The Black and White Movement

BnW Decries Calls for Drilon to Inhibit

2012-01-23T11:11:00.000+08:00

The Blackand White Movement decries the near daily whining of Chief Justice Renato Corona’sdefense team. The prosecution claims that it may take a couple of months for itto lay out all the evidence against CJ Corona – at the rate the defense keepsobjecting, desperately trying to obfuscate the truth, it may take much, muchlonger.

The Coronadefense team’s tack seems to deny, derail and delay, and it’s latest target isSenator Franklin Drilon. It claims that he is biased towards the prosecutionbecause of the tenor of his questions and should therefore recuse himself.Really? Is getting to the truth on behalf of the people so distasteful?

Contrary tothe defense’s opinion, the Black and White Movement believes that SenatorDrilon, along with his fellow Senator Judges are just doing what they should bedoing – making sure that everything hidden is brought to light. We believe thatour Senator Judges are working on the people’s behalf. It is within theirpurview to ask probing questions, to clarify what is unclear, to make surethey, as judges, understand what both sides bring to the table.

We are against the inhibition of Senator Drilon,and any other Senator Judge, from this impeachment trial. For any of them torecuse themsleves would be a disservice to their office and a failure to keepthe public’s interests above all others.

Happy Holidays!

2011-12-24T19:02:00.000+08:00

PUFFED UP

2011-12-15T21:33:00.000+08:00

We thankSen. Miriam Santiago for having such high regard for the Black and WhiteMovement. She claims we have a direct line to God. Yes, we do speak to God throughour prayers. But so far, He has not appeared to us as He did to Moses to giveus specific instructions or special powers of attorney as the good senator insinuated.

We havenever claimed to represent the people. As Sen. Santiago has rightfully pointedout, we have not been elected – unlike her, of course. Neither have we projected ourselves as scholarsof the law or philosophy. Many of us have not taken the Bar – unlike her, ofcourse.

What we dohave is our conscience, just as every person has, to guide us in discerninggood from evil, right from wrong. We have never imposed our sense of right orwrong upon others. We do fight for what we think is right, and we exposewrongdoing whenever we see it.

It seemsthat the good senator mistakes our passion and zeal for arrogance. Of course,we consider her an expert on the subject. She gives new meaning to the words“puffed up”. Clearly, she deems theunelected and the unlettered in the law to be lesser mortals.

We are proudthat some of our erstwhile conveners are now members of the Aquinoadministration. They continue to fight for what we believe in – honesty, goodgovernance, and positive change. Webelieve in President Aquino’s vision of "daang matuwid", and wesupport him in his fight for accountability and closure.

There willbe those that may not agree with our positions. We respect their right toexpress their opinions, just as we expect them to respect ours. Such are theways of democracy. Let the marketplace of political ideas be the ground onwhich to win the hearts and minds of the people.

We celebratewith the rest of the nation the acceptance of Sen. Santiago to theInternational Criminal Court. Of course, we have different reasons forcelebrating. We think the ICC will be a new arena where the good senator canshowcase her mastery of the law and her eloquence – peculiarities, affectationsand all. It can only be good for the country.

The Black and White Movement wishes her Godspeedand goodbye!

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C. CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

2011-12-12T20:21:00.000+08:00

REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINES

HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES

Houseof Representatives Complex

ConstitutionHills, Quezon City

INTHE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C. CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTATIVESNIEL C. TUPAS JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, LORENZO R. TANADA III, REYNALDO V.UMALI, ARLENE J. BAG-AO (other complainants comprising at least one-third (1/3of the total Members of the House of Representatives are indicated below),

Complainants.

ANATHERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, RODOLFO LOZADA JR., JUAN CARLO TEJANO, LEA LOPEZNAVARRO,

PrivateComplainants.

x---------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT

UndersignedCOMPLAINANTS most respectfully file this duly verified Complaint for theImpeachment of the Honorable Renato C.Corona, currently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (hereafter,“Respondent”), upon the grounds of Betrayal of Public Trust, Culpable Violationof the Constitution, and Graft and Corruption, as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Never has the position of ChiefJustice, or the standing of the Supreme Court, as an institution, been sotainted with the perception of bias and partiality, as it is now: not even inthe dark days of martial law, has the chief magistrate behaved with sucharrogance, impunity, and cynicism. And yet, for the authentic rule of law toprevail, the public must have absolute trust and confidence in the justice,probity, integrity, and impartiality, of the members of the Supreme Court. Tohave any justice, much more, a Chief Justice, who does not live up to theexpectation of being like Caesar’s wife –beyond reproach- is to fatally impedethe ability of our institutions to function and dispense true justice to thepeople.

The Constitution provides a processfor holding the judiciary to account, on the principle that “sovereigntyresides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”. TheConstitution provides for a mechanism to remove high officials who betray public trust, commit culpableviolations of the Constitution, and graft and corruption.

