Resolution on Motion Prel Hearing

8/3/2019 Resolution on Motion Prel Hearing

1/14

Republic of the Philippines Senate

Pasay City(Sittino as an Impeacliment Court)

IN RE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF Case No. 002-2011HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICERENATO C. CORONAx --------------------------------------------------------- x

NOTICE

In the matter of the Motion for Preliminary Hearing dated 29 December 2011 filedby Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, through counsel, the Comment theretodated 9 January 2012 filed by the Panel of Prosecutors of the House ofRepresentatives and the Reply to Comment dated 12 January 2012 'filed by thecounsel for Chief Justice Corona, notice is hereby given to the parties that theHonorable Presiding Officer of the Senate Impeachment Court, has madeavailable the attached extended RESOLUTION of the Court pursuant to hisannouncement made in open court during its session held on January 16, 2012 .Pasay City, Philippines, January 19, 2012.

Atty. MARIO LUZA BAUTISTAAtty. JOSEPH JOE MER C. PEREZPrivate Prosecutorsclo House of RepresentativesQuezon City

ATTY. EMMA URI REYES tClerk of Court of the SenateSitting as an Impeachment CourtThe Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Supreme Court Manila Justice SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (Ret.) Atty. JOSE M. ROY III Atty. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ Atty. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. Atty. GERMAN Q. LlCHAUCO II Atty. DENNIS P. MANALO Counsels for Chief Justice Corona clo Suite 1902 Security Bank Center 6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City


2/14

1

REPUBLIC OF lHE PHILIPPINES SENATE

(Sitting as an Impeachment Court)

In the Matter of the Impeachment of Senate Impeachment CourtChief Justice Renato C. Corona Case No. 002-2011x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Before this Impeachment Court is a Motion for Preliminary Hearing dated29 December 2011 filed by the counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, theComment thereto dated 9 January 2012 filed by the Panel of Prosecutors of theHouse ofRepresentatives and the Reply to Comment dated 12 January 2012 filedby the counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Motion prays that a preliminary hearing be held on the affirmativedefense that the verification of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment is fatallydefective and that thereafter, the Verified Complaint for Impeachment bedismissed. The Motion alleges the following:

a. The Verified Complaint for Impeachment lacks the proper verificationbecause only four (4) copies were made available at the time it wassigned and because its text consists of fifty-seven (57) pages with thirtyfol.!f (34) documents (consisting of one hundred thirty-one [131]) pages)annexed to it and as such, it was physically impossible for the 188Members of the House of Representatives to have read, understood andevaluated the same.

b. There was a PowerPoint presentation of the Verified Complaint forImpeachment but the signatories signed it before the conclusion of thePowerPoint presentation which was aborted.


3/14

2

The Chief Justice claims that since the Verified Complaint for Impeachmentlacks a proper verification, it should be treated as an unsigned pleading whichproduces no legal effect and should therefore be dismissed.

Upon the other hand, the Prosecutors submit that the filing of the VerifiedImpeachment Complaint by 188 of the Members of the House of Representativesis in accordance with the House of Representatives' exclusive power to initiate allcases of impeachment in line with paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XI of theConstitution. They aver the following:

a. The Verified Impeachment Complaint is verified because on its face,there is a Verification under oath which is signed by 188 Congressmenwhich is more than 113 of all of the Members of the House ofRepresentatives;

b. The Verified Impeachment Complaint was sworn to before the SecretaryGeneral of the House ofRepresentatives who is a duly authorized o f f i c e ~ to administer the oath; 7'

c. A Verification is sufficient when it is signed and sworn to by a party/ieswho haslhave sufficient knowledge and belief as to the allegations therein

in this instance, the matters stated in the Impeachment Complaint werewell known and familiar to the 188 Congressmen who signed the same;

d. The Supreme Court has, in a decided case, been liberal in construing theword "reading" in relation to the Verification requirement.

e. There is a strong presumption of regularity and validity in the dischargeby the House of Representatives of their official duties (including that offiling of the Verified Impeachment Complaint) which has not beenovercome by the allegations of the Chief Justice;


