Renato Corona, the 23rd 

chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, was impeached on

December 12, 2011. Corona was the third official, after former President Joseph Estrada in 2000
and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in March 2011, to be impeached by the House of
Representatives.
The Senate, convened as an impeachment court, began the trial on January 16, 2012. This was the
second impeachment trial in the history of the Philippines, as Gutierrez had resigned prior to the
start of her trial. On May 29, 2012, Corona was found guilty of article two of the articles of
impeachment filed against him pertaining to his failure to disclose to the public his statement of
assets, liabilities and net worth.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno was to retire on May 17, 2010, seven days after the presidential
election. However, the constitution prohibits President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from appointing
anyone two months before the presidential election up to the end of her term. This caused a suit to
be brought to the Supreme Court, in which the high tribunal ruled on March 17, 2010, that the ban on
appointments does not cover the judiciary. The court ruled on the case with finality on April 20, 2010,
with nine justices concurring, one dissenting and two dismissing the petition for being premature.
Chief Justice Puno and Associate Justices Corona and Antonio Carpio abstained from ruling on the
case. The court then ordered the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to proceed with its nomination
process and subsequently submit its shortlist of nominees for the Chief Justice to Arroyo.
Corona was appointed chief justice on May 12, 2010. He was the "most senior" Supreme Court
justice among the four nominees of the JBC
With Benigno Aquino III winning the election, he invited all heads of the three branches of
government to his inauguration, although instead of the tradition of him being inaugurated by the
chief justice, he instead chose to be sworn in by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the
sole dissenter on the case.

Conflict between Aquino and Corona

On December 6, 2011, at the National Criminal Justice Summit at the Manila Hotel, Aquino said in a
speech that Corona, who was seated meters away from him, is beholden to Arroyo. Aquino
questioned the court's granting of a temporary restraining order lifting the watch list order of
the Department of Justice against Arroyo, Arroyo's midnight appointment of Corona, and the ruling
of Camarines Sur's two new legislative districts as constitutional despite falling short of the required
population set by the Constitution.

Impeachment[edit]
On the December 12, 2011 flag-raising ceremony at the Supreme Court, Corona revealed that there
was "a secret plan to oust me from office by any means, fair or foul." Corona said that he would not
resign.
Later in the day, a caucus amongst Aquino's allies in the House of Representative was called.
Minority leader Edcel Lagman said that discussion amongst Aquino's allies heightened when the
Committee on Justice passed an impeachment case involving Associate Justice Mariano del
Castillo on his alleged plagiarism. Lagman further said that if the vote passed, he would question its
"legal and factual basis." The deputy presidential spokesperson, on the other hand, stated that the
Palace "is not privy to the discussions of the Liberal Party in the House."
At the conclusion of the majority bloc's caucus, Committee on Justice chairman Niel Tupas,
Jr. presented the impeachment complaint; after the presentation, only two representatives asked for
more questions, while an overwhelming majority asked to sign the complaint. He said that there
were no instructions from the Palace to impeach Corona, nor was the pork barrel of representatives
who did not sign would be held back, but he said that he informed the president of their decision to
impeach Corona, and that the president supported it. The House of Representatives then voted in
session to endorse the complaint, getting 188 votes, well above the one-third (95) of the members
required by the Constitution.
Navotas representative Toby Tiangco resigned from the majority bloc, and the chairmanship of the
Committee on Metro Manila Development, after the impeachment was passed by the House of
Representatives. Tiangco said that the complaint was approved without the members of Congress
scrutinizing it. Batangas 2nd District representative Hermilando Mandanas, who did not sign the
complaint, was relieved of the chairmanship of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mandanas
quoted Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. on saying that the Aquino administration wanted his
removal. The majority bloc was not surprised with Tiangco's resignation from the majority, with
Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II describing Tiangco as a "maverick" and has "more than many
times identified himself with the minority."

Articles of Impeachment[edit]
These are the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona: [14]

# Case Violation

Partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the
Betrayal of public
1 time he was appointed as associate justice to the time of his 'midnight
trust
appointment' as chief justice.

Betrayal of public
Failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as trust and/or
2
required under the Constitution. culpable violation of
the constitution

Failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under the constitution that
provides that "[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven
Betrayal of public
competence, integrity, probity, and independence" in allowing the Supreme Court
trust and/or
3 to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping
culpable violation of
decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with
the constitution
Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with
litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Betrayal of public
Blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo
trust and/or
4 ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning
culpable violation of
the impeachment of then-Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.
the constitution
 Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res
Betrayal of public
5 judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion
trust
of Dinagat Island (sic) into a province.

Arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and

jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the Supreme Court for the Betrayal of public
6
purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by trust
the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

Partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former

president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order
to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of Betrayal of public
7
justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO trust
in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court's own
TRO.

Culpable violation of
Failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special the constitution
8
Allowance for the Judiciary collections. and/or graft and
corruption

^* The Prosecution withdrew Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 on February 29, 2012. The Senate
continued to deliberate on Articles 2, 3 and 7.

Impeachment trial[edit]
The Senate received the articles of impeachment on December 13. Tupas and Reynaldo Umali
delivered the articles of impeachment, with Tupas saying that the process was not railroaded. [15]
Employees of the judiciary staged a court holiday on December 13 in support of Corona; this
meant many courts were closed.[16] In a speech delivered in front of Supreme Court employees,
Corona branded Aquino as building a dictatorship, stated that he will not quit, and that his
conviction will result in Aquino controlling all three branches of government. [17] The Executive
replied via Executive Secretary Edwin Lacierda that it not out to control all branches of
government but wanted an independent Supreme Court, told Corona to go on a leave on
absence, and that the impeachment is "not an attack on the judiciary. This is a case of
accountability against Chief Justice Corona." [18]

Legal teams[edit]
Prosecution[edit]
The prosecution team includes the members of the House of Representatives, who are all
members of the majority bloc, with several private prosecutors. Niel Tupas, Jr. is the chief of the
prosecution team.[19]

Name Party District Article

 (Primary/secondary)

Raul Daza Liberal Northern Samar–1st 1st/2nd

Niel Tupas, Jr. Liberal Iloilo–5th None/2nd

Bayan
Neri Colmenares Party-list 7th/1st
Muna

Marilyn Primicias-
NPC Pangasinan–6th 2nd/5th
Agabas

Elpidio Barzaga NUP Dasmariñas 5th/2nd

Giorgidi Aggabao NPC Isabela–4th 3rd/8th

Kaka Bag-ao Akbayan Party-list 4th/3rd

Oriental Mindoro–
Reynaldo Umali Liberal 8th/4th
2nd

Rodolfo Fariñas Nacionalista Ilocos Norte–1st 6th/None

Sherwin Tugna CIBAC Party-list None/3rd, 6th

The prosecutors from the House of Representatives enlisted the help of private practitioners to
assist them; this was opposed by the defense, saying that only the prosecutors from the House
of Representatives are the "sole prosecutors". The Senate allowed the existence of the private
prosecutors citing "matter of rule and precedence". The private prosecutors who are allowed to
assist the public prosecutors in impeachment proceedings are: [20]

 Mario Bautista
 Arthur Lim
 Demetrio Custodio
 Jose Benjamin Panganiban
 Clarence Jandoc
 Ernesto Viovicente
 Frederick Vallestero
 Winston Ginez
The prosecution also named representatives Miro Quimbo, Lorenzo Tañada III and Juan
Edgardo Angara as their spokespersons.
Defense[edit]
Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez described Corona's defense team as a
"powerhouse legal team".[21]

