IN THE

\,:'" ,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES '.'Ti' ... ';
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (0([,,, of
SENATE
'12 JIlN 25 /\10 :08
SlnlNG AS AN IMPEACHMENT COURT
1,>-:' ....
MAnER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.
CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTUCE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,
JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, LORENZO R.
TANADA, III, REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, ET AL.,
Complainants.
CASE NO. 002-2011
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM
(Re: Article II of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment)
with
OPPOSITION
(To: Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoena
[Issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares])
The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by its Prosecutors, respectfully states:
MEMORANDUM
A.
1. The caption of Article II of the Impeachment Complaint provides:
"II.
RESPONDENT COMMITIED 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." (Underscoring ours)
2. In his Memorandum [On Article /I of the Verified Complaint] dated 24 January
2012 (the "Memorandum"), Respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("Corona") insists that
insofar as Article II is concerned, evidence on his "ill-gotten wealth" is "irrelevant, improper and
violative of (his) constitutional rights." He claims that since Article II merely charges him with
failure to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth ("SALN"), any
evidence on the veracity of the contents of the SALN would be immaterial. This view is baseless
and shows Corona's misappreciation of the constitutional requirement of filing a SALN.
3. The gravamen of the charge in Article II goes far beyond a mere failure on the
part of Corona to mechanically file or disclose his SALN. His duty to disclose his SALN to the
public necessarily implies a duty to be truthful, honest, and accurate in the sworn contents
thereof (this is why the law requires the SALN to be under oath). Corona's disclosure of a false,
dishonest, and incomplete SALN is as much a betraval of public trust as his failure to disclose his
SALN. Simply put, the "disclosure" contemplated by law is disclosure of a SALN that is true,
honest and accurate. Anything less would be a useless, futile exercise; make a mockery of the
SALN requirement; and be tantamount to a culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal
of the public trust.
4. The significance of the truthfulness of the contents of the SALN cannot be
overemphasized. It springs from the purpose for which this constitutional requirement was
created in the first place, that is - to curtail a public official's unlawful accumulation of wealth
through graft and corruption. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman v. Valeroso
1
is
instructive in this regard, thus:
1 G.R. No. 167828, 2 April 2007, 520 SCRA 140, see also Carabeo v. CA, G.R. Nos. 178000 & 178003, December 4,
2009.
"Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil
sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full
disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed
particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruption
and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. 'Unexplained'
matter normally results from 'non-disclosure' or concealment of vital facts.
SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the
means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees
in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the
fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify
undisclosed properties and wealth." (Underscoring ours)
5. All told, the prosecution's evidence on Corona's accumulation of ill-gotten
wealth strikes at the very heart of his failure to disclose his SALN to the public. It shows that
Corona has not been truthful and honest in his SALN, and has therefore violated the very spirit
and the letter of the SALN requirement. Such proof is, therefore, very material and relevant.
Notably, Corona, through counsel, marked and adopted the SALNs as his own evidence, thereby
admitting that the contents of the SALN are material and relevant to Article II.
B.
6. In any event, Corona's accumulation of ill-gotten wealth and his commission of
graft and corruption were sufficiently alleged in the Impeachment Complaint, as is evident from
the following excerpts from the Impeachment Complaint:
6.1 "As Chief Justice, Respondent has been lavish in the spending of public
funds; blind to ethical standards of behavior expected not only of him, but his family;
intrigued and conspired against his fellow justices; and behaved more like a scofflaw
than Chief Justice in refusing to disclose his assets and liabilities." (page 6, Complaint);
6.2 "x x x; and even reportedly engaging not only in illiCitly
acquiring assets of high value but even resorting to petty graft and corruption for his
own personal profit and convenience." (page 10, Complaint);
6.3 "Respondent betrayed the Public Trust, committed Culpable Violation of
the Constitution and Graft and Corruption in the follOWing manner: x x x
Respondent committed culpable violation ofthe 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." (page 11 and 22 of
the Complaint);
6,4 "It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not
included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities and net worth, in violation of the anti-
graft and corrupt practices act." (paragraph 2.3, page 22, Complaint); and
6.5 "Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-
gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge
deposits. x x x. Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income
as a public official? (paragraph 2,4, page 22, Complaint).
7. Corona claims that paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 of the Complaint are conjectural and
speculative, and do not amount to a concrete statement of fact that might require a denial.