4/14

. 3

f. Article XI, Section 3 (4) of the Constitution does not require verificationby all of the complainants - it speaks of "filing" by at least one-third ofthe Members and not "verification" by all of the said Members. Thus,itis sufficient that there is a verified complaint by at least one person andthat such complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of the Members of the HouseofRepresentatives;

g. Chief Justice Corona's objection to the Verified Impeachment Complaintis moot since it has been transmitted to the Senate for trial;

h. Chief Justice Corona's objections to the Verified ImpeachmentComplaint have been waived by his public pronouncements that he iswilling to face trial in the Senate and by his filing of his Answer andMotion for Preliminary Hearing; and,

1. AVerification is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement.

The Reply to Comment filed by the counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, onthe other hand, alleges the following:

a. The Senate as an Impeachment Court has the power to determine if thepower to impeach has been made by the House of Representatives inaccordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It also alleged thatthe Senate as an impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction over thiscase and it has the jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the complaint;

b. In order not to deny him due process, the Chief Justice should be allowedto prove his allegation that the verification requirements under paragraph4, Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution were not complied with;

c. The requirement for a valid verification of the complaint cannot bedispensed with; and,

d. The issue raised in the Motion is not yet moot and the Chief Justice is notprecluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction even if he alleged otheraffirmative defenses for the dismissal of this case.


5/14

4

The following are the factual and procedural antecedents, which are relevantto the resolution of the issues raised:

a. The House of Representatives is composed of Two Hundred and EightyFour (284) members. Ninety-Five (95) thereof would constitute onethird (II3) of all its Members.

b. The verified Complaint for Impeachment dated 12 Decennber 2011 wassigned by One Hundred Eighty Eight (188) members of the House ofRepresentatives.

c. The Verification portion of the Verified Complaint for Impeachmentreads as follows:

"JOINT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION1. I1We, Members of the House of Representatives, of legal age, Filipinos,

after being sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:That I1We are the Complainants in the above-entitledComplaintlResolution of the Impeachment; That I1We caused the saidComplaintlResolution to be prepared and I1We have read the contentsthereof; That the allegations therein are true of our own knowledge andbelief based on the basis of our reading and appreciation of thedocuments and other records pertinent thereto; and,

2. No other action or proceeding involving the same issues has beencommenced in the Senate of the Philippines or House of Representatives, theSupreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in any tribunal or agency; to the best ofour knowledge or based on authentic records, no such action or proceedingis pending in the Senate of the Philippines or House of Representatives, theSupreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in any other tribunal or agency. IfI/We should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or ispending before the Senate of the Philippines or House of Representatives,the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or in any other tribunal or agency,I1We shall notify or cause to be notified the Honorable House ofRepresentatives within five (5) days from such notice."

d. There is a Jurat after the One Hundred Eighty-Eight (188) signaturesof the signatories to the Verified Impeachment Complaint whichstates:


6/14

5

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of December2011 in Quezon City, Philippines.

(Sgd.)ATTY. MARILYNB. BARUA-YAPSecretary General"

(e) Section 3(4) of Article XI of the Constitution reads:

In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment isfiled by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the sameshall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senateshall forthwith proceed.

(f) Section 13 of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings ofthe House ofRepresentatives reads:

"SEC. 13. Endorsement of the ComplaintlResolution to theSenate.- A verified complaint/resolution of impeachment filed by atleast one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House ofRepresentatives shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and inthis case the verified complaint/resolution shall be endorsed to theSenate in the same manner as an approved bill of the House.The complaint/resolution must, at the time of filing, beverified and sworn to before the Secretary General by each of the

Members constituting at least one-third of all Members of theHouse.The contents of the verification shall be as follows:.We, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose andstate: That we are the complainants in the above-entitledcomplaint/resolution of impeachment; that we have caused thesaid complaint/resolution to be prepared and have read thecontents thereof; and that the allegations therein are true of our

own knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading andappreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto.

(Signature)'


7/14

, .

6

(h) On 13 December 2011, the Verified Complaint for Impeachment wastransmitted to the Senate by members of the Prosecution panel.

