Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA, Petitioner, - versus — G.R.No. SENATE of the PHILIPPINES sitting as an IMPEACHMENT COURT, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, ARLENE “KAKA” ~~ BAG-AO, GIORGIDI AGGABAO, MARILYN PRIMICIAS-AGABAS, NIEL TUPAS, RODOLFO FARINAS, SHERWIN TUGNA, RAUL DAZA, ELPIDIO BARZAGA, REYNALDO UMALI, — NERI COLMENARES (ALSO KNOWN AS THE PROSECUTORS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES), Respondents. x URGENT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WITH PRAYER FOR IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION While it has often been said that by and large, the tial in an impeachment case is political in nature, nonetheless, such is neither an excuse nor a license for us t0 ignore and abandon our soleran and higher obligation and responsiblity as body of jurors to see to it that the vill of rights are observed and that justice is sereed and fo conduct the trial with impartiality and fairness, to hear the case with a clear and open mind, to weigh carefully in this scale the evidence against the respondent and fo render to him a just verdict bared on no otherconsideration than our constitution and laws, the facts presented to us and our individual moral convictions. — Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Ennile COMES NOW, Petitioner RENATO C. CORONA, Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests and avers: PREFATORY Is the Impeachment ‘Trial beyond the reach of judicial review? Defense Counsel for CJ Corona are unfairly criticized for using “technicalities of law” to prevent the fair introduction of evidence. It is argued that this should stop so that the public may know the “truth.” Is it not enough that the Verified Complaint was ramrodded against all odds? Must we now endure the monumental emptiness of the Prosecution’s case? The nation waits in vain as none of the 188 Complainants comes forward to provide admissible testimony against C} Corona. None of them has any personal knowledge worthy of this nation’s time. All throughout the proceedings, ‘counsel for CJ Corona are forced into ligation with standards so far below the norm in regular proceedings that there appear no identifiable limits before the Impeachment Court. ‘The effect has been the unhappy experience of trying the impeachment case with the general public as the judge and jury. Not only does this violate the right of CJ Corona to the cold, neutrality of an impartial judge, but it also denies him the Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 2 of 39fundamental right to a trial in accordance with the “Constitution and the laws of the Republic of the Philippin Instead, televiewers are being treated to a broadside intrusion of C] Corona’s private life, the humiliation of his family and a carnival atmosphere where a high-ranking magistrate is being shamed and insulted for all to see. He will not resign, Defense Counsel will adhere to their solemn oath as eagles of the law “to present every defense the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.” Are Defense Counsel expected to abandon the constitutional rights of CJ Corona to accommodate the Prosecutors and the restless public? Surely, this cannot be so. The endless pleas of the Prosecution to the so-called “people’s clamor” has brought about the erroneous application of liberality in the proceedings, when in fact, the exact opposite should be the case. For proper protection agair t the infringement of constitiational rights, this Impeachment Court would be better poised to adopt the strictissini juris tale of interpretation. ‘The liberal attitude of the Impeachment Court has turned the proceedings into a fishing expedition, while CJ Corona is forced to swim against the tide, Defens Counsel have no choice but to stand firm at every step in the hope of saving C] Corona from the flood of improper prejudicial matters. As repeatedly argued, it appears that the right of CJ) Corona to due process of law has been ignored, all for the sake of accommodating the viewing * Please see Oath of Office of Senator Judges, Rules of Impeachment. Urgent Petition for Certonari Page 3 of 39public. While the Prosecutors were warned against a trial by publicity, they have actually managed to mislead and confuse the public by adducing irrelevant and immaterial matters in these proceedings. We must all bear in mind that the very function of what some call rules of technicality is to protect and ensure the due process tights of the individual in litigation. ‘The rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose; to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat the substantive rights of the individual. No cout may barter away its most sacred duty to protect the constitutional rights of an individual in the name of public demand or clamor. Correctly understood, a court must be a court to the Prosecution as much as it is a court to the Defense. Whenever the sights of an individual are threatened, they take precedence over the rights of the State or of the many; this is why the Constitution of the Bill of Rights are guarantees to the individual. May it please the Court, the cause of the invalidity of this Impeachment ‘Trial is the undue liberality and flexibility resulting in an unwarranted fishing in their discussions of the merits ‘rom abu: expedition of the Prosecution. of the case to the media, to the outright and blatant lies ix facie curiae, counsel for CJ Corona are made to suffer from ordinary inappealable rulings regarding rsay and baseless testimony in their vain attempt to produce evidence for the basel , unfounded and unsupportable statements in Articles IL ‘To add to the unbearable situation counsel for CJ Corona must deal with, a Senator Judge may pose any question he wishe to any witness, without any Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 4 of 39tight on the pat of counsel to oppose or object. Sadly, there seems almost no reason to expect that the outcome of the proceedings will be fair or just. NATURE OF THE PETITION Petitioner invokes § 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, riz. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of urt to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated 27 January 2012 and 6 February 2012 (Annexes O and P), respectively of the respondent Impeachment Court in Senate Impeachment Case No. 002-2011, entitled “In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Renato C. Corona as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Representatives Niel C. Tupas, Jr, Jr, Joseph Exmilio A. Abaya, Lorenzo R. Tariada Il, Reynaldo V. Umali, Arlene J. Bag-Ao, et ak” (the “Impeachment Complaint’). Duplicate original copies of the Verified Complaint, Answer, Reply, the Resolutions, excerpts of the Journals and other supporting documents are attached hereto as Annexes “A” to “P”, respectively Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 5 0f 39Petitioner has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. He is compelled to resort to the extraordinary relief of certiorati to seek redress from the assailed proceedings and Resolutions, which were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ot excess of jurisdiction, STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES Petitioner received a copy of the Resolutions of the Impeachment Court on 30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012 respectively. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court (the “Rules”), petitioner has sixty (60) days from 18 January 008, or until 18 March 2008, to file a petition for certiorari. ‘This Petition is thus timely filed. PARTIES Petitioner Renato C. Corona is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court He may be served with notices and court processes through undersigned counsel at the address given below Respondent Senate of the Philippines sitting as an Impeachment art is the branch of government with jurisdiction to try and decide all cases of ;peachment (§ 3(6) Article XI, 1987 Constitution). It may be served with Urgent Petition for Cortiorant Page 6 of 39notices and court process at the Senate of the Philippines GSIS Bldg,, Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City. Respondent Bank of the Philippine Islan Ayala Avenue Branch, is a banking corporation which may be served summonses and other legal processes at its office located at SGV Building, Ayala Avenue, corner, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City. Respondent Philippine Savings Bank, Katipunan Avenue, is a banking, at corporation, which may be served summons and other court proce: Katipunan Ave., Quezon City Respondents Representatives-Prosecutors Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao. et al., are the prosecutors assigned by the House of Representatives for the Impeachment Complaint. ‘They may be served with notices and court proc at the c/o Speaker of the House of Representatives, Constitution Hills, Quezon . Philippines 1126. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On 15 December 2011, C} Corona received a copy of the Verified Complaint against him (Annex A). In Article I thereof, the grounds for the violation committed by C] Corona are stated, riz: ARTICLE IL Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 7 of 39RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. 2. On 26 December 2010, CJ Corona submitted his Answer (Anp B) to the said Verified Complaint with the Secretary of the Senate of the Philippines, denying the allegations in Article I, stating that he has been regularly filing his SALN, that the release of SALN of justices is regulated by a Resolution of the Supreme Court and that CJ Corona never issued an order that forbade the public disclosure of his SALN, 3. CJ Corona filed a Motion for Preliminary Heating on 29 December 2011 (Annex C) requesting that the Impeachment Court hear certain affirmative defenses being raised regarding the validity of the Verified Complaint 4. Complainants submitted a Reply (Annex D) on 2 January 2012. 5. On 3 January 2012, in an attempt to try CJ Corona by publicity, Representative Niel Tupas (Tupas) publicly disclosed evidence to be presented concerning the condominium unit of Chief Justice Corona (C} Corona) located at ‘Taguig, Global City and even presented a copy of a purported deed of sale of the said condominium unit to all media, in violation of Rule XVIII of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment ‘Trials (Annex E) 6 The news article of Cynthia D. Balana entitled “Corona Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 8 of 39penthouse bared” appearing in the 4 January 2012 editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquier, reads as follows: At the (prosecution) panel's news conference Tuesday, Hoilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. the chief prosecutor, said spouses Renato and Cristina Corona purchased Unit 388 at Tower | of The Bellagio from Megaworld on Dec. 16, 2009, at the price of P14.51 million. ‘The unit has three parking slots, cach measuring 12.5 sq m. 7. Press reports of 5 January 2012, mention that the Hon, Presiding Officer publicly scolded Rep. ‘Tupas for his publicly discussing evidence to be used in the case. CJ Corona filed a Manifestation on 9 January 2012, calling the attention of the Impeachment Court to the violation of Rule XVIIL 8. Proceedings began on 16 January 2012, where CJ Corona was informed that his Motion for Preliminary Hearing was denied. During the same hearing, the Impeachment Court noted the Manifestation of 9 January 2012, and the Hon. Presiding Officer warned both parties from further discussion of the evidence in public, with a clear declaration that no other institution has the authority to try and decide impeachment cases, “and neither the people have the authority to try and decide the impeachment case against the Chief Justice.” 9. Atthe next heating date, 17 January 2012, the Prosecution moved for a postponement because they did not have any witness who could testify, despite the fact that 188 Complainants allegedly verified the Complaint. Before adjournment and over the objection of CJ Corona, the Impeachment Court * See, Journal No. 2 of the Impeachment Court, 16 January 2012. Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 9 0f 39permitted the Prosecution to commence the presentation of evidence on Article UL 10. Upon subpoena issued by the Impeachment Court, the Prosecution presented on 18 January 2012, Atty. Enriqueta Vidal (Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court) who testified that CJ Corona religiously filed his SALNs with her office and that the release of the SALNs was a matter referred to the Supreme Court en bane, consistent with the practice followed pursuant to the Resolutions on the matter. Auy. Vidal submitted the SALNs of CJ Corona for the years 2002 to 2010, which have been marked as Exhibits A to N for the Prosecution, Il. After direct examination by Private Prosecutor Mario Bautista, counsel for CJ Corona stated that there would be no cross-examination and the Presiding Officer declared that the witness was discharged. At this juncture, Senator Drilon took the floor and began to cross-examine the witness, Counsel for C] Corona, Justice Serafin R. Cuevas, interposed an objection, stating that the question of Senator Drilon was ‘hypothetical’ Only then did CJ Corona realize that no objection or argument could be raised against questions of a Senator-judge, rig: ‘The Presiding Officer. Any Corss? Mr. Cuevas, No, Your Honot. ‘The Presiding Officer. ‘The witness is discharged Senator Drilon, Before you discharge. Ungent Petition for Certiorari Page 10 0f 39‘The Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from lilo. Senator Drilon. ‘Thank you, Mr, President. 1 wish to avail of the nwo (2) minutes allowed under our Rules to ask question (sic) ued Madam Witness, did I hear you correctly that the subpoena is by this Court was submitted to the Supreme Court for thei disposition? Mrs. Vidal. I am actually asking for authorization. Senator Drilon. And if no authorization is issued, you will not bring the documents ordered by this Court to be perused. Mr. Cuevas. Sorry to object, Your Honor. The question is hypothetical, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. We are the judges, how can this Counsel object to my question? ‘The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Mr. Cuevas. Iam sorry, Your Honor. I thought we were allowed to go that far Senator Drilon. ‘The Counsel is overdoing it. He is objecting to the question of a judge. Mr. Cuevas. No, because apparently, question tends to elicit an answer—to the prosecution. Senator Drilon. Of course we want to have an answer to thes questions. ‘The Court issued the subpoena, Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. Lam sor ‘The Presiding Officer. May 1 beg the indulgence of the Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. ‘The Presiding Officer. \ Member of this House of the Senate is entitled to ask questions to the witnesses presented and to the Counsel Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I realize that. The Presiding Officer. ‘That is their privilege Mr. Cuevas. I realize that, Your Honor, Urgent Petition for Cortona Page 11° 0f 39The Presiding Officer. And this is a new forum where lawyers operate so we understand Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, I apologize, especially to you, Your Honor, The Presiding Officer. Your apology—‘The distinguished gentleman from Iloilo may proceed. 