On May 17, 2010, a little over amonth and a half before the new government was to be sworn in, respondentRenato Corona was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to protect, aid,and abet Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in her efforts to escape accountability forher acts as President of the Philippines. His appointment was made in violationof the Constitution and by overturning long-established ethical and legalprinciples forbidding presidents from making midnight appointments. Hisassumption of the position of Chief Justice was thus made possible by acombination of violating the Constitution, and then finding ways to justify it,while ignoring examples of honorable, ethical, behavior that should have madeit impossible to accept, much less assume, office under such dubious anddishonorable circumstances.

The Supreme Court itself, in Aytona v. Castillo[1],where it decided to uphold President Diosdado Macapagal in voiding the midnightappointments of his predecessor, Carlos P. Garcia, paid tributeto one of its former chiefs. Pointing out that President Elpidio Quirinooffered a midnight appointment to former Chief Justice Manuel Moran: “Being ambassador in Spain and desiring to returnto this Court even as associate justice, Moran was tendered an ad interim appointmentthereto by President Quirino, after the latter had lost the election toPresident Magsaysay, and before leaving the Presidency. Said Ambassador declinedto qualify being of the opinion that the matter should be left to the incomingnewly-elected President.”

Intackling President Garcia’s midnight appointments, the Supreme Court observedthat democratic respect and official self-restraint should have characterizedGarcia’s actions: “When a nation embarks on electing its leadership, ourConstitution, laws, judicial and historical precedents all emphasize thatincumbents must be barred from abusing their powers to give themselves or theirpartisans undue advantage, thwart the public will, or harass and harm asuccessor’s administration by tying its hands by means of maliciously-motivatedappointments.” Furthermore, “It is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of theelection of President Macapagal, his was no more than a ‘care-taker’administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer ofauthority the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he ought toknow, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor,” the SupremeCourt said.

Withthis precedent in mind, and with the healthy attitude towards limiting officialpower at the close of an administration, so as not to sabotage the next, thepresent 1987 Constitution enshrined a clear prohibition on midnightappointments. When President Fidel V.Ramos tried to make judicial appointments in the closing days of hisadministration, the Supreme Court voided them,[2]restating the strict ban on appointments, not just to executive departmentpositions, but the judiciary.

Andyet, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo decided to ignore all pastprecedents, including the one established by her own father, President DiosdadoMacapagal, in order to appoint a Chief Justice when by any measure – thehistory of the Court, as shown by the delicadeza of former Chief JusticeManuel Moran; the landmark case of Aytona; the 1987 Constitution itself; andthe November 9, 1998 en banc Resolution of the Supreme Court voidingPresident Ramos' midnight judicial appointments – such an appointment wasviewed as dangerous and inimical to authentic democracy.

Thedecision of Mrs. Arroyo was premised on Respondent's proven usefulness, and hisambitions combining with her political calculations to make him a willingpartner in Mrs. Arroyo's plan to evade and avoid accounting for her officialactions. His usefulness and ruthlessnesswere proven from the time he served as her Presidential Chief of Staff,Presidential Spokesman, and as Acting Executive Secretary : all positions ofthe highest trust, confidence, and utility to her in her official and personalaffairs.

Hisloyalty and subservience thus earned him an appointment to the Supreme Court asAssociate Justice at a time when Mrs. Arroyo was facing numerous challenges andbesieged by a public clamor for accountability.

Faced with a vacancy in the positionof Chief Justice, she then went one step further and conspired with RespondentCorona to maneuver his appointment as Chief Justice: by ignoring the seniorityrule, and breaking precedents established by her own father which premisedmidnight appointments as malicious interference in the ability of anewly-elected president to have a free hand in fulfilling his mandate.

In the Supreme Court, Respondent hasconsistently acted in a manner that protects Mrs. Arroyo, her legal maneuverswhile in office, and the legal and administrative landmines she left behind, soas to impede the government’s efforts to exact accountability and justice.

His leadership of the Supreme Courthas severely eroded public confidence in the very decision-making process ofthe high court, due to the manner in which the Court has handed down decisions,only to reconsider, overturn, and overturn again, those decisions: resulting inan unprecedented state of flux in terms of the verdicts of the highest court inthe land.

As Chief Justice, Respondent hasbeen lavish in the spending of public funds; blind to ethical standards ofbehavior expected not only of him, but his family; intrigued and conspiredagainst his fellow justices; and behaved more like a scofflaw than ChiefJustice in refusing to disclose his assets and liabilities. Not only has hebehaved in a manner that is inconsistent with the dignity and probity expectedof a member of the high court, but has used his administrative powers forpartisan political ends, to protect other officials put in office for the samereason he was appointed: to protect former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoand ensure she evades accountability for her acts.

