, .:.: sEAlAifE;:: ,\'.' of fr.:' SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT '12 FEB -6 Pl2 :16 IN THE MATTER IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C. CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME PHILIPPINES, COURT OF THE REPRESENTATIVES NIEl C. TUPAS, JR. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, LORENZO R. TANADA III, REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et. al., Complainants. Case No. 002 - 2011 x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x REPLY (To: OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAE DATED 1 FEBRUARY 2012 TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES [PAL] OFFICERS) The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS, respectfully states: 1. In his Opposition dated 02 February 2012, respondent Renato C. Corona alleges that the requested subpoenae will violate his constitutional right to due process because Article III of the Verified Impeachment Complaint does not mention a "PAL Platinum Card in the name of CJ Corona or his wife, and their patronage of Philippine Airline (sic), any 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." He further alleges that said Platinum Card and the related documents are irrelevant and immaterial because it is not connected with the action ofthe Supreme Court in any of its decisions. 2. Contrary to respondent's frenetic objection, the PAL tickets and related documents have everything to do with Article III. 3. Article III of the Impeachment Complaint charges respondent Corona of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betraying the public trust by failing to meet the constitutional standards of competence, integrity, probity and independence, thus:, 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 "[Al MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LEITERS 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. 4. The Impeachment Complaint alleges that respondent failed to meet these constitutional standards by (inter alia) allowing the Supreme Court to act on the ex parte letters of the counsel for Philippine Airlines (PAL) which caused the flip-flopping in final and executory cases. Respondent asserted that he has inhibited from the FASAP Case, but the prosecution will prove that despite such inhibition, respondent actually participated in the proceedings of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (FASAP Case), and the issuance of the 04 October 2011 Resolution therein. The 2 said Resolution caused the recall of an otherwise final decision in the case on the basis of the ex parte letters of PAL's counsel. 5. With the PAL tickets, PAL platinum card, and other related documents sought to be subpoenaed, it will be shown that respondent availed of benefits from PAL for himself and his family. This will establish the questionable motive behind respondent's participation (despite previous inhibitions) in the 04 October 2011 Resolution which acted on the ex parte communication of PAL's counsel. This peculiar deviation from the established rules of procedure, under the prevailing circumstances, goes into the very core of respondent's competence, integrity, probity, and independence. 6. In other words, it will be shown that despite his previous inhibitions in the FASAP case, respondent Corona actually participated therein and directed the recall of the FASAP Decision. Why did he interfere and take part in the recall of the Decision? Because he was impelled by motives other than impartial dispensation of justice. During the pendency of the case, respondent accepted free tickets from Philippine Airlines, Inc., among others. This is where the evidence sought to be procured becomes relevant and material. 7. With the documents sought to be subpoenaed, it will be shown that respondent Corona's participation in the FASAP case was not a harmless or innocent act. Rather, it was motivated by material gain and advantage. In short, it was a culpable act. 8. Evidence is relevant when it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Relevancy of evidence deals with the rational relationship between evidence and the fact to be proved. On the other hand, evidence is material if it is the "main fact which 3 is the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact." (Acuna vs. Pascua, G.R. No. 144692, January 31, 2005). Materiality has to do with the relationship between the evidence and the issues raised at tria I. 9. In this case, the facts to be proved are Respondent Corona's culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, particularly on the Constitutional standards of competence, integrity, probity and independence of respondent. The documents sought to be subpoenaed from PAL are evidence to establish the prosecution's claim that respondent Corona lacks the requisite competence, integrity, probity, and independence. Accordingly, these documents are relevant, material, and pertinent to prove Article III. 10. Applicable to this case is the impeachment of Judge Robert w. Archbald of the Commerce Court in 1913 in the United States. Judge Archbald was removed for serious acts of misconduct stretching over many years, including using his office to obtain advantageous business deals and free trips to Europe 1 and improper business relationship with litigants. 2 1 Impeachment, United States Senate, Available at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/historv(common/briefiog/SenatelmpeachmentRole.htm (last accessed 03 February 2012) 2 Impeachment of Federeal Judges. United States Federal Judicial Center. Available at http:Uwww.fic.gov/history/home.nsf/page/iudgesimpeachments.html(last accessed 03 February 2012) 4 PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, the House of Representatives prays that this Honorable Court ISSUE the subpoena requested on 01 February 2012. Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for. Pasay City, Metro Manila, 02 February 2012. Copy Furnished: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Republic of the Philippines By: HOUSE OF REPRESE TATIVES PROSECUT RS Justice Serafin R. Cuevas (Ret.) et al. Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona Suite 1902 Security Bank Centre 6776 Ayala Avenue Makati City, Philippines 1226 5