12. Other witnesses presented were Marianito Dimaandal (Records Custodian of Malacanan Palace), who presented the SALNs of Renato C. stance Executive Secretary, from 1992 up to 2002, marked as Exhibits © up to X; Auy, Randy A, Rutaquio (Register of Deeds of Taguig: Pateros); and Atty. Carlo V. Alcantara (Acting Register of Deeds, Quezon City) 13. ‘Thus far, only the testimony and evidence adduced through Atty. Enriqueta Vidal is relevant and material to this impeachment trial. 14, In compliance with this Honorable Court’s directive, the Parties submitted their respective memoranda (Annexes F and G, respectively) on whether Complainants’ presentation of evidence to prove CJ Corona’s supposed unlawfully acquired wealth goes beyond the scope of the charges contained in Article II of the supposedly Verified Complaint for Impeachment (the Complaint) Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 12 of 3915. The Impeachment Court promulgated its 27 January 2012 Resolution, giving rise to one of the grounds for this Petition, ng: IN SUM, THEREFORE, this Court resolves and accordingly rules: 1. ‘Yo allow the Prosecution to introduce evidence in support of Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of Article IT of the Articles of Impeachment; 2. To disallow the introduction of evidence in support of Par. 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment, with respect to which, this Court shall be guided by and shall rely upon the legal presumptions on the nature of any property or asset which may be proven to belong to the Respondent Chief Justice as provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379. SO ORDERED. 16. Over the repeated objections of counsel for CJ Corona, the Impeachment Court allowed the presentation of evidence, circumventing the Resolution of the Impeachment Coutt regarding the disallowance of evidence in support of Par. 2.4, by relying on Par. 2.3 that “(it is also reported that some properties of the Respondent ate not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.” 17, For instance, the Prosecution was allowed to present evidence pertaining to properties of the children of C) Corona, despite the absence of any mention of their names in the Verified Complaint. For instance, the Prosecution was allowed to introduce documents and testimony regarding a 203 sq. m. lot at the McKinley Hill Project, owned and registered in the name of Maria Charina Corona, and represented by her “attorney-in-fact, Renato C. Corona.” Then again, testimony and documents were introduced regarding the 1,200 sq. m. property of Constantino and Carla Corona Castillo located in La * Please see testimony of Prosecution witness, Giovanni Ng, of Megawotld Cosporation, Journal of the Senate, No. 9, Monday, 30 January 2012. Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 13° of 39Vista, Quezon City, purchased from “Maria Cristina R, Corona married to Renato C. Corona.” 18. During several instances in the proceedings before the Impeachment Court, the Rules of Evidence and Procedure were disregarded to accommodate the Prosecution. A case in point, was the testimony of Mr. Gregorio Gorgonia, despite the admission of the witness that he had no personal knowledge of the authenticity of the documents in the transaction, the Presiding Officer allowed him to testify and present the documents over the objection of counsel for C} Corona. 19. Complainants filed, on 31 January 2012, separate requests for the issuance of subpoenae of records and statements for bank accounts in the Bank of the Philippine Islands (Ayala Avenue) and PS Bank (Katipunan Ave.) (Requests, Annexes H and I respectively). CJ Corona filed Oppositions to both Requests on 1 February 2012 (Annexes J and K). Complainants filed a Reply to the Oppositions, (Annex 1) citing omissions in their Requests arising out of “inadvertence.” Before the Honorable Impeachment Court could rule on the matter, however, Complainants withdrew their requests, On 2 February 2012, Complainants filed their Supplemental Request for Subpoenae/Reply. (Annex M). CJ Corona filed his Consolidated Opposition/Rejoinder (Annex N). By this time, sevetal members of the business community were airing fears and * Please see testimony of Prosecution witness, Atty. Carlo V. Alcantara, Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Journal of the Senate, No. 5, Thursday, 19 January 2012. Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 14 of 39concerns that there would be bank runs if the inspection of the accounts is permitted for no good cause.’ These concerns, however, fell on deaf ears. 20. ‘The Honorable Impeachment Court promulgated its Resolution, with the following disposition, ny: WHEREPORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the majority votes to grant the Prosecution’s Requests for Subpoenae to the responsible officers of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), for them to testify and bring and/or produce before the Court documents on the alleged bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona, only for the purpose of the instant impeachment proceedings, as follows: 8) The Branch Manager of the Bank of Philippine Islands, Ayala Avenue Branch, 6" Floor, SGV Building, 6758 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, is commanded to bring before the Senate at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the otiginal and certified true copies of the account opening forms/documents for Bank Account No 1445-8030-61 in the name of Renato C. Cotona and the bank statements showing the balances of the said account as of December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010. b) The Branch Manager (and/or authorized representative) of Philippine Savings Bank, Katipunan Branch, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, is commanded to bring before the Senate at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the original and certified true copies of the account opening forms/documents for the following bank accounts allegedly in the name of Renato C. Corona, and the documents showing the balances of the said accounts as of December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010: 089-19100037-3 089-13100282-6 089-121017358 089-121019593 089-121020122 089.121021681 089-141-00712.9 089-141.00746-9 089-14100814-5 (089-121-001195-7, SO ORDERED. 21. Hence, this Petition. * Please see, Rey B. Requejo, Standard Today, Traders warn of bank run, p. 1; Jomar Canlas and Ritchie Horario, Traders warn vs, openting of Corona’s bank records, p.1 Urgent Pottion for Certionark Page 15 of 39ARGUMENTS I. THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE IT WAS TRASMITTED WITHOUT DUE NOTICE AND HEARING TO CJ CORONA. i. THE IMPEACHMENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF — JURISDICTION IN RETAINING PAR. 2.3 OF ARTICLE II. Ill. PARAGRAPHS 2.3 AND 2.4 OF THE COMPLAINT ARE BASED ON PURE SPECULATION AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ULTIMATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A COMPLAINT. IV. THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ON CHARGES OF ALLEGED CORRUPTION AND ~~ UNEXPLAINED WEALTH — VIOLATE! PETITIONER’S v. THE IMPEACHMENT COURT ED GRAVE ABUSE OF [ION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE SUBPOENA FOR ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AS REQUESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. DISC! 1. THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE IT WAS TRASMITYED WITHOUT DUE NOTICE AND HEARING 'TO Cj CORONA. Urgent Petition for Certiorart Page 16 of 3922. A simple reading of the Articles of Impeachment will show that probable cause to impeach CJ Corona has not been established. Per force of circumstance, this impeachment proceeding is riddled with constitutional defects too numerous to withstand even cursory legal scrutiny, 23. ‘The Constitution requires that the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment ‘This Complaint was filed pursuant to Section 3(4) of Article XI, which provides: Sec. 5(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed 24. ‘The Impeachment Court should have refrained from proceeding to trial on the basis of this Complaint because it is constitutionally infirm and defective, for lack of probable cause. While the Complaint is verified, that alone would not justify the violation of CJ Corona’s fundamental right to due process. 25. Undoubtedly, public admissions by members of the House of Representatives declared that there was no opportunity to read the Complaint. ‘They also declared that the majority of signatories signed without reading the Complaint, but reputably in exchange for material considerations,’ It stands to season that the Senate Impeachment Court gravely abused its discretion when “ The 1987 Constitution of the Pbilippines, Article 11 Section 3(1). ? These statements ate easily gleaned from various interviews given by Representatives Tobias Tiangeo, Hermenegildo Mandanas, Crispin Remulla, Rodolfo Farias, Rodolfo Biazon and, none other than the alleged editor, Niel Tupas, Jr., among others. Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 17 of 39it accepted the Articles of Impeachment even if they were patently without probable cause. 26. In Francisco». Neagmamalacakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggawang Pilipino, Inc, * the Supreme Court barred the Impeachment Complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. In his concurrence, Mr. Justice Panganiban referred to the omnipresent character of duc process, riz * * (During the Oral argument, Senator Salonga and Petitioner Franscisco Chavez, denounced the second Impeachment Complaint as violative of due process. They argued, that by virtue merely of the endorsement of more than one third of the members of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice was immediately impeached without being afforded the twin requirements of notice and heating. The proceedings were therefore null and void, ab initio. 1 must agree. The due process clause, enshrined in our fundamental law, is a condition, sine gua non that cannot be ignored in any proceeding — administrative, judicial ot otherwise. It is deemed written into every law, rule or contract, even though not exptessly stated therein. Hence, the House Rules on Impeachment, in so far as they do not provide the charged official with (1) notice and (2) opportunity to be heard prior to being impeached, are also ‘unconstitutional, 27. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago similarly adverted to. the pervasive character of due process, 1%: ‘The Impeachment Complaint suffers from yet another serious flaw. As one Of the amici curiae, former Senate President Jovito Salonga, pointed out, the signing of the Impeachment Complaint by the purported 1/3 of the Congressmen was done without due process. The Chief Justice, against whom the Complaint was brought ‘was not served notice of the proceedings against hit, No tule is better established, under the due process clause of the Constitution, than that which requires notice and opportunity to be heard before any person can be deprived of his rights. Indeed, when the Constitution says that no Person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it ‘means that every person shall be afforded the essential element of notice in any proceeding. Any act committed in violation of due process may be declared null and void, (citing Peo. x. Vera, G. R. No. 134732, 29 May 2002)” GR. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 oud, Urgent Petition for Certorari Page 18 of 39I. THE IMPEACHMENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RETAINING PAR. 2.3 OF ARTICLE Il. 28. In Gutierrez». House of Representatives," the Honorable Court held: Suffice it to state that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set, known as the “Articles of Impeachment Article Il is a hodge-podge of multiple charges. Hence, the charges discussed in Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of Article II should be stricken out. 29. It may be well-worth noting that the phraseology of both Paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 do not stray far from each other, and are in fact neatly synonymous from a legal standpoint. 30. Par. 2.3 refers to “ported * * violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.” In like fashion, Par, 2.4 states that “Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been repotied that Respondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in Taguig.” Despite the similarity of the terms ‘reported,’ ‘suspected and accused, the Impeachment "G.R.No. 193459, 15 Febr ry 2011 Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 19° of 39Court ruled that they should be treated differently, without any apparent basis for the distinction, 31. Most striking about the tenor of Pars. 2.3 and 2.4 is that they are all premised on suspicion and/or hearsay. Needless to state, the statements therein do not constitute allegations in law, much k ultimate facts upon which a valid charge can be sustained. Petitioner is puzzled, however, that the Impeachment Court has given Par. 2.3 different treatment and legal effect from Par. 2.4. The result has been to deprive CJ Cotona of due process and any protection from the onslaught of irrelevant and immaterial evidence. s to warrant the differentiated treatment of 32. No cogent reason exi Pars. 2.3 and 2.4, While specific assets and properties are identified in Par. 2.4, there is no such description in Par, 2.3. In other words, the prohibition of Par 2.4 at least excludes specific properties. ‘Tragically, however, the retention of Par. 2.3 leaves the floodgates open to accommodate inquiry into any property in the guise of a search for ill-gotten wealth over properties that do not appear in the SALN: 33. But assuming, gratia argumenti, that the retention of Par. 2.3 is valid or correct, the Impeachment Court gravely abused its discretion because its ruling effectively allows the introduction of evidence under Par. 2.3, as vehicle to prove Par. 2.4, The tes olution, therefore, is nothing mote than a hollow relief, bringing no real solution or protection to CJ Corona. Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 20 of 3934. ‘The only remedy available to CJ Corona is the corrective hand of this Honorable Court, to strike down Par. 2.3 as it is not significantly different from Par. 2.4, II. PARAGRAPHS 2.3 AND 2.4 OF THE COMPLAINT ARE BASED ON PURE SPECULATION AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ULTIMATE FACTS SUFFICIENT ‘TO SUPPORT A COMPLAINT. 35. Itis a basic principle in procedural law that complaints should be based on ultimate facts. “Ultimate facts” are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant."" The term refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the entire cause of action rests." ‘The ultimate fai s which are to be pleaded are the issuable, constitutive, or traversible facts essential to the statement of the cause of action; the facts which the evidence on the trial will prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts." 36. For criminal proceedings, which is akin to the instant impeachment proceeding, an authority on criminal procedure enumerates the Rules of Pleading Criminal Cases as follows: Rone of pleading in eriinal cases. ~ Since it is the constitational right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, i is necessary that there should be reasonable certainty in the statement of accusation. It is said that a somewhat greater degree of certainty is required in criminal pleadings than in civil pleadings because of the penal consequences involved On the basis of this requirement, the following rules on criminal pleading have been established: " Philippine Law Dietionaty "ld. citing Renitere » Yio, 123 Phil 62. Salita v. Magllis, G.R. No. 106429, 13 June 1994. Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 21 of 39Q@ The facts must be alleged in positive terms and not by way of recital; @) The offense must not be stated hypothetically or angumentativelys (@) The offense must not be stated in the disjunctive or in the alternative; A Ambiguous allegations not permissible; © — The statement of a conclusion of law without showing the facts is bad (©) Mauers of evidence need not be averred; ) Matters that may be presumed or of which judicial notice must be alleged if necessary to the description of the offense charged; although such facts need not be prove (8) Matters of defense should not be alleged in an information as a general rule; ) —Aninformation repugnant in a material part must be avoided; (10) Matter which is necessary to the commission of the offense must be averred although negative in form; (11) An act of nonfeasance charged in an information may as a rule be alleged only in general terms in a negative ways (12) Where spoken words are the gist of the offense, they must be accurately set out in the information; (13) Where a written instrument enters into an offense as a part or basis thereof or when its proper construction is material, the instrument should be set out in the information; (14) Tnducement and innuendo must be averred; (15) Surplusage must be avoided; (16) Use of abbreviations, numerals and symbols must be avoided."# 37. Hence, it has been ruled that an information which alleges that defendant is accused of having committed an offense (tating, if, but which does not directly charge that defendant committed the offense, is insufficient.* Furthermore, since the charge in an information must be made with such definitenes and certainty to enable the accused to prepare for trial, it must follow that the charge must not be stated hypothetically or argumentatively. Thus, an information is bad if it is stated that “there is probable cause to suspect” that accused has committed the crime, instead that he did commit it.'” ' FRANCISCO, Criminal Procedure, 2°! Ed., p. 124. Emphasis supplied. Id, p. 125, citing Stare». Neon, 79 Minn. 388, 32 NW 650. “Id, citing Com. 1: Philips, 6 Pick. (Mass), 211 Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 22 of 3938. An examination of paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint shows that the allegations therein are based on pute conjecture and speculation, and not ultimate facts, 13 23. It is also reported that some of the properties of the Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. 24. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent hhas, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in ‘Taguig, Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution in his Statement of Assets and Tiabillties and Net Worth (SALN)? Is. this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he ‘complied with his duty of public disclosure?” 39. ‘Time and again, this Honorable Court has held that charges based ‘on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence,'*and it would be absurd if mere suspicion and speculation would be treated as a valid basis 10 oust an incumbent Chief Justice of this Honorable Court, 40. In Republic » Sandiganbayan," this Honorable Court had the occasion to rule upon general accusations as follows: Phrases like "in flagrant breach of public trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public officers with grave and scandalous abuse of right and power and ia brazen violation of the Constitution and laws," "ui enrichment," "embarked upon a systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth," “atrogated unto himself all powers of government," are easy and easy to read they have potential media quotability and they evoke passion with literary flair, not to mention that it was populist to flaunt those statements in the late 1980s. But they are just that, accusations by + generalization, This Honorable Court likewise held that: At best, the bare testimonies of Dr. Doromal and deceased Commissioner Bautista, in the eyes of the Court, yield nothing but mere uncorroborated speculations or suspicions insofar as the PCGG attempt to Emphasis supplied, "De Jesus . Guerrero, GR. No. 171491, 4 September 2008. "Republic 2 Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148154, 17 December 2007. Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 23 of 39establish the “prima facie” case against SIPALAY. But a fact cannot be found by mere surmise or conjecture. Suspicion cannot give probative force to testimony which in itself is insufficient to establish or to justify inference of a particular fact, for “the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass.” And it is not the habit of any courts of justice to yield themselves up in matter of right to mere conjectures and possibilities, courts are not permitted to render verdicts or judgments upon guesses or surmises.” 35. Obj ously, the House of Representatives based their allegations ‘on mere “teports” and suspicions, without even proof of verification, ‘Th se are not the ultimate facts required by law to support a complaint. Said allegations are not principal, determinative and constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, an accusation may validly rest. 36, ‘The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable -certainty, of the offense charged. ‘The taison d'etre of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense" In Justice Laurel's words, "the administration of justice is not a matter of guesswork."” The name of the game is fair play, not foul play. We cannot allow a legal skirmish where, from the statt, one of the protagonists enters the arena with one arm tied to his back.” 37. Considering th 1 the allegations under paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint are not in accordance with what the law on pleadings require, the Impeachment Court should have considered both paragraphs as not made or written. Hence, introduction of evidence that "Republic r. Sandiganbayan,255 SCRA 438 (1996); Emphasis supplied. 211d, citing Miranda r. Hon. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 154098, 27 July 2005. * Supra at note 7 citing Go Oa & Co. 2. De la Casta and Reyes, 63 Phil. 445, 449 (1936) * Supra at nove 7citing Republic . Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 10943043, 28 December 1994. Urgent Petition for Certionani Page 24 of 39would attempt to prove the speculations and conjectures contained in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 should strictly not have been allowed. IV. THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ON CHARGES OF ALLEGED CORRUPTION AND UNEXPLAINED WEALTH VIOLATES PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCE 38. In Lagante ». Sandiganbayan2* this Honorable Court ruled that: ‘The acts ot omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to Know the proper judgment. ‘The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes.” 39. As mentioned, Article II does not cite “graft and corruption” ot unlawfully acquired wealth as grounds for impeachment. It is also clear that under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, “graft and corruption” is a ground for impeachment separate and distinct from “culpable violation of the Constitution” and “betrayal of public trust.” 40. Despite the undeniable fact that petitioner was not properly informed that “graft and corruption” or unlawfully acquired wealth are within the ambit of Article II, the House of Representatives posits that graft and corruption are issues covered by Article II due to their bate speculation that some of petitioner's assets are “reportedly” not declared in his SALN in violation of R.A. No, 3019. ¥G.R. No. 180122, 13 March 2009, supplied, Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 25 of 3941. However, the citation of R.A. No. 3019 does not necessarily mean that petitioner is charged with graft and corruption, In fact, nowhere in Article Tl and in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint does it allege that petitioner committed any of the acts prohibited under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of RA. No. 3019, which provisions specifically pertain to prohibited acts of public officers. 42, The Impeachment Complaint itself will show R.A, No. 3019 was cited only in relation to CJ} Corona’s SALN. Hence, it is obvious that the House of Representatives was only referring to Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, which again refers to a public officers duty to file a SALN, rigy Statement of Assets and Liabilities. — Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his tetm of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, of in the case of a Head of Department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn starement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year; Provided, ‘That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar yeat, may file their first statement on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of the said calendar year." 43. That the commission of corrupt acts punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 are distinct from the duty to file a SALN under Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 is evidenced by the fact that a violation of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 is punished by with imprisonment of 6 years and 1 month to 15 years, perpetual disqualification, and forfeiture of unexplained wealth. A violation of Section 7, Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 26 of 39on the other hand, is punished with a fine (P1000 — P5,000) and/or imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months. 44, By allowing the House of Representatives to introduce evidence on matters outside the clear wording of Article II will undoubtedly violate petitioner’s tight to due proces Pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution, petitioner has the right to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepate for his defense.’ No less than Article HI of the Constitution mandate be accorded s that due proces to an acs ed, and an element thereof is the right to be informed of the against the accused, riz: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, of property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Q) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 45, In Laurel v, Abrogar,”” this Honorable Court emphasized the constitutional neces: for an accused to be well informed of the charges against him, nig An information or complaint must state explicitly and directly every act of omission constituting an offense and must allege facts establishing conduct that a penal statute makes criminal; and describes the property which is the subject of theft to advise the accused with teasonable certainty of the accusation he is called upon to meet at the ® People de Villa, G.R. No. 124639, 1 Pebruary 2001 GR. No. 155076, 27 February 2006 Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 27 of 39trial and to enable him to rely on the judgment thereunder of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. It must show, on its face, that if the alleged facts are true, an offense has been committed. The is rooted on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the crime or cause of the accusation against him. He cannot be convicted of an offense even if proven unless it is alleged or included in the Information filed against him. We have reviewed the Amended Information and find that, as mentioned by the petitioner, it does not contain material allegations charging the petitioner of theft of personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, It, thus, behooved the trial court to quash the Amended Information. ‘The Order of the trial court denying the motion of the petitioner to quash the Amended Information is a patent nullity.” 46. It cannot be denied that petitioner would suffer manifest injustice if the offenses of graft and corruption and unlawfully acquired wealth ate considered necessarily included in the non-disclosure of SALN, 47. A dangerous situation was likewise apparent with the language of Article II since a single Article of Impeachment (Article I) will charge CJ Corona contained multiple offenses. This is prohibited under the Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure which require complaint or information to only charge one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses, In fact, an Information which charges more than one offense may be quashed pursuant to Section 3 (9) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states: () ‘That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by laws * Emphasis supplied. Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 28 of 3948. This Honorable Court’s ruling in People ws. Bartulay,” finds analogous application, #%: The information herein is violative of Section 13 Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that a complaint or information must charge but one offense except in certain cases, ‘The four accused are charged with two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and robbery with homicide. When each one of two offenses committed is punishable by two different laws, they cannot be charged in one information as a complex ctime but must be regarded as two separate and distinet offenses, each one to be the subject of separate informations. When duplicity of offenses exists in an information the accused must present his objection by filing a motion to quash the information on the ground of duplicity of, offenses. If the accused fails to object and goes to trial under the information which contains a description of more than one offense, the general rule is he thereby waives the objection and may be found guilty of and should be sentenced for, as many offenses as are charged in the information and proved during trial (People v. Medina, 59 Phil. 134; People v. Miana, 50 Phil 771). This tule however shall apply only if the accused is formally arraigned and required to plead on all the offenses as are charged in the information. Otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted of the offenses with respect t0 which he was not properly arraigned Tn the case at bar, the accused was not formally arraigned as to the offense of illegal possession of firearm. ‘The information wrongly complexed the robbery with homicide with the special offense of illegal possession of firearm, In effect, the accused is charged with two distinct offenses. He should thetefore be arraigned and required to plead to the two offenses.” 49. While it is acknowledged that an impeachment case is sv generis, the Honorable Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court had already ruled that in view of the charges in the Impeachment Complaint, the impeachment trial is akin to a ct ninal proceeding. Hence, petitioner was made to believe that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be made to apply suppletorily 50. Mote importantly, petitioner was nor properly informed of the charges against him in view of the apparent conflict between the charges stated in Article Il and complainants’ speculative allegations under paragraphs 2.3 and G.R, No. 83696, 21 December 1990. *' Emphasis supplied Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 29 of 392.4 of the Complaint. ‘The Impeachment Court’s decision to allow the House of Representatives to present evidence on matters not covered by the clear language of Article I constitutes a continued violation of petitioner's constitutional right to due process and to be properly informed of the charges against him. ‘The cone ring opinion of Justice Antonio P. Barredo in People Pardilla” squarely applies to this issue, 10 wit In sum, fiscals have the primary responsibility to frame informations with due care, so as to avoid controversy as to the definite nature of the offense charged therein, They should always bear in mind the imperative need for such definiteness, considering the legal complications that can arise otherwise. ‘That an accused person can be convicted only of a lesser offense than that actually committed by him, only because of ambiguity or error in the framing of the information is a rank disservice to the interests of justice and public order. And trial judges ought not to construe any information on the basis of the evidence but only in the light of its own factual allegations, especially when such construction would prejudice the accused. If construction has to be indulged in because of any ambiguity in the information, it is imperative under the unequivocal mandate of the Bill of Rights to properly inform the accused about such need at the arraignment and hot afterwards, certainly not in the decision. Such is also the demand of fairness and justice. The accused must not be made to stand trial and be convicted for an offense of which he was not duly informed beforchand. No less than the Constitution is definite that the exact nature of the offense must be made known and understood by the accused at the arraignment. This constitutional rule cannot be changed by the trial judges on the excuse that they are acting on the basis of the facts subsequently gathered by them from the evidence. Judges, like referees in sports contests, may not change the rules after play has begun, much less at the end of the game. Indeed, We have already held that convicting an accused of an offense graver than that charged is a denial of due process (People vs. Bumanlag, G.R. No. 1-483, Jan, 30, 1960, People vs. Despavellador, 1 SCRA 205) and consequently, the court must be deemed to exceed its jurisdiction, fit does so.” v. THE IMPEACHMENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR XCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE SUBPOENA FOR “Peo. x. Pardilla, G.R. No. 1.45266, 6 August 1979, * Emphasis supplied. Urgent Petition for Certiorasi Page 30 of 39ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AS’ REQUESTED BY THE PROSECUTION. 51, held in Marguex », Desierto”'and Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay,* before a bank can be examined, the account must be cortectly identified. In this case, there was hardly any independently obtained evidence that would point to the bank accounts object of the subpoenae sought ~ the pertinent information here was gathered by means of the fishing expedition permitted by the Impeachnent Court, In the case of the BPI Acct. No. 1445-8030-61, the information was discovered only from photocopies of the check payments made by CJ Corona in behalf of Charina Corona, 52. In the case of PS Bank, however, the initial Request was issued on the basis of a published announcement that a certain Renato C. Corona had won Php IM in a monthly promotional raffle. ‘The initial request for a subpoena against PS Bank did not contain any mention of a foreign currency deposit account. In fact, the Prosecution withdrew their request for the subpoenae even as counsel for CJ Corona filed their Opposition thereto. 53. At the hearing of 2 February 2012, the Honorable Presiding Officer flatly stated the standard required for the issuance of subpoenae sought, 2%: The Presiding Officer. I was about to issue the subpoena but, you 1 request you to canalize things that you will requite. Because under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, the inviolability of persons and things, and papers, and effects of citizens of this country is provided and we cannot conduct any subpoena that might turn out.to be an unreasonable search. So, please, when you ask us to issue a subpoena, specify the account know R. No. 135882, 27 June 2001 “GR. No. 137538, 3 September 2001 Urgent Petition for Cetionari Page 31 of 39number and the particular transaction involved and the documents that you want to be subpoenaed. ° (Fmphasis supplied) 54, In an illegal attempt to comply with this requirement, the Prosecutors attached to their Supplemental Request for Subpoenae/Reply an alleged Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card, an Account Opening Form and an Application and Agreement for Deposit Account, covering a deposit in dollars, allegedly given by an anonymous small woman to Congressman Reynaldo Umali in an envelope. 55. In glaring contrast to that version of Cong. Umali, however, Cong, Mito Quimbo announced to media that the said prohibited documents were “mysteriously found” in the office of the Prosecution at the Senate. 56. ‘To be sure, the submission of these documents violates the absolute confidentiality expressly provided for in Section 8 of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, rig: Section 8. Secrecy of fowign curreny deposits, ~ NU foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PI) No, 1034, are hereby declared as and idered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired of looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, Dowerer, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency of any administrative body whatsoever. (-ls amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No, 1246, prom. Non. 21, 1977.) (Emphasis supplied) “ISN of 2 February 2012, p. 67 Ungent Petition for Certionari Page 32 of 3957. ‘To mandate compliance with the provision on absolute confidentiality, Section 10 of R. A. 6426 punishes any violations of confidentiality, sz Section 10. Penal provisions, — Any willful violation of this Act or any regulation duly promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon conviction to an imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years or a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. 58. ‘The attention of the Honorable Court is drawn to the fundamental illegality of the subpoenae. Since the submission of absolutely confidential documents as the basis for the Supplemental Request for Subpoenae is an illegality, the prohibited possession by the Prosecution of the submitted documents cannot be the basis for the issuance of any subpoena. On the contrary, the mere possession of these documents is enough to invite inquiry into possible criminal wrongdoing by these conspiring Congressmen, Regrettably, the Impeachment Court was content to elicit any explanation the Prosecution had to offer. This is a travesty of law and justice. 59. In Zaleta n Court of Appeas,® the wife of the petitioner ransacked his clinic and seized letters, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, passport and photographs, for use as evidence in a case for legal separation, and to cause his disqualification from the practice of dentistry. Although the wife had not yet filed the cases, the Honorable Court explained, “A person, by contracting, ¥G.R. No. 107383, 20 February 2012, Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 33. of 39.marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.” 