Corona ignores the reality that these proceedings have long left the realm of pleadings and
allegations, and have now reached the stage of the presentation of proof. Today will already be
the sixth day of trial. That said, Corona's arguments are utterly baseless and should be
rejected. In the first place, Corona has already waived this objection and is now estopped from
rehashing it again and again just to avoid trial and facing the evidence against him. Consider
the following:
7.1 First, if Corona truly believed that paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 were merely
speculative and conjectural, he should have moved to strike these allegations outright
before filing his Answer.
2
He did not do so.
7.2 Second, when he filed his Answer, Corona denied Article II, as a whole,
and paragraphs 2.3 and 2,4 specifically. He also affirmatively alleged that he "acquired
his assets from legitimate sources of income, mostly from his professional toils" and
that "he and his wife purchased on installment a 300-sq.m. apartment in Taguig, which
was declared in his SALN when they acquired it." In other words, Corona "joined" the
issues of whether or not the contents of his SALN were, indeed, accurate and/or
whether or not he had accumulated ill-gotten wealth. Upon a joinder of such factual
issues, trial and presentation of evidence thereon should necessarily follow.
2 See Section 12, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. This is not an admission that the Rules of Court provisions on
pleadings are applicable to these proceedings. It is cited merely because the movant himself (Corona) cites the
Rules of Court.
7.3 Third, in his 29 December 2011 Motion for Preliminary Hearing, which
prayed specifically for the dismissal of the Complaint, Corona failed to move for the
dismissal of the charges against him for amassing ill-gotten wealth and instead, relied
exclusively on the supposedly defective Verification of the Complaint. Corona's failure
to argue the insufficiency of the allegations against him for accumulating ill-gotten
wealth prevents him from raising this ground anew in his Memorandum. The "Omnibus
Motion" rule
3
states that "a motion attacking a pleading x x x shall include all
objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived."
7.4 Finally, during the 18 January 2012 trial, Corona, through counsel,
expressly agreed to "abide" by the Honorable Presiding Officer's ruling to allow the
prosecution to present evidence on the Articles of Impeachment despite Corona's
objections to the sufficiency of the allegations in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the
Complaint, to wit:
"JUSTICE CUEVAS.
x x x
First, the issue of Article II, Your Honor, which is allegedly the
SALN, the illegally acquired wealth, Your Honor, is or could be found in
paragraph 10 and 11 of their-In paragraph 10, Your Honor, ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.
JUSTICE CUEVAS. Paragarah 2.2, Your Honor, it is stated,
'Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth as required by the Constitution.
If we go deeper into the import and denotation of this particular
allegation, the essence of the imputation is the failure to disclose.
Nothing mentioned about the problem of illegally acquired wealth.
Paragraph 2.3, it states, and may I be permitted to read for the
record, Your Honor, and by way of emphasis, 'It is also reported: we
underscore the word reported, 'that some of the properties of the
respondent are not included in his declaration of assets, liabilities and net
worth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.'
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I give you an additional one minute to
wind up.
, See Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Again, this is not an admission that the Rules of Court provisions on
pleadings are applicable to these proceedings. It is cited merely because the movant himself (Corona) cites the
Rules of Court.
JUSTICE CUEVAS. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
Paragraph 2.4 say, 'Respondent is likewise suspected and accused
of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets and so on with
huge deposits." It has been reported.
In other words, this allegation gravitates or centers on the alleged
suspicion, on the alleged report which cannot be accepted as valid
allegations in cases of pleadings required by our Rule of Procedure
because our Rule of Proceeding states that the pleadings should contain a
brief concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the pleader
relies. On the part of the plaintiff or discourse of action on the part of
the defendant for his defense.
It has been ruled on so many occasions that report and suspicion
cannot form part of allegations of the ultimate fact because they cannot
be relied upon.
Secondly, if we examine the verification that they are claiming in
this case, they never stated they appealed the report and so on and so
on.
So, to us, it will be a deprivation of our right to continue
presenting evidence in this court by reason of the fact that they would be
allowed to present evidence of this matter without any resolution before
this honourable court on whether these are in accordance with the
procedure laid down by our Rules of Court and Rules of Procedure, Your
Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you through, counsel?
JUSTICE CUEVAS. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much.
The Chair would like to plead for understanding by both parties
about the proceeding. We cannot waste our time arguing with these
technicalities.
I am sure that as seasoned lawyers, we can handle the situation as
it comes inside a courtroom whether the starting point of the
presentation of the proponent of the case is anywhere within the
allegations in the complaint, the defense, I am sure that they are
prepared properly could meet the challenge. So. may I appeal to you
that let us proceed with the merits of this case so that the people will
not think that we are delaying this proceeding, The Chair, therefore.
rules that since yesterday there was a request to reorder the burden of
proof to be done by the prosecution. which they have done now. let us
comply with that now. and I order that it be so.