1. Serafin R. Cuevas, former Supreme Court associate justice, trustee of New Era
University
2. Jacinto Jimenez, professor at the Ateneo Law School
3. Jose Roy III, former dean and president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
4. Eduardo de los Angeles, former dean of the Ateneo Law School
5. German Lichauco II, partner of the Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Ongsiako law firm
6. Dennis Manalo, partner of the Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Ongsiako law firm
7. Ramon Esguerra, general counsel of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
8. Tranquil G.S. Salvador III, former dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Pasay
9. Karen Jimeno, formerly of the Quisumbing, Torres, Evangelista firm
Ernesto "Jun" Francisco, Jr. quit the defense team for he feared that his previous dealings with
Senator Manny Villar will be a reason to question his loyalty to the defense's cause.[22]

Opening day[edit]
The Senate convened as the impeachment court for the first time on December 14. The
senators took their oaths before Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; Enrile was sworn in
by Antonio Trillanes, the youngest senator.[23]

Holiday recess[edit]
The next day, the impeachment court served summons to Corona, who was received by the
Supreme Court.[24] Four days later, Vicente Millora, a former president of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), filed a petition at the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the
pending trial, asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and to declare the articles of
impeachment null and void. Millora contended that the impeachment case did not go through
constitutional means as it was passed with "undue haste, railroaded, fast-tracked, and signed
but not sworn to by the 188 respondent lawmakers." [25] The prosecutors responded by asking the
Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. [26] Additional petitions questioning the constitutionality of
the impeachment were filed by Vladimir Cabigao, Danilo Lihaylihay, Oliver Lozano, and Allan
Paguia and Homobono Adaza.[27]
The Senate received Corona's answer on December 26 which asked for the Senate to dismiss
the case for "failing to meet the requirements of the Constitution." [28] Antonio Carpio, one of the
possible replacements for Corona if he is successfully removed, reportedly was assigned the
case concerning the constitutionality of the impeachment, with Corona expected to recuse
himself from the discussion.[29]
In a press conference, the prosecution team revealed that Corona owns a high-end penthouse
condominium unit in Bellagio, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig worth ₱14.51 million in 2009. Tupas asked
if this condominium unit is included in Corona's state of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN),
saying that Corona's SALN has been made unavailable to the public. [30] The senators scolded the
prosecutors, saying that they are not allowed to discuss the merits of the case so as not to
preempt the impeachment trial. This came as an anonymous source disclosed that Corona
owned another condominium unit in nearby Bonifacio Ridge worth between ₱5 to 8 million, and
a house and lot in Quezon City.[31] The prosecutors agreed to stop issuing statements to the
media until the trial's start.[32]
Corona asked the impeachment court for a preliminary hearing; this was the first motion the
impeachment court would hear. [33] Meanwhile, the prosecution asked the Senate to subpoena
documents on 45 properties allegedly belonging to Corona. Aside from the documents, the
prosecution also asked for the appearances of Corona, his wife and children. Quimbo said that
"At least 40 of these properties were not declared in Chief Justice Corona's 2002 SALN, the last
year when he made such (a) declaration." [34] Corona replied that he owned five pieces of real
estate properties, and all appeared on his SALN. [35]
On the other hand, the defense wanted to summon Tupas, Belmonte, Jesus Crispin Remulla,
Mandanas, Tiangco and Secretary-General Marilyn Barua-Yap. Ponce Enrile consulted the
other senators, asking if they were allowed to summon people connected to the House of
Representatives due to "inter-parliamentary courtesy."[36]

January[edit]
January 16[edit]
On the morning of January 16, the first day the Senate was set to receive the prosecution and
defense teams, Corona stated in a speech that "there is no turning back" on the impeachment
trial. Corona stated that he did nothing wrong to the president or to the people, that he did not
steal from anyone, and that the 45 properties included double entries, properties belonging to
his wife and in-laws, and denied the accusation that the World Bank loan was not his
responsibility. Corona added that there are people acting in a conspiracy to remove him from
office: those who want to prevent the distribution of Hacienda Luisita, a hacienda owned by the
family of President Aquino, to its farmer-beneficiaries, a vice presidential candidate who lost
the 2010 vice presidential election, and an associate justice who wants to succeed him as chief
justice.[37]
The trial started at 2:10 p.m, with Senate President Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, calling
the Senate to order. Two senators, Miriam Defensor Santiago and Loren Legarda, were absent
on the first day. Niel Tupas led the public prosecutors in presenting themselves, followed by the
private prosecutors, who stated that they are under the complete control of the public
prosecutors. Corona's defense also presented themselves, with defense chief Serafin Cuevas
presenting Corona at the gallery, and entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant. [38]
Majority floor leader Tito Sotto moved to tackle the defense's motion for a preliminary hearing.
The defense argued that impeachment complaint was "fatally defective" as there was a defect in
the verification of the 188 signatures. The presiding officer prohibited Tupas' request allowing
private prosecutor Mario Bautista to argue in behalf of the prosecution. Tupas instead was the
one who argued for the prosecution, saying that the impeachment complaint was passed
according to the rules of the House of Representatives. [38]
Sotto then moved to tackle a motion filed by private lawyer Fernando Perito to cite the
prosecution for indirect contempt on their press conference stating that Corona had ill-gotten
wealth. The presiding officer also dismissed the request, stating that Perido is not a party to the
case. The president officer then requested all parties to refrain from issuing statements relating
to the case outside of the impeachment court.[38]
January 17[edit]
The Senate threw out a motion to subpoena Chief Justice Corona, his wife and family by a vote
of 14–6. Initially, the request was decided upon Senate president Ponce Enrile as presiding
officer but was contested by Senate minority leader Alan Peter Cayetano citing that there was a
need to compel them to testify over allegations that the properties were placed under the names
to ill-gotten wealth. Enrile, however said that such a request will forfeit the right of self-
incrimination and giving evidence by under duress. Meanwhile, the motion of the defense to
deny the appearance of private prosecutors of the prosecution was denied, thereby the
prosecution's privilege to retain the use of private prosecutors. [39]
However, the Senate approved subpoenas to the clerk of the Supreme Court Enriqueta
Esguerra-Vidal and the register of deeds and land assessors in the cities
of Makati, Marikina, Pasay, Parañaque, Quezon City and Taguig, where the alleged properties
of Corona are found. The Senate compelled that documents such as the statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth, land titles and of the such, be presented to the impeachment court. [40]
The trial was postponed early due to the prosecution's lack of preparation in presenting
witnesses to testify the authenticity of documents presented. Cavite Representative Elpidio
Barzaga was to present evidences on the second article. Counsel Serafin Cuevas said that no
notice was given to the defense panel to prepare on the second article as the panel was
prepared on the manner of the complaint filed. [41]
On the same day, the Supreme Court unanimously deferred its decision on whether to issue a
temporary restraining order (TRO) or not to stop the impeachment trial. Five petitions, headed
by former Misamis Oriental governor Homobono Adaza were consolidated by the court and
required the Senate to comment on the petitions within ten days. Supreme Court spokesperson
Jose Midas Marquez said that the court could issue an order at any time and or call for oral
arguments. He furthers on that the matter is with the Senate and says the process is ongoing.
The petitions were filed due to the alleged railroading of the impeachment complaint against
Corona.[42]
January 18[edit]
Supreme Court clerk of court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, turned over copies of the statements of
assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of Chief Justice Corona from the years 2002 to 2010 to
the Senate. This was after the constant compelling of senator-judges and the prosecutors.
Esguerra-Vidal insisted that she be given permission to release the said documents citing a
Supreme Court ruling dated on May 2, 1989; that prohibits "deceptive requests for information"
with regard to the release of SALNs of the judiciary. Senate President Ponce Enrile told that she
had to comply with the said subpoena and give the said documents to the Senate. Supreme
Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez would later say that the clerk was not in any legal
hurdle as Corona authorized the release of the documents. [43]
Meanwhile, Marianito Dimaandal, head director of the Malacañang Records Office testified and
said that SALNs of Chief Justice Corona from 1992 to 2010 exist. As custodian, Dimanadal
stated that the SALNs are certified true copies and had attested to their authenticity. Yet, he
later said that he was position on the veracity of the contents of the documents. [44]
Defense counsel Cuevas asked the Senate to remove the second article of the complaint.
Cuevas said that "The fact alone that there is SALN is proof enough that he has filed and
complied with the rules and regulation on the matter, that resolves the problem." Senate
president Ponce Enrile clarified that such release of the SALNs is response to the subpoena
given to the clerk and doesn't overrule the said article. [43]
The following are the SALNS filed by Chief Justice Corona from 2002 to 2010 with assets
declared during those years:[45][46]

