In a 79-page Answer to the Senate, which is sitting as an impeachment court, Corona asked for the "outright dismissal of the verified impeachment complaint for failing to meet the requirements of the Constitution, or that the impeachment court enter a judgment of acquittal for all the Articles of Impeachment."
Political allies of President Benigno Aquino III at the House of Representatives led the impeachment of Corona in a matter of hours last December 12 for alleged graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust.
Aquino has never fully recognized the legitimacy of Corona, who was appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Chief Justice a few weeks before she stepped down from office last year, barely a week after the elections where Aquino had emerged as the clear winner.
The lower house impeached Corona on the following grounds:
Corona submitted 33 copies of his reply through his lawyer Dexter Corpus. The document was signed by his legal team composed of retired Justice Serafin Cuevas, Jose Roy III, Jacinto Jimenez, Ernesto Franciso Jr., German Lichauco II, and Dennis Manalo.
In the reply, Corona accused Aquino and his political party of instigating the complaint in order to control the high court.
"Surely, one cannot ignore the inexplicable readiness of the members of the House to instantly agree to sign the Articles of Impeachment. Without much effort, one reaches the inevitable conclusion that President Benigno Aquino III, as the head of the Liberal Party, must have been 'in' on the plan from inception. In contrast, it is unlikely that President Aquino knew nothing of the plans to impeach the Chief Justice," Corona said.
"There is little doubt about the desirability of having a friendly, even compliant, Supreme Court as an ally. Any president, Mr. Aquino included, hopes for a Supreme Court that consistently rules in his favor," according to his statement.
The document listed several instances that allegedly prove Aquino instigated the filing of impeachment charges against the chief justice. Among these are Aquino's refusal to take his oath before Corona, and the President's supposed public "attacks" against the Supreme Court after the high tribunal released its pro-farmer decision on the case of Hacienda Luisita, which is owned by the clan of Aquino.
"What we have before us, then, is a complaint born out of the bias against CJ Corona and the predisposition to destroy him by associating him with the unpopular former President Gloria Macapagal-Aroyo and by misinterpreting his concurrence to certain Supreme Court decisions as protecting former President Arroyo,” the reply said.
“What we also have are hidden forces who will be benefited by CJ Corona's ouster and who are conspiring and causing intrigue behind the scene to ensure his removal and their re-emergence into power to the detriment of the Bench, Bar and the populace. Certainly, such cannot be the backdrop, purpose, and consequence of impeachment," they said.
Midnight appointment
Regarding the controversial appointment of Corona as Chief Justice, his legal team asserted that it was not an unusual decision.
"It is not uncommon for Justices to have previously worked as professionals in close association with the President," went Corona's reply, citing former former SC Justices Jose Abad Santos, Delfin Jaranilla, Jesus Barrera, and Calixto Zalvidar.
"None of the above appointees inhibited from the cases involving the policies of the Presidents they previously worked with. Their ties with the appointing power were official. When they took their oaths, they swore to discharge faithfully the duties of their new offices," the reply added.
The legal team also explained that the Chief Justice cannot be held accountable for the outcome of every case before the Supreme Court, which acts as a collegial body.
"The chief justice has no control over any justice of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court, either by decision or en banc, is a result of deliberative process and voting among the Justices," they said.
They cited several court decisions seen to favor Mrs. Arroyo that were not penned by Corona.
Defective complaint?
Corona's legal team also raised questions regarding the verification of the complaint, which they said did not comply with constitutional requirements.
"Attention is called to the verification of the complaint which states that each of the signatories read the contents thereof. Undoubtedly, public admissions by members of the House of Representatives declared that there was no opportunity to read the complaint. They also declared that the majority of signatories signed without reading the complaint, but reputably in exchange for material considerations,” they said.
They cited Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires verification through an affidavit showing that a complainant swears by the veracity of the alleged wrongdoing.
"In this case, however, the requirement of verification is not a mere procedural rule but a constitutional requirement. In other words, failure to meet the requirement tenders the impeachment of CJ Corona unconstitutional," they said.
Trial proper
Aquino has never fully recognized the legitimacy of Corona, who was appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Chief Justice a few weeks before she stepped down from office last year, barely a week after the elections where Aquino had emerged as the clear winner.