60. vidently, in Zudeta, the illegality of the search by the wife could not be condoned. It is well-worth noting that the exception to spousal privilege refering to suits between the spou was not applied in Zulveta, Similarly, in this cas ‘e, the subpocnae issued must be quashed for being the fruit of a poisoned tree—the illegality stems from the mere possession of the bank documents without any waiver from the depositor. To be sure, the Prosecution has not presented any such waiver on the part of CJ Corona, G1. From another angle, production of the bank records which were ordered to be subpoenaed cannot be countenanced. Being, the result of an illegal act, it is the fruit of the poisonous tree, as held in Peo. » Suelo.” As already adverted to, no written consent for the disclosure of the bank accounts has been issued by the depositor, 62. The waiver or permission from the depositor is the sole exception to the tule on absolute ecreey. In Tntengan ». Court of Appeals. the narrow exception was explicitly stated by the Court: “Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign curreney deposits. that” is ion of the . disclosure is allowed only upon the written permis depositor.” "' G.R. No. 133570, 13 January 2002. “GR. No. 128996, 19 February 2002. Urgent Petition for Certionani Page 34 of 3963. Apart from the fact that the inspection of the bank accounts in question is irrelevant to the impeachment case, because it is not the subject matter of the case, impeachment itself is not an exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits. 64, None of the cases cited in support of the Resolution are in point 65. In Salvacion v. Central Bank: of the Philippines,” the Honorable Court allowed the garnishment of a foreign currency deposit of a foreign tourist who rapeid a child and escaped. ‘The satisfaction of an award of damages in the civil available to the victim. case filed against the foreign tourist was the only red In the Impeachment Case, there is no civil liability upon which the inquiry into the account is premised 66. Likewise, the Impeachment Court ertoneously applied China Banking Corperation ». Court of Appeats. which involved the recovery of funds illegally taken by the daughter of the plaintiff. In that case, the father sued his daughter for illegally withdrawing, funds, which she then transferred to the China Banking Corporation in the name of her sister. This Honorable Court held that the father could inquire into the bank account of the sis cer, because it was shown that the money deposited:to, the sister’s account belonged to the father. Plainly, this is nor the situation in the Impeachment Case, where there is a mere inquiry, without any claim for the funds, 21 August 1997 G.R. No, 140687, 18 December 2006 G.R. No. 9472: Urgent Petition for Certiorari Page 35 of 3967. The reference to Ejerato », Sandiganbayan' is equally unavailing. In the Ejerifo case, the relaxation of the rule on secrecy and confidentiality was premised on a criminal prosecution for plunder, whose underlying crime was similar to bribery. The question was whether or not bank secrecy applied to a Philippine peso trust account that was used to conceal ill-gotten wealth resulting from illegal acts. This, however, is an impeachment case, which does not involve any allegations of bribery. APPLICATION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION 68. Petitioner has suffered grave and irreparable injury due to the continuing violation of his Constitutional rights by Respondents. Unless a TRO is issued forthwith, the trial shall continue and the banks and their representatives will produce and disclose the confidential statements, documents and accounts of Petitioner, amounting to irreparable injuty from which Petitioner has no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. RELIEF WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that this Honorable Court: (@) Immediately upon filing of this Petition, issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining: (i) the proceedings before the Impeachment Court; (ii) implementation of Resolution dated 6 February 2012; (iii) the officers or representatives of BPI and PSBank from testifying and submitting documents on petitioner’s or his family’s bank accounts; and (jv) the presentation, "G.R. No, 157294, 20 November 2012. Ungent Petition for Certonari Page 36 of 39reception and admission of evidence on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint; (b) After giving due course to the Petition, render judgment: @ Declaring the Impeachment Complaint null and void ab intiv, Gi) Prohibiting the presentation, reception _ and admission of evidence on paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Impeachment Complaint; Gi) Annulling the Impeachment Courts Resolution dated 27 January 2012 and 6 February 2011, as well as any Subpoenae issued pursuant thereto; and (iv) Making the TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction permanent. Other reliefs, just or equitable, are likewise prayed for. Makati City for the City of Manila, 7 February 2012. Respectfully submitted by Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona: JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET.) PTR No. 2643828, January 4, 2011, Makati IBP No. 846915 issued Januaty 6, 2011, Manila I Roll no. 3814 MCLE-exempt PTR No. 264318341/04/11; Makati City IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime) Roll of Attorneys No. 37065 MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176 Urgent Petition for Certionari Page 37 of 39TO Dy JIMENEZ PTR NO. 2642896, 4 January 2011, Makati City IBP_LRN No. 01668 (Lifetime) Roll of Attorneys No. 22495 MCLE Exemption No, 111-00832 March 8, 2010 DENNISf. MANALO PTR No. 3175833; 2 January 2012, Makati City IBP No, 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati City Roll No, 40950, 12 April 1996 mpliance No. I11-0009471, 26 April 2010 ecu — NOEL B. 5 RO PR Nd. 3175834; 2 January 2012, Makati City IBP No, 870171; 2 January 2012, Makati Ci Roll No, 40950, 12 April 1996 MCLE Compliance No. 11-0009471, 26 April 2010 MCL HOUSE PROSECUTION PANEL REGEIVED BY Copies Furnished: “The Senate of the Philippines GSIS Building, Financial Cenedr Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City | pate_2-%-_tme__¢'S> ‘The House of Representatives Batasan Complex, Batasan Hills Quezon City Bank of the Philippine Islands Ayala Avenue cotuer Paseo de Roxas Makati City 1226 Philippine Savings Banke Unit 103 Ground Floor Elizabeth Hall, Lot 1 Block 41, Katipunan Avenue Loyola Heights, Quezon City Ungen PeteVERIFICATION/CERTIFICATIO! 1, RENATO C. CORONA, a Filipino of legal age, aitd residing at No. 95 Xavierville Avenue, Quezon City, subscribing under oath, hereby depose and state that I am the petitioner in the foregoing Petition, which I caused to be prepared, the contents of which are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic records. | further certify that I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no other such action of claim is pending therein, If 1 should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed ot is pending, | undertake to report this fact to this Honorable Court within five (5) days therefrom, [ATO C. CORONA Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME this 7th day of February 2012, affiant, who is personally known to me, came and appeared before me, Presenting the following as competent proof of his identity, to wit: | Date of Issu nce/Expiry | Place of Issuance ‘Type of LI Diplomatic Passpo: Aug, 19, 2010/Aug. 18, 2015 | Manila Doc. No, Page No.2@ ; Book No.XX_; Series of 2012. NOTARY PUBL Coie i eat hoa Serf we St eh Lap Ts fs B.C ns Address of Counsel for C} Corona: Suite 1902 Security Bank Center 6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1226 Urgent Petition for Cortona Page 39° of 39