His ethical blindness, introductionof political partisanship at the expense of due process, and intrigue into thecourt at the expense of the reputation of his fellow justices, his underminingbasic, and cherished principles of intellectual, financial, and ethical honestyby using his powers not to arrive at the truth, or hold the court to thehighest standards, but instead, to cover up and excuse the shortcomings of thecourt, has betrayed public trust by eroding public confidence in theadministration of justice.

Public office is premised on themaintenance of public trust; having betrayed that trust, Respondent RenatoCorona is manifestly unfit to continue as Chief Justice. He must be impeached.

NATURE OFTHIS ACTION

Therefore,this action for impeachment is brought against Chief Justice Renato C. Coronain accordance with the provisions of Section 2, Article XI of the 1987Constitution, on the grounds of: (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) CulpableViolation of the Constitution; and (c)Graft and Corruption.

THE PARTIES

Complainantsare current Members of the House of Representative, responsible Filipinocitizens and taxpayers, and are all of legal age. For purposes of the instant VerifiedComplaint for Impeachment, complainants may be served with pleadings, noticesand processes at the House ofRepresentatives, Constitution Hills, Batasan Complex, Quezon City. Theybring this action for and on behalf of the People of the Republic of thePhilippines by authority of the 1987 Constitution, consistent with their civicand constitutional duties as citizens, public servants, members of the bar, andMembers of the House of Representatives as agents of the People, the varioussectors of the nation and other people’s organizations.

PrivateComplainants, ANA THERESIAHONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, RODOLFO LOZADA JR., JUAN CARLO TEJANO, LEAH LOPEZNAVARRO, are all Filipino citizes,of legal age, and residents of the Philippines. They maybe served summons and other processes at 36-B Madasalin Street,Sikatuna Village, Quezon City.

RespondentChief Justice RENATO C. CORONA isthe incumbent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and isbeing sued in his official capacity. He may be served with summons and otherprocesses at his office address at the Supreme Court Building, City of Manila.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Whenrespondent assumed office as Chief Justice on May 17, 2010, he did so despite aConstitutionally-imposed ban on appointments which the Supreme Court madepossible and permitted under an interpretation that strained credulity, logicand common-sense and even worse, effectively broke the law. The Justices thatmade this possible constitute a voting block that respondent leads as ChiefJustice.

The appointment was met withwidespread public indignation and protests as it was obviously morally dubious.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 thatan incumbent President appointing officials after the election of hissuccessor, as President Diosdado Macapagal argued, represented malicioussabotage of the expressed will of the people; and despite the Supreme Court’sown history, which presented the sterling example of a former Chief Justice,Manuel Moran, who declined reappointment to the court by President ElpidioQuirino as it constituted a midnight appointment, respondent eagerly accepted hisposition. This was notwithstanding the fact that of the three branches ofGovernment, the Judiciary was the most greatly dependent upon moral ascendancyand ethical integrity as the foundation of its power and legitimacy. However,he attempted to camouflage his brazen ambition by taking his oath of officebefore then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in secret, supposedly atten in the morning of May 17, 2010, beyond the scrutiny of the mass media andthe public.[3]

Respondent’svoting pattern and actions after his appointment as Associate Justice andlater, as Chief Justice, as discussed below, have been anything but fair andimpartial.

In the year that Respondent haspresided over the Court of Last Resort, the Filipino people's faith in thejustice system has been greatly undermined rather than uplifted, through aseries of dubious decisions engineered by him.

Instead of assuring andstrengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, Respondenthas instead demonstrated he is predisposed to favor and protect FormerPresident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had appointed him to his position asChief Justice in brazen disregard of the Constitution.

In fact, results of the SocialWeather Stations Survey’s net satisfaction ratings in the third quarter of 2011indicate that among the country’s top officials, only Respondent’s satisfactionratings have been a “zero” since September 2010, i.e., his satisfaction rating is consistently negated by hisdissatisfaction rating.[4]

Along the way, Respondent, contraryto his pronouncements, has allowed and even encouraged the deterioration of therespect and trust due to the High Court by putting obstacles in the path of thepeople's search for truth against graft and corruption; encroaching on the exclusivepower of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings,providing a semblance of legal cover to give Former President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo and her husband the opportunity to escape prosecution andfrustrate the ends of justice; permitting the High Court to repeatedlyflip-flop on its own rules and decisions in violation of its own rules;excusing plagiarism in contrast to the stringent standards expected of ordinarycollege students and teachers; and even reportedly engaging not only inillicitly acquiring assets of high value but even resorting to petty graft andcorruption for his own personal profit and convenience.