The lower house impeached Corona on the following grounds:
- partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration;
- failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN);
- issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases;
- issuance of the “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez;
- decision in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province;
- improper creation of the SC ethics committee
- granting temporary restraining order in favor of former President Arroyo; and
- failure and refusal to account for the Judicial Development Fund (JDF) and special allowance for the judiciary collections
Corona submitted 33 copies of his reply through his lawyer Dexter Corpus. The document was signed by his legal team composed of retired Justice Serafin Cuevas, Jose Roy III, Jacinto Jimenez, Ernesto Franciso Jr., German Lichauco II, and Dennis Manalo.
It was received by lawyer Arnel Jose Banas, officer-in-charge of the Office of the Senate Secretary, at 3:25 p.m.
Biased complaint
Biased complaint
"Surely, one cannot ignore the inexplicable readiness of the members of the House to instantly agree to sign the Articles of Impeachment. Without much effort, one reaches the inevitable conclusion that President Benigno Aquino III, as the head of the Liberal Party, must have been 'in' on the plan from inception. In contrast, it is unlikely that President Aquino knew nothing of the plans to impeach the Chief Justice," Corona said.
"There is little doubt about the desirability of having a friendly, even compliant, Supreme Court as an ally. Any president, Mr. Aquino included, hopes for a Supreme Court that consistently rules in his favor," according to his statement.
The document listed several instances that allegedly prove Aquino instigated the filing of impeachment charges against the chief justice. Among these are Aquino's refusal to take his oath before Corona, and the President's supposed public "attacks" against the Supreme Court after the high tribunal released its pro-farmer decision on the case of Hacienda Luisita, which is owned by the clan of Aquino.
"What we have before us, then, is a complaint born out of the bias against CJ Corona and the predisposition to destroy him by associating him with the unpopular former President Gloria Macapagal-Aroyo and by misinterpreting his concurrence to certain Supreme Court decisions as protecting former President Arroyo,” the reply said.
“What we also have are hidden forces who will be benefited by CJ Corona's ouster and who are conspiring and causing intrigue behind the scene to ensure his removal and their re-emergence into power to the detriment of the Bench, Bar and the populace. Certainly, such cannot be the backdrop, purpose, and consequence of impeachment," they said.
Midnight appointment
Regarding the controversial appointment of Corona as Chief Justice, his legal team asserted that it was not an unusual decision.
"It is not uncommon for Justices to have previously worked as professionals in close association with the President," went Corona's reply, citing former former SC Justices Jose Abad Santos, Delfin Jaranilla, Jesus Barrera, and Calixto Zalvidar.
"None of the above appointees inhibited from the cases involving the policies of the Presidents they previously worked with. Their ties with the appointing power were official. When they took their oaths, they swore to discharge faithfully the duties of their new offices," the reply added.
The legal team also explained that the Chief Justice cannot be held accountable for the outcome of every case before the Supreme Court, which acts as a collegial body.
"The chief justice has no control over any justice of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court, either by decision or en banc, is a result of deliberative process and voting among the Justices," they said.
They cited several court decisions seen to favor Mrs. Arroyo that were not penned by Corona.
Defective complaint?
Corona's legal team also raised questions regarding the verification of the complaint, which they said did not comply with constitutional requirements.
"Attention is called to the verification of the complaint which states that each of the signatories read the contents thereof. Undoubtedly, public admissions by members of the House of Representatives declared that there was no opportunity to read the complaint. They also declared that the majority of signatories signed without reading the complaint, but reputably in exchange for material considerations,” they said.
They cited Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires verification through an affidavit showing that a complainant swears by the veracity of the alleged wrongdoing.
"In this case, however, the requirement of verification is not a mere procedural rule but a constitutional requirement. In other words, failure to meet the requirement tenders the impeachment of CJ Corona unconstitutional," they said.
Trial proper
The Senate, sitting as the impeachment court, had served the summons and given Corona a copy of the Articles of Impeachment last December 15. Under the rules of impeachment, the chief justice has 10 days to answer the charges against him. But since the 10th day fell on the 25th, Christmas Day and a Sunday, Corona was given until the 26th to submit his reply.
On Monday, impeachment court spokeswoman Valentina Cruz said that once they receive Corona's reply, they will forward it to the prosecution team at the House of Representatives, which will then be given five days to respond.
Since the fifth day will fall on January 1, New Year's Day and also a holiday, however, the impeachment court will give the lower house until January 2 to submit a reply.
Since the fifth day will fall on January 1, New Year's Day and also a holiday, however, the impeachment court will give the lower house until January 2 to submit a reply.
A day after, the House transmitted the Articles of impeachment to the Senate on December 14, the Senate convened as an impeachment court. It will resume session on January 16, 2012 but the trial proper is expected to begin at a later date. — RSJ/YA, GMA News
No comments:
Post a Comment