8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
1/44
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSUPREME COURT
MANILA
En Banc
ATTY. VICENTE D. MILLORA,Petitioner,
- versus - G.R. No. 199535
THE HONORABLE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES,SPEAKER FELICIANOBELMONTE, CHAIRMAN NIELTUPAS, JR., COMMITTEE OFJUSTICE, THE 188 MEMBERSOF THE HOUSE WHO SIGNEDTHE IMPEACHMENTARTICLE(S) DATED
DECEMBER 12, 2011AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICERENATO CORONA, AND THEHONORABLE SENATE OF THEPHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
CITIZENS HOMOBONO A.ADAZA and ALAN PAGUIA,
Petitioners,
-versus-
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,CONGRESS OF THEPHILIPPINES, representedby HOUSE SPEAKERFELICIANO BELMONTE andSENATE OF THEPHILIPPINES, represented
G.R. No. 199694
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
2/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
by SENATE PRESIDENT JUANPONCE ENRILE,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------xDANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY,
Petitioner,
-versus-
THE HONORABLE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES,SPEAKER FELICIANOBELMONTE, CHAIRMAN NIELTUPAS, JR., COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE and theHONORABLE SENATE OF THEPHILIPPINES,
Respondents.x-------------------------------------
-----x
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO OFTHE LAWYERS LEAGUE FORA BETTER PHILIPPINES ANDREV BERNARDO MAGNO OF JOHN 3:16 MINISTRYINTERNATIONAL,
Petitioners,
-versus-
SENATE OF THEPHILIPPINES, NIEL TUPAS, JR., REYNALDO UMALI, JOSEPH EMILIO ABAYA, ETAL.,
Respondents.x---------------------------------------x
VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T.CABIGAO,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 199509
G.R. No. 199569
G.R. No. 199517
2
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
3/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
-versus-
HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES andSENATE,
Respondents.x------------------------------------------x
HERMAN TIU LAUREL,RODOLFO S. SALANDANANand RUFINO U. MARTINEZ,
Petitioners,
-versus-
SENATE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THESENATE SECRETARY andHOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES,
Respondents.x------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 199924
CONSOLIDATED COMMENTAD CAUTELAM EX SUPERABUNDANTI
(WITH OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATIONFOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER)
Respondents SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Senate),
sitting as the Senate Impeachment Court (Impeachment
Court), and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (House), through
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), by way of special
appearance and in compliance with the Honorable Supreme
3
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
4/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Courts Resolution dated January 17, 2012, respectfully submit
this Consolidated Comment Ad Cautelam Ex Superabundanti
(With Opposition to the Application for a Temporary Restraining
Order).1
The Consolidated Petitions raises matters purely political in
character which may be decided or resolved only by the Senate
and the House. Hence, this Consolidated Comment Ad Cautelam
ExSuperabundanti is being filed by herein respondents without
submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Supreme Court and without conceding the constitutional
and exclusive power of the House to initiate all cases of
impeachment and of the Senate to try and decide all cases
of impeachment.2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The following consolidated petitions for certiorari and
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assail the
constitutionality and validity of the Verified Complaint for
Impeachment (Verified Impeachment Complaint) and the Articles
of Impeachment dated December 12, 2011 against the Honorable
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (CJ Corona):
1 For more abundant caution (Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th ed. 2009).2 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (6).
4
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
5/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
1. Atty. Vicente D. Millora v. The Honorable Houseof Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 199535(Millora Petition);
2. Citizens Homobono A. Adaza and Alan Paguiav. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No.199694 (Adaza Petition);
3. Danilo A. Lihaylihay v. The Honorable House ofRepresentatives, et al., G.R. No. 199569(Lihaylihay Petition);
4. Atty. Oliver Lozano of the Lawyers League forA Better Philippines, et al. v. Senate of thePhilippines, et al., G.R. No. 199569 (Lozano
Petition);
5. Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao v. House ofRepresentatives et al., G.R. No. 199517(Cabigao Petition);3 and
6. Herman T. Laurel et al. v. Senate of thePhilippines, Office of the Senate Secretary andHouse of Representatives, G.R. No. 199924(Laurel Petition).
Petitioners therein pray for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) before hearing or to set an oral argument
for the purpose.4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 31, 2012, herein respondents received a copy of
the Resolution dated January 17, 2012 of the Honorable Supreme
Court requiring them to submit their Comment to the
Consolidated Petitions within ten (10) days from notice or until
February 10, 2012. In view of the significance, complexity of the
3 To date, respondents have not received a copy of the Cabigao Petition.4 Petitioners Adaza and Paguia have filed the following: (a) Urgent Motion to IssueRestraining Order Before Hearing or to Set an Oral Argument for That Purpose dated January10, 2012; and (b) Second Urgent Motion to Issue a Temporary Restraining Order BeforeHearing or to Set an Oral Argument for That Purpose dated January 13, 2012.
5
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
6/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
issues involved and relation to G.R. No. 200242, entitled Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al., and
G.R. No. 200238, entitled Philippine Savings Bank, et al. vs.
Senate Impeachment Court, respondents Senate and the
Prosecution Panel moved for a total of twenty (20) day extension
of the period, or until March 1, 2012, to file the required pleading.