TheComplainants hereby accuse Respondent of numerous acts that comprise: (a)Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) Culpable Violation of the Constitution; and (c)Graft and Corruption, that render him absolutely unfit for the position ofChief Justice of the Supreme Court.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

Respondentbetrayed the Public Trust, committed Culpable Violation of the Constitution andGraft and Corruption in the following manner:

RESPONDENTBETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HISTRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATIONFROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND UNTIL HIS DUBIOUSAPPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE TO THE PRESENT.

RESPONDENTCOMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLICTRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987CONSTITUTION.

III

RESPONDENTCOMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUSTBY FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDESTHAT “[A] MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE,INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE.”

RESPONDENTBETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THECONSTITUTION WHEN IT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OFPOWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUO ANTE” ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMANMERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.

RESPONDENTCOMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESSAND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OFGERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THEPROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE.

RESPONDENTBETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY ARROGATINGUNTO HIMSELF, AND TO A COMMITTEE HE CREATED, THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TOIMPROPERLY INVESTIGATE A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCULPATINGHIM. SUCH AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION IS PROPERLY REPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION INTHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VIAIMPEACHMENT.

VII

RESPONDENTBETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYOAND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TOESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THESUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURETO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S OWN TRO.

VIII

RESPONDENTBETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILEDAND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THEJUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

DISCUSSION OF THE GROUNDS FORIMPEACHMENT

I. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLICTRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BYPARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASESINVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREMECOURT JUSTICE WHICH CONTINUED TO HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEFJUSTICE AND UP TO THE PRESENT.

1.1. Sec. 15, Article VII of the 1987Constitution clearly prohibits the President from making appointments withintwo months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the endof his term, except for temporary appointments to executive positions whencontinued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger publicsafety. In the case of In Re Appointments Dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A.Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Courtof Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City,^{^[5]} the Supreme Court rules that this provision bars the appointmentof members of the judiciary.

1.2. However, in the case of Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo, et. al., In Re Applicability Of Section 15, Article VII Of TheConstitution To Appointments To The Judiciary, Estelito P. Mendoza, Philippine Bar Association vs.JBC, et al.[6], the Supreme Court reversed the Valenzuela ruling and held that theConstitutional prohibition singularly does not apply to the Supreme Court,implying that it applies only to the executive department and all other courtslower than the Supreme Court. Despite the obviously negative andconfidence-shattering impact that a “midnight appointment” by an outgoingPresident would have on the people's faith in the Supreme Court and thejudicial system, Respondent eagerly, shamelessly, and without even a hint ofself-restraint and delicadeza, accepted his midnight appointment asChief Justice by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

1.3 Alljudges must “ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that itis perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”[7]In addition, “(t)he behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people'sfaith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done butmust also be seen to be done.”[8]These are required under two of the most important sections of the Code ofJudicial Conduct, specifically Canon 2 on Integrity. However, as a matter ofpublic record, from his very promotion to the highest position in the judicialhierarchy, Respondent has violated these premier provisions.

1.4. Indeed, Newsbreak reported that the voting record of Respondent “shows that he has consistently sided withthe administration in politically-significant cases” (i.e. Arroyo’spolicies and administration). Newsbreak further reported when it tracked thevoting pattern of Supreme Court justices, “Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor ofArroyo” – and this was before his midnight appointment as ChiefJustice.[9]

1.5. This trend continued,even worsened, betraying Respondent’s predisposition to side with Arroyo or her interest at any and all costs– even at the cost of prostituting the noble cause of justice.

1.6. Thus, inBiraogov. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,[10]Respondent dealt the fatal blow to Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010,entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010". Simply,Respondent prevented any such body from being created now or in the future –thereby protecting his patroness from investigation.

1.7. Another case: the Status Quo AnteOrder in Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa,Jr,[11] is equallyappalling. Seemingly on cue,Respondent’s Supreme Court would not be content against simply nullifyingExecutive Order No. 1 dated July 30, 2010. To extend Arroyo’s control and influence over the new administrationdone through massive last-minute appointments in critical public positions,Respondent would again find fault in Executive Order No. 2 dated July 30,2010.

1.8. Executive Order No. 2 was issuedprecisely to revoke Midnight Appointments made by the Arroyo Administration indepartments, agencies, offices, and instrumentalities, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations. These Midnight Appointments were made possible by President Arroyochurning out appointments for plum posts in government owned and controlledagencies, on a daily basis and backdating them to before the constitutional banon appointments during an election period.[12] Further, such appointments had the effect oferoding the integrity of the executive. Likewise, the same was made in complete disregard of the intent andspirit of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments, effectivelydepriving the new administration of the power to make its own appointments tothese positions. It was for thesereasons that an Order from the Executive needed to be made in order to preventthe further degradation of the people’s trust and confidence in our governmentinstitutions.

1.9. Yet, consistent with his patternof supporting Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Respondent’s Supreme Court issued aStatus Quo Ante Order to prevent the implementation of Executive Order No. 2.Again, the instant case reflects an affront to the independence of thejudiciary. It is likewise a case of judicial overreach upon a co-equal branchof government meant to derail its efforts to curb corruption by successivelynullifying its issuances.

1.10. As Associate andChief Justice, respondent has ignored ethical precedents, behaved with a lackof integrity, casting the Supreme Court in disrepute. Judges are expected to bebeyond reproach, financially, ethically, and the use of their authority andpowers. Partisanship, a wilful refusal to recuse himself so as to avoid anypossible imputation of a conflict of interest, including the paying back ofdebts of political gratitude or loyalty, are a betrayal of public trust andcontrary to the canons of judicial conduct.

1.11. Asfor the case of Benigno Simeon Aquino III v. Commission on Elections, supra, the Supreme Court denied the petition of then Sen. Benigno S. Aquino III against RA No.9716 creating and/or redefining the first and second districts of CamarinesSur. It was widely believed and confirmed by subsequent events, that thedistricts were re-defined and created to assure that the President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo’s son, Dato Arroyo, could run and win in the newly createddistrict to avoid a contest between the president’s son and DBM Secretary RolandoAndaya who wanted to return to Camarines Sur to run in his old district. Thisnew district was upheld contrary to the explicit constitutional requirement[13]that mandates a minimum population of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) forthe creation of a legislative district.

1.12. ThenSen. Aquino argued that Republic Act No. 9716 creating the first and seconddistricts of Camarines Sur was unconstitutional, because the proposed firstdistrict would end up with a population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383.Despite this clear fact, Respondent Corona voted in violation of theConstitution againstthen Sen. Aquino’s petition.

1.13. Worse, Respondent, who at that time wasalready being considered by then President Arroyo as the next Chief Justice,did not inhibit himself. The simple fact is Respondent’s patroness, was themother of the principal beneficiary of the creation of the new district. Thus,a vote in favor of the new district was a vote in favor of Mrs. Arroyo’s sonand, would thus endear him more to President Arroyo and ensure his appointment.In simplest terms, Respondent wanted and needed something from Mrs. Arroyo(i.e., his appointment as next Chief Justice); Mrs. Arroyo, in turn, wanted orneeded something for Respondent (i.e. to create a new legislative district forher son, Dato Arroyo). The People can do the math.

1.14. Below is a table that tracks respondent’svoting pattern in cases highly impressed with public interest and involving theArroyo government’s frontal assaults on constitutional rights prior to hisappointment as Chief Justice. As the table will show, Respondent’s vote isdictated not by his conscience but his loyalty and subservience to hisappointing power:

Case	Supreme Court Ruling	Corona’s Vote
*Information Technology v. COMELEC and Mega Pacific* (January 13, 2004)	Mega-Pacific contract voided for not undergoing public bidding	Dissented
*Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary* (February 03, 2004)	The President, in issuing Proc. Nos. 427, 435, and Gen. Order No. 4, did not exceed her powers as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief	Concurred
*Tecson v. COMELEC* (March 03, 2004)	Dismissed petitions to disqualify Fernando Poe, Jr. (Arroyo’s rival candidate for the presidency) as a presidentiable on the ground that he is not a natural-born Filipino	Dissented
*Pimentel v. Ermita* (December 13, 2005)	The President may make appointments “in an acting capacity” without seeking confirmation from the Commission on Appointments even when Congress is in session (i.e., not just ad interim appointments).	Concurred
*Senate v. Ermita* (April 20, 2006)	EO 464 issued Arroyo which allowed executive department heads to invoke executive privilege is valid	Concurred
*Gudani v. Senga* (August 15, 2006)	The presidential directive which prohibited certain officials of the Executive branch and the AFP from appearing in Congressional hearings without the President’s consent, is valid	Concurred
*Lambino v. COMELEC* (October 25, 2006)	Lambino’s/Sigaw ng Bayan’s petition for COMELEC to allow a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution (to convert our form of government from presidential to parliamentary; thus, giving Arroyo the opportunity to become the prime minister and evade the Constitutional prohibition on re-election as President) was dismissed for having failed to comply with the Constitutional requirements of conducting a people’s initiative.	Dissented
*David v. Arroyo* (May 03, 2006)	Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 is partly constitutional, partly unconstitutional	Dissented (Joined Tinga’s dissent) *Tinga voted to dismiss all the petitions on the following grounds: 1. Since PP 1017, infosar as it is an exercise of the President’s calling out powers, is similar to PP 427, it should likewise be sustained, following the ruling in Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary* (2004) 2. The takeover of the Daily Tribune is no longer a justiciable issue. Nevertheless, Tinga also commented on the President’s emergency takeover powers in this wise: while it is fundamentally sound to construe Art. XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution as requiring congressional approval before a takeover may be effected, its wording is ambivalent; thus, it is also constitutionally permissible for the President to exercise takeover powers even without Congressional approval in exceptional instances, subject only to judicial review. 3. Dissented from the majority ruling that the overbreadth and void for vagueness doctrines apply only to facial challenges of free speech statutes. Only criminal statutes, and not free speech cases, may be challenged on the ground that they are void for vagueness. Free speech cases are more properly challenged on the ground of overbreadth. Furthermore, PP 1017 “neither creates nor diminishes any rights or obligations whatsoever”. 4. General Order No. 5 is likewise valid because even if premised on a state of emergency, it “cannot authorize the military or police to ignore or violate constitutional or statutory rights, or enforce laws completely alien to the suppression of lawless violence.” 5. The Supreme Court should not pass upon the individual claims of injury arising from an examination of PP 1017 and GO 5 as applied, since it is not a trier of facts
*Chavez v. Gonzalez* (February 15, 2008)	Wiretapped conversations between Arroyo and Garcillano not prohibited from airing	Dissented
*Neri v. Senate* (March 25, 2008)	Neri not liable for contempt for not appearing in Senate hearings on NBN-ZTE Deal, which was linked to Arroyo and her spouse, because his testimony is covered by executive privilege	Concurred
*Akbayan v. Aquino* (July 16, 2008)	JPEPA communications covered by executive privilege exercised by then President Arroyo, and not for public disclosure	Concurred
*Benigno Simeon Aquino III v.* *Commission on Elections*, G.R. No. 189793 (April 7, 2010)	Denied the petition of then Sen. Benigno S. Aquino III and upheld RA 9716 creating the first and second districts of Camarines Sur (the districts were created to assure that Arroyo’s son, Dato Arroyo, will run uncontested since then DBM Secretary Rolando Andaya was returning to Camarines Sur to run again for Congress) contrary to the explicit constitutional requirement[14] that requires a minimum population of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation of a legislative district. Then Sen. Aquino argued that Republic Act No. 9716 that created the first and second districts of Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first district will end up with a population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383. Despite this clear fact, Corona voted against then Sen. Aquino’s petition in violation of the Constitution.	Concurred – did not inhibit despite being already considered as one of the nominees for the next Chief Justice by the mother (then PGMA) of the principal beneficiary of the creation of the new district. Thus a vote in favor of the new district is a vote in favor of then PGMA’s son and, thus, GMA.

1.15. Aside from the specific cases herein discussed,the following cases decided by the Court with Respondent as Chief Justicefurther betray his consistent lack of independence and bias towards protectingArroyo:

Case	Supreme Court Ruling	CJ Corona’s Vote
*Biraogo v.* *The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010*, G.R. No. 192935 (December 7, 2010)	Executive Order No. 1 creating the Truth Commission was declared unconstitutional.	Corona concurred.
*Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.*, G.R. No. 193519 (October 12, 2010)	EO2 Status Quo Ante Order – The Supreme Court required the parties to observe the STATUS QUO prevailing before the issuance of Executive Order No. 2 dated July 30, 2010.	The Corona SC once again thwarted the government’s efforts to question the midnight appointments made by Arroyo to various positions in government, and throw a monkey wrench at the new administration’s efforts to re-organize the government and get rid of corrupt government officials.
*Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Hon. Leila de Lima, et al., G.R. Nos. 199034; Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Hon. Leila de Lima, et al.*, G.R. No. 199046 (November 15, 2011)	Temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against the watchlist order issued against the Arroyos.	The known Arroyo voting block in the Supreme Court, led by Respondent, hastily issued a TRO against the watchlist order, thereby giving an opportunity for the Arroyos to escape from the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The TRO was issued despite the glaring inconsistencies in the petition of former President Arroyo, as cited by Associate Justice Sereno. The same voting block held the TRO immediately executory despite non-compliance with a pre-condition.

II. RESPONDENTCOMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLICTRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987CONSTITUTION.

2.1. It is provided forin Art. XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution that “a public officer oremployee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may berequired by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities,and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members ofthe Cabinet, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forceswith general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public inthe manner provided by law. ”

2.2. Respondent failed to disclose to the publichis statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by theConstitution.

2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties ofRespondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, andnet worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected andaccused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of highvalues and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. It has been reported thatRespondent has, among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega WorldProperty development at the Fort in Taguig. Has he reported this, as he isconstitutionally-required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution, which states, “A publicofficer or employee shall, upon assumption of office, and as often thereafteras may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets,liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President,the members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the ConstitutionalCommissions and other Constitutional offices, and officers of the Armed Forceswith general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public inthe manner provided by law,” in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and NetWorth (SALN)? Is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income asa public official? Since his assumption as Associate and subsequently, ChiefJustice, has he complied with this duty of disclosure?

III. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLEVIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEETAND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART.VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES THAT “[A] MEMBER OF THEJUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, ANDINDEPENDENCE.”

3.1. Respondent was appointed to the SupremeCourt on April 9, 2002 by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Prior to his appointment, he served Arroyofor many years as her chief of staff, and spokesman when she wasVice-President, and later as her Presidential Chief-of-Staff, PresidentialSpokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary.[15]

3.2. Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the 1987Constitution provides that “[a] Member of the Judiciary must be a person ofproven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.” Members of the Judiciary are expected to have these fourqualities mandated by the Constitution because these form the very foundationfor maintaining people’s faith in the Judiciary. Thus, it has been ruled by no less than theSupreme Court that:

“People who run thejudiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only be proficient inboth the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly,they must possess the highest degree of integrity and probity and anunquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives.”[16]

Although every office inthe government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demandon moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense ofpropriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in theJudiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be preserved.[17]

3.3. Just very recently,the flip-flopping of the Corona Court on Flight Attendants and Stewards Associationof the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al.[18]– the recall of a September 7, 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court’s SecondDivision denying a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the 2008 ruling infavor of FASAP, on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty.Estelito Mendoza (who is the reported lead counsel of Respondent’s patroness;see Annexes “F” to “F-3”, infra), and without requiring a comment from or notice to the other parties to hear their side, betrayRespondent’s lack of ethical principles and his disdain for fairness which has eroded the faith of the people inthe Judiciary – for Respondent himself caused and allowed the violation of theadverse party’s constitutional right to due process.

3.4. The matter is made worsesince the recall is reported to have been at the instance of Respondent Corona,who admitted that in 2008, he inhibited from the case. How then can he justifyhis interference in this case today? Why take part or interfere now?

3.5. What is even more disturbing is that under Respondent Corona’swatch as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court appears to be acting on mereletters kept hidden from those concerned and the other parties – and allfrom the same lawyer – Estelito Mendoza.

3.6. It must be recalled that the same Estelito Mendoza wrote apersonal letter to Respondent which also caused the flip-flopping in the League of Cities v. COMELEC[19] case. It must alsobe recalled that Estelito Mendoza is also the same person who filed AdministrativeMatter No. 10-2-5-SC,[20] and was among thepetitioners in the Supreme Court who posited that former President Arroyo mayappoint the next Chief Justice despite the constitutional ban; and throughwhich petition, made it possible for the Supreme Court to legitimize andprovide not only a strained but obviously erroneous basis for the midnight andconstitutionally-prohibited appointment of Respondent.

3.7. In this connection, Respondent’s voting pattern even prior to hisdubious appointment as Chief Justice, clearly proves a bias and manifestpartiality for President Arroyo. It mustbe noted that under the law, bias need not be proven to actually exist; it isenough that the Chief Justice’s actions lend themselves to a reasonablesuspicion that he does not possess the required probity and impartiality. In Rosauro v. Villanueva,[21]the Supreme Court held that:

“A judge should not only render a just,correct and impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as to be freefrom any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality and as to his integrity.While a judge should possess proficiency in law in order that he cancompetently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that he shouldact and behave in such a manner that the parties before him should haveconfidence in his impartiality. Thus, it is not enough that he decides caseswithout bias and favoritism. Nor is it sufficient that he in fact rids himselfof prepossessions. His actuations should moreover inspire that belief. Like Caesar's wife, a judge must notonly be pure but beyond suspicion.” [Underscoringsupplied]

3.8. The bar is higher forjudges, and by inference, highest for Justices and most especially the ChiefJustice, because “the character of a judge is perceived by the people not onlythrough his official acts but also through his private morals, as reflected inhis external behavior.”[22] Thus,

“a judge should, in a pending or prospective litigation beforehim, be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend towaken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendshipsconstitute an element in determining his judicial course.”[23] [Underscoring and emphases supplied]

3.9. Ifa decision that is legally correct or justifiable can suffer from a suspicionof impartiality, more so will a decision that is entirely unsupported by legalreasoning. Thus, it has been held that ajudge who “is ignorant of fairly elementary and quite familiar legal principlesand administrative regulations, has a marked penchant for applying unorthodox,even strange theories and concepts in the adjudication of controversies,exhibits indifference to, and even disdain for due process and the rule of law,applies the law whimsically, capriciously, and oppressively, and displays biasand partiality”, is unfit to be a judge.[24]

3.10. Respondent further compromised hisindependence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment on March23, 2007 from then President Gloria Arroyo to the Board of the John HayManagement Corporation (JHMC). The JHMC is a wholly-owned subsidiary corporationof the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), agovernment-owned-and-controlled corporation created under Republic Act No.7227.

