t'at. Respondent )ent over )a&31ards to aid and a)et
t'e !rroyos5 plan to leave t'e &ountry on t'e very day of t'e session on t'eir $RO plea. $'e
Court5s offi&e 'ours t'at usually end at G2F: pm 1ere extended to allo1 t'e !rroyos to post a
measly P9 million )ond later and t'e Court pro&ess server 1as drafted to serve t'e $RO upon t'e
;O* and t'e O%0 after offi&e 'ours.
8.H. !lso, despite t'at fa&t t'at t'e Court, under Respondent, laid do1n &onditions for t'e
issuan&e of t'e $RO, Respondent allo1ed t'e issuan&e of t'e $RO not1it'standing t'e fa&t t'at
it 1as esta)lis'ed t'at President !rroyo and Miguel !rroyo failed to &omply 1it' an essential
pre-&ondition t'at 1as meant to ensure t'e vesting of &ourt 4urisdi&tion in t'e event t'e !rroyos
flee prose&ution. $'e &ondition 1as, to 1it2
,+ii. $'e petitioners s'all appoint a legal representative &ommon to )ot' of t'em .ho .!ll
rece!-e #,+poe", or&er#, "& other le$l proce##e# o" the!r +ehl* &,r!"$ the!r
+#e"ce. $'e petitioners s'all su)mit t'e name of t'e legal representative, also 1it'in five +H.
days from noti&e 'ereofC- +<mp'asis supplied..
8.I. $'e %pe&ial Po1er of !ttorney dated #ovem)er 7H, 9:77 1'i&' t'ey issued to t'eir &ounsel
fails to state t'at t'eir &ounsel 'ad t'e po1er to re&eive su)poenas, orders and ot'er legal
pro&esses. "nstead, t'ey only empo1ered t'eir &ounsel to ,produ&e summons or re&eive
do&umentary eviden&e-2
,$'at ", 6LORIA MACAPA6AL ARRO1O, of legal age, married, ?ilipino 1it' residen&e at
7G /ad4ao %treet, Pansol, Quezon City, do 'ere)y name, &onstitute and appoint ATT1.
FER0INAN0 TOPACIO, li3e1ise of legal age, ?ilipino, 1it' offi&e address at 0round floor,
%3y1ay $1in $o1ers, H. *avier %t., Ortigas Center, Pasig, Metro Manila, as my legal
representative in t'e P'ilippines and to )e my true and la1ful attorney-in-fa&t, for my name,
pla&e and stead, to do and perform t'e follo1ing a&ts and t'ings, to 1it2
7. $o sign, verify, and file a 1ritten statementC
9. $o ma3e and present to t'e &ourt an appli&ation in
&onne&tion 1it' any pro&eedings in t'e suitC
). To pro&,ce #,mmo"# or rece!-e &oc,me"tr2 e-!&e"ceB
G. $o ma3e and file &ompromise or a &onfession of 4udgment
and to refer t'e &ase to ar)itrationC
H. $o deposit and 1it'dra1 any money for t'e purpose of any pro&eedingC
I. $o o)tain &opies of do&uments and papersC and
8. 0enerally to do all ot'er la1ful a&ts ne&essary for t'e
&ondu&t of t'e said &ase.- +<mp'asis supplied..
B2 -!rt,e o* the Arro2o#E +Mect *!l,re to compl2 .!th th!# pre%co"&!t!o", the TRO #ho,l&
"ot h-e +ee" !##,e&, "or &eeme& e**ect!-e.
8.8. ;ue to t'e !rroyos5 a)4e&t failure to &omply 1it' Condition 9, t'e %upreme Court en )an& in
its #ovem)er 7B, 9:77 deli)erations, )y a vote of 86I, found t'at t'ere 1as no &omplian&e 1it'
t'e se&ond &ondition of t'e $RO. Conse=uently, for failure to &omply 1it' an essential &ondition
for t'e $RO, t'e $RO is not effe&tive. Ho1ever, )y a vote of 8-I, t'e %upreme Court de&ided
t'ere 1as no need to expli&itly state t'e legal effe&t on t'e $RO of t'e non&omplian&e )y
petitioners 1it' Condition #um)er 9 of t'e earlier Resolution. !s su&&in&tly stated in *usti&e Ma.