This Consolidated Comment Ad Cautelam Ex Superabundanti is
being filed within the extended period prayed for.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 12, 2011, one hundred eighty-eight (188)
Members of the House filed the Verified Impeachment Complaint5
against CJ Corona on the following grounds: (a) betrayal of public
trust; (b) culpable violation of the Constitution; and (c) graft and
corruption. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings (House Impeachment Rules),6
the
verification of the Verified Impeachment Complaint reads:
I/We, Members of the House of Representatives, of legal age, Filipinos, after beingsworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose andstate: That I/We are the Complainants in the above-entitled Complaint/Resolution of Impeachment; ThatI/We have caused the said Complaint/Resolution ofImpeachment; That I/We have caused the saidComplaint/Resolution to be prepared and I/We haveread the contents thereof; That the allegationstherein are true of our own knowledge and belief onthe basis of appreciation of documents and otherrecords pertinent thereto;
5 Annex A of the Adaza Petition.6 A certified true copy of the House Impeachment Rules is attached hereto as Annex 1.
6
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
7/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
The Verified Complaint having been filed by at least one-
third of all House of Representatives Members (or by at least 95
congressmen and congresswomen), it automatically became the
Articles of Impeachment and, on December 13, 2011, was
immediately transmitted to the Senate in accordance with Section
13, Rule IV of the House Impeachment Rules.
On December 14, 2011, the Senate convened as an
Impeachment Court. Summons was then issued directing CJ
Corona to file his answer to the Articles of Impeachment within a
non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice.7 CJ Corona
filed his Answer8 dated December 21, 2011.
On December 29, 2011, CJ Corona filed a Motion for
Preliminary Hearing9 praying that:
1. A preliminary hearing be held on theaffirmative defense that the verification of theVerified Complaint for Impeachment is fatallydefective; and
2. Thereafter, the Verified Complaint forImpeachment be dismissed.
7 A copy of the Summons issued by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court is attachedhereto as Annex 2.8 A copy of CJ Coronas Answer dated December 21, 2011 is attached hereto as Annex 3.9 A copy of CJ Coronas Motion for Preliminary Hearing dated December 29, 2011 is attachedhereto as Annex 4.
7
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
8/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
On January 16, 2012, the Senate Impeachment Court,
through Senate President and Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile
(Sen. Enrile), denied CJ Coronas Motion for Preliminary Hearing
for lack of merit. The impeachment trial thereafter proceeded.
The impeachment trial of CJ Corona is now ongoing before the
Senate.
ARGUMENTS
I.
PETITIONERS HAVE NO LEGALSTANDING.
II.
CONGRESS HAS THE SOLE ANDEXCLUSIVE POWER TO INITIATE,TRY AND DECIDE IMPEACHMENTCASES.
III.
IN ANY EVENT, THEIMPEACHMENT COURT DID NOTCOMMIT ANY GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION; IT HAS, IN FACT,BEEN CONDUCTING THEPROCEEDINGS JUDICIOUSLY.
IV.
SUBJECTING THE ON-GOINGIMPEACHMENT TRIAL TOJUDICIAL REVIEW DEFEATS THEVERY ESSENCE OFIMPEACHMENT.
8
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
9/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
V.
THE VERIFIED IMPEACHMENTCOMPLAINT WAS FILED INACCORDANCE WITH THE 1987CONSTITUTION.
VI.
THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOTAND ACADEMIC.
DISCUSSION
I. PETITIONERS HAVE NO
LEGAL STANDING.
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and lawyers, claim that
they should be allowed to actively participate in the discussion
and resolution of public issues which affect the future of the
country. They also claim that the House violated the Constitution
in impeaching CJ Corona. Claiming to be the representatives of
the general public, petitioners assert a public right in assailing the
alleged illegal official action of the respondents.
Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the
9
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
10/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.10
The following are the requirements before taxpayers, voters,
concerned citizens and legislators are given standing to sue: 1)
the cases involve constitutional issues; 2) for taxpayers, there
must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the
tax measure is unconstitutional; 3) for voters, there must be a
showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
question; 4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing
that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which
must be settled early; and 5) for legislators, there must be a
claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators.11
Petitioners have no legal standing because they have not
sustained or will not sustain a direct personal injury should the
impeachment proceedings continue. Their interests are only
general and common to all members of the public.
10 Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000), citing Joya vs.PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993).11David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.
10
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/..%5C..%5C2000%5Caug2000%5C141284.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/..%5C..%5C2000%5Caug2000%5C141284.htm8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
11/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Petitioners cannot even pursue this case as taxpayers. They
failed to show any illegal disbursement of public funds, or that
public money is being wasted or deflected to any improper
purpose. The filing of the Verified Impeachment Complaint and
the impeachment trial is in accordance with the Houses exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment and the Senates sole
power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.12
Petitioners cannot likewise claim to have legal standing as
lawyers. The mere invocation by any member of the legal
profession of the duty to preserve the law and nothing more,
although undoubtedly true, does not suffice to clothe him with
standing. His interest is too general and shared by other groups
and the whole citizenry.13
Finally, CJ Corona, the direct injured party in the
impeachment case sought to be voided, has already filed a
separate petition to question the validity of the impeachment
proceedings.14 There is, therefore, no reason why petitioners
should be allowed to separately question the impeachment
proceedings against CJ Corona.
12 Article XI, Section 3 (1) and (6) of the Constitution.13Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003.14 Chief Justice Renato C. Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines sitting as an ImpeachmentCourt, G.R. No. 200242.
11
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
12/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
II. CONGRESS HAS THE SOLEAND EXCLUSIVE POWER TOINITIATE, TRY AND DECIDE
IMPEACHMENT CASES.
The Constitution confers upon Congress the sole and
exclusive authority to initiate, try and decide all cases of
impeachment, to wit:
(a) The House shall have the exclusive power
to initiate all cases of impeachment.15
(b) The Senate shall have the sole power totry and decide all cases of impeachment.16 (Emphasissupplied.)