Year of SALN Date of filing Assets declared (in terms

 of PHP)

2002 March 10, 2003 ₱14.96 million

2003 April 12, 2004 ₱7.359 million

2004 April 25, 2005 ₱7.359 million

2005 April 20, 2006 ₱8.359 million

2006 September 23, 2007 ₱9.559 million

2007 April 11, 2008 ₱11.059 million

2008 April 28, 2009 ₱12.559 million

2009 April 11, 2010 ₱14.559 million

2010 April 29, 2011 ₱22.938 million

January 19[edit]
The prosecution presented Taguig–Pateros Register of Deeds Randy Rutaquio. Rutaquio
presented the certificate of title of condominium units at the Bellagio worth ₱14.6 million under
the names of Renato and Cristina Corona, and a deed of sale on a Megaworld property sold by
the Corona couple to their daughter Ma. Charina. Under cross-examination, Rutaquio said that
he was not present when the certificate of title and deed of sale were processed, although these
would've gone through him as he passed through the registration of sales. [47]
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano asked the prosecution that if Article II was on Corona's non-
disclosure of his SALN, and they did not possess Corona's SALN when they submitted the
complaint, how were they able to come up with the complaint; prosecutor Elpidio Barzaga said
the charges were "based on reports". Senator Francis Escudero asked prosecutor Niel Tupas,
Jr. who wrote the complaints; Tupas answered that it was a collaboration. Escudero said that he
was confused since each article must correspond to a singular act, and asked that both
prosecution and defense submit a legal memorandum on the matter.
The impeachment court excused Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner Kim Henares
as she was not able to bring Corona's tax documents. The prosecution then presented Quezon
City acting register of deeds Carlo Alcantara. Alcantata testified that Corona sold his Burgundy
property to his daughter Carla Corona-Castillo. Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas told the court
that he would cross-examine Alcantara on the next trial day as he would study Alcantara's
submitted documents. The prosecution then presented Marikina Register of Deeds Sedfrey
Garcia but he was told to return on the next trial day.[47]
January 24[edit]
While the defense submitted its memorandum regarding Article II, the prosecution failed to
submit theirs before the trial began; Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile ordered the prosecution
to pass it before the trial starts on the next day. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who has
been absent at the trial up to this point, asked both the prosecution and the defense how many
witness will they present for the entire trial. When Tupas could not give an answer, Santiago
scolded the prosecution, saying that they should "not waste the time of this court." Cuevas
stated that they have 15 witnesses and over 20 documents to present. [48]
Tupas then asked Enrile to be "more liberal" in allowing the prosecution to ask questions. Enrile
was so offended he offered to resign "if somebody cannot accept his rulings." Tupas said "We
just want flexibility to listen to the witnesses." Senator Manuel Villar said that while he believes
Enrile was handling the trial well, he can't please everyone. Enrile then approved Santiago's
motion asking both the prosecution and defense the exact number of witnesses they will
present. Santiago also said that the court should be more liberal in accepting evidence, after
what had happened in the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada where they prevented the
opening of the second envelope. [48]
January 25[edit]
Enrile announced that the court will allow presentation of evidence for paragraphs 2.2
(nondisclosure of SALN) and 2.3 (non-inclusion of properties in the SALN), but not for paragraph
2.4 (alleged ill-gotten wealth) of Article II. The court also allowed the subpoena of the income tax
returns of the Corona couple. The prosecution presented BIR Commissioner Kim Henares as
their witness although Enrile asked how her testimony will be relevant to the case. In the end,
she was allowed to testify although any statement on Corona's ill-gotten wealth will be
disallowed. Santiago scolded both the prosecution and defense for long debates. [49]
Private prosecutor Arthur Lim began his direct examination of Henares. The prosecution
presented an "alpha list", a document submitted by a company listing its employees, salary, and
tax withheld. Enrile allowed the presentation of the Supreme Court's alpha list. Henares stated
that the Supreme Court had not kept an alpha list from 2002 to 2005 and gave a testimony on
Corona's income and taxes based on the court alpha list from 2006 and 2010 as well as on
Corona not having an income tax return. Henares was allowed to present Cristina Corona's
income tax return. She testified that Mrs. Corona was a one-time taxpayer for a property
transaction on September 9, 2003. Mrs. Corona purchased the property worth 11 million pesos
although she had no recorded income that year.[49]
Lim asked if Mrs. Corona was in other alpha lists. The defense objected but Enrile allowed
Henares to answer. She testified that Mrs. Corona was in the alpha list of the Camp John
Hay Management Corporation where she was the CEO and president. The prosecution
presented documents from alleged Corona properties in Taguig, Makati, and Quezon City. [49]
January 26[edit]
Senator Santiago asked the prosecution on what provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act are they charging Corona with. Arthur Lim replied that they are accusing Corona of
violating paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) of Section 3 of the law. Santiago answered that these
provisions were irrelevant in Article II, since it accuses Corona of not disclosing his SALN. She
said that the more appropriate law should have been the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees which requires submission of SALN. [50]
The court prohibited all parties to release documents that were merely "marked" as evidence,
and cautioned the discussion of the contents of documents. This comes as the income tax
returns of the Coronas were brandished on television and on the internet. Senator Escudero
asked the court to only cover Corona's acts as chief justice since documents are dated even
prior to him becoming one. Enrile replied that the Senate will decide on this on a caucus. [50]
The prosecution continued their direct examination on Henares. She said that the BIR found out
that Corona's daughter, Ma. Carla Corona-Castillo, was able to buy an ₱18 million property from
her mother Cristina despite only having a monthly taxable income of ₱8,478. Lim asked Henares
about the McKinley Hill property in Taguig; she replied that another Corona daughter, Ma.
Charina, bought the property from Megaworld Corporation. Henares added that Charina never
filed an income tax return, and was a one-time taxpayer, for the McKinley Hill transaction. On
the cross-examination, Cuevas asked Henares if the Secretary of Finance told her "durugin mo
na si Corona (crush Corona, if possible)." Replies replied "No." Senator Arroyo said that the
subsequent investigation of the BIR and the impeachment trial can be "twin moves" against the
Coronas.[50]
The senators asked more questions on Henares. Pangilinan questioned if the BIR overlooked
other income sources from the Coronas. She replied that the BIR exhausted all efforts, including
alpha lists. Cayetano asked if there were any discrepancies with Corona's returns from his
SALN; Henares answered that Corona failed to fill up the acquisition cost column, and that
Corona included some properties on the next year's SALN instead of the year it was purchased.
Henares also said that Corona only had one source of income. [50]
Several senators also cautioned the spokespersons when discussing the merits of the case
outside the court. Enrile said "they may discuss the procedure but not the content." [50]
January 30[edit]
The Senate Secretary, acting as the clerk of court of the Senate sitting as an impeachment
court, read the resolution prohibiting the presentation of evidence not related to Corona or to his
family, as well as the court's decision not to allow presentation of evidence about Corona's ill-
gotten wealth.[51]
Enrile then allowed the prosecutors' motion to present witnesses and evidence on Article III
instead of Article I and VII, which was earlier agreed upon. Enrile also allowed the presentation
in the articles in the following order: Articles II, III, I, VII, IV, V and VI. Tupas also clarified that
they won't present 100 witnesses as earlier reported. [51]
The prosecution presented Megaworld Corporation financial director Giovanni Ng as their
witness; he produced the contract to sell on Corona's Bellagio penthouse worth ₱14 million, and
the deed of absolute sale of McKinley Hills property to Charina Corona, which was not disclosed
in Corona's 2009 SALN. Ng was not able to answer how much was the price of the Bellagio
penthouse; private prosecutor Joseph Joemar Perez moved to subpoena Megaworld's senior
vice president for marketing on the next hearing. Senator Aquilino Pimentel III asked Perez on
why the prosecution was focusing on the cost of the properties, he answered that Ng told them
that Corona's 40% discount worth ₱40 million fell under Article III.[51]
When asked by Senator Jinggoy Estrada if Megaworld routinely sells their properties with a
discount, Ng said that the company usually gives a 15% discount to buyers who pay on shorter
terms; Corona was given a bigger discount since the property needed repairs. Ng, answering a
question from Senator Franklin Drilon, said that Charina Corona received a ₱2.3 million discount
on the McKinley Hill property. Chief Justice Corona asked the company to put the property
under his daughter's name.[51]
Private prosecutor Jose Antonio Hernandez next presented Aniceto Visnar, Jr., formerly of
the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. Visnar told the court that the Corona couple fully
paid a ₱9.1 million condominium unit in Bonifacio Ridge in 2005, contrary, as prosecutors say, to
Corona's SALN where it states that he bought the aforementioned property in 2004 worth ₱2.3
million. In the cross-examination, defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra said that a notice of
acceptance for the Bonifacio Ridge property did not exist, and that Bisnar should be unfamiliar
with the property and whether or not Corona's wife sourced the money used to pay for the unit
from a loan.[51]
January 31[edit]
Noli Hernandez, senior vice president of Megaworld, testified that the Bellagio tower purchased
by the Corona couple received a steep reduction in its price after a typhoon struck the property
while it is being constructed; Megaworld reduced the price from ₱24 million to ₱19.6 million. The
senators asked the connection between Corona's purchase of the property, and Article II of the
articles of impeachment; prosecutor Elpidio Barzaga replied that the Corona's purchase of the
property was not included in his SALN. Senator Sergio Osmeña III asked Hernandez to produce
proof of the damage, while Senator Francis Pangilinan asked Hernandez to submit to the
Senate the engineer's report. [52]