It should be mentioned that the issue on what is a proper verification of animpeachment complaint is not a novel one insofar as the Senate as an impeachmentcourt is concerned. During the impeachment proceedings of President JosephEjercito Estrada before the Senate (Case No. 001-2000), a Motion to Quash wasfiled by him, alleging among others, that the verification in the impeachmentcontract was not the verification prescribed by the Constitution. The ImpeachmentCourt, at that time, found the verification to be sufficient and. ruled that theperceived flaw in it was inconsequential and not fatal. Speaking through ChiefJustice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who was the Presiding Officer at that time, theImpeachment Court stated in a Resolution dated 29 November 2000 that:

"Under paragraph 4 ofSection 3, Article XI of the Constitution,if the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by atleast one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House of Representativesthe verified complaint or resolution shall ipso jure constitute theArticles ofimpeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwithproceed.

The verification of the Complaint is undoubtedly sufficient.As a matter of fact, it is in the language of the verificationprescribed in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule IV of theRules of Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings of the House ofRepresentatives.Even if be conceded ex gratia that the verification requiredby the Constitution is the verification under the Rules of Court,

the perceived flaw pointed out by the movant is inconsequentialand not fatal. At the time the Constitutional Commission took up anddeliberated on the provisions on Impeachment, the rule on verificationin the Rules ofCourt provided as follows:

A pleading is verified only by an affidavit statingthat the person verifying has read the pleadings and thatthe allegations thereof are true ofhis own knowledge.Verification based on "information and belief," orupon "knowledge, information and belief' shall bedeemed insufficient. (Sec.6, Rule 7)


8/14

7

Thereunder, a verification based on "knowledge and belief"would be sufficient. (1 FLORENZ D. REGALADO, Remedial LawCompendium 80 [1984]).The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has amended the rule on

verification; and as so amended, the rule, which is now Section 4 ofRule 7, reads:SEC. 4. Verification- Except when otherwisespecifically required by law or rule, pleadings need notbe under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.A pleading is verified by an affidavit that theaffiant has read the pleading and that the allegations

therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.A pleading required to be verified which contains a

verification based on "information and belief," or upon"knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a properverification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading (6a)

The former requirement that the verification shall be basedexclusively on personal knowledge was considered too strict. Thereare facts such as pedigree, which a person honestly believes to be truesince he is not aware of any other fact to the contrary and, hence, hispositive affirmation thereof. (1 FLORENZ D. REGALADO,Remedial Law Compendium 143 [Sixth Revised Edition, 1997]).

The words "true ofhis own knowledge" in the former Section 6of Rule 7 were changed to "true and correct of his knowledge andbelief' in Section 4 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedurebecause the facts stated may also be based on records. (JOSE Y.FERIA, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure [New Provisions, Annotated]28).

Furthermore, even where verification is required by theRules, the court may give due course to the pleading thoughverification is lacking or insufficient or defective if thecircumstances warrant the relaxation or dispensing of the rule inthe interest of justice. (MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, Rules ofCourt Annotated 45 [1995]; REGALADO, op cit., 146).

Verification, like in most cases required by the rules ofprocedure, is a formal, and not a jurisdictional requirement. It ismainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which arealleged are done in good faith or are true and correct and not ofmere speculation. (MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, op cit., 45).


9/14

8

At any . ate, the Rules of Procedure on ImpeachmentProceedings of the House of Representatives adopted on 15 December1998 does not provide that the verification should be in the formprescribed by the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 16 of Rule VIIthereof provides that it is the Rules of Criminal Procedure under theRules of Court which may apply, as far as practicable, toimpeachment proceedings before the House. Unfortunately, there isno rule on verification in the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Consequently, the word verification as used in theConstitution may be understood in light of the generally accepteddefinition thereof. I t means the authentication of truth oraccuracy by such means as facts, statements, citations,measurements, or attendant circumstances; or confirmation byoath or affidavit (Webster's Third New International Dictionary2543 [1993]); or the confirmation of correctness, truth orauthenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. (Black Law'sDictionary 1561 [Sixth Ed., 1990])."This Resolution was unanimously concurred in by the Senator-Judges at that

time.