JUSTICE CUEVAS. Thank you, Your Honor. We will abide."
(Underscoring and emphasis ours)
c.
8. Even assuming arguendo that Corona can still question the sufficiency of the
allegations at this late stage, the fact is that the allegations in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 are
sufficient.
9. As early as 1960, the Supreme Court in the case of Abe v. Foster Wheeler
Corporotion: held that a complaint is sufficient "if it contains sufficient notice of the cause of
action even though the allegations may be vague or indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, in
which event the proper recourse would be, not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill of
particulars." The test therefore is whether the allegations in the complaint are adequate
enough to put the defendant. accused or respondent on notice of the charges or claims against
10. This rule applies regardless of the type of proceeding - be it civil, criminal or
administrative. Thus, in People v. Elamparo,
5
a criminal case for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is not the designation of the offense in the
Information that is controlling but the allegations therein which directly apprise the accused af
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.,,6 In Santos v. Spouses De Leon
7
, a civil case
for forcible entry, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that "a complaint is sufficient if it
contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even though the allegatians may be vague and
indefinite.,,8 Further, the complaint "does not have to establish or allege the facts proving the
existence of a cause at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the
case."g Also in Domingo v. Rayala,10 an administrative case, the Supreme Court held that the
designation of the offense charged is not controlling. Rather, the description of the offense and
4 G.R. No. L-14785 & L-14923, November 29, 1960.
5 G.R. No. 121572, March 31, 2000.
'/d., Emphasis supplied.
7
G.R. No. 140892. September 21,2005.
8 Id., Emphasis supplied.
'Id.
10
G.R. Nos. 155831, 155840 & 158700, February 18, 2008.
the particular fact recited therein are to be taken into consideration. The acts or 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
pronounce proper judgment.
ll
12. Here, the Impeachment Complaint (including paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 thereof)
sufficiently apprised Corona that he is being charged with amassing ill-gotten wealth, to wit:
"2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are
not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in
violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having ill-
gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with
huge deposits. It has been reported that Respondent has, 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 Statements of Assets and Liabilities 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 this duty of public disclosure?" (Emphasis and
underscoring ours)
13. There is also no merit in Corona's claim that the allegations in paragraphs 2.3
and 2.4 are improper as they "expanded" the charges stated in Article II. They are referring to
the caption/heading of Article II. But the caption/heading of Article II should be read in
harmony and together with its supporting allegations. Indeed, the Constitution expressly states
that it is the Verified Complaint (taken as a whole). and not the mere captions or headings
therein, which constitutes the Articles of Impeachment.
12
Article XI, Section 3(4} of the
Constitution expressly provides:
"(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."
"Id., citing People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005, 469 SeRA 647,666-668.
12 1987 Constitution. Article XI, Section 3(4).
13.1. If it is true that, as Corona now claims, the charges should only be limited
to the specific captions/headings of the Articles, why did he file a 79-page Answer,
denying, admitting, and refuting all the allegations in the Impeachment Complaint?
14. Corona further argues that his Constitutional right to due process of law will be
violated if the Prosecution will be permitted to introduce matters "outside" Article II. This claim
is patently baseless.
15. Impeachment does not involve a deprivation of life, liberty or property. Rather,
impeachment is a mechanism for determining the continued fitness of a high official to hold
public office. It does not involve the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment or fine. Neither
does it involve a deprivation of property, since a public officer has no proprietarv claim over
public office.
13
Rather, public office is a mere privilege, which can be revoked anytime
especially if there is a showing of unfitness to hold office. As explained by Fr. Joaquin Bernas
(citing Justice Story), impeachment is "a proceeding, purely of a political nature, is not so much
designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross political misdemeanors. It
touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity."
16. More importantly, the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
"
What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof
and lack of opportunity to be heard.
's
In the instant case, even if this Honorable Court allows
the prosecution to present evidence on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint, there are
numerous avenues and opportunities for Corona to be heard and defend himself, including
raising objections in the course of the presentation of the prosecution's witnesses, vigorous
cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, and the presentation of defense evidence.
17. Corona also argues that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint are not in
accordance with the "law on pleadings" or the Rules of Court. He ignores Rule VI of Resolution
" De Leon. The Law on Public Officers and Election Law (2008), p.3.
14 Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 93868, February 19, 1991).
15 Jd., citing Tajonero v. Lamarosa, 110 SCRA 438 (1981),
39, otherwise known as the Senate Rules on Impeachment, which states that the Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily on questions of evidence. There is nothing in the Constitution, the
Senate Rules or in jurisprudence, which states that the Rules of Court should strictly apply with
respect to the pleadings filed in an impeachment proceeding.
