nt

.il_i; e :: .: ,. * '^''--f'1.. ':,-*

j:lll

R E P U B L IO FT H EP H I L I P P I N E S C C O N G R E S S T H EP H I L I P P I N E S OF

SENATE

Lou-

AS COURT SITTING THEIMPEACHMENT

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT RENATOC. OF AS JUSTICE THE OF CORONA CHIEF SUPREME COURT OF THE ES, PHILIPPIN CASE OO2-2OLI NO. REPRESENTATIVESC. TUPAS, NIEL EMILIO A. ABAYA, JR., JOSEPH LORENZO R. TANA,DA, III, V. REYNALDO UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO al., et Complainants.
x -----------------------x

COMMENT

(OnRespondent's Hearing) Motion Preliminary for

in through its PROSECUTORS, The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, lmpeachment Court, with 2Ot2Orderlof the Honorable compliance the 3 January respectfully states:

1.

R C y C f I n h i s M o t i o nf o r P r e l i m i n a rH e a r i n g , h i e J u s t i c e e n a t o .C o r o n a

("Corona") praysfor a preliminary that the defense of hearing his "affirmative and is for verification the VerifiedComplaint lmpeachment fatallydefective," of C . tl o f o r t h e o u t r i g h d i s m i s s ah e r e o n f t h e s a i dl m p e a c h m e n t o m p l a i n tH e c l a i m s t
t T h e H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f t h e 3 J a n u a r y 2 O t 2 O r d e r o n 4 J a n u alrt v 2 0 1i2 .e ( 5 ) a y s hasf v d 2 t h e r e f r o mo r u n t i l9 J a n u a r v 0 1 2 ,t o f i l e i t s c o m m e n t . ,

2 "it impossible was defective because was simplyphysically that the verification to of for the 188 Membersof the House Representatives haveread,understood with only four (4) copies for the and evaluated VerifiedComplaint lmpeachment n a v a i l a b lie a s h o r ts p a no f t i m e . "

2.

c s C o r o n a ' s l a i mi s b a s e l e sa n d h i s p r a y e rs h o u l db e d e n i e d . U n d e r

has the House of Representatives the "exclusivepower to the Constitution, l t i n i t i a t ea l l c a s e so f i m p e a c h m e n t . " 'T h i s H o n o r a b l e m p e a c h m e nC o u r t i s by not respectfully beseeched to reverseor disturbthe exercise the Houseof power" to initiate this impeachment case, Representatives its "exclusive of particularly of the underthe circumstances considering baselessnessCorona's and below. as claimandarguments, discussed

A. 3. C o n t r a r yt o C o r o n a ' sc l a i m , t h e l m p e a c h m e n tC o m p l a i n th a s it is verified,and it was

of compfiedwith the requirements the Constitution

with "filed by at leost one-thirdof all the Membersof the House,"in accordance Article Section (a)of the Constitution: Xl, 3

"[ArticleXl, Section )] In casethe verifiedcomplaint 3( is of or resolution impeachment filed by at leastone, o t h i r d o f a l l t h e M e m b e r s f t h e H o u s e t h e s a m es h a l l and the of constitute Articles lmpeachment, trial by the Senate shallforthwithproceed." is with the foregoingrequirements evident on the face of the Compliance by underoath executed one a Complaint it contains verification lmpeachment (188) representatives. is duly sworn to before a duly lt hundredeighty-eight of of the General the House Representatives. officer, Secretary authorized

'Sec (1), A r t i c l e l o f t h e 1 9 8 7C o n s t i t u t i o n . X 3

3 4. Given this, there is more than sufficientbasisfor the Honorable

power Senate "forthwithproceed"with the trial, pursuant its Constitutional to to pleafor an outrightdismissal, and ministerial duty. Corona's evenbeforethe trial hascommenced, incompatible is with this mandateof the Senate "forthwith to proceed" with the trial of the case.

"affirmative 4.1,. The supposed defense"of defective verification is relied upon by Corona as a ground to dismiss,and his Motion for Prefiminary Hearing in realitya motionto dismiss. is Indeed,he expressly a s k s o r t h e d i s m i s s a lf t h e C o m p l a i n tn t h i sg r o u n d .T h eS e n a t e u l e s n f o o R o lmpeachment not providefor suchmotion to dismiss.lt is plainfrom do s a i d R u l e s h a t t r i a l s h o u l di m m e d i a t e ls t a r t w i t h o u t a n y d e l a y( l i k et h e t y delaywhichwill necessarily entailed the filingof a motionto dismiss be by procedural ground). Accordingly, basedon a baseless, unsubstantial, the Motion for Preliminary Hearing shouldbe treatedas a dilatorytacticand should ot beentertained. n

5.

Coronacites the Rulesof Court in assailing of the sufficiency the

verification the lmpeachment of of of Complaint.But the provisions the Rules Court, particularly on such a technicalmatter as what constitutesproper proceeding, it is not verification, not strictly are applicable an impeachment to rs a judicialproceeding but rather, a politicalprocess(as admitted by Corona himself3).Eventhe SenateRulesof lmpeachment that the Rulesof Court say "applysuppletorily" only with respect "questions evidence" to of duringthe trial.a (withoutadmitting) Thus, evenassuming of that the verification the lmpeachment Complaint falls short of the requirements the Rulesof Court,it would not of render the verificationfatally defectivefor purposesof the impeachment proceedings.

' A n s w e r ,p a g e 6. a R e t , S e n a t e u l e s f P r o c e d u r o n l m p e a c h m e nT r i a l sS e c t i o n l . o V

6"

jurisprudence holdsthat the of Besides, evenunderthe Rules Court,

is and sworn is met requirement sufficiently whenthe pleading signed verification knowledge ond beliefto swearto the allegations to by a party who hassufficient in in are that as therein, it serves an assurance the matters the pleading alleged as goodfaithand not merelyspeculative:

" x x x [T]he verificationrequirementis deemed substantially complied with when some of the parties who undoubtedlyhave sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the is the same.Suchverification in allegations the petition had signed that the matters alleged in the deemed a sufficientassurance and petitionhavebeen made in good faith or are true and correct, x not merely speculative.xx"" C t I n t h i s c a s e , h e m a t t e r ss t a t e di n t h e l m p e a c h m e n t o m p l a i na r e u n d e n i a b l y t who well-known and familiarto the L88 representatives signedthe verification. lmpeachment Court can take judicialnoticethat the facts and This Honorable and have are of issues regarding Articles lmpeachment of publicknowledge the in of subject discussion the media.To cite someexamples: beenthe constant

(a)

t C o r o n a 'c o n t r o v e r s imli d n i g ha p p o i n t m e n t ; s a votingtrackrecordin favorof GMA; Corona's of case; League Cities in Theflip-flopping decision the notorious an casefollowing recall the judgmentin the FASAP of The suspicious lawyer; ex parte letterfrom PAL's

(b)
(c) (d)

(e) (f)

and otherJustices; of of The non-disclosure the SALNs Corona caseagainstformer The sfatus quo ante order in the impeachment which order was directedagainstHouseof Gutierrez, Ombudsman ntatives itself; Represe

(g)

which is pending Del Castillo Justice caseagainst The impeachment itself; with the House Representatives of

'

2011. 12 No. et v. Gorcio, al., G.R. 167291, January lnc. Cloros Diosdodo Prince Transport, ondMr. Renato

(h) (i)

Corona's meeting with Lauro Vizconde Dante and Jimenez; lrregularities the JDFand SAJ in fundsof the Supreme Court(which, according Corona's to Answer,is a "mere rehashof the allegations againstformer ChiefJustices Andres Narvasa and HilarioDavide, Jr"5); and

(j)

The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) hastily issued by the S u p r e m e o u r t ,u n d e rt h e l e a d e r s h io f C o r o n at,o a l l o wG M A a n d C p FGto escape from prosecution.

7.

Rememberthat back in January2OtO,even constitutionalist Fr.