The words sole and exclusive are of considerable
significance. Sole is defined as having no companion,
solitary, being the only one, and functioning independently
and without assistance or interference.17 The word exclusive,
on the other hand, is defined as shutting out all others from a part
or share.18
The use of the words sole and exclusive gives the House
the exclusive authority to initiate and the Senate the sole
authority to try and decide all cases of impeachment. It means
that they alone shall have the authority to determine the form,
manner and conduct by which an impeached public officer shall
be tried, and whether said public officer should be convicted or
15 Note 1, Supra, Article XI Section 3 (1).16Ibid. at (6).17 Websters Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971), cited in Nixon vs. US, 5066U.S. 224 (1993).18 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive.
12
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
13/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
acquitted.19
There are three modes of initiating an impeachment case
under the Constitution. The first mode involves the filing of a
verified impeachment complaint by a Member of the House of
Representatives.20 The second mode involves the filing of a
verified impeachment complaint by a citizenupon a resolution of
endorsement by any Member of the House.21 In both these
modes, the verified impeachment complaint shall be referred to
the House Committee on Justice. After hearing and by a majority
vote of all its members, the House Committee on Justice shall
submit its report to the House, together with the corresponding
resolution.22 Thereafter, a vote of at least one-third (1/3) of all the
Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
House Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of
each Member shall be recorded.23 The third mode of initiating an
impeachment complaint involves the filing, by at least one-third
of all the Members of the House, of a verified impeachment
complaint or resolution of impeachment. Under this mode, the
verified impeachment complaint shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.24
19Nixon vs. US, 5066 U.S. 224 (1993).20 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(2).21Ibid.22Ibid.23 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(3).24 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6).
13
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
14/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
The impeachment case against CJ Corona was initiated by the
House under the third mode.
The sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment, on the other hand, is limited only by three
very specific requirements. These are: (a) the Senators
shall be under oath or affirmation; (b) when the President
is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside (but not vote) over the impeachment trial; and (c)
the impeached public officer may only be convicted upon
the vote or agreement of two-thirds (2/3) of all the
Members of the Senate.25 These limitations are precise,
and their nature suggests that no additional limitations on
the form, manner and conduct of the impeachment trial
have been intended.26
a. Outside of any allegedtransgression of the expressconstitutional limitations, theimpeachment process wasnever intended by the Framersto be subject to judicial review.
Indeed, the Constitution gives the Honorable Supreme
Court expanded judicial power, which includes the duty to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
25 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6).26Nixon vs. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
14
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
15/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.27
The extent of the Supreme Courts power of expanded judicial
review in the context of impeachment proceedings,
however, was clarified by the Honorable Court in the twin cases of
Francisco vs. The House of Representatives28andGutierrez
vs. The House of Representatives.29 In these cases, the
Honorable Supreme Court maintained that, despite its
expanded certiorari jurisdiction, it cannot take cognizance
of purely political questions. Thus:
These petitions raise five substantial issues:
I. Whether the offenses alleged in theSecond impeachment complaintconstitute valid impeachable offenses
under the Constitution.
xxx
The first issue goes into the merits of thesecond impeachment complaint over which thisCourt has no jurisdiction. More importantly,any discussion of this issue would require thisCourt to make a determination of whatconstitutes an impeachable offense. Such adetermination is a purely political question
which the Constitution has left to the sounddiscretion of the legislation. Such an intent isclear from the deliberations of theConstitutional Commission.
27 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1.28 G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003.29 G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011.
15
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
16/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Although Section 2 of Article XI of theConstitution enumerates six grounds forimpeachment, two of these, namely, other highcrimes and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise
definition. In fact, an examination of the records ofthe 1986 Constitutional Commission shows that theframers could find no better way to approximate theboundaries of betrayal of public trust and other highcrimes than by alluding to both positive and negativeexamples of both, without arriving at their clear cutdefinition or even a standard therefor.114 Clearly, theissue calls upon this court to decide a non-justiciablepolitical question which is beyond the scope of its
judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII. 30
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The Honorable Supreme Court in Francisco thereafter
defined what constitutes a political question which is beyond the
scope of its power of expanded judicial review:
In our jurisdiction, the determination of a trulypolitical question from a non-justiciable question liesin the answer to the question ofwhether there areconstitutionality imposed limits on powers orfunctions conferred upon political bodies. Ifthere are, then our courts are duty-bound to examinewhether the branch or instrumentality of thegovernment properly acted within such limits.31
(Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, to determine whether the case falls within the domain
of judicial review, the following issues must first be answered in
the affirmative:
(a) Whether a power or function has
been conferred upon a political body, branch
or instrumentality of government;
(b) Whether there are constitutionally
30Francisco, supra. See also Gutierrez, supra.31Francisco,supra.
16
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
17/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
imposed limits on the said power or function;
and
(c) If there are limits, whether the
body, branch or instrumentality properly
acted within such limits.
This three-fold test was applied in Francisco and
Gutierrez. In Francisco, the Honorable Supreme Court
recognized the exclusive power of the House to initiate
impeachment cases and the express constitutional limitations
attached to said power. Applying the constitutional limitations on
the Houses exercise of its exclusive power to initiate
impeachment cases, the Honorable Supreme Court barred the
second impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Davide
on the ground that the same violated paragraph 5, Section 3,
Article XI of the Constitution which expressly provides that no
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year. The
Honorable Supreme Court in said case, however, refrained
from ruling on the issue of what constitutes an
impeachable offense for lack of any express constitutional
limitations in relation thereto.32
In Gutierrez, the Honorable Supreme Court again had
32 460 Phil. 830 (2003).
