Betrayal of public
trust
and/or
culpable violation
of the constitution
7 Partiality
in
granting
a temporary
restraining Betrayal of public
order (TRO) in favor of former president Gloria trust
Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel
JUDGMENT
The SENATE sitting as an Impeachment Court, having tried Renato S.
Corona, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, upon three Articles of
Impeachment charged against him by the House of Representatives, by a
guilty vote of 20 Senators, representing at least two-thirds of all the
Members of the SENATE, has found him guilty of the charge under Article
II of the said Articles of Impeachment: Now, therefore, be it
ADJUDGED, That Renato C. Corona be, and is hereby, CONVICTED of
the charge against him in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
WHEREFORE, in accordance with Article XI, Section 3 (7) of the
Constitution, the penalty of removal from office and disqualification to hold
any office under the Republic of the Philippines is hereby imposed upon
respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
SO ORDERED.
29 May 2012
(SGD. ) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
4. Write a concise, well-informed and reflective Reaction Paper on the
Corona Impeachment, with emphasis on ethical lessons learned.
Reaction Paper
An action for impeachment is brought against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,
on the grounds of: (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) Culpable Violation of the
Constitution; and (c) Graft and Corruption.
The Senate Impeachment Court has impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Corona was found guilty with a total of twenty(20) senators who voted for his
conviction while only three(3) senators voted for his acquittal. This is for the first
time in Philippine history that the very head the judiciary who is supposed to
uphold the law of the land had been put on trial for impeachment.
It is absolutely one of the most significant political and legal events that took
place in Philippine history. Many people have different views and opinions on
whether Chief Justice Corona is guilty or not. On survey results, the public are
divided on the Chief Justice fate.
The Filipinos have expressed delight and celebrated the impeachment as this
connotes the beginning of a new journey towards upholding a higher standard
and that the law must be strictly followed. On the other hand, others believed that
the conviction was not fair and that politics prevailed over law.
Renato C. Corona was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by the
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. When President Benigno Aquino III
assumed office, the appointment of the Chief Justice became a vital issue,
believing that the Corona, influencing other Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, would impose bias against his administration. As stated under the
Complaint for Impeachment against the Chief Justice:
His appointment came just one week after a new President was
already elected, and just a few weeks before a new President was
to formally assume office. Despite the Constitutional prohibition, the
precedent established in Aytona v. Castillo, which declared that an
incumbent President appointing officials after the election of his
successor, as President Diosdado Macapagal argued, represented
malicious sabotage of the expressed will of the people; and despite
the Supreme Courts own history, which presented the sterling
example of a former Chief Justice, Manuel Moran, who declined
reappointment to the court by President Elpidio Quirino as it
constituted a midnight appointment, Respondent eagerly
accepted his position.
As a member of the judiciary, he is obliged to uphold the law of the land.
However, this is ironic because it can be shown from the foregoing that despite
the Constitutional prohibition of such appointment which is even a decided case,
the Chief Justice accepted his appointment. It is disappointing to know that a
person who represents the justice system of our country is the exact person who
violated the law itself that should be followed by each individual whatever their
status may be in the society. Instead of assuring the public the independence
and impartiality of the Judiciary, Corona during his term as Chief Justice had
been acting in favor of the former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had
appointed him to his position. Moreover, as embodied in the complaint against
him, there are also other instances that would tend to show that Corona betrayed
the public trust and committed violation of the Philippine Constitution.
The Constitution and our statutes oblige every public official to make and
submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities, and net worth in order to
suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. Chief Justice Corona has
failed to comply with his constitutional duty. He has lost his moral fitness to serve
the people. He has betrayed the public trust.
Contained in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, under
Canon 2, which covers integrity, are two sections: 1. 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. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm
the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary.
The present Constitution also provides that a Member of the Judiciary must be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. He is
therefore expected to maintain high ethical principles and a sense of propriety to
ensure the faith of the people in the Judiciary. However, Corona demonstrated
bias and manifest partiality for the former president Arroyo basing on his voting
pattern even prior to his dubious appointment as Chief Justice.
In addition to that, Corona further compromised his independence when his wife,
Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March 23, 2007 from Mrs. Gloria
Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of the Bases Conversion Development
Authority (BCDA), a government-owned-and-controlled corporation created
under Republic Act No. 7227.
example of the violation such guidelines despite the knowledge they have of
such standards expected from them.
It is speculated that this impeachment complaint is merely a battle between the
current President and the Chief justice because of the Courts decision to
distribute the parcel of lands in the Hacienda Luisita to the tenant farmers who
have been working there that is owned by the Conjuangco family, where the
President is a part of.
This national event, has brought out the best and worst of people. We saw in the
televised proceedings how senators, lawyers and other public officials stood up
for what they believe in. However some engaged in propagandas that trampled
the right of the Chief Justice. They seem to forget that the foundation of the law,
and law making is ethics.
All public officials are public servants. Regrettably for us, many of our public
officials do not take to heart the true meaning of their status as public servants.
It is clear that based on the doubt cast on his competence to dispense justice
and do his duty, he is no longer fit to preside over the highest court. As much as
the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, he in return has the
responsibility to be the epitome of a public servant with the highest ethical
standards. He must be removed from office after having been found guilty of two
serious and impeachable offenses: Culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust.