Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

FE'g. 1 W(2..
'12 JAN 32 'A8 :48
Senate
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,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.
Case No. 002-2011
x--------------... ----------... --------- ... ----------.. ----------------------------.. --... -x
oPPosrrION TO THE REQUEST
FOR ISSUANCE OFSUBPOENAE
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by counsel, and as a measure of
extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waiving
his tight to ftie the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality of
these proceedings, respectfully stiltes:
OppoJitirm to Requef! jor ISS/lance 0/' 5ttbpoena
Page 1 0/'5
1. In aRequest for Issuance of Subpoenae ]anum-y 2012, the House
of Representativesseeks the issuance of subpoenaead testificandum and subpoenae duces
tecumto requirethe Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (''BPI''), Ayala
Avenue Branch, to testify andbring documents in relation to Bank Account No. 1443-
8030-61, purportedly owned by C] Corona and! or hiis wife, Cristina Corona,
andreferred to in Exhibits VVV and VVV-l (the ''Bank Account").
2. At the outset, it bears stressing that the requested documents pet1:aining
to said Bank Account does not correspond, or have any relation at all, to Exhibits
VVV and VVV-l, which indicate a different account number from that stated in the
subject Request. Surely, the solicited Bank Account is neither relevant nor material in
this case because nothing presented before the Honorable Impeachment Court would
even suggest that the checks were drawn upon the alleged Bank Account.
3. It is therefore obvious that the testimony of the person named in the
Request and the documents identified therein are dearly intended by the prosec.ution
to prove paragraph 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint, which states:
2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of havmg accumulated
ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping hank accounts with
huge deposits. It has beenreported that Respondent has, others, a 300-sq.
meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in Taguig.
Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the
Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)? Is
this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since
his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied with
his duty of public disclosure? (Emphasis supplied)
4. However, this Honorable Court already ruled that the above paragraph
2.4 does not contain statements of ultimate fact and must be deemed excluded from
the Impeachment Trial. This Honorable Court categorically disallowed the
Oppositlol/ to Reque.l't jorIsS1lance if Subpoena
Page 2 if5
prosecution from introducing any evidence relating to said paragraph 2.4. On this
score alone, the subject Request must perforce be denied for being irrelevant,
immaterial, and disallowed by this Honorable Court.
5. As have been always be emphasized by CJ. Corona, Article II of the
Impeachment Complaint, merely charges CJ Corona with the following:
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLA.TION
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE
PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,
LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER
SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
6. Under Article II of the Grounds for lmpeachment, CJ Corona is being
accused of a single culpable act - his alleged f ~ l j l u r e to disclose to the public his
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), nothing more. Article II does
not charge him with accumulating ill-gotten wealth andlor graft and corruption.
7. In this regard, CJ Corona njterates that paragraph 2.4 is merely based on
"reports" and "suspicion", contrary to the joint verificat1.on of the Complainants that
the "the allegations therein (the Complaint) are true of our own knowledge." The
"reports" and "suspicions" are also contrary to the requirements of the Rules of
Court, which have suppletory application, that allegations 11:1 the Complaint must he of
"ultimate facts." (Sec. 3, Raj e 3).
8. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that paragraph 2.4 of the
Impeachme11t Complaint relating to respo11dent's supposed "ill-gotten wealth, assets
Opposition to Request flrlssuance if Subpoena
Page 3 if5
of high values and bank accounts with huge deposits" was forrectly deemed unw11tten
by this Honorable Court in the impeachment complaint.
9. Conside11ng that paragraph 2.4 1S deemed unwntten, any evidence
relating thereto is inadmissible and irrelevant.
10. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court 'states that 66(e)vidence is
admissible when it is relev;mt to the i'Jsue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules. "
11. In this case, the testimony of the BPI Manager identified in the
Requeston the pUiported bank account of C] Cmol1a andlor his wife, as well as the
presentation thereof,are clearly irrelevant and immaterial to the issLle of whether or
not CJ Corona failed to his disclose his SALN to the public. The presentation of the
requested bank documents and testimony of the matters 'subject of the Request are
therefore improper.
12. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Request is nothing more but a
brazen attempt to introduce irrelevant and immaterial evidlence i11 these proceedings,
in violation of CJ Corona's right to due process.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions of law, Jurisprudence and
,
arguments adduced, it is respectfully prayed that this Impeadl1nent Court DENY
complainants' Request for the Issuance of Subpoenae d a t e ~ 31 January 2012.
Oppositioll to Request for lSSIIance oj Subpoena
. Page 4 oJ5
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the are likewise prayed for.
Makati for Pasay City, 31 Januaty 2012.
Respectfully Submitted by
Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

]OSEM.ROYHI
PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
DENNIS P. MANALO
PTRNo. 2666920; 5 Januaty 2011, Makati City
IBP No. 839371; 3 January 2011, Ma1<ati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 Apri11996
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 AHri12010
Copies furnished:
House of Representatives rlli\ ;J
Batasan Complex UV'
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the l>hilippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
OppOJitio71 to Eequestfor IJsiiaJlce ofSub-poelta
. Page 5 of5