17
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
18/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
occasion to rule upon the validity of an impeachment complaint in
relation to the limitation on the power to initiate impeachment
cases found under paragraph 5, Section 3, Article XI of the
Constitution. In said case, the Honorable Supreme Court upheld
the validity of the simultaneous referral of two impeachment
complaints to the House Committee on Justice for appropriate
action. It however dismissed petitioner Gutierrezs claimed denial
of her right to due process on account of the delay in the
publication of the Impeachment Rules, ruling that inasmuch as
the Constitution did not prescribe any limitation on the
manner of promulgation, the Court is in no position to
dictate a mode of promulgation beyond the dictates of the
Constitution.33
It is clear from both Francisco and Gutierrez that there are
instances when the Honorable Supreme Courts power of
expanded judicial review may indeed be exercised within the
context of an impeachment proceeding, i.e. where there is a
clear transgression of an express constitutional limitation
on the sole and exclusive power of the Congress to
initiate, try and decide impeachment cases.
That is not the case here.
33 643 SCRA 198, 244 (2011).
18
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
19/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
In these consolidated cases, petitioners question the
Members of the House of Representatives appreciation of facts,
wisdom of their decisions, the alleged lack of sworn undertaking,
the merits of the impeachable offenses, and manner and speed of
acting on a political measure, which delve into the sole
jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. Verily, they are political
questions which may not be subject to judicial jurisdiction.34
It must be stressed that no less than CJ Corona himself
admitted in his answer that the Impeachment Complaint was
properly verified. In fact, CJ Corona is questioning only the alleged
lack of probable cause against him.
In any case, with the filing and transmittal of the Verified
Impeachment Complaint to the Senate, it is conclusively
presumed that all constitutional and legal requisites have been
complied with. In Arroyo vs. De Venecia,35 the Honorable Court
ruled that when Congress has acted in a matter clearly within its
power, it would be an unwarranted invasion of the independence
of the Legislative Department for the court to set aside such
action as void because it may think that Congress has
misconstrued or departed from its own rules of procedure.36
34 Cf. Manuel N. Mamba vs. Edgar L. Lara, G.R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009, citingCruz in Political Law, 1998 Ed., page 81, citing Taada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051.35 G.R. No. 127255. August 14, 1997.36 Citing State v. Savings Bank, 79 Conn. 141, 64 Atl. 5, 9-10 (1906).
19
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
20/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Unlike Francisco and Gutierrez, the foregoing do not
concern, or allege any violation of, the express and
exclusive constitutional limitations on the sole power of
the Senate to try and decide impeachment cases. The
grounds raised by CJ Corona pertain to actions, orders and
prerogatives of the Congress in the course of impeachment
proceedings that are not covered by any definite constitutional
limitation. Following the principle in Francisco and Gutierrez, it
is most respectfully submitted that the Honorable Supreme Court
cannot exercise its power of expanded judicial review in this case.
This is not to say that the Senate is left without any
significant check for its exercise of the sole power to try and
decide impeachment cases. This check must, however, be
provided by the text of the Constitution itself. To quote United
States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Nixon
vs. United States:
The Framers have anticipated this objection andcreated two constitutional safeguards to keep theSenate in check. The first safeguard is that thewhole of the impeachment power is dividedbetween the two legislative bodies, with theHouse given the right to accuse and the Senategiven the right to judge. This split of authorityavoids the inconvenience of making the same
persons both accusers and judges; and guardsagainst the danger of persecution from theprevalency of a factious spirit in either of thosebranches. The second safeguard is the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement.37
(Emphasis supplied.)
37Supra.
20
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
21/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
The same principle applies in our jurisdiction. Here, the
Constitution entrusted the sole power to try and decide
impeachment cases to the Senate, subject only to three
express and exclusive constitutional limitations. To recall,
these limitations are: (a) the Senators shall be under oath or
affirmation; (b) when the President is on trial, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court shall preside (but not vote) over the
impeachment trial; and (c) the impeached public officer may only
be convicted upon the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all the
Members of the Senate.38
Again, it is most respectfully submitted that the grounds
raised by petitioners do not concern any clear violation of the
foregoing constitutional limitations. There is no basis for the
exercise of the Honorable Supreme Courts power of expanded
judicial review in these consolidated cases.
b. Grave abuse of discretion is atool or standard for judicialreview; it cannot be applied toevaluate the actions of theImpeachment Court unrelated
to the express and exclusiveconstitutional limitations onthe exercise of itsimpeachment powers.
38 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6).
21
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
22/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
If the framers intended to confine impeachment proceedings
to clear and simple judicial exercise, it could have easily done so.
They, however, saw it fit to exclude the Judiciary from the
adjudication of impeachments. This fact all the more underscores
the nature of impeachment as a political, rather than judicial,
process. At best, all that is being asked of the Senate, as the body
solely mandated by the Constitution to try and decide
impeachment cases, is that it be judicious. Judicious is defined as
well-considered, discreet, widely circumspect.39
Judicious - not judicial. The framers of theConstitution carefully excluded the judiciary (all butthe Chief Justice, who presides at the Senate trial ofan impeached President) from the adjudication of
impeachments.40
There are no other constitutionally provided standards by
which the Senate should try and decide impeachment cases.
Neither is there a constitutional requirement that the Senate
should conduct an impeachment trial like a criminal case, a civil
case or any other judicial proceeding. Such details, among others,
were left to the Senate to provide as public interests, changing
conditions and circumstances may require.41
For these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the
concept of grave abuse of discretion cannot apply here. Grave
39 Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th ed. 2009.40 Posner, Richard A., An Affair of State, The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial ofPresident Clinton, Harvard University Press, Second Printing Edition, 1999, p. 2.41Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921).