ourdes %ereno5s dissent2
,$'e ma4ority argued t'at su&' a &larifi&ation is unne&essary, )e&ause it is &lear t'at t'e $RO is
&onditional, and &annot )e made use of until &omplian&e 'as )een done. "t 1as t'erefore t'e
sense of t'e ma4ority t'at, as an offs'oot of t'e 1inning vote t'at t'ere 1as failure )y petitioners
to &omply 1it' Condition #um)er 9, t'e $RO is impli&itly deemed suspended until t'ere is
&omplian&e 1it' su&' &ondition. <veryone )elieved t'at it 1ould )e &lear to all t'at a &onditional
$RO is 1'at it is, &onditional.-
8.B. Ho1ever, t'e %upreme Court %po3esperson, Midas Mar=uez, made a pu)li& &laim 1'i&'
1as aired in all media outlets t'at t'e Court ostensi)ly de&ided t'at t'e $RO 1as effe&tive
despite non-&omplian&e 1it' an essential &ondition of t'e $RO. He even posited t'at t'e !rroyos
&an still leave t'e &ountry. It !# "ot+le tht Re#po"&e"t &!& "ot ch#t!#e MrJ,e5 *or h!#
o,tr!$htl2 *l#e "& p,+l!c m!#repre#e"tt!o". Re#po"&e"t, # Ch!e* J,#t!ce, #ho,l& h-e
clle& to t#K MrJ,e5 *or m!#le&!"$ the p,+l!c # to the !mport o* the S,preme Co,rtE#
e" +"c r,l!"$. I"#te&, he rem!"e& #!le"t "& &!& "ot +other to co"tr&!ct MrJ,e5
there+2 !&!"$ MrJ,e5 !" #pre&!"$ *l#e "e.# +o,t the ct!o" o* the S,preme Co,rt.
8.A. >orse, t'e Respondent did not &orre&t t'e de&ision t'at 1as issued despite t'e fa&t t'at t'e
de&ision did not refle&t t'e agreement and de&ision made )y t'e %upreme Court during t'eir
deli)erations on #ovem)er 7B, 9:77. Respondent su)verted t'e 1ill of t'e %upreme Court and
imposed 'is unilateral 1ill )y ma3ing it li3e1ise appear t'at t'e $RO 1as effe&tive despite non-
&omplian&e 1it' 'is o1n imposed pre-&ondition.
8.7:. Clearly, t'erefore, Respondent 3no1ingly fed Mar=uez t'e 1rong sense and import of t'e
deli)erations of t'e Court on t'e $RO issue. $'is false messaging intended for t'e pu)li& 1as
deli)erately made )y Respondent to ma3e it appear t'at indeed t'e !rroyos &an leave
immediately and at any time. Clearly, Respondent5s a&tion s'o1ed )ias and a partisan stan&e in
favor of t'e !rroyos. Respondent5s a&tion of &ausing a false message and t1isting t'e sense and
understanding of t'e Court during its deli)erations on t'is matter, )etray not only 'is la&3 of
independen&e, &ompeten&e and pro)ity, )ut more importantly, t'e moral fi)er to dispense 4usti&e
as 'e 1ould allo1 a frustration of 4usti&e for t'e ?ilipino People for personal gain and
&ommitment to 'is midnig't )enefa&tor.
8.77. >orse, despite t'e finding t'at t'e !rroyos failed to &omply 1it' an essential &ondition of
t'e $RO, t'e %upreme Court, 'eaded )y Respondent Corona in a A-G vote, ruled t'at t'e $RO
1as in effe&t.
VIII. RESPON0ENT BETRA1E0 THE PUBLIC TRUST AN0(OR COMMITTE0
6RAFT AN0 CORRUPTION 9HEN HE FAILE0 AN0 REFUSE0 TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE JU0ICIAR1 0EVELOPMENT FUN0 (J0F/ AN0 SPECIAL ALLO9ANCE FOR
THE JU0ICIAR1 (SAJ/ COLLECTIONS.
B.7. $'e %upreme Court 'as an independent sour&e of in&ome ot'er t'an its s'are in t'e national
)udget. "t &olle&ts from every litigant filing a &omplaint do&3et fees, 1'i&' are used for t'e
%pe&ial !llo1an&e for t'e *udi&iary +%!*. and )asi& legal fees, 1'i&' go to t'e *udi&ial
;evelopment ?und +*;?.. "t is 1ort' noting t'at t'e *udi&iary ;evelopment ?und and t'e
?idu&iary ?und parta3e of t'e nature of trust funds. $'e *;? is )eing &olle&ted for t'e )enefit of
t'e mem)ers and personnel of t'e *udi&iary to 'elp ensure and guarantee t'e independen&e of t'e
*udi&iary in t'e administration of 4usti&e. "t is also intended to augment t'e allo1an&es of t'e
mem)ers and personnel of t'e *udi&iary and to finan&e t'e a&=uisition, maintenan&e and repair of
offi&e e=uipment and fa&ilities.