There appears to be no cogent reason to depart from this ruling. On its face,there appears to be no patent or obvious defect in the Verification contained in theVerified Impeachment Complaint. The wording or content of the same issubstantially in compliance with the third paragraph of Section 13 of the Rules ofProcedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of Representatives. It is notnecessary for the Verification to be couched in the language of the Rules of Court,inasmuch as this particularly wording is not strictly required by the Constitution.If this had been what was required, the Constitution would have specified the exactrequired wording of the verification. A verification is an oath or affirmation.Under the Constitution there is only one instance wherein the exact form of an oathor affirmation is specified and this is found in Section 5, Article VII when thePresident, Vice-President or the Acting President takes his oath or affirmationbefore entering on the execution of their office. Since there is no precise wordingrequired for the verification of a complaint in case of impeachment underparagraph 4, Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution, the actual verification in thecomplaint as per the Rules of Impeachment of the House of Representatives issufficient and adequate for the purpose. Moreover, the complaint was signed and


10/14

9

sworn to by 188 Members of the House of Representatives before the House ofRepresentatives' Secretary General, Atty. Marilyn Barna-Yap as shown by theJurat. This is likewise in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4, Section 3of Article XI of the Constitution and the second paragraph of Section 13 of Rulesof Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of Representatives. Thefact that 188 members of the House of Represenatives signed and swore on thecomplaint before Atty. Marilyn Barna-Yap has also been established based on areading of Journal No. 30 of the House of Representatives during its legislativesession held on December 12,2011, excerpts of which are as follows:

"VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENTIn the matter of the Impeachment of Renato C. Corona as

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines byRepresentatives Tupas, Abaya, Tanada, Umali (R.), Bag-ao, et al.REQUEST OF THE CHAIR

Whereupon, the Chair directed the Secretary-General toread the foregoing Verified Complaint for Impeachment.SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair motu proprio suspended the session at 7:14 p.m.RESUMPTION OF SESSION

The session resumed at 7:15 p.m.REMARKS OF THE CHAIR

After noting that the Secretary General already read thetitle of the Verified Impeachment Complaint for Impeachment,the Chair recognized Majority Leader Gonzales.REMARKS OF REP. GONZALES (N.)

At this point, Rep. Gonzales informed the Body that averified complaint for impeachment was filed against SupremeCourt Chief Justice Renato C. Corona by Reps. Niel C. Tupas,Jr., Lorenzo R. Tanada III, Reynaldo V. Umali, Kaka J. Bag-ao,and several others. He then asked the Secretary General thenumber of Members of the House who had verified and swore tobefore her on said impeachment complaint.

The Chair also asked for the total membership of the Houseat present.


11/14

10

In reply, Secretary General Marilyn B. Barua-Yap statedthat the House has a total membership of 284 Members atpresent, one-third of which is equivalent to 95 Members. She saidthat 188 Members had verified and swore before her on theimpeachment complaint against ChiefJustice Corona.MOTION OF REP. GONZALES (N.)

Rep. Gonzales then read Section 13, Rule IV of the HouseRules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings regarding theendorsement of the complaint/resolution to the Senate.Considering that at least 188 Members had verified and sworebefore the Secretary General of the House on said impeachmentcomplaint and consistent with the House Rules, he moved todirect the Secretary General to immediately endorse the same tothe Senate.QUERY FROM THE CHAIR

Before the Body could act on the motion, the Chair inquiredwhether the Secretary General could attest to the fact that 188Members had individually sworn before her on the verification ofthe particular Complaint, to which the latter responded in theaffirmative. She reiterated that the procedure that was followedwas pursuant to Section 13, Rule IV of the Rules of Impeachment.QUERY OF REP. LAGMAN

Recognized by the Chair, Minority Leader Edcel C.Lagman inquired from the Secretary General whether there wasa copy of the list of 188 Members who verified the impeachmentcomplaint, to which she replied in the affirmative. She added thatthe Bills and Index Service of the House was instructed to producea copy of said list.SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair motu proprio suspended the session to allowRep. Lagman to peruse the said copy.RESUMPTION OF SESSION

The session resumed at 7:24 p.m.QUERY OF REP. LAGMAN

Rep. Lagman said that he already had a copy of the verifiedcomplaint and asked Secretary General Barua-Yap how the 188complainants verified it. With the permission of the Chair, theSecretary General stated that they individually verified it beforeher and that the process took about an hour.


12/14

, ,11

MOTION OF REP. FUAThe Chair subsequently recognized Rep. Orlando B. Fuawho explained that the Members had to be aware of the contents

of the impeachment complaint and moved that the SecretaryGeneral read it wholly or partially before the complaint istransmitted to the Senate.POINT OF ORDER OF REP. GONZALES (N.)