February[edit]
February 1[edit]
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director Benito Cataran testified on Corona's ₱11
million loan from his wife's Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI) in 2003. Cataran said that the
SEC revoked BGEI's articles of incorporation and considered the company as dissolved in 2003.
after it did not file general information sheets to the SEC from 1991 to 1997. Enrile countered
that the corporation can't be considered as dissolved as it still has to undergo liquidation, and
that the SEC can't dissolve corporations; its own stockholders or the government can do that.
The senators commented that corporations that are suspended by the SEC can still lend money,
and can still be sued.[53]
Ayala Land assistant vice president Nerissa Josef testified on the Corona family's purchase of
property at the Columns condominium in Makati. She said that the Coronas paid three
installments within one year, in 2004. The prosecution noted that Corona, who only included the
property in his 2010 SALN, should have included it starting from his 2004 SALN, on the year
when the deed of absolute sale was issued. However, the defense countered that the Coronas
refused the property due to defects, and that the Coronas only started possessing the property
in 2008.[53]
February 2[edit]
Carlo Alcantara and Sedfrey Garcia were cross examined; the former was asked about the
Coronas' properties in Quezon City, while the latter on their properties in Marikina. The
prosecution and defense then argued on whether wrong entries in SALN constituted betrayal of
public trust, with Tupas quoting Joaquin Bernas, saying that "betrayal of public trust" was a
"catch-all phrase" covering offenses that may not even amount to crimes. [54]
The senators asked the prosecution on how many properties the Coronas really have. The
prosecution said that the list given to them by the Land Registration Authority had 45 items, but
they were not bound to abide by those. Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked on the prosecution's
release of the list to the media, but the prosecution said they did not. [54]
Burgundy Realty Corporation Vice President Gregg Gregonia testified that the Coronas had
bought a condominium unit and a parking lot at One Burgundy Plaza in Quezon City in October
2000. Upon query upon the purpose of Gregonia's testimony, the prosecution said that Corona
did not timely disclose the property on SALN.[54]
February 6[edit]
Enrile, despite objections from the defense, allowed Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
commissioner Kim Henares to testify. Henares produced the income tax returns of Constantino
T. Castillo III, Corona's son-in-law to his daughter Carla. The prosecution explained the
connection with Castillo's tax returns and the case, saying that the Castillo couple did not have
the financial resources to buy the property for P18 million from the Corona couple. Henares also
said that the BIR was in the process of investigating Corona. The defense asked her if Corona
can correct the SALNs as per civil service rules; she said that Corona can't, since they were
under oath, and that filing SALNs would've been useless. The prosecution asked Henares on
Corona's under-declarations in his SALNs as compared to his tax returns; she enumerated
properties that were not listed, and discrepancies in net worth. [55]
The Senate then issued a subpoena on Corona's bank records, ordering the managers
of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank)'s Katipunan branch and Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI) Ayala branch to testify on February 8. The Senate based their subpoenas from
documents submitted by the prosecution. Senator Francis Escudero asked where did these
come from, as possession of these documents was a violation of the Bank Secrecy Law; House
prosecutor Reynaldo Umali said that a "small lady" handed the documents to him. Majority
leader Tito Sotto ordered the Senate sergeant-at-arms to review the CCTV to identify the "small
lady".[55]
February 7[edit]
The prosecution proceeded to present the third article of impeachment: Corona's alleged “flip-
flopping" on Supreme Court cases. The prosecution first presented Roberto Anduiza, president
of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), which had
sued Philippine Airlines for laying off its members while on strike. Anduiza said that Corona
participated from the deliberations even if Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez earlier
said that the Chief Justice was recusing. Anduiza told the court that FASAP originally won the
case at the National Labor Relations Commission, but Philippine Airlines elevated the case up to
the Supreme Court. In 2008, the court ordered Philippine Airlines to reinstate crew members
who were laid off. However, in 2011, the court reversed its ruling after Philippine Airlines
lawyer Estelito Mendoza wrote to Corona. Anduiza said that while Corona recused in 2008, he
was not among those who did not participate in the 2011 deliberations. [56]
Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked House prosecutor Rodolfo Fariñas on why he did not sign the
impeachment complaint; Fariñas replied that he was a "slow reader", and that the 188
representatives who signed were "speed readers", and that his signature was no longer needed.
Fariñas then discussed with Enrile on how the House of Representatives' impeachment process
works, and that the House of Representatives and the Senate are working together to oust
Corona.[56]
February 8[edit]
Corona filed a petition for certiorari that sought the Supreme Court to issue a temporary
restraining order on the impeachment trial, citing grave abuse of discretion by the Senate. In a
separate petition, Corona asked for the recusal of Associate Justices Maria Lourdes
Sereno and Antonio Carpio, who had been publicly against Corona, and a special raffle on the
case. Corona, on his first petition, also asked the court to prohibit the implementation of the
Senate's subpoena to the bank managers, and to prevent them from testifying and submitting
documents; he also asked to stop the presentation of evidence pertaining to paragraphs 2.3 and
2.4 on the article alleging his ill-gotten wealth, and that to declare the impeachment complaint
null and void ab initio, and that to make permanent the previous temporary restraining order. [57]
PSBank also petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent them from testifying as it is against the
Foreign Currency Deposits Act to publicize bank accounts on foreign currencies. [58]
At the start of session, Senator TG Guingona said that the Senate, as an impeachment court,
has the sole power to try impeachment cases, and that the Supreme Court should not interfere
with the impeachment trial. Meanwhile, Senator Pia Cayetano admonished Fariñas on his
remarks the previous day, and that senators' and the house prosecutors' functions are different,
as long as the impeachment trial is concerned. Enrile then cautioned the participants or else the
Senate will impose its power to maintain order; Fariñas apologizes for his remarks. [59]
After a caucus discussing the petitions filed in the Supreme Court, the Senate deny the motions
to defer the subpoenas to PSBank and BPI, and to defer presentation in the FASAP case.
Serafin Cuevas then cross examines Roberto Anduiza; after the cross examination,
Senator Loren Legarda asks how the FASAP case is connected to the Article III. House
prosecutor Kaka Bag-ao says yes.[59]
The defense objects to the presentation of the PSBank manager, citing the petition filed in the
Supreme Court. Enrile rules that since there is no temporary restraining order, the Senate can
proceed. The prosecution presents PSBank president Pascual Garcia III, with private prosecutor
Demetrio Custodio stating the purpose of illustrating that Corona owns ten accounts. Garcia only
brought peso accounts; he argues that if he exposes any dollar accounts, it will also expose him
and his bank to criminal liability. After a discussion, Enrile orders Custodio to submit a letter
detailing the reasons why he should not be cited for contempt, and ordered him to return the
next day.[59]
The Senate then reads the decision on issuing subpoenas to Supreme Court justices asked by
the prosecution. The Senate denied the motions, citing confidentiality on the Supreme Court's
decisions, and on the separation of powers doctrine.[59]
February 9[edit]
Cuevas and Guingona argued on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in the impeachment trial held
at the Senate. Cuevas said that Guingona's statement two days earlier implied that the Senate,
as an impeachment court, is higher than the Supreme Court; he stated that "impeachment
procedures are still subject to SC's power of review." Guingona countered that the Supreme
Court can't impose its will since the Senate "is not a co-equal branch" when it is sitting as an
impeachment court.[60]
After explaining that Annabel Tiongson, the PSBank Katipunan branch manager, was "stressed",
Pascual Garcia III decided that it was himself who will testify. Senator Estrada asked if the
Tiongson was a "small lady"; Garcia replied that Tiongson is a tall woman. Garcia also replied
that his bank did not leak Corona's bank records. He also answered that all five account
numbers in the subpoena existed in that PSBank branch. Estrada also asked what "PEP" and
"K" meant on the bank records; Garcia answered that "PEP" meant "politically exposed person",
but he refused to answer what "K" on "700k" meant, saying that as an annotation to a
photocopied document, he can not say that it was bank-sourced "original document." [60]
BPI Ayala branch manager Leonora Dizon testified that Corona owns a checking account, and
had an ending balance of more than ₱12 million as of December 2010. [60]
February 13[edit]
The Senators demanded an explanation upon the defense when they accused Executive
Secretary Pacquito Ochoa bribed the senators ₱100 million each to vote on a resolution against
the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order on Corona's dollar accounts. Defense lawyer
Judd Roy apologized to the Senate and emphasized that there was no malice in their
statements. Senator Estrada dared the defense to reveal their source, and Senator Antonio
Trillanes ordered them to write an explanation on why they should not be cited for contempt. The
Senate then announced that they voted 13–10 to uphold the Supreme Court's restraining order.
[61]
PSBank branch manager Annabelle Tiongson said that the bank records previously presented
that were supposedly from their bank were fake and did not come from PSBank. Majority floor
leader Tito Sotto said, quoting a report from the Sergeant-at-Arms, that no small lady was seen
from their CCTV; Enrile then gave the prosecution 24 hours to explain how they acquired the
bank records.[61]
February 14[edit]
Senate President Enrile stated that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction upon the
impeachment trial; he also assumed responsibility for the issuance of the subpoena that was
based on the prosecution's supposedly fake bank records. The senators scolded the prosecution
for using allegedly spurious bank documents to issue subpoenas. The prosecution replied that
they could not vouch for the authenticity of the bank documents. [62]
The defense pointed out that several senators were acting as private prosecutors. Enrile replied
that it is up to the senators if they want to ask the witness questions. Both the prosecution and
the defense called for an early dismissal to celebrate Enrile's 88th birthday; it was approved
without objections.[62]
February 15[edit]
Upon asking questions on Annabelle Tiongson, the PSBank branch manager; Senator Estrada
said that Tiongson's cousin was the running mate of Tupas' brother in 2010. Tiongson answered
that she does not know Tupas, and that she didn't care about the politics of her relatives; Tupas
also denied knowing the PSBank branch manager. Answering another question from Estrada,
Tiongson said that the allegedly fake bank documents may have been retrieved from other
sources. Tiongson, upon query from Senator Franklin Drilon, said that while the bank documents
used PSBank's standard form, some entries have been altered. Enrile then ordered PSBank
President Pascual Garcia III to bring PSBank's original copies of the bank records, but only
covering details that are not covered by the restraining order. [63]
February 16[edit]
PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified that information derived from the bank documents
submitted by the prosecution as "authentic", although some of the information are different.
Three of the bank accounts, Estrade noted, were closed on December 12, 2011, the day Corona
was impeached.[64]
Senator Loren Legarda asked Tiongson on how the copies of the bank records were leaked; the
latter denied divulging it to anyone but said that Quezon City representative Jorge Banal asked
for her assistance. She said that Banal went to the PSBank branch carrying the documents and
he asked for her guidance; Banal explained that he went to the bank to ask for assistance on
what "$700K" meant. The Senate ordered Banal to return to the court on the next session day. [65]
February 20[edit]
PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP; the
central bank) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) audited several accounts in that
branch, including Corona's. Garcia said that in order form to follow the Anti-Money Laundering
Act, they should label accounts from people such as politicians and government appointees in
high positions; this caused them to classify Corona's account under "PEP" or politically-exposed
person.[66]
However, Senator Teofisto Guingona III said that the AMLC denied having audited Corona's
account. Garcia then said that the AMLC specialist just checked if the accounts were properly
labeled, and did not check on the balances. Senator Jinggoy Estrada still maintained that he
believes that the prosecution-submitted bank record was authentic, alleging that the AMLC
photocopied one of the signature cards.[66]
Annabelle Tiongson returned to the witness stand and told the court how Representative Jorge
Banal approached her; she was shocked that Banal possessed what resembled the bank's
security cards. She then arranged to check if the original documents were still in the vault.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago noted that whoever got possession of the bank records must
explain how he/she could have gotten hold of them. [66]
February 21[edit]
BPI submitted evidence to the Senate pertaining to Corona's bank records worth ₱12 million as
of 2010. The Senate prohibited BPI assistant manager Mara Arcilla since the Senate only
requested for the records. Tupas then informed the court that the prosecution had finished
presenting witnesses for the second article of impeachment. [67]
After an objection from the defense, Enrile disallowed the prosecution to present a witness
from Philippine Airlines who would've testified on the Corona couple's allegedly benefits
received from the airline, saying that the testimony would expand the scope of the third article.
However, private prosecutor Marlon Manuel was still able to put on record that the Corona
couple were given Platinum Cards by Philippine Airlines; this enabled them to travel on first
class for free; defense counsel Serafin Cuevas objected to Manuel's statements but Enrile
allowed it to remain.[67]
February 22[edit]
House prosecutor Giorgidi Aggabao informed the court that they will drop from Article III the
charges that Corona's independence was compromised when his wife Cristina accepted an
appointment to the board of the Camp John Hay Development Corporation, but they will retain