22
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
23/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
abuse of discretion is essentially a tool or standard for judicial
review. This standard is not applicable when the controversy or
issue pertains to the exercise of powers solely vested by the
Constitution in a political body. This is precisely because by
vesting such powers solely with the Senate, the intention of the
Framers was not to subject the decision-making to any outside
review. Rather, the intention was to exclusively confine the same
with the Senate.
To illustrate, the Constitution vested the Honorable Supreme
Court with judicial power, that is, the duty to settle actual
controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable
rights, as well as determine whether a branch or instrumentality
of Government has committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Pursuant to this
power, the Honorable Supreme Court, as the highest court of the
land, can resolve, with finality, actual controversies falling
within its jurisdiction. In so doing, it can never be accused of
having gravely abused its discretion.
The Senate, on the other hand, was vested by the
Constitution with the sole power to try and decide impeachment
cases. In the same way that it would be impossible under our
Constitution to accuse the highest court of the land to have
23
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
24/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
gravely abused its discretion in deciding matters falling within its
jurisdiction, the Senate, absent any transgression of the three
express and constitutionally imposed restrictions of its power,
cannot be considered to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion in its conduct of an impeachment trial. To construe
otherwise would be an unjustified infringement of the Senates
sole constitutional power and duty to try and decide
impeachment cases.
III. IN ANY EVENT, THEIMPEACHMENT COURT DID NOTCOMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION; IT HAS, IN FACT,
BEEN CONDUCTING THEPROCEEDINGS JUDICIOUSLY.
The Impeachment Courts conduct of its proceedings itself
belies any allegation of grave abuse of discretion.
Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as the
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, the exercise of
power in an arbitrary manner, where the abuse is so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty.42
Records of the proceedings before the Impeachment Court
show that the same have been conducted in accordance with the
42 Villarosa vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 143351 and144129, September 14, 2000, 340 SCRA 396 as cited in Henry Jun Dueas vs. Houseof Representatives Electoral Tribunal, et al., G.R. No. 191550, May 4, 2010.
24
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
25/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, particularly
Rule VI of the said Rules which provides:
VI. The President of the Senate or the Chief Justicewhen presiding on the trial may rule on allquestions of evidence including, but not limitedto, questions of materiality, relevancy,competency or admissibility of evidence andincidental questions, which ruling shall stand asthe judgment of the Senate, unless a Member ofthe Senate shall ask that a formal vote be takenthereon, in which case it shall be submitted to theSenate for decision after one contrary view is
expressed; or the Presiding Officer may at his/heroption, in the first instance, submit any suchquestion to a vote of the Members of the Senate.xxx
The Impeachment Court, in fact, holds regular caucuses to
discuss and resolve, by majority vote, any objection of a Member
of the Senate to a ruling made by the Honorable Presiding Officer
Sen. Enrile. Clearly, the decisions of the Impeachment Court are
arrived at thoroughly, reasonably, judiciously and after due
consideration of all pertinent issues. They can hardly be
considered capricious, whimsical or arbitrary.
Regardless, petitioners allegations of grave abuse of
discretion must fail for utter lack of merit.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that CJ Corona has
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Impeachment Court.
He has filed his Answer, appeared on the first day of the trial
proper and has been actively participating in the trial through
25
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
26/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
counsel. He even sought and obtained the following reliefs from
the Impeachment Court:
(1) CJ Coronas opposition to the request to
subpoena his wife and family was
granted by the Impeachment Court
when it refused to issue the requested
subpoena;
(2) CJ Coronas motion to exclude
presentation of evidence on Section 2.4
of the Articles of Impeachment was
granted;
(3) CJ Coronas motion to disallow the
presentation of Philippine Airlines
executive Enrique Javier was likewise
granted.
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that CJ Corona is
already estopped from questioning the Impeachment Courts
jurisdiction on the ground of an alleged defect in the transmittal
of the Articles of Impeachment. Likewise, petitioners cannot
question the verification of the Impeachment Complaint and its
transmittal to the Senate.
26
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
27/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Necessarily, all issues related to the sufficiency of the
allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, the admissibility and
quantum of evidence required for conviction and the propriety of
the issuance of subpoenae for the production of evidence, should
be left to the sound discretion of the Impeachment Court,
considering that the same are political questions outside the
ambit of the Honorable Courts certiorari jurisdiction. To reiterate,
this rule is mandated by the Honorable Supreme Courts ruling in
Francisco and Gutierrez.
Inasmuch as the Honorable Supreme Court has no
jurisdiction to pass upon the sufficiency of the impeachment
complaint, it is most respectfully submitted that it cannot review
the evidence and the manner of its submission to the
Impeachment Court.
Impeachment is inarguably a political act exercised by the
Legislature, a political body elected by and directly accountable to
the people. This power is lodged in those who represent the
great body of the people, because the occasion for its exercise
will arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the
objects of it may be such as cannot easily be reached by an
ordinary tribunal.43
43 Labovitz, John R., Presidential Impeachment, 20 (1978) as cited in Concurring Opinion(Sereno, J.) in Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
27
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
28/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Full discretion is vested in Congress, both the House and the
Senate, to determine whether or not an officer should be
impeached, subject only to constitutionally provided limits
provided under Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.
Thus, all issues, matters or questions affecting,
relating or referring to, in connection with, or arising
from, the determination of what constitutes an
impeachable offense involve political questions, the
resolution of which are left to the wisdom of Congress.