Rep. Gonzales remarked that such motion was out of orderas he said that under the Rules of Procedure in ImpeachmentProceedings, the complainant-Members should be the ones toread the complaint and verify the same before the SecretaryGeneral; and that the complaint shall constitute the Articles ofImpeachment once it is signed by at least one-third of the Housemembership. He noted that Rep. Fua was not among thecomplainants which could be the reason why he was not aware ofthe contents of the complaint. Considering that the Rules do notrequire the reading of the entire complaint in plenary, hereiterated his previous motion for the Secretary General toundertake her ministerial duty of endorsing the impeachmentcomplaint to the Senate, and stressed that his motion was nondebatable.RULING OF THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled that Rep. Fua's motion was out of orderand that Rep. Gonzales (N.) point of order was well taken. Heexplained that the transmittal to the Senate of an impeachmentcomplaint signed and verified by at least one-third of the Housemembership, was one of the three modes of intiating impeachmentcomplaints provided for in the Rules of Procecure inImpeachment Proceedings.ENDORSEMENT OF IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT TO THESENATE

There being no objection, the Body approved the previousmotion of Rep. Gonzales (N.) and the Chair directed the SecretaryGeneral to endorse the impeachment complaint against ChiefJustice Corona to the Senate pursuant to Section 13, Rule IV ofthe Rules on Impeachment.REMARKS OF REP. GONZALES (N.)

At this point, Rep. Gonzales certified for the record that (1)Rep. Niel C. Tupas, Jr. in a personal capacity, initiated theimpeachment complaint and presented it before the Majoritycoalition at three o-clock that afternoon at the Andaya Hall; and(2) Members signed and verified the complaint before the


13/14

, ,

12

Secretary General one hour thereafter up to around seven o'clockthat evening.REMARKS OF REP. LAGMAN

Upon recognition by the Chair, Rep. Lagman remarkedthat the Secretary General could best confirm how long it took the188 complainants to verify the complaint before her.REMARKS OF REP. GONZALES (N.)

Rep. Gonzales requested the Secretary General to respondto the issue; and though the Body had just approved a motion toendorse the impeachment complaint to the Senate, the Chairdirected the Secretary General to comply with the MajorityLeader's request, to set the record straight.REMARKS OF REP. LAGMAN

Rep. Lagman stated that the Secretary General's statementwas already recorded and it would not be fair for her to change it,but Rep. Gonzales remarked that she could always explain anychange.REMARKS OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL

Upon direction of the Chair, Secretary General Barua-Yapclarified that the signature and verification process commenced atthe Andaya Hall and ended after an hour and then continued ather office; and that before she proceeded to the Session Hall, Rep.Sherwin N. Tugna was the last signatory.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF REP. FUA

The Chair next recognized Rep. Fua who asked whether theexplanation that Rep. Gonzales (N.) made after the Chair hadalready directed the Secretary General to endorse theimpeachment complaint to the Senate, was out of order.

Replying in the negative, the Chair explained that it was nota motion but an explanation which was a matter for the Body'sconsideration and would not form part of the Articles ofImpeachment.SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Rep. Gonzales (N.) reiterated that the matter was alreadywith the Senate and on his motion, the Chair suspended thesession until four o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, December13,2011.I t was 7:43 p.m. Monday, December 12, 2011."


14/14

13

, r

As to the allegation that there was not enough time and opportunity for all ofthe 188 Congressmen to read the complaint before affixing their signatures thereto,suffice it to state that the Senate firmly believes in the presumption of legality ofthe actions of the House of Representatives as a co-equal legislative body andabsent strong and convincing evidence, the Senate will not question the precisemanner of performance by the members of the House of Representatives of theirofficial acts including that of filing of a verified impeachment complaint againstChief Justice Renato C. Corona as long as they appear to have complied with thebasic requirements of the Constitution.

I t appearing that the filing of the Verified Impeachment Complaint wasmade in accordance with paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution,there is no more need for a preliminary hearing to receive evidence on this matter.The Senate should forthwith proceed with the trial of Chief Justice Renato C.Corona on the Articles of Impeachment in accordance with the mandate of theConstitution.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Motion for PreliminaryHearing filed by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is DENIED for want ofmerit.

SO ORDERED.

January ~ 2012.

Documents

Resolution on Motion Prel Hearing