(who is favorably Joaquin Bernas cited in Corona's Answer)had already warned that "anyperson who accepted postof Chief the Justice from Mrs.Arroyowould open himself herself impeachment the next Congress."T or to by Thus,for more than a year (since Corona's acceptance the midnight of appointment), concerned Membersof Congress have been particularly attunedand attentiveto matters and issues involving Coronawhich may serveas groundsfor his impeachment. Therefore, when the 188 congressmen congresswomen and finally signedthe l m p e a c h m e n to m p l a i n t t c a n n o tb e s a i dt h a t t h e y d i d n o t k n o wo r u n d e r s t a n d C i, the document they were signing.On the contrary, they were very familiarand knowledgeable the factsand issues with stated therein.

8.

Coronaharpstoo muchon the alleged lackof time and opportunity

to physically readthe lmpeachment Complaint, if the verification as requirement mandates that eachaffiantreadeveryletter,word, period,and comma,in every pageof the lmpeachment Complaint. There is no basisfor this literalist and overlystrictrequirement.Eventhe Supreme Courtitselfhas beenvery liberalin construing word readingin relation the verification the to requirement. saidin lt one case:
o Answer,page70. t See "Bernos:

Arroyo

oppointment

may

destroy

SC

credibility,"

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation /view/20700123-248930lBernas-Arroyo-appointment-maydestroy-SC-credibility, 23January 2011(last accessed December 27 2011).

"x x x [W]hat the Rulesrequireis for a party to read the without any specific requirementon the form contents a pleading of or manner in which the readingis to be done. x x x [W]hat is important is that efforts were made to satisfythe objective of the Rule - to ensure good faith and veracity in the allegationsof a pleading- thereby allowingthe courts to act on the case with reasonable certaintythat the petitioners' real positions have been pleaded."8 B. 9. The signing/verification enjoysa executed the 188 representatives by

it strongpresumption regularityand validity,because was underoath and was of Complaint madein the performance their officialduties.eThe lmpeachment of not was signedby membersof the Houseof Representatives merely in their personal in but, more importantly, their capacity citizens the Philippines as of representatives the people. of capacity publicofficers as and duly elected official The signing was done before the SecretaryGeneral of the House of of was included the discussion in The Representatives. lmpeachment Complaint 2011., beforeit was of of on the session the House Representatives t2 December portionof the Journal presented the Senate.(Foreasyreference, pertinent the to on the of the House Representatives, of documenting proceedings 12 December is in 2011,, reproduced Annex"A" hereof.)All theseareofficialacts.

10.

at With the completion the process the Houseof Representatives of

acts to theseofficial and the referral the lmpeachment of Complaint the Senate, of haveceased be the individual to actions the members of and officers the House of Representatives.They have become the official actions of the House of by and respected Representotives itself. As such,they deserve be recognized to t h i sH o n o r a b lS e n a t e . e

'Sps. N V a l m o n t e . A l c a l ae t . a l . ,G . R . o . 1 6 8 6 6 7 , u l y 3 , 2 0 0 8 . v , J 2 t 546 (1994). Rule131,Section3(m).SeeFernondo Sto.Tomos,234 v. SCRA Rules Court, of

7 11. Corona,in his Motion, failed to overcomethe presumptionof

regularity the perforrnance the House Representativesits constitutional in of of of duty to initiatethe impeachment case. The presumption not overcomeby is hearsay news reportsor mere speculation that some congressmen supposedly failedto read or could not havereadthe lmpeachment Complaint.Coronahas not evennamedthe congressmen allegedly who failedto readthe lmpeachment Thereis no evidence Complaint. that thosecongressmen withdrawing are their signatures. Thereis likewise evidence no that the congressmen supposedly who f a i l e dt o r e a d t h e l m p e a c h m e nC o m p l a i na r e s o n u m e r o u s s t o r e d u c e h e t t a t numberof the complainants lessthan the requiredone-third(1/3) of the to Members the House Representatives. of of

12.