These issues include, but are not limited to, the
sufficiency of the allegations in the Articles of
Impeachment, the materiality, relevance, competency,
admissibility and quantum of evidence required for
conviction, the propriety of the issuance of subpoenae for
the production of evidence and other incidental questions.
With utmost due respect, the Honorable Supreme Court
cannot give due course to these consolidated petitions without
contravening the Constitution. The function to initiate, try and
decide impeachment cases is solely vested in Congress.
The political character of the process is underscored by a degree
of imprecision in the offenses subject of impeachment, thus
28
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
29/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
allowing Congress sufficient leeway to describe the acts as
impeachable or not.44
To give due course to these consolidated petitions and grant
petitioners injunctive relief would be tantamount to effectively
deciding the outcome of the impeachment case in gross
arrogation of an exclusive constitutional duty accorded to a
separate and independent branch of Government. This, the
Honorable Supreme Court simply cannot do.
IV. SUBJECTING THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TOJUDICIAL REVIEW DEFEATS THEVERY ESSENCE OFIMPEACHMENT.
Impeachment by the Legislature as representatives of the
People is the only constitutional check on members of the
Honorable Supreme Court under our constitutional system.45
With utmost due respect, permitting judicial review over
impeachment matters unrelated to any of the express
constitutional limitations thereon is tantamount to installing the
Honorable Supreme Court as the final reviewing authority over a
process meant to check its own actions. Questions will necessarily
44 Concurring Opinion (Sereno, J.) in Gutierrez, supra.45Nixon v. US, supra.
29
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
30/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
arise as to the integrity and independence of the Honorable
Supreme Court in deciding such matters, especially when the
same involves the head of the entire Judiciary, as in this case. A
decision by the Honorable Supreme Court under these
circumstances may be perceived to have been rendered with
partiality, and may not gain the trust of the People. Furthermore,
the Constitution provided impeachment as the only means to
review a class of impeachable officers. Subjecting the
impeachment process to judicial review by the Supreme Court will
give its Members an unfair advantage over the other groups of
impeachable officers. This absurd and expectedly self-defeating
situation surely could not have been intended by the Framers of
the Constitution. Concomitantly, and with all due respect, the
Senate, pursuant to its duty under the Constitution, cannot permit
such situation to occur.
V. THE VERIFIEDIMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTWAS FILED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
It is respectfully submitted that the Verified Impeachment
Complaint was filed in accordance with the 1987 Constitution.
At the outset, and at the risk of being repetitive, it must be
pointed out that CJ Corona, the only party with direct and material
30
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
31/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
interest in these consolidated cases, has admitted that the
Verified Impeachment Complaint is verified.46 In fact, he is
assailing the validity of the Verified Impeachment Complaint only
on the basis of lack of probable cause. In any case, the Verified
Impeachment Complaint complied with the requirements of the
1987 Constitution for its immediate transmittal to the Senate.
As the agency of Government vested with the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment,47 the House has the
corresponding exclusive power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure for this purpose.48 The House Impeachment Rules were
promulgated on August 3, 2010. Under Section 3(4), Article XI of
the 1987 Constitution and Rule II of the House Impeachment
Rules, impeachment may be initiated through a verified complaint
or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all
Members of the House.
The impeachment of CJ Corona was initiated through the
filing of a verified complaint by at least one-third of all Members
of the House. Relevantly, Rule IV of the House Impeachment
Rules provides:
Endorsement of the Complaint/Resolution tothe Senate. - A verified complaint/resolution ofimpeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of allthe Members of the House shall constitute theArticles of Impeachment, and in this case the verified
46 CJ Coronas Petition (G.R. No. 200242), par. 24.47 Constiution, Art. XI, Sec. 3(1).48 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3(8).
31
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
32/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
complaint/resolution shall be endorsed to the Senatein the same manner as an approved bill of the House.
The complaint/resolution must, at the time of
filing, be verified and sworn to before the SecretaryGeneral by each of the Members constituting at leastone-third (1/3) of all Members of the House.
The contents of the verification shall be asfollows:
"We, after being sworn in accordance with law,depose and state: That we are thecomplainants in the above-entitledcomplaint/resolution of impeachment; that we
have caused the said complaint/resolution tobe prepared and have read the contentsthereof; and that the allegations therein aretrue of our own knowledge and belief on thebasis of our reading and appreciation ofdocuments and other records pertinentthereto.
___________________(Signature)
Paragraph 1 of the Joint Verification and Certification of the
Verified Impeachment Complaint states:
I/We, Members of the House of Representatives, of legal age, Filipinos, after beingsworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose andstate: That I/We are the Complainants in the above-
entitled Complaint/Resolution of Impeachment; ThatI/We have caused the said Complaint/Resolution ofImpeachment; That I/We have caused the saidComplaint/Resolution to be prepared and I/We haveread the contents thereof; That the allegationstherein are true of our own knowledge and belief onthe basis of appreciation of documents and otherrecords pertinent thereto;
Clearly, the verification executed by the one hundred eighty-
eight (188) signing House Members strictly conformed to the
requirement imposed by the House Impeachment Rules. The
wording of the Joint Verification and Certification even followed
32
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
33/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
the form prescribed under the House Impeachment Rules
verbatim. On its face alone, the validity of the verification of the
Verified Impeachment Complaint cannot be denied.
More importantly, the Verified Impeachment Complaint was
verified and sworn before the House Secretary-General. The
Journal of the House taken on December 12, 201149 is instructive:
xxx
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT
In the matter of the Impeachment of Renato C.
Corona as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of thePhilippines by Representatives Tupas, Abaya,Tanada, Umali (R.), Bag-ao, et al.
