I

1,<

"'f 'I f '
Hie 0
i
3Kepublic of tbe 13bilippine% i
of tbe A 9 :56
$enate '
",'" .. , "I' <'v ":\ _(' k..l' : ___ _
,
,
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.
Case'iNo. 002-2011
i
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL
C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. T MADA III,
I
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
'I i
AI:U.ENE J. BAG-AO, et al. I
Je---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\{
!
!
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
I
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by cOl{nsel, and as a measure of
i
extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waiving
I
his right to file the appropriate legal remedy to question, am<bng others, the legality of
1
!
these proceedings, respectfully states: !
I
1. This Honorable Court' s Subpoena Duces Tecum Testificandum dated 17
Januaty 2012 to Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares ("Cotpmissioner Henares") of
!
,
i
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (the "Subpoena') directed h<:;r to bring and testify on
,
Motion to Quash Subpoena
Page 1 of6
the Annual Income Tax Returns, Certificates of In<,:ome Tax Withheld on
!
Compensation, Certificates of Income Payments not Subilcted to Withholding Tax,
and Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source of cj Corona, Mrs. Cristina R.
Corona, Maria Carla R. Corona-Castillo, Constantino Ti, Castillo III, Francis R.
I
Corona and Maria Charina R. Corona, before this Court.
2.
i
Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that "(e)vidence is
!
!
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not lexc1uded by the law or
these rules." I
I
I
3. As the record of this case shows, CJ has raised a continuing
objection to Complainants' presentation of evidence on bid supposed acquisition of
I
i
wealth, and alleged acts of graft and corruption, on the grotlnd that such charges are
,
beyond the scope of Article 11 of the Impeachment Complajnt. Furthermore, it is CJ
I
Corona's position that the continuous presentation of such and immaterial
i
evidence, which are not even based on ultimate facts, wouldl violate his constitutional
i
right to due process and to be properly inforined of the charges against him.
i
II
t
,
4. A thorough examination of the Subpoena that it also directs
I
Commissioner Henares to bring the Income Tax RetLlrJs (ITRs) and other tax
I,
certificates of the children and son-in-law of C] Corona, whp are not even named in
the Verified Complaint.
,
5. The presentation of the ITRs and tax of the Corona children
should not be allowed for being without basis, irrelevant :and immaterial to these
Motion to Quash Subpoena
Page 2 of6
proceedings. Article II of the Complaint, as written by c01h
p
lainants, merely charges
CJ Corona with the following:
!
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLIj: VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYElJ,) THE PUBLIC
TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO tHE PUBLIC HIS
STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS
REQUIRED. UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.
6. It cannot be denied that C] Corona is accused only of his
i
I
alleged failure to disclose to the public his Statement df Assets, Liabilities and
. I
,
Net Worth (SALN), no more, no less.
,
i
I
7. The testimony of Commissioner Henares I on the TTRs and tax
I
certificates of the Corona children, as well as the presenta#on thereof, are therefore
irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether or notl CJ Corona failed to his
1
,
disclose his SALN to the public.
8. Furthermore, it should also be stressed that te properties and income
,
,
of the other individuals have 110 bearing whatsoever to CJ Corona's SALN. Section 8
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, otherwise known as of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees" categorically
I
!
Statements and Dhdo.wre. - Public officials and! employees have an
obligation to accomplish and submit declarations oath of, and the
public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net! worth and financial
and business interests including those of their spouses i and of unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age living in thefr households.
,
1 Emphasis supplied.
MotiON to Quash Subpoena
Page3 016
, .
,
9. Complainants have not shown whether CJ children, as listed in
I
I
the Subpoena, are either unmarried, under eighteen (18) yeafs old, or still living in CJ
I
Corona's household. Neither has there been evidence to shbw that CJ Corona should
I
I
have enumerated the properties of his children in his SALN, as RA. No. 6713 clearly
I
provides that he does not.
10. Rule 128, Secdon 4 of the Rules of Court
I
Relevancy; matters. - Evidence must rtave such a relation
to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish the probability or impobability of the fact
!
missue.
11. Evidence is relevant if it establishes directly c;r indirectly the existence
or non-existence of the facts in issue.
2
Evidence is relevant iwhen it relates directly to
a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or 3 Relevancy or
I
materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it J determined simply by
!
ascertaining its logical connecdon to a fact in issue in thd case
4
The ITRs of the
I
Respondent's immediate reladves are INADMISSIBLE lAS EVIDENCE. It is
I
I
ele1TIentary in the Rules on Evidence that the rights of a partt cannot be prejudiced by
I
I
an act, declaration, or omission of another.s The reason for mle is that:
i
... on a principle of good faith and mutual conve\Jience, a man's own
acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence agai1ist him. So are his
conduct and declarations. Y ct it would not only be rightjY inconvenient, but
I
i
2 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vo/' V Revised Rules on Evidence, 1999 Edition, p. 23.
I
3 Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010. i
4 Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005, July 1<1, 2006. I
5 This is expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: I
SEC. 28. Admission by third party. - The rights of a party cannot be prejupiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. I
MotiOli to Quash Subpoena
Page 4 of6
I
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the ac1s of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be lbound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as against him.
6
I
i
12. From the foregoing, it is clear that the presentation of the ITRs and tax
I
,
certificates of the Corona children, and Commissioner testimony thereon
i
!
should not be allowed. Hence, this Honorable Court's J,ubpoena d;lted 17 January
2012 should be quashed.
PRAYER
I
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Chief Jrstice Renato C. Corona
respectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment Court I quash the Subpoena Duces
Tecum Ad Testifacndum addressed to BIR Commissioner I<:im IT acinto Henares, or in the
alternative, issue an Order prohibiting her from testifying a4d presenting evidence on
,
the Annual Income Tax Returns, Certificates of Inc'pme Tax Withheld on
!
Compensation, Certificates of Income Payments not SUbjerted to Withholding Tax,
and Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source ofl Maria Carla R. Corona-
Castillo, Constantino T. Castillo III, Francis R. Corona and f'1aria Charina R. Corona,
for being without basis, irrelevant and immaterial to II of the Impeachment
I
Complaint. i
i
"
I
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstanceL are likewise prayed for.
I
Makati for Pasay City, 24 January 2012.
Respectfully Submitted by!,
Counsel for ChiefJustice Renato C.
i
6 Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, citing People v.iVda. De l\amos, 451 Phil. 214,
224225 (2003). I
I
Molicn to Quash Subpoena
. Page 5 0/6
Copies furnished:

]OSEM. OYm I
PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati (J:ity
,
IBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifcpme)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
DEN S . MANALO I
PTR No. 31745833; 2J uary 2012, Makft1 City
IBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makatl City
No. 40950, 12 April 1996 I .
MCLE Compltance No. III-0009471, 26 April 201 0
I
I

crfu.MAN Q. LIeHAUCO II I
PTR No. 3175829; 2 January 2012, City
IBP No. 870166; 2 January 2012, Makati City
Roll No. 38552, 13 May 1993 I
MCLE Compliance No.III-0016294, 11 2010
r HOUSE PANEL
I
House of Representatives
Batasan Complex
RECEIVED

BY
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
\.. DATE TIt./tE q ; 2--s,' :.J
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
Motiotl to Quash Subpoena
Page 6 0/6