Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Senate SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE Case No. 002-2011 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. MOTION TO DISMISS Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (“CJ Corona”), by counsels, and as a measure of extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waiving my right to file the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality of these proceedings, respectfully states:1. On2 March 2012, CJ Corona received a copy of the prosecution’s “Notice/Manifestation” dated 29 February 2012 which states that: 3. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any misunderstanding, it is reiterated that the intention of the Prosecutors in relation to this matter was to inform this Court that they are waiving the presentation of further evidence on the remaining Articles, which is their sole right and prerogative. The Prosecution never intended to amend, and they are not hereby amending, the Articles of Impeachment. 4, When the undersigned Lead Prosecutor said that the Prosecutors are “dropping” or “withdrawing” Articles I, IV, V, VI, and VIII, he used the said terms to mean that they are no longer presenting evidence on said Articles, and accordingly, the Honorable Impeachment Court need not consider or vote upon the said Articles, ‘These terms were never intended to mean an amendment of the said Articles of Impeachment. 2. The prosecution therefore clearly states that (a) it is waiving its right to present evidence in support of Articles I, IV, V, VI, and VII and (b) this Honorable Court need not consider or vote on said Articles. 3. The record of this case shows that CJ] Corona had already filed his Answer to the Verified Complaint for Impeachment (the “Impeachment Complaint”), and the prosecution even filed a Reply dated 2 January 2012 thereto. Hence, the issues in this case are considered joined, and the issues to be decided by this Honorable Court have already been laid down. As held by the Supreme Court in Rosete, et al. v. Lim. Petitioners’ argument that the issues of the case have not yet been joined must necessarily fail in light of our ruling that petitioners have ‘GR. No, 136051, 8 June 2006. Page 2 of 8filed their answers although the same were made er abudanti cautela. Issues are joined when all the parties have pleaded their respective theories and the terms of the dispute are plain before the court. In the present case, the issues have, indeed, been joined when petitioners, as well as the other defendants, filed their answers. The respective claims and defenses of the parties have been defined and the issues to be decided by the trial court have been laid down. 4, In fact, CJ Corona entered a plea of not guilty on all eight (8) Articles of Impeachment, to wit: Retired Justice Cuevas also placed on record that Chief Justice Corona was entering a NOT GUILTY plea to all the charges embodied in the Complaint for Impeachment. (Journal No. 2, 16 January 2012, page 3). 5. This Honorable Court and CJ Corona cannot disregard Articles I, IV, V, VI and VIII just because of the prosecution’s non-presentation of evidence thereon. Neither can these Articles be considered unwritten. Due to the joinder of issues, and as long as these affected Articles are allowed to stay on the record, this Honorable Court may render judgment thereon. 6. Hence, considering that the prosecution insists that Articles I, IV, V, Vi and VIII should not be considered withdrawn, and the fact that it has not presented any evidence in support thereof, CJ Corona respectfully posits that he should be acquitted of the charges therein, or that these Articles be dismissed with prejudice for the prosecution’s failure to prosecute, in accordance with Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. ~ If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his Page 3 of 8