the alleged flip-flopping by Corona on the FASAP vs. Philippine Airlines case. [68]
Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima testified that Corona had influenced the court in allowing the
temporary restraining order relieving the prohibition of former president Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo to leave the country. Using the dissenting opinion by associate justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, de Lima said that Corona corrected the draft of the decision, and instructed Supreme
Court spokesperson Midas Marquez to mislead the public by stating that the restraining order
was still in effect even if Arroyo was not able to abide by it. [68]
Cuevas questioned de Lima's authority in superseding a decision of the Supreme Court, as only
the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the law. De Lima ignored the restraining order
issued by the Supreme Court and ordered Arroyo to be blocked at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport. The defense argued that the Supreme Court decision was not solely an
action of Corona, as there were other seven other justices who concurred with him. [68]
February 23[edit]
Enrile ordered the court to disregard portions of de Lima's testimony, retaining only the portion of
de Lima's narration of Sereno's dissent. House prosecutor Raul Daza stated that Corona
favored Arroyo in about 80% of the cases, and that they separated Article I and VII since there
were still pending cases in the Supreme Court that are included in Article I. [69]
February 27[edit]
Enrile announced that Senator Antonio Trillanes withdrew his motion to send questions to
Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno via the mail, and that he disallowed the prosecution's
motion on allowing the Philippine Airlines official to testify.[70]
Enrile asked the prosecution to invite Justice Sereno instead of summoning her, as the Senate
had already voted not to issue subpoenas on Supreme Court justices, with Senator Francis
Escudero adding that it is the prosecution's job to present its witnesses, and they should not rely
on the Senate's summoning powers.[70]
The prosecutors called former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's doctor at the St. Luke's
Medical Center to the witness stand to confirm if Arroyo's medical certificate was valid, which
was later used by the Supreme Court to allow the Arroyo couple to leave the country for medical
reasons. They then had a direct examination on Emma Abanador, the Office of the Vice
President's administrative officer. This is for establishing that Corona had already established
ties with Arroyo even when she was serving as Vice President, and prior his appointment to the
Supreme Court. The final prosecution witness was ABS-CBN cameraman Edmond Losalla who
authenticated the raw videos of the Supreme Court's November 15, 2011 press conference that
allowed the Arroyos to leave the country, and an interview to Arroyo lawyer Ferdinand Topacio.
The defense argued that Losalia's testimony was irrelevant to the case. [70]
February 28[edit]
The Iglesia ni Cristo held their Grand Evangelical Mission at Rizal Park, causing massive traffic
jams. This also caused some of the defense lawyers to be tardy at the trial; the Senate allowed
the trial to start at a later time in order for the entire defense team to be present. [71] Later, the
Supreme Court issued an order preventing its employees from testifying at the impeachment
trial, saying that it is not waving its judicial privilege. This bars two of its process servers that
served the restraining order to the Justice Department from testifying. [72] Enrile respected the
court's ruling, but will tackle the issue on a caucus the following week to determine their next
course of action.[73]
At the Senate, after the prosecution had presented witnesses and evidence for Articles 2, 3 and
7, House prosecutor Niel Tupas, Jr. announced that they will drop five articles of impeachment,
with the reservation that they can present evidence on Corona's dollar bank accounts once they
receive a favorable decision from the Supreme Court; this meant they will no longer present
witnesses and evidence pertaining to Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and that the defense will be able
to present their case; Enrile requested the prosecution to make a formal offer before the Senate
considers their request.[74]
February 29[edit]
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago scolded the prosecution for withdrawing five articles, saying
that they should not have bragged about their victory, and labeling those who were bragging
about the strength of the case as "gago" (idiots) Vitaliano Aguirre, a well-known lawyer he would
cover his ears after the latter's tirade against the prosecution. House prosecutor Rodolfo
Fariñas later successfully asked the Senate to remove the word "gago" from the records. Tupas
then said that they would no longer pursue the testimony of Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and
they would rest the case with reservation. When Senator Francis Escudero asked Tupas on
whether the dropping of the articles of impeachment constitutes an amendment of the complaint,
and whether the 188 signatories were consulted, Tupas said that there was no consultation,
although they told the Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. about it. The defense said that they will
still present evidence on the five dropped articles, and ask the Senate to acquit Corona on
those. Enrile gave the prosection until March 2 to submit a formal offer to drop those five
articles.[75]
Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked who was the prosecutor who had covered his ears while
Santiago was scolding them; it was identified as private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre II (he would
become Justice Secretary four years later). When asked for the reason, Aguirre said that, for the
first time forty years, it was the first time he saw a judge lecture the prosecution in court. The
Senate later cited Aguirre for contempt, and House prosecutor Fariñas apologized in behalf of
the prosecution. Enrile adjourned the trial until March 12. [76]
March[edit]
Break[edit]
The Senate postponed the trial for a week to let the defense prepare for their presentation, and
for the prosecution to make an offer of evidence. Tupas asked the court to allow them to make a
final offer of their evidence, which was granted. The Senate will then decide on the prosecution's
offer on March 8; the trial is scheduled to resume on March 12. [77]
Both Enrile[78] and House of Representatives deputy minority leader Danilo Suarez expressed
their preferences for Corona to testify. The prosecution pointed out that Corona cannot be able
to explain how he acquired the alleged ₱31 million wealth. [79]
On March 2, the prosecution formally offered its evidence to the Senate [80] Cuevas also said that
Corona won't testify at the trial, saying that "the members of the impeachment court can
examine him on all angles and Justice Cuevas cannot object." [81]
On March 5, the Senate voted to accept peso bank records as evidence in the trial; [82] the next
day, the court voted to dismiss the defense's motion to suppress evidence related to Corona's
PSBank account, and to simply admonish instead of punishing private prosecutor Aguirre after
he was cited for contempt.[83]
Corona then had a media blitz on March 8, when he gave live interviews on TV and radio
stations; this was the first time he spoke after the trial started. In an interview at GMA's morning
show Unang Hirit, he said that he lost confidence in PSBank, citing PSBank clients saying that
his account details had been leaked, causing him to withdraw all of his deposits at its Katipunan
Avenue branch.[84] In the same interview, he also cited the Supreme Court's ruling on
the Hacienda Luisita, which ruled that the farmers should possess the lands, instead of the
current owners, which are family members of President Aquino. [85] The prosecution found
Corona's explanation on the PSBank withdrawal as "incredible." [86]
March 12[edit]
The court voted to accept the prosecution's offer of evidence, and doesn't entertain any motion
on the articles that were dropped by the prosecution. The defense presents Navotas
Representative Toby Tiangco, one of the congressmen not to sign the impeachment complaint.
Tiangco testified that the impeachment complaint was meant to "control or scare" the Supreme
Court. He narrated that Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., in a caucus on December 12, said that
Corona should be impeached due to his closeness with Representative Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo. He related that he almost signed the complaint, but hesitated as he was not able to read
the complaint in full.[87]
The Senate then voted to deny the defense's motion to discuss the complaint's validity, as
Corona was notified by the Senate of the trial, and the chief justice replied at the notification.
The Senate also voted to cite defense lawyer Jose Roy III in indirect contempt on his earlier
statement that the president urged the senators not to honor the Supreme Court's order
preventing them from scrutinizing the chief justice's dollar accounts. [87]
March 13[edit]
Tiangco ends his testimony after Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago asks him on his motives in
testifying at the trial. The court then hears the testimony of Araceli Bayuga. She discusses alpha
lists in the Supreme Court's tax records. The next witness, Demetrio Vicente, bought from the
Coronas one of the properties that is cited on the complaint. Vicente related the circumstances
of how he was not able to change the name of the owner of the title from Corona's wife to him. [88]
March 14[edit]
In her cross examination, Araceli Bayuga notes that Supreme Court justices are not required to
liquidate their allowances; all they had to do is to submit a certification. She added that
allowances are not taxed. Senators Antonio Trillanes and Alan Peter Cayetano expressed
apprehensions on Bayuga's testimony, saying that the scope is within Article 2.4 which was
already disallowed by the Senate. Cuevas replied that Bayuga's testimony was only
"preliminary". The defense then presented the secretaries of electoral tribunals in Congress in
which Corona was a member, which gave him earnings of five million pesos per year. [89]
March 15[edit]
Bayuga's cross examination continued. Bayuga is asked about the alpha list of the Supreme
Court's payroll. She is then discharged. The next witness, Roberto Villaluz, the officer-in-charge
(OIC) of the Taguig City Assessor's Office was asked to prove on Corona's financial statements.
The senators asks questions on fair market values of real properties. Enrile interrupts the
discussion, and reminds that the issue is whether Corona was truthful on his financial
statements. Villaluz is then discharged; the next witness is Rodolfo Ordanes, OIC of the Quezon
City Assessor's Office. Drilon manifests that since the witness would just be marking documents,
the process should expedited. Ordanes is not cross-examined as is discharged once he finished
marking the documents.[90]
March 16–18[edit]
After the Thursday session, the senators had differing opinions on the legality of Corona's
financial statements. Bongbong Marcos said that the absence of the acquisition cost was "not
questionable"; Edgardo Angara thought that public officials were given the choice on either "put
the acquisition cost or the fair market value or the assessed value." Recto stated that the "usual
practice" was to put the acquisition cost, while Antonio Trillanes noted that "the acquisition cost
is the basis of the computation for the total assets."[91]
Corona's defense team stated that they will present financial statements of other government
officials to denote what the "common practice" is.[92] The prosecutors disapproved of the plan,
saying that Corona cannot compare himself to other government officials since as Chief Justice,
he should be held up to a higher standard than other public officers. [93]
March 19[edit]
Four witnesses were presented by the defense. The city assessor of Makati, the registers of
deeds of Quezon City and Taguig, and the property manager of The Columns property in
Makati. Carlo Alcantara, the acting register of deeds of Quezon City, testified on Corona's Ayala
Heights and La Vista properties that were transferred to other people. The Ayala Heights
property, which cost 8 million pesos, was owned by Corona's wife, and was transferred to a
certain Rodel Rivera and his wife. The La Vista property, which cost ₱18 million, was transferred
by the Corona couple to their daughter Maria Clara. Alcantara also provided other transfers of
the Corona couple's properties in Quezon City, which cost a combined ₱25.5 million, to Maria
Clara's husband. Randy Rotaquio, the property manager of The Columns, testified that the
alleged properties of the Corona couple were actually registered under their daughter, Maria
Charina.[94]
March 20[edit]
The defense presented Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Eulalio Diaz III; Diaz
testified that he provided the Niel Tupas, Jr., the lead prosecutor, the list of 45 properties that the
Corona couple and their children were said to own. However, Diaz later said most of the
properties on the list either no longer belonged to the Corona couple, or were never registered
under the couple's names. The senators then chastised the prosecution panel and Diaz. When
asked on how this happened, Diaz replied that the list was "computer-generated". Tupas denied
that the prosecution misled the public, saying "We have every reason to believe the authenticity
of these documents." Diaz, upon further questions from Loren Legarda, admitted that the LRA
also included in the search the names of Corona's wife and children; that's how the LRA came
up with a list of 45 properties.[95]
March 21[edit]
The prosecution maintains that Corona owns 21 of the 45 properties submitted by the LRA; the
prosecution included in the 21 properties the properties that are named under the Corona
children but were allegedly actually owned by Corona. Miriam Defensor Santiago accused LRA
administrator Diaz of violating the Civil Code of the Philippines, and said that both Diaz and the
prosecution may be guilty of "gross negligence". Jinggoy Estrada then asked Diaz if he was
willingly aiding the prosecution or simply made a mistake; Diaz replied "I won't accept that I'm in
cahoots with prosecution. I also can't readily accept I made a mistake." When Bongbong
Marcos asked Diaz on why he made the list, he said he was following the prosecution's
orders. Loren Legarda told Diaz that he earlier said to Senator Santiago that he had no
knowledge that it will be used in the impeachment trial; Diaz answered that he knew that the list
would be used.[96]
March 22[edit]
The defense presents Miriam Monsuela of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC). The
prosecution objects to the witness, saying that her testimony, which would be about Cristina
Corona's earnings while employed by the JHMC, is immaterial; the court allowed her to
testify. Lito Atienza, the former mayor of Manila, was the defense's next witness. The former
mayor recalled the transaction involving a piece of property between the city government and
Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI), the defense says Mrs. Corona was authorized to act in
lieu of BGEI. Atienza testified that the sale, which cost the city ₱34,703,800 was legal. Upon
questioning by Franklin Drilon, the senator said that there is a "lack of due diligence" on part of
the city government on the purchase.[97]