B.9. Respondent 'as reportedly failed and refused to report on t'e status of t'e *;? ?unds and
t'e %!* &olle&tions. Under 'is leaders'ip, t'e %upreme Court 'as reportedly failed to remit to t'e
/ureau of $reasury all %!* &olle&tions in violation of t'e poli&y of transparen&y, a&&ounta)ility
and good governan&e. $'ere is li3e1ise t'e reported failure of Respondent to a&&ount for funds
released and spent for unfilled positions in t'e 4udi&iary and from aut'orized and funded )ut not
&reated &ourts.
B.F. "n parti&ular, t'e annual audit report of t'e %upreme Court of t'e P'ilippines +!nnex ,K-.
&ontained t'e o)servation t'at unremitted funds to t'e /ureau of $reasury amounted to PH.FB
/illion +page FB of !nnex ,K-..
B.G. On t'e ot'er 'and, t'e %pe&ial allo1an&e for *udi&iary along 1it' t'e 0eneral ?und,
*udi&iary ;evelopment ?und in t'e amount of PHHA.H Million 1ere misstated resulting from
delayed andLor non-preparation of )an3 re&on&iliation statements and non-re&ording Lun&orre&ted
re&on&iling items +page G7 of !nnex ,K-..
RESOLUTION "& PRA1ER
>H<R<?OR<, pursuant to t'e pro&edure laid do1n )y %e&tion F, !rti&le E" of t'e 7AB8
Constitution on !&&ounta)ility of Pu)li& Offi&ers, t'e undersigned Complainants, as Mem)ers of
t'e House of Representatives, &onstituting at least one-t'ird of all t'e mem)ers t'ereof, 'ere)y
file t'e instant (erified ComplaintLResolution of "mpea&'ment against Respondent Honora)le
C'ief *usti&e Renato C. Corona. !&&ordingly, it is most respe&tfully prayed t'at in a&&ordan&e
1it' Rule "( of t'e Rules of Pro&edure in "mpea&'ment Pro&eedings promulgated )y t'e House
of Representatives, to transmit to t'e %enate of t'e P'ilippines t'e instant (erified
ComplaintLResolution of "mpea&'ment to serve as t'e !rti&les of "mpea&'ment for trial.
$'ereafter, undersigned Complainants respe&tfully pray t'at t'e Honora)le Mem)ers of t'e
%enate &ondu&t trial fort'1it' and t'ereafter, render a 4udgment of &onvi&tion against
Respondent Honora)le C'ief *usti&e Renato C. Corona.
Ot'er reliefs, 4ust and e=uita)le, are li3e1ise prayed for.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, ;e&em)er 79, 9:77.
1. L-19313, anuary 19, 19!".
". #.$. %o. 9&-'-(1-SC %ovem)er 9, 199&, *+n ,e- #ppointments dated $arch 3(, 199&, o.
/on. $ateo #. 0alen1uela and /on. 2lacido 3. 0allarta as ud4es o. the ,e4ional 5rial Court o.
3ranch !", 3a4o City and o. 3ranch "6, Ca)anatuan City, respectively.7
3. Es4uerra, C., 2a11i)u4an, 8. *2alace hides Corona oath-takin4 .rom media7, 2hilippine
8aily +n9uirer, $ay 1&, "(1(. # copy o. the article is attached as #nnex *#7.
6. 2o)lete, . *,atin4s decline .or top o..icials,7 3usiness:orld, ;cto)er 1", "(11. # copy o. the
article is attached as #nnex *37.
'. #.$. %o. 9&-'-(1-SC, %ovem)er 9, 199&, "9& SC,# 6(&.
!. <.,. %os. 191((", 191(3", 191('=, #.$. %o. 1(-"-'-SC, <.,. %o. 191169, 19136", 1916"(,
$arch 1=, "(1(
=. Sec. 1, Canon ", %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
&. Sec. ", Canon ", %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
9. See *ustice Corona>s votin4 record .avors #rroyo7, %ews)reak, ?e)ruary (6, "(1(
@http-AAwww.news)reak.phA"(1(A("A(6ABustice-coronas-votin4-record-.avors-arroyoC. # .aith.ul
printout is attached as #nnex *C7 hereo..
1(. <.,. %o. 19"93', 8ecem)er =, "(1(.
11. <.,. %o. 193'19, ;cto)er 1", "(1(.
1". See *#rroyo issues midni4ht madness o. appointments7, #3S-C3% %ews at
@http-AAwww.a)s-c)nnews.comAnationA(!A(3A1(Aarroyo-issues-midni4ht-madness-
appointmentsC, a .aith.ul printout o. which is attached as #nnex *87 hereo.D see also the list o.
$idni4ht #ppointees .rom #3S-C3% %ews @http-AAwww.a)s-
c)nnews.comAsitesAde.aultA.ilesAothersAdownloadsA$#5,+E-
$idni4htsF<;CCsF("une"(1(.pd.C, a .aith.ul printout o. which is attached as #nnex *E7
hereo..
13. Section ', #rticle 0+ o. the 19&= Constitution .or the creation o. le4islative districts
mandates that GCon4ress shall make a reapportionment o. le4islative districts )ased on the
standardsG .ixed in Section '. 5hese constitutional standards, as .ar as population is concerned,
are- H1I proportional representationD H"I minimum population o. "'(,((( per le4islative districtD
H3I pro4ressive ratio in the increase o. le4islative districts as the population )ase increasesD and
H6I uni.ormity in apportionment o. le4islative districts Gin provinces, cities, and the $etropolitan
$anila area.G
16. +)id.
1'. See http-AAsc.Budiciary.4ov.phABusticesAB.corona.php.
1!. Ca)ulisan v. ud4e 2a4alilauan, #.$. %o. ,5-9!-13!3, ;cto)er 1", 199&.
1=. +n ,e- 8ero4atory %ews +tems Char4in4 Court o. #ppeals #ssociate ustice 8emetrio
8emetria with +nter.erence on 3ehal. o. a Suspected 8ru4 Jueen, #.$. %o. ((-=-(9-C#, $arch
"=, "((1.
1&. <.,. %o. 1=&(&3 in relation to #dministrative %o. 11-1(-1-SC.
19. <.,. %os. 1=!9'1, 1==699, 1=&('!D #u4ust "6, "(1(, ?e)ruary 1', "(11, #pril 1", "(11,
une "&, "(11.
"(. #rturo de Castro v. udicial and 3ar Council and 2resident <loria $acapa4al-#rroyo, et.
#l, supra.
"1. #.$. %o. ,5-99-1633, une "!, "(((.
"". 8awa v. ud4e 8e #sa, #.$. %o. $5-9&-1166, uly "", 199&D Clerk o. Court 3uencamino v.
ud4e 8e #sa, #.$. %o. $5-9&-116&, uly "", 199&
"3. Canon 3(, Canons o. udicial Ethics H#dministrative ;rder %o. 1!" dated #u4ust 1, 196! o.
the 8epartment o. usticeI.
"6. <ar4anera v. ocson, #.$. %os. ,5-&&-""=, ,5-9(-!"6, ,5-&&-"=(, ,5-&=-1"6, ,5-
&&-"!9, ,5-&&-"!=, and ,5-&&-"=9, Septem)er (1, 199".
"'. 8ulay v. Lelina, #.$. %o. ,5-99-1'1!, 16 uly "(('.
"!. See /$C>s 2ress ,elease, */$CL :histle )lower>s act is a pre-emptive move7, uly "',
"(1(, availa)le at @http-AAwww.)a4uiomidlandcourier.com.phAcity.aspKmodeL
"=. M"(archivesA"(1(ABulyA=-"'-"(1(Acity".txtC. # .aith.ul printout o. the article is attached as
#nnex *$7 hereo..
"&. Sec. &, Canon 1, %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
"9. Sec. ", Canon 3, %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
3(. Sec. 6, Canon 3, %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
31. Sec. ", Canon ', %ew Code o. udicial Conduct.
3". 2eople o. the 2hilippines v. LeBano, et. al., <.,. 1=!&!6, 8ecem)er 16, "(1(.
33. #$ %o. (&-&-11-C#, ;cto)er 1', "((&.
36. <.,. %o. 1&!=11.
3'. #$ %o. (&-&-11-C# H;cto)er 1', "((&I
3!. +)id.
3=. Section 3, Canon ++ o. the %ew Code o. udicial Conduct imposes upon Bud4es an o)li4ation
to *take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures a4ainst lawyers or court personnel .or
unpro.essional conduct o. which the Bud4e may have )ecome aware.7
3&. <.,. %o. 1936'!, Septem)er 16, "(1(.
