No Yellow senator nor even any Yellow leader dare deny now that the Senate was bribed to convict Corona, and that the Aquino regime threw everything but the kitchen sink at the chief justice to remove him. Yet that columnist who gives irrational arguments and presents false information still demonizes a dead man, portraying him as a crook who deserved to be politically assassinated.
One reason is implied in her column itself: She is a fan of the other ousted chief justice, Sereno. This is because the Supreme Court in its quo warranto decision against Sereno ruled that unlike Corona, she was not entitled to retirement benefits because her appointment as chief justice by Aquino was invalid from the very start, as she had failed as required to submit several of her SALNs to the body reviewing applicants to the post for submission to the president.
Legally, she was never a chief justice and therefore was not entitled to any benefits due the post. What a stupid mind of a sick soul, so typical of the Yellows. He was a decent and good man. This distinguished newspaper should not be used as a channel for journalistic incompetence and vile accusations against an upright man who in death can no longer defend himself.
Email: [email protected]. Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao. Some agrees not to remove the Chief Justice for the reason that it would affect the constitution. Whaley, F. Linao, G. Analysis: Impeachment trial puts Philippines on edge. Unsupported Browser Detected. Impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice.
The plenary ordered the House secretary-general to endorse the impeachment complaint to the Senate, where a trial will be held next year. As of posting time, the session had already been suspended after an exchange of views between members of the House majority and minority. Click here for summary of the impeachment complaint. Tupas said the draft impeachment complaint was finalized last week, and some members of the House justice committee helped him.
During the House majority caucus on Monday afternoon, Tupas said he presented the impeachment complaint against Corona for around 30 minutes. After the presentation, only 2 members of the coalition asked questions, but the overwhelming majority then asked to sign the complaint.
Among the issues raised are Corona's failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth, and the appointment of his wife to a government corporation despite it being prohibited since he was already in the Supreme Court. Tupas said the first 3 articles in the impeachment complaint specifically center on the way Corona "voted in cases. Tupas said there were no instructions from the Palace to impeach Corona, claiming it was a purely House initiative.
Corona was retained and even promoted after President Arroyo expressed her desire for Mrs. Despite the numerous other complaints against Mrs. Ignatius Village in Quezon City, Mrs. Corona was not removed from her position. Arroyo expressed through several desire letters issued to the BCDA specifically to ensure the election of Mrs. This also explains why despite the serious complaints against Mrs. Arroyo never removed her from JHMC but instead kept on promoting and protecting her. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct further provides that it is unethical for a magistrate and members of his family to ask for or receive any gift in exchange for any act done or to be done by the judge in the course of his judicial functions:.
Clearly, a grossly improper although personally and mutually beneficial relationship between the Respondent and Mrs. Arroyo was created when Mrs. Corona was appointed to the JHMC. The appointment of Mrs. Corona in JHMC as its highest management officer is clearly intended to secure the loyalty and vote of Respondent in the Supreme Court.
Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. Likewise, they are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The Code clearly prohibits judges or members of their families from asking for or accepting, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Respondent judge failed to live up to these standards.
Respondent should be held to even higher standards because he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Corona received a substantial salary, aside from other perks of the job, including cars and various travel opportunities. In exchange, as discussed above, the voting record of Respondent in the Supreme Court indicate an unmistakable pattern of favoring Arroyo in cases brought before the Supreme Court challenging her policies and actions.
Respondent reportedly dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses. Numerous personal expenses that have nothing to do with the discharge of his official functions, such as lavish lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and fetes and parties, have reportedly been charged by the Respondent to judicial funds.
In essence, Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures. It is therefore apparent that there is reasonable ground to hold Respondent for the reported misuse of public funds, and in acts that would qualify as violations of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act, including malversation of public funds, and use of public funds for private purposes.
In addition, Respondent Corona failed to maintain high standards of judicial conduct in connection with the Vizconde massacre case, in the process, casted doubt upon the integrity of the Supreme Court itself. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Despite these strictures, Respondent has directly, deliberately, and shamelessly attempted to destroy the credibility and standing of the Supreme Court with respect to one important and publicly-celebrated case that was before it on automatic appeal: the celebrated Vizconde Massacre case.