Summer recess[edit]
Journalist Raissa Robles released on a blog a list of properties in the United States the Coronas
allegedly lived at. Corona countered that the California property was an apartment used by his
daughters on their physical therapy career in the U.S., and that the Florida property was owned
by a family friend; Corona concluded that they didn't own any property in the U.S. [98]

May[edit]
May 29[edit]
The senators cast their votes whether the Chief Justice is guilty or not guilty on the
impeachment case. Unlimited time was given to explain their votes. Senators Edgardo
Angara, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Franklin Drilon, Francis Escudero, Jinggoy
Estrada, TG Guingona, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Sergio
Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Bong Revilla, Tito Sotto, Antonio
Trillanes, Manuel Villar and Senate President/Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile voted for
conviction. Most of them cited non-disclosure of property as a reason for conviction. While three
senators, Senators Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor Santiago and Bongbong Marcos voted for
acquittal. After Senator Enrile explained his vote, he later summarized the votes as follows, "The
Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, having tried Chief Justice Renato Corona, upon three
articles of impeachment charged against him by the House of Representatives, by a guilty vote
of 20 senators, has found him guilty of the charge under Article II. Now therefore, be it adjudged
that Renato Corona, is hereby convicted of the charge against him in Article II of the Articles of
impeachment, so ordered."[99][100]