3.11. Shortly after assuming her well-paying job atJHMC, serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow Boardmembers, as well as from the Management and rank-and-file employees of theJHMC. Mrs. Corona’s election as Director and President was reportedly withdrawnin a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of JHMC because of acts ofmisconduct and negligence. Copies of the JHMC Board Resolution withdrawing Mrs.Corona’s election as JHMC President and Chairman, the Position Paper preparedby the JHMC Management, and the resignation letter of retired Court of AppealsJustice Teodoro Regino from the JHMC Board of Directors, all of which chroniclethe serious irregularities committed by Mrs. Corona, are attached hereto as Annexes “G”, “H” and “I”,respectively.

3.12. Instead of acting upon the serious complaintsagainst Mrs. Corona, President Arroyo instructed all members of the JHMC totender their courtesy resignations immediately. After the resignations, Mrs.Corona was retained and even promoted after President Arroyo expressing herdesire for Mrs. Corona’s election as OIC Chairman of the JHMC Board.

3.13. Despite the numerous other complaints againstMrs. Corona, including one from Baguio Mayor Reinaldo Bautista where heprotested Mrs. Corona’s move to replace the members of the JHMC ManagementTeam, in violation of the terms of City Council Resolution No. 362 whichprotects the security of tenure in the JHMC of local residents occupying keypositions in the corporation (a copy of his letter dated July 25, 2007 isattached as Annex “I”), and despiteadverse findings in the COA report that also established that she wasimproperly holding office in St. Ignatius Village in Quezon City, Mrs. Coronawas not removed from her position. Shewas even allowed to rack up unnecessary expenses totalling Six Hundred NinetyThousand And One Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos (P690,183.00) which she spentholding office in Quezon City when JHMC’s operations were all in Baguio City. Acopy of the COA report is attached as Annex“K”.

3.14. Respondent’s position as a Supreme CourtJustice clearly secured for his wife her impunity and plum position in theJHMC, a GOCC under the Executive Department headed by then President Arroyo.Mrs. Corona’s job was ensured through specific instructions of Mrs. Arroyoexpressed through several desire letters issued to the BCDA to ensure theelection of Mrs. Corona to several positions in the JHMC, copies of which areattached as Annexes “L”, “L-1” and“L-2”. This also explains why despite the serious complaints against Mrs.Corona, President Arroyo never removed her from JHMC but instead kept onpromoting and protecting her.

3.15. Mrs. Corona’s appointment is a violation ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct that provides:

“Judgesshall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicialconduct or judgment. The prestige of judicialoffice shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others,nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a specialposition to influence the judge.” [Sec. 4, Canon 1; emphasis andunderscoring supplied]

“Judges shall not use or lend theprestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those ofa member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey orpermit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperlyto influence them in the performance of judicial duties.” [Sec. 8, Canon 4;emphasis and underscoring supplied]

3.16. The New Code of Judicial Conduct furtherprovides that it is unethical for a magistrate and members of his family to askfor or receive any gift in exchange for any act done or to be done by the judgein the course of his judicial functions:

“Judges and members of their familiesshall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relationto anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her inconnection with the performance of judicial duties.” [Sec. 8, Canon 4; emphasisand underscoring supplied]

“Judges shall not only be freefrom inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive andlegislative branches of government, but must also appear to be freetherefrom to a reasonable observer.” [Sec. 5, Canon 1; emphasis andunderscoring supplied]

3.17. Clearly, a grossly improper (althoughpersonally and mutually beneficial) relationship between the Respondent andPresident Arroyo was created when Mrs. Corona was appointed to the JHMC. TheJHMC is a GOCC under the Executive Department headed by President Arroyo. Theappointment of Mrs. Corona in JHMC as its highest management officer is clearlyintended to secure the loyalty and vote of Respondent in the Supreme Court. Ina similar case, the Supreme Court found it unethical for the judge to allow hisdaughters to accept the business offer of persons who have a pending casebefore the judge’s court:

“The New Code of Judicial Conduct forthe Philippine Judiciary prescribes that judges shall ensure that not only istheir conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view ofa reasonable observer. Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearanceof impropriety in all their activities. Likewise, they are mandated not toallow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct orjudgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are ina special position to influence the judge. The Code clearly prohibits judges ormembers of their families from asking for or accepting, any gift, bequest, loanor favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done byhim or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Respondentjudge failed to live up to these standards. Despite knowledge of Onofre andMariano's intentions in offering the business to his daughters, respondentjudge allowed his daughters to accept the offer of business partnership withpersons who have pending cases in his court.” [25]

3.18. Respondent should be held to even higherstandards because he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Since joiningJHMC, Mrs. Corