3L\epublic of tbe

QC:onlJrtS'S' of tbe tlbtltppiueS'

'12 FEB -2 All :32
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
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., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENEJ. BAG-AO, et al.
Case No. 002-2011
)t )t
OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST
FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAE
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by counsel, to present the
bases of his opposition to a request for subpoena by the Prosecution, without
waiving his right to file the appropriate legal remedy to question the legality of
these proceedings, respectfully states:
Opposition to &quest for Issuance rif Subpoena
Page 1 rif6
1. In a Request for Issuance of Subpoenae dated1 February 2012
(Request), the House of Representatives seeks the issuance of subpoenae duces
tecum and ad testificandum to require the Vice-President for Sales of Philippine
Airlines (PAL), Mr. Enrique Javier, and Vice President for Product Loyalty
Marketing, Ms. Ria Carrion Domingo, to testify and bring the following: a)
Records pertaining to PAL Platinum Card No. A752, purportedly under the
name of CJ Corona and PAL Platinum Card No. A753, purportedly under the
name of Cristina R. Corona; b) the Policies and Rules concerning the issuance
and use of PAL Platinum cards; c) several Passenger Names Records (PNR); and
d) several Plane Tickets under the name of CJ Corona and his wife.
2. Ostensibly, the subpoenae are requested in relation to Article III of
the Verified Complaint, which makes the following allegations, vii::
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST
BY FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT
STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES THAT "[A] MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN
COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND
INDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT
TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY A COUNSEL
WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING
DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORY CASES; IN
CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS.
ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO
OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING
CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. (Emphasis
supplied)
3. Nowhere in the language of the above-cited Article III of the
Impeachment Complaint makes any mention of a PAL Platinum Card ("card")
in the name of CJ Corona or his wife, their pattonage of Philippine Airline, any
Oppositwn to Request for Issuance of Subpoena
Page2of6
act or circumstance pertaining to the procurement of the said card, or any
benefits or privileges that Chief Justice and Mrs. Corona obtained from it. The
only reference to Philippine Air Lines deals with the alleged flip-flopping
decision of the Supreme Court in the FASAP Case, allegedly on account of
letters written by Estelito Mendoza to the Supreme Court.
4. Evidendy, there are no allegations in the Complaint regarding any
benefits that C] Corona obtained from PAL in connection with the FASAP
Case. To permit or sanction the introduction of the information subject matter of
the requested subpoenae will violate the constitutional right of CJ Corona to be
informed of the accusation against him and is tantamount to requiring him to
defend himself against a new accusation altogether. Herein lies the constitutional
infirmity of the Request.
5. It is worth noting that Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution
expressly provides for the fundamental due process rights, vii::
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable. (Emphasis supplied)
Opposition to Request for Issuance 0/ Subpoena
Page 3 0/6
6. The above-cited provision of the Constitution guarantees the rights
of every individual, regardless of their stature, to be informed of the accusation
against them. This fundamental due process right applies to all cases, including
an Impeachment Trial. Any matter introduced in this trial, which falls outside
the scope the Verified Complaint is inadmissible for running afoul with the
provisions of Article III of the Constitution.
7. The subpoena seeks to introduce testimony and documents
regarding Platinum Cards allegedly issued to Chief Justice and Mrs. Corona,
matters which have surfaced for the very first time in this case. No connection
or relation whatever has been established between these Platinum Cards and the
acts which are alleged in the Verified Complaint.
8. Even assuming that such Platinum Cards exist, there is nothing that
logically connects the same with the FASAP Case because Chief Justice Corona
has nothing to do whatever with the said case, having inhibited therefrom since
2008. To allow the Complainants to adduce evidence on this point would clearly
be a waste of this Honorable Impeachment Coutt's time and would serve only
confound and embarrass Chief Justice Corona.
9. The Rules of Court ensure against the inttoduction of irrelevant or
immaterial evidence. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Coutt states that
"(e)vidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded I?J the law or these
rules. "
10. Any attempt to relate the information sought by the subpoenae
with the action of the Supreme Coutt in the FASAP Case is not only strained,
but inherendy unfair and illogical.
Opposition to &quest for Issuance '!! Subpoena
Page 4 ,!!6
11. The issue at hand is whether or not the Supreme Court, under the
leadership of CJ Corona, acted on the letters of Estelito Mendoza resulting in
the alleged flip-flopping decision of the Supreme Court. The presentation of the
said Platinum Card and the related documents has absolutely nothing to do with
the action of the Supreme Court in any of its decisions. Indeed, the
circumstances of the said Platinum Card bear no relevance or materiality to the
F ASAP Case, and would only tend to confuse or distract the judge from a
proper appreciation of the evidence
12. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Request is nothing but
another attempt to adduce irrelevant and immaterial evidence in these
proceedings in the continuing efforts of the Complainants to fish for evidence
and in violation of the constitutional right to due process, in a desperate
scramble to chance upon some information that may be linked to any violation
of law or ethics. Surely, this Honorable Court will not permit such a travesty.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions of law, jurisprudence
and arguments adduced, it is respectfully prayed that this Impeachment Court
DENY complainants' Request for the Issuance of Subpoenae dated 1 February
2012.
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise
prayed fOf.
Opposition to Request for Issuance uf Subpoena
Page 5 uf6
Makati for Pasay City, 1 February 2012.
Respectfully Submitted by
Counsel for C . . e Renato C. Corona.
JOSE M. ROY III
PTR No. 0038311; 1/09/12; Makati City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
DENNIS P. MANALO
PTR No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makati City
IBP No. 839371; 3 January 2011, Makati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010
HOUSE PROSECUTION PANEL
Copies furnished:
House of Representatives
Batasan Complex
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
1)t..TE
liE /I: 00 ~ ; M .
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
Opposition to Request for Issuance uf Subpoena
Page 6 uf6