invocation the cases Sollervs.Comelec and Lombino v. Corona's of of

COMELECmisplaced misleading. Soller, is and ln there is a clearfailureto comply protestfailedto statethat the with the rule on verification because election the contents the petitionweretrue andcorrect: of "Besides, there is another reason to dismiss private respondent's election protest. We note that the verificationof privaterespondent protestis defective. the verification, aforesaid In of merelvstatedthat he caused the preparation his petitionand he this hasreadand understood the allegations all therein.Certainlv. is insufficient privaterespondent failedto statethat the contents of as protestare true and correctof his personal knowledge. his election properverification, shouldbe treatedas an it Since petitionlacks the g su u n s i g n e p l e a d i n a n d m u s tb e d i s m i s s e d(.U n d e r s c o r i n g p p l i e d ) d "

13.

Thisfailureto statethat the allegations were true, was considered

fatal, obviouslybecausethe essenceof a verificationis to certify that the by allegations true. In the presentcase, are the verification executed the 188 representatives clearly statedthat "the allegations the complaint] true of are [in of our own knowledge and beliefon the basisof our readingand appreciation pertinent and documents other records thereto."

8 L4. Lambino, the other hand, involves lessthan an attempt to on no

changethe Constitution itself; hence,the call for stringentrequirements.In Lombino, the signaturesheet did not show to the signersthe draft of the proposed amendments beforethey were asked sign. In the present to case, the lmpeachment Complaint was obviously shownto the complainants it was the as verydocument that was signed them. by

c.
15. As discussed above,it is utterlybaseless speculative Corona and for

to allege that the 188 representatives failedto readthe lmpeachment Complaint (withoutadmitting) when they signedand sworeto it. But evenassuming that some representatives failed to read the lmpeachment it Complaint, would not render the verification the lmpeachment of Complaintdefective. Article Xl, Section3 (4) of the Constitution does not require verification all of the by complainants. saidprovision The merelyspeaks the filing by at leastone-third of of the Members, and not verification all of the saidMembers: by "(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at leastone-third all the Membersof the is of House, the sameshallconstitute of and the Articles lmpeachment, trial by the Senate shallforthwithproceed." Underthe foregoingprovision, is sufficient it that there is a verifiedcomplaint (i.e., verifiedby at leastone person), and that suchcomplaint filed by at least is one-thirdof the Membersof the Houseof Representatives. Constitution The does not requireall of the complainants verifythe lmpeachment Complaint. to Notably, even in ordinaryproceedings, Rules Courtand jurisprudence the of do not require that a pleading verified all of the parties: be by "x x x [T]heverification requirement deemedsubstantially is compliedwith when some of the partieswho undoubtedly have sufficientknowledgeand belief to swear to the truth of the

allegations the petitionhad signedthe same.x x x"10(Emphasis in supplied)

16.

In his Motion,Corona argues that allof the complainants mustverify

the lmpeachment Complaint.Thisinterpretation simplynot supported the is by language Article Section ( ) of the Constitution. of Xl, 3 Worse,in advocating such interpretation,Corona's Motion has MISQUOTED the provisionsof the Constitution an offensewhich may be understandable ordinarylitigants for in o r d i n a r y a s e sb u t u n p a r d o n a b lie a C h i e f u s t i c ef a c i n gi m p e a c h m e n tl.n t h e c , n i veryfirstitem of his Motion,he states:

L.

Section3, Article XI of the Constitutionprovides:

(2) A verified complaint for impeochmentmay be filed by ony member of the Houseof Representotive by any citizenupon o or resolutionof endorsementby any Member thereof, which sholl be included in the Order of Business within ten sessiondoys, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter." (Underscoring supplied)

xxx

xxx

xxx

(4) ln case the verified complaint is filed by at leost one-third of all the Members of the House, the some shall constitute the Articles of lmpeochment, ond triol by the Senate sholl forthwith proceed." (Underscoring pplied.) su

17.

Unless Corona's Motion was quotinga constitution other than the

1987Constitution, quotation the NOTa faithfulreproduction aboveis certainly of provisionthat is purportedlyinvoked. the constitutional The pertinent

paragraphs Section ArticleXl of the Constitution of 3, actually readas follows(the underscoring refersto portions omittedor deletedin the quotations Corona's in Motion):

lO

(|

.'