39. See #nnex *%7, a copy o. the delivery report as sent )y the Supreme Court to the /on.
,odol.o ?ariNas. See also #nnex *%-17 .or a .aith.ul printout o. the delivery receipt as
pu)lished )y %ews)reak in its article *8elivery receipt shows Bustices voted on <utierre1
petition )e.ore receivin4 copies, availa)le on @http-AAwww.news)reak.phA"(11A(3A("Adelivery-
receipt-shows-Bustices-voted-on-4utierre1-petition-)e.ore-receivin4-copiesAC.
6(. 3on4cac v. Sandi4an)ayan, <.,. 1'!!&=-&&, $ay "1, "((9, citin4 Lim v. a)alde, <.,. %o.
3!=&!, 1= #pril 19&9, 1=" SC,# "11, ""6.
61. #rnedo v. Lorente, 1& 2hil "'= H1911I, at "!"-"!3
6". See .or example, ,e9ueBo, ,. *Supreme Court .lip-.lops 3rd time, ;Os 1! new cities7 $anila
Standard, ?e)ruary 1=, "(11 H#nnex *;7 hereo.ID ,e9ueBo, ,. *CitiesP lea4ue deplores hi4h-
court .lip-.lop7 $anila Standard, $arch 1(, "(11 H#nnex *27 hereo.ID Echeminada, 2.
*Supreme Court .lip-.lop con.uses city mayors7 2hilippine Star, ?e)ruary 19, "(11 H#nnex *J7
hereo.ID <ome1, C. *,ow on cities ra4es as SC Q.lip-.lop> ri))ed7, 2hilippine 8aily +n9uirer,
$arch 6, "(11 H#nnex *,7 hereo.ID *8ina4at wins in new SC .lip-.lop7 Suri4ao 5oday, $ay ",
"(11, ;nline- http-AAwww.suri4aotoday.comA"(11A(3Adina4at-wins-in-new-sc-.lip-.lop.html
H#nnex *S7 hereo.ID ,omero, 2. *SC Bustice hits peers over .lip-.lop7 %ews)reak, #pril "=, "(11
H#nnex *57 hereo.I.
63. Lea4ue o. Cities v. C;$ELEC, supra.
66. <.,. 1&(('(, #pril 1", "(11.
6'. ?#S#2 v. 2#L, supra.
6!. Cinco, $. *8ear SC letters stir suspicion on cityhood,7 2hilippine 8aily +n9uirer, #u4ust
6=. 11, "(1(. # .aith.ul printout o. the article, as .ound in
@http-AAnewsin.o.in9uirer.netAin9uirerheadlinesAre4ionsAviewA"(1((&11-"&!"3"A8ear-SC-letters-
stir-suspicions-on-cityhoodC, is attached as #nnex *R7.
6&. Supra.
69. Ermita v. %avarro, supra.
'(. Supra.
'1. <.,. %o. 1!""3(, #pril "&, "(1(.
'". See *Law pro. 9uestions pla4iarism o. work7, $alaya, #u4ust "6, "(1(, availa)le at @
http-AAwww.malaya.com.phA(&"6"(1(Anews=.htmlCD a .aith.ul printout o. which is attached as
#nnex *07. See also the individual letter o. 8r. Christian 5ams, which used to )e availa)le at
@http-AAwww.scri)d.comAdocA39&'!"!"A5ams-Letter-to-Supreme-CourtC, a copy o. which is
attached hereto as #nnex *0-17D e-mail o. 8r. $ark Ellis, which was 9uoted extensively in
2a11i)u4an, 8., *#uthor .iles complaint with SC7, 2hilippine 8aily +n9uirer, uly 31, "(1(, a
copy o. which is attached hereto as #nnex *0-"7D and a comment made )y 8r. Evan Criddle in
response to Ou, . *+nternational Law pla4iarism )edevils 2hilippines Supreme Court ustice7,
@http-AAopinioBuris.or4A"(1(A(=A19Ainternational-law-pla4iarism-char4e-)edevils-philippines-
supreme-court-BusticeAC, a .aith.ul printout o. which is attached hereto as #nnex *0-37.
'3. 2a11i)u4an, 8. */i4h court not pro)in4 pla4iarism7 2hilippine 8aily +n9uirer, une "1,
"(1(. # copy o. the article is attached as #nnex *:7.
'6. #nin4, . *Supreme Court re.ers pla4iarism case to ethics committee7 2hilippine 8aily
+n9uirer, "= uly "(1(. # copy o. the article is attached as #nnex *E7.
''. <.,. %os. 199(36 and 199(6!, %ovem)er 1', "(11.
'!. <.,. %os. 199(36 and 199(6!, %ovem)er 1&, "(11.