Decision[edit]
The Senate gave its decision on May 29, 2012. The following table reflects the decision of each
senator. Only the 2nd, 3rd and 7th articles were considered; after the required two-thirds vote to
remove from office was reached on the first article being voted upon, the Senate decided not to
pursue voting on the last two articles.

Article of Impeachment

Senator Party Bloc

3r 6t
1st 2nd 4th 5th 7th 8th
d h

Majorit
Edgardo Angara LDP — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Minorit Not
Joker Arroyo Lakas — — — — — — —
y guilty

Minorit
Alan Peter Cayetano Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Minorit
Pia Cayetano Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Miriam Defensor Majorit Not

PRP — — — — — — —
Santiago y guilty

Majorit
Franklin Drilon Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Francis Escudero Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Jinggoy Estrada UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y
 Majorit
TG Guingona Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Gregorio Honasan UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Panfilo Lacson Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Lito Lapid Lakas — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Loren Legarda NPC — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit Not
Bongbong Marcos Nacionalista — — — — — — —
y guilty

Majorit
Serge Osmeña Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Francis Pangilinan Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Koko Pimentel PDP–Laban — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Ralph Recto Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Bong Revilla Lakas — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Tito Sotto NPC — Guilty — — — — — —
y
 Majorit
Antonio Trillanes Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Manuel Villar Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Juan Ponce Enrile UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Votes needed to convict 16

Voted "Guilty" —  20 — — — — — —

Voted "Not guilty" — 3 — — — — — —

Total votes 23

There were no absences or abstentions.