10 "(2) A verifiedcomplaint impeachment for may be filed by upon of or any Memberof the House Representatives by any citizen a resolution endorsement any Memberthereof,whichshallbe or by includedin the Order of Business within ten sessiondays, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.The Committee, after hearing. and bv a maioritvvote of all its Members,shall submit its report to the Housewithin sixtv session davs from such referral.togetherwith the corresponding resolution. The resolution for bv shall be calendared consideration the House withinten session davsfrom receipt thereof.
XXX XXX XXX

"(41 In case the verified complaint or resolution of o i m p e a c h m e ns f i l e d b y a t l e a s to n e - t h i r d f a l l t h e M e m b e r s f t h e it o o t H o u s et,h e s a m es h a l lc o n s t i t u t eh e A r t i c l e s f l m p e a c h m e n a,n d t supplied, triaf by the Senateshallforthwith proceed."[Underscoring ond refers to portions omitted in the quotationsin Corona'sMotionl

L8.

(4), paragraph Corona's Motion deletedthe phrase In (mis)quoting

"or resolntionof impeochment."A very important phrasein the middle of the provisionwas presented the provision as was taken out and the incomplete provision. This misquotation when becomeshighly misleading constitutional followed by the Motion's presentationof the following portions of the of Commission: deliberations the Constitutional

MR. DAVIDE: When an impeachment charge is, os recommendedby the Committee,signed by a mojority of oll the membersof the House,should it olwovs be in the noture of a complaint which must be verified. or is it enough that it is in the notureof o resolution? MR. ROMULO:No,in our thinkingit shouldbe underoath. swear to the ooth, or MR. DAVIDE: Must oll of the sianotories wouldonly one of them be enough? MR. ROMULO: No,in Section (3 thot would be all f them. as 3 distinguished from Section2 (2) where only one Member can sign.

11

MR. DAVIDE: All of them must have to sweor to the ooth. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. ll, p. 280) (Underscoring supp Iied.) L9. From this quotation of the excerptsof the deliberations the of

Constitutional Commission, based the underscoring wasdone,Corona and that on presents propositions: that an impeachment (1) apparently two interrelated case must alwaysbe in the natureof a complain! and (2) that all signatories must swearto the oath. This theory matchesthe Motion's misquotedversionof paragraph Section ArticleXl. However, (4), when the quoteddiscussion the of 3, provision framers the constitution takenagainst is the genuine constitutional of (asfinally readily worded), Motion's the fictional legalbasis collapses.

20.

it To put the discussion the proper perspective, is importantto in

that tracethe contextof the deliberations the Motionquoted. Fromthe quoted 2 ion excerpts, framers made reference a "Secf 3 (3)" and to a "Secfion (2)". the to pertainto the provisions the proposedtext of what is now of Thesereferences 3, Xl, Section Article to wit:

"section3. (1) The Houseof Representatives have the shall powerto initiate cases impeachment. all of exclusive (2) A verifiedcomplaint impeachment for may be filed by any to of its members by a citizen or whichshallbe referred the proper for and committee the House investigation report. A vote of the of to majorityof all the membersof the Houseis necessary initiate proceed impeachment i ngs. (3) However, when the comploint is signed and verified by a majority of the members of the House,the same shall constitute the .Articles of Impeachment ond the triol by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
x x x"11

^'Bernas, , T h el n t e n to f t h e 1 . 9 8 6 o n s t i t u t i o W r i t e r s( 1 9 9 5 ) p a g e s 7 6 6 - 7 6 7 . C n

13 readyand willingto face trial in the Senate.ln his 14 December 2011speecht' delivered the Supreme at Courtgrounds, declared: he

"Hoharapin ko nang buong topong of talino ong mgo walang basehang paratong no ito, punto por punto, sa Senado. Handanghondo akonghumorapso poglilitis." He is now estopped from raisingobjections avoid going to trial beforethe to Senate.