During the courtesy call, Vizconde asked the Respondent about the status of the multiple murder case against Hubert Webb and the other accused, which was at the time pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Despite the obvious impropriety, Respondent, instead of rebuffing Vizconde for asking the questions, engaged Vizconde in a personal and ex-parte conversation regarding a case then pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
Worse, in the course of the conversation, Respondent told Vizconde, in the presence of Jimenez, that fellow Justice Antonio Carpio was allegedly lobbying for the acquittal of Hubert Webb. The fact that Respondent spoke with Vizconde regarding a case pending before the Supreme Court is in itself already a serious breach of the rule of confidentiality that must be maintained by the Court with respect to cases pending before it, as well as the deliberations of the members of the Court.
Such confidentiality is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that members of the Court are insulated from lobbying and pressure coming from any of the litigants of a pending case.
At the very least, Justice Sabio should have realized that his discussions of court matters, especially those that have not yet been made of public record, with persons who are interested in the case were incredibly indiscreet and tended to undermine the integrity of judicial processes. Significantly, Respondent signed and concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court.
Yet, Respondent Corona committed the same pernicious act of discussing a pending case with interested parties. Worse, however, is the fact that Respondent intrigued against the honor and integrity of a fellow Justice in his absence, in the process, maligning and undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution. By painting for Vizconde a picture of a Court that is subject to the influence of one out of 15 Justices, and making it appear that the eventual decision of the Court in the case would be attributable to internal arm-twisting and influence, Respondent destroyed the credibility of the very institution that he was supposed to be leading.
In trying to pin the blame of a possible acquittal upon a fellow Justice, Respondent was himself sowing the seeds of discontent and distrust of the Supreme Court with a party litigant. As it happened, Vizconde and Jimenez did raise the supposed internal arm-twisting and influence before the media while the case was in the final stages of decision. By provoking Vizconde to pre-empt the decision with negative publicity, Respondent himself is guilty of directly undermining the trust and confidence of the public in the Supreme Court regardless of what its decision would have later turned out to be.
Worse still, is that the act of the Respondent violates Sec. Given the high profile of the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time of the conservation, the Supreme Court had already begun deliberations on the case, and that Respondent already had a sense of what the decision of the Court would probably be. Respondent Corona with undue haste, impropriety and irregularity, dismissed the inter-petal recreational corporation case 33 under suspicious circumstances.
Respondent was accused by Fernando Campos of unethical conduct when he met ex parte with the lawyer of the adverse party in connection with a pending case before him.
In an attempt to defend himself against the complaint for unethical conduct filed against him by Campos, Respondent explicitly admitted violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct. In his letter dated February 8, to the Judicial and Bar Council JBC , Respondent refuted the claim of Campos that he allegedly met with a lawyer of Philweb Corporation in connection with a case pending before him but countered that:.
I was pestered by calls from different people on his behalf. In allowing himself to be approached by persons which he knew were trying to exercise their influence over him on a particular case pending before him and in failing to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against such actions, Respondent violated basic precepts of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides, among others, that:. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Vasquez , 34 the Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to a failure to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of a judge.
For emphasis, Respondent signed and concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court. Surely, Respondent, as Chief Justice, cannot be exempt from the same rule and principle. As Chief Justice, he must in fact be held to a higher standard.
The Supreme Court further said of justices:. Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, members of the bench should freely and willingly accept behavioral restrictions that may be viewed by ordinary citizens as burdensome. On September 13, , Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment proceedings against her. Respondent railroaded the proceedings in order to have a Status Quo Ante Order issued in favor of Gutierrez.
I believed then, as I believe now, that the Court, in issuing the said order, was overly intrusive with respect to a power that does not belong to it by restraining without hearing a co-equal branch of Government. This belief was made more acute by the fact that the order was voted upon in the morning of 14 September , without the benefit of a genuinely informed debate, since several members of the Court, myself included, had not yet then received a copy of the Petition.
A Supreme Court delivery receipt published by the news magazine Newsbreak also showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three 3 justices who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition only on September 15, , a day after the status quo ante order was granted.
These justices were Justices Velasco, Bersamin and Perez. The issuance of the order also directly violates the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from doing its constitutional mandate of initiating impeachment proceedings. The principle of immutability of final judgments is one of the primordial rules for having a credible and effective system of administration of justice.
Under this principle:. As explained by the Supreme Court in its earliest years, such a principle is an important requirement for a credible and effective system of administration of justice, thus:. The very purpose for which the courts are organized is to put an end to controversy, to decide the questions submitted to the litigants, and to determine the respective rights of the parties.
With the full knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit their respective claims for judgment, and they have a right at some time or other to have final judgment on which they can rely as a final disposition of the issue submitted, and to know that there is an end to the litigation.
0コメント