REMARKS OF REP. GONZALES (N.)
At this point, Rep. Gonzales informed the Bodythat a verified complaint for impeachment was filedagainst Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C.Corona by Reps. Niel C. Tupas, Jr., Lorenzo R. Tanada
III, Reynaldo V. Umali, Kaka J. Bag-ao, and severalothers. He then asked the Secretary General thenumber of Members of the House who had verifiedand swore to before her on said impeachmentcomplaint.
The Chair also asked for the total membershipof the House at Present.
In reply, Secretary General Marilyn B.Barua-Yap stated that the House has a total
membership of 284 Members at present, one-third of which is equivalent to 95 Members.She said that 188 Members had verified andswore before her on the impeachmentcomplaint against Chief Justice Corona.(Emphasis supplied.)
49 A certified copy of the Journal of the House dated December 12, 2011 is attached heretoas Annex 6.
33
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
34/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
xxx
QUERY FROM THE CHAIR
Before the Body could act on the motion,the Chair inqured whether the SecretaryGeneral could attest to the fact that 188Members had individually sworn before her onthe verification of the particular Complaint, towhich the latter responded in the affirmative.She reiterated that the procedure that wasfollowed was pursuant to Section 13, Rule IV ofthe Rules on Impeachment. (Emphasis supplied.)
From the foregoing excerpt of the Journal, the House
Secretary-General attested that all one hundred eighty-eight
(188) Members of the House had verified and sworn before her on
the Verified Impeachment Complaint.
In Arroyo vs. De Venecia,50 the Honorable Supreme Court
rules that the Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to
matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded
therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the Journals have also been accorded conclusive
effect.
In United States vs. Pons,51 the Honorable Supreme Court
spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the
Journals as public memorials of the most permanent character.
50Supra.51 34 Phil. 729, 735 (1916), quoting State ex rel. Herron vs. Smith, 44 Ohio 348 (1886).
34
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
35/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
They should be public, because all are required to conform to
them. They should be permanent, that rights acquired today upon
the faith of what has been declared to be law shall not be
destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts
resting only in the memory of individuals.
To stress, the power to initiate impeachment proceedings
and promulgate rules of procedure governing the same is
exclusively vested in the House. The House may, therefore,
legally prescribe the form and manner by which an impeachment
complaint shall be verified, especially as the Constitution is silent
on the nature and character of the verification requirement. For
this reason alone, petitioners cannot insist on the application of
verification as expressly provided in the Rules of Court.
In any event, the rules on verification under the Rules of
Court do not apply in impeachment proceedings. Section 4, Rule 1
of the Rules of Court states that the Rules of Court shall not
apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization
and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided
for, except by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. Since the House Impeachment Rules
already contain a specific provision on verification, the Rules of
Court cannot be suppletorily applied.
35
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
36/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of argument that the
rule on verification under the Rules of Court can be applied here,
jurisprudence holds that the verification requirement is
substantially met when the pleading is signed and sworn to by a
party who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the
allegations therein. Such a verification is deemed a sufficient
assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely
speculative.52 The verification executed by the one hundred
eighty-eight (188) House Members who prepared and filed the
Verified Impeachment Complaint undeniably satisfies this
requirement.
Finally, petitioners contend that based on newspaper and
media accounts, the Members of the House who signed the
Verified Impeachment Complaint could not have verified the same
because they were not furnished with copies of the Verified
Impeachment Complaint. As such, it would have been impossible
for the signing House Members to have read the Verified
Impeachment Complaint. Unfortunately for petitioners, said
newspaper accounts are not competent and authentic evidence.
Since they are hearsay, they are inadmissible in evidence.53
52Prince Transport Inc. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011.53Spouses Viloria vs. Continental Airlines,Inc. G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012.
36
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
37/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
In fine, whether the signing House Members actually read
the Verified Impeachment Complaint necessitates a
determination of facts which the Honorable Court is not in a
position to properly undertake. The Honorable Supreme Court is
not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation
and substantiation of these claims.54
All told, the Verified Impeachment Complaint was properly
filed and verified in accordance with the Constitution and the
House Impeachment Rules. If there are pleadings or submissions
which were not properly verified, these would be the Consolidated
Petitions, which contain allegations founded solely on multiple
hearsay evidence and not on personal knowledge or authentic
records.
IV. THE CASE HAS BECOMEMOOT AND ACADEMIC.
On January 16, 2012, the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment
Court and the sole and exclusive body empowered to try and
decide cases of impeachment, ruled with finality on the validity
of the Verified Impeachment Complaint and the Articles of
Impeachment when it denied CJ Coronas Motion for Preliminary
54Soriano et al. vs. Yuzon, G.R. No. 74910, August 10, 1988.
37
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
38/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Hearing. The validity of the verification of the Verified
Impeachment Complaint was even admitted by CJ Corona himself
in his own Petition.55 There is, therefore, no justiciable
controversy to speak of. This case has now been rendered moot
and academic.
Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is
no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of
the same of no practical use or value.56
OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR ATEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
To be entitled to a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction, petitioners must show, with clear and
convincing evidence, that the following requisites are present: (a)
their right is clear and unmistakable; (b) the invasion of their right
sought to be protected is material and substantial; and (c) there is
an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage.57
These requisites are not present.
55 See Note 35.56Carlos Baldo Jr., vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176135, June 16, 2009.57Boncodin vs. National Power Corp. Employees Consolidated Union, 503 SCRA 611(2006).
38
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
39/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
First, petitioners have not alleged, much less proven, the
existence of any legal right on their part to the issuance of a
temporary restraining order or injunctive relief.
Second, the filing of the Verified Impeachment Complaint
and the continuation of the impeachment proceedings certainly
do not materially and substantially invade any legal right of
petitioners part. There can be no invasion of rights when there is
no right to speak of.
Third, there is no urgent and paramount necessity to prevent
serious damage. The validity of the Verified Impeachment
Complaint and the Articles of Impeachment has already been
resolved by the Senate as the sole and exclusive body tasked
under the Constitution to try and decide impeachment cases. It is
therefore incumbent upon the Honorable Supreme Court to
exercise judicial restraint and refrain from issuing any injunctive
relief with respect to the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
Verily, the injury being claimed by petitioners as allegedly
resulting from the subject impeachment proceedings has no
factual and legal basis. The continuation of the impeachment
proceedings against the Honorable CJ Corona will in fact
strengthen the Constitution and the institutions of the
39
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
40/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
Government. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.58 The
impeachment proceedings, which was initiated and is being
conducted in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, simply aims
to enforce the principle of public accountability and ensure that
impeachable public officials answer for their transgressions. It will
help define the powers of the three major branches of the
Government and strengthen the principle of separation of powers
and the system of checks and balances.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Consolidated
Petitions be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs just or equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for ad cautelam ex superabundanti.
Makati City for Manila, February 24, 2012.
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZASolicitor GeneralRoll No. 25719
IBP (Lifetime) No. 00037, 1-18-93MCLE Exemption No. III-0008523
58 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 1.
40
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
41/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
KARL B. MIRANDAAssistant Solicitor GeneralRoll No. 33306
IBP (Lifetime) No. 04423, 1-9-2003MCLE Exemption No. III-000370
MARSHA C. RECONSenior State Solicitor
(Officer-in-Charge, Felix Angelo Bautista Division)Roll No. 41169
IBP No. 883342, 01-10-2012MCLE Compliance No. III-0003832
NOEL CEZAR T. SEGOVIASenior State Solicitor
Roll No. 40524IBP No. 880248, 01-09-2012MCLE Compliance No. III-0003843
HILARION B. BUBANState SolicitorRoll No. 50397
IBP (Lifetime) No. 841400MCLE Compliance No. III-0003390
LESTER O. FIELAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 51983IBP No. 858305, 03-15-2011
MCLE Compliance No. III-0003785
JASON T. LORENZOAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 55864IBP No. 883037, 01-09-12
41
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
42/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
MCLE Compliance No. III-000763
JUDY A. LARDIZABALAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 57090IBP No. 866385, 08-08-11
MCLE Compliance No. III-0017487
DENISE S. DYAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 57316IBP (Lifetime) No. 010412, 01-11-12MCLE Compliance No. III-0011975
MICHAEL T. MACAPAGALAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 57135IBP No. 879933, 01-06-12
MCLE Compliance No. III-0008492
RONALD JOHN B. DECANOAssociate Solicitor
Roll No. 58393
IBP No. 884741, 01-20-2012MCLE Compliance No. (Exempted-New Lawyer)
MARLON P. BOSANTOGAttorney II
Roll No. 59094IBP No. 887196, 01-20-2012
MCLE Compliance No. (Exempted-New Lawyer)
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. Nos. 818-6301 to 09 local 239, 238 and 237
42
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
43/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
COPY FURNISHED: (by registered mail)
Atty. Homobono A. AdazaPetitioner in G.R. No. 199694Suites 209-210 Richmark Bldg.72 Mindanao Ave., Quezon City
Atty. Alan PaguiaPetitioner in G.R. No. 19969417 Dr. Lazcano Street, Quezon City
Atty. Vicente D. MilloraPetitioner in G.R. No. 199535Ground Floor, Manere Building IIINo. 41 V. Luna Avenue, Quezon City
Mr. Danilo A. LihaylihayPetitioner in G.R. No. 19950924-A Don Gregorio St., Don AntonioHeights Subdivision, Brgy. Holy SpiritCommonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
Atty. Oliver O. LozanoPetitioner in G.R. No. 199569Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines (LLBP)No. 8 Everlasting StreetRoxas District, Quezon City
Atty. Vladimir Alarique T. CabigaoPetitioner in G.R. No. 199517
Cabigao Law Office2507 Santo Nio St., PandacanManila
Rev. Bernardo MagnoJohn 3:16 Ministry InternationalPetitioner in G.R. No. 19956959 M. Reyes Street, Brgy. RosarioMontalban, Rizal
Hon. Juan Ponce EnrileSenate PresidentOffice of the Senate PresidentRm. 606, 6th Floor GSIS Bldg.Pasay City
Hon. Feliciano R. Belmonte
43
8/2/2019 2012-02-25 Comment Adaza Petitions as of 530PM
44/44
Consolidated CommentAd Cautelam Ex SuperabundantiAtty. Vicente D. Millora vs. The Honorable House of Representatives et al.G.R. No. 199535, et al.
SpeakerHon. Neil Tupas, Jr.House of Representatives
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
The Senate SecretarySenate of the PhilippinesRm. 606, 6th GSIS BuildingPasay City
The Secretary GeneralHouse of RepresentativesBatasan Hills, Quezon City
Atty. Maria Valentina S. Santana-CruzSenate Legal CounselSenate of the PhilippinesPasay City
Public Information OfficeSupreme Court
EXPLANATION
For lack of time and messengerial manpower, copies of theforegoing Consolidated Comment were served by registered mailrather than by the preferred mode of personal service.
RONALD JOHN B. DECANO
Associate Solicitor
44