24.

Moreover, Corona has invoked and submitted himself to the

jurisdiction this Honorable lmpeachment on of Court- he hasfiled an Answer 26 for December 201.1, asking the affirmative for reliefof "ajudgmentof acquittal all just and equitable under the Articles lmpeachment" of and "for all other reliefs the premises." He has also reservedhis right to avail himselfof modes of of discovery.l3 is now estopped He from denying jurisdiction this Honorable the lmpeachment Court over the subjectmatter of the case the lmpeachment

to lt that Corona not qualifyhissubmission the did Complaint. shouldbe stressed j u r i s d i c t i oo f t h i s H o n o r a b l l m p e a c h m e n t o u r ta s h i sA n s w e r a s n o t m a d eo n n w e C basis. an od cautelam

25.

lndeed,his Motion for Preliminary Hearingseemsto be a mere

was filed. The Motionappears filedthree (3) daysafter hisAnswer afterthought, rulingfrom the Senate that he can later so to be intended secure preliminary to a on bring it up to the SupremeCourt for review and injunctiverelief. lf this for happens, then it would be clearthat Coronahas no respect this Honorable proceedings. lmpeachment Courtand is triflingwith the impeachment

" See ng "AkoangUnang TagapagtanggolHustisya," http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/speeches/L2-t4-t1-speech.pdl (last 2011.). 14December 2011., 2,3,5,L2,14,15 at accessed 27 December on
13

t4 F. 26. (withoutadmitting) Even assuming that the verification in any way is

"defective," is not fatalto the lmpeachment it Complaint the jurisdiction the or of lmpeachmentCourt. jurisdictional, uisite req : "ln any case,the settled rule is that a pleadingwhich is requiredby the Rulesof Court to be verified,may be given due courseeven without a verification the circumstances if warrantthe suspension the rulesin the interest justice. of of Indeed, absence the of a verificationis not jurisdictional, only a formal defect,which but justify a court in refusingto allow and act on a does not of itself (E iu c a s e . " 1 4 m p h a s ss p p l i e d ) lt is elementarythat verificationis a formal, not

27.

Notably,Coronahimselfdid not even sign his Answer,much less

verifyit underoath (probably avoidthe riskof perjuring to himself).He shouldbe t h e l a s tp e r s o no h a r po n i n s i g n i f i c atn tc h n i c a l i t i e s . t e

G. 28. (without admitting) Evenassuming that some of the complainants

may not haveinitially readthe lmpeachment Complaint, they havehad sufficient time by now to read it and withdrawtheir signatures they find it wantingor if objectionable.None of them has withdrawntheir signatures, and it can be deducedtherefrom that they are standingby their original signatures and verification.And presuming for that the lmpeachment Complaint dismissed is lack of a proper verification, the complainants would simply re-file it after correcting purported the violation.Nothingbut delaywould be gained technical by that.

!4

'1

15 PRAYER

prayedthat the Honorable WHEREFORE,is respectfully it lmpeachment Courtdenyrespondent Chief Justice Corona's Motionfor Preliminary Hearing, and forthwith proceed to triql.

prayed Otherjust and equitable reliefs likewise are for.

City,Metro Manila, January 9,2012. Quezon

THEHOUSE REPRESENTATIVES OF Republic the Philippines of

By:
HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES OF PRIVATE PROSECUTORS

-,__--/

fdTZ

ELc. TUPAS/J*/
LeadProsecutor

..^

PTR No. 2686005, Jan.L8, z9tt, MakatiCity Lifetime No. 00060,MakatiCity IBP No. 30196 Rollof Attorneys No. Feb. MCLE Compliance 1110008479, 9, zOtO

m,tvww
t, ' [\|"1,1,' A,"t7l/K
,"ll

(By CopyFurnished Personal Service): (Ret.)et al. Justice SerafinR. Cuevas Counsel Respondent for Chief Justice Renato Corona Suite1902Security BankCentre 6776AyalaAvenue MakatiCity,Philippines 1226

"l

',,, ' t