Supreme Court of the Philippines with the Impeachment tarpaulin

 

Supreme Court of the Philippines employees watching the Corona Impeachment testimony

Aftermath[edit]
Bribery controversy[edit]
See also: Priority Development Assistance Fund scam

In September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada revealed in a privilege speech that senators who

voted to convict Corona in the impeachment trial were given an additional ₱50 million in
discretionary funds.[101] He claimed that the allocation was provided in a private and confidential
letter from Senate president Franklin Drilon, the Senate finance committee chairperson at the
time, as an "incentive" for voting for Corona's conviction. [101] Following the allegations, Drilon
confirmed that ₱50 million was released to the senators as part of the Priority Development
Assistance Fund, but denied it was intended to be a bribe. [102] Senators Ralph Recto and Serge
Osmeña also confirmed receiving the funds but could not recall the amount or purpose of the
funds.[103]
Following the revelations, budget secretary Florencio Abad confirmed the release of an
additional ₱1.107 billion in pork barrel funds to senators who voted to convict Corona.
[104]
 According to Abad, two of the three senators who voted to acquit Corona received nothing:
Senator Bongbong Marcos and Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.[104] He claimed the funds
were part of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a relatively new and little known
lump-sum budgetary item introduced by the Aquino administration. [104] On July 1, 2014, the
Supreme Court ruled the DAP unconstitutional, reaffirming that ruling on February 3, 2015. [105][106]
Senator Joker Arroyo, who voted to acquit Corona, denied receiving the alleged 'incentive'
funds, and accused the Aquino administration of "outright bribery, right at the presidential
doorstep".[107] Santiago encouraged Supreme Court litigation regarding the DAP, saying that the
program was unconstitutional as it allowed the executive branch of government to "play
favorites" among senators.[108]
In a statement to reporters, former chief justice Corona said that the revelations vindicated him
and proved that his ouster was a violation of the constitution. [109] He said he was not surprised by
them, as they merely confirmed what he and many Filipinos had suspected. [109]
On January 20, 2014, Senator Ramon Bong Revilla revealed that he was convinced by
President Benigno Aquino III to convict the chief justice.
When the Supreme Court released its decision about DAP, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago,
urged the 20 senators and 188 representatives to return the "reward money" they received and
said that President Aquino was in violation of the constitution by giving "reward money", a
probable cause to a impeachment complaint against Aquino, Santiago added the solons can sue
on this case. However due to Liberal Party (Team PNoy) dominant Congress, the impeachment
cannot be successful.

Fates of participants
As of today, these are the fates of the House prosecutors, defense counsels, defendant, and
senators.
Defendant
Renato Corona died on April 29, 2016, just over two months before Aquino's term ended. [111] In
June 2016, the Sandiganbayan Third Division dismissed his pending criminal cases.[112]
Senators
Since 2012, three senators have since died, and two have retired. Four successfully defended
their seats in 2013, of these, three ran for vice president in 2016 all lost. Of the five who
defended their Senate seats in 2016, three won and two lost. Of the seven who were term-
limited in 2016, five were elected back to the Senate in 2019 and two were beaten and have not
returned to the Senate. One who sought higher office in 2016 after serving one full term lost for
vice president. One was reelected in 2019.

 Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, and Miriam Defensor Santiago have since died. Santiago ran
in 2016 for president and lost. Angara and Arroyo retired from politics prior to their deaths.
 Manuel Villar and Antonio Trillanes retired from politics after their terms ended in 2016 and
2019, respectively.
 Panfilo Lacson and Francis Pangilinan were term limited in 2013. Both were elected anew in
2016 for a Senate seat.
 Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, and Loren Legarda won in 2013
for senator. The first three ran and lost in 2016 for vice president. Term limited in 2019, all,
save for Honasan, ran and won in 2019 in their respective races.
 Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Estrada, Lito Lapid, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Bong Revilla were term
limited in 2016. All, save for Estrada and Ponce Enrile, were elected anew in 2019 for a
Senate seat; the two were beaten in the Senate election.
 Franklin Drilon, Ralph Recto, and Tito Sotto ran and won in 2016 for senator. Sotto was later
elected as Senate President in 2019.
 TG Guingona and Sergio Osmeña III ran and lost in 2016 for senator. Osmeña ran in 2019
for senator and still lost.
 Gregorio Honasan and Bongbong Marcos ran and lost in 2016 for vice president. Honasan
was later appointed as Secretary of Information and Communications Technology in 2019.
Marcos protested his election loss, and Presidential Electoral Tribunal dismissed his
electoral protest against Leni Robredo in 2021.
 Koko Pimentel ran and won in 2019 for senator.
House prosecutors
All House prosecutors ran their respective 2013 elections and won. At least two have since been
elected as chief executives of their locales.

 Raul Daza ran and lost for congressman from Northern Samar in 2013 then won an election
protest, won in 2016, then retired in the 2019 elections.
 Niel Tupas, Jr., Marilyn Primcias-Agabas, Elpidio Barzaga Jr., Giorgidi B. Aggabao, Kaka
Bag-ao, Reynado Umali, and Rodolfo Fariñas all ran and won for a Congress seat each in
2013. Barzaga ran and won as Mayor of Dasmariñas in 2016. Bag-ao ran and won as
Governor of Dinagat Islands in 2019.
 Neri Colmenares and Sherwin Tugna's respective party-lists both ran and won the 2013
party-list election, and both were seated as congressmen. Colmenares later ran and lost in
2016 and 2019 for senator.
Defense team

 Serafin Cuevas died in 2014.

 Jacinto Jimenez is still a professor at Ateneo de Manila University.
 Jose Roy III, former president of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. In 2013 a complaint
against PLM president and officers was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman. 2015, the
Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict ignoring a
2010 COA issued Notice of Settlement of Suspension/Disallowance/Charge (NSSDC), that
pronounced the matter settled. In 2016 the officers were ordered dismissed from service by
the Office of the Ombudsman. That same year the Court of Appeals 14th Division
overturned the decision of the Ombudsman absolving Roy and exculpating him from the
alleged charges.[113] Ignoring the Appellate Court's decision, the Ombudsman's deliberate
persecution of Roy continued. On the 2nd of August, 2016, a Special Civil Action for
Certiorari versus Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and the Field Investigation Office
was filed by Roy with the Supreme Court. The petition before the High Court seeks to
restrain the filing of an information against him; and to annul the Resolution dated November
9, 2015 and Joint Order dated April 29, 2016 of the Ombudsman in the criminal case for
being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In
defense of Roy, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation and Motion and
recommended that the criminal case against Jose M. Roy III be dismissed for want of
 probable cause. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition dated March 4, 2020
finds no evidence that petitioner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence. Furthermore there is no showing that any party, especially the
government, incurred actual injury. To wit:

"We disagree with the conclusions of the Office of the

Ombudsman. We have meticulously analyzed the arguments raised by the
parties in the various pleadings and motions, together with their
documentary evidence, which all formed the basis for the issuance of
the questioned resolutions, and we are convinced that no probable cause
exists to warrant the filing of charges against petitioner.."

The Supreme Court orders the Resolution dated November 9, 2015, and the Joint Order dated
April 29, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman reversed and the case before the
Sandiganbayan against Roy dismissed.[114]

 Tranquil Salvador III hosts a talk show in Net 25.

 Karen Jimeno hosted a talk show at Solar TV, then was later appointed to the Presidential
Adviser for Rehabilitation and Recovery.
 Other defense team members have resumed private practice.