18. And even assuming arguendo that the Rules of Court would apply in matters of
pleading, the same specifically states that the rules shall be construed liberally - in order to
promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.
16
This is supported by a long line of cases where
the Supreme Court permitted the liberal interpretation of the rules so as not to frustrate the
ends of substantial justice, viz;
"The fundamental purpose of procedural rules is to afford each litigant
every opportunity to present evidence on his behalf in order that substantial
justice is achieved. Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and a
liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest
opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth. The
dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate grievances should not be
barred by technicalities.
17
" (Underscoring ours)
D.
19. In the final analysis, the nation's search for truth should not be obstructed by
one man's blind and reckless adherence to technicalities (contrary to his previous boast that he
is ready to face trial in the Senate
18
). In Corona's own words as the ponente in the case of
Republic v. Sandiganbayan:
19
"In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG, this Court has
seen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities that merely serve to delay or
impede judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on
the merits at the Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the Filipino people
16 Rules of Court, Rule 1, Section 2.
17 Metro Rail Transit Corporation v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 166273, September 21, 2005.
18 "Haharapin ka nang buang tapang at talina ang mga walang basehang paratang na ita, punta par punta, sa
Senada. Handanghanda akang humarap sa paglilitis." (Dec. 14, 2011 speech)
19
G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003.
and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should
now be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost two decades have passed since
the government initiated its search for and reversion of such ill-gotten wealth.
The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. Ii
there is proof of illegal acguisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or
illicit conduct, let it be brought out now. Let the ownership of these funds and
other assets be finallv determined and resolved with dispatch. free from all the
delaving technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks." (Underscoring
ours)
OPPOSITION
To Respondent's Motion to Quash
(Subpoena issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares)
20. The Prosecution adopts the foregoing discussion in support of its herein
Opposition to Corona's Motion to Quash (Subpoena issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Henares).
21. In the said Motion to Quash, Corona argues that the income tax returns (ITR's)
and other tax-related documents are "irrelevant and immaterial." This is baseless. The ITR's
and other documents subject of the instant subpoena are very relevant and material to the
charges against Corona under Article II of the Impeachment Complaint (and even to some of
the other Articles for that matter). He is accused of acquiring ill-gotten wealth. Therefore, it is
highly material to determine whether the numerous expensive properties he has acquired,
under his name or that of his family, can be explained by his declared sources of income in his
ITR's. Under Section 2 of R.A. 1379 or the Forfeiture Law, properties of a pUblic officer which
are "manifestly out of proportion" to his lawful income, are "presumed prima facie to have
been unlawfully acquired." Notably, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, which was penned by
no other than Corona himself, the Supreme Court considered the therein respondents' ITR's in
determining whether the properties amassed by them during their incumbency in public office
were derived from their lawful income.
22. Corona's SALN's have now been presented and marked in evidence by both the
Prosecution and the Defense. In his SALN's, Corona has admitted under oath, his assets and
liabilities during the periods covered therein. To ascertain the truthfulness and accuracy of
these sworn admissions in his SALN's, it is necessary to examine the ITR's which he, his wife and
his family members have been filing during the same period. The ITR's will show Corona's {and
his family's} financial ability or inability to legally acquire the assets he indicated in his SALN's.
23. Corona also argues that the ITR's of his children and son-in-law are irrelevant, as
they are not named in the Impeachment Complaint. This reasoning is both simplistic and
flawed, because under the Forfeiture Law {RA 1379}, unlawfully acquired property may include
not only those in the name of the respondent public official, but also those which are
"concealed by [their] being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse,
ascendants, descendants, relatives, or any other person."
24. Accordingly, the instant Motion to Quash, based solely on the ground of
irrelevance, should be denied.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that: {l} the reliefs prayed
for in Corona's Memorandum be denied; {2} the Prosecution be allowed to continue presenting
evidence on Article II, including paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4, of the Impeachment Complaint and on
all the Articles and their supporting allegations in the Impeachment Complaint; and {3} the
Motion to Quash Subpoena {Issued to BIR Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares} be denied and
that she be allowed to testify and present in evidence the documents subject of the subpoena.
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, 25 January 2012.
By:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PRO ECUTORS
~
~
EL C. TUP , .
Lead Prose or
Copy furnished (By Personal Service):
PRIVATE PROSECUTORS
PTR No. 3184702, Jan. 09, 2012, Makati City
Lifetime IBP No. 00060, Makati City
Roll of Attorney's No. 30196
MCLE Compliance No. 1110008479,2-9-2010
JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET), ET AL.
Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona
Suite 1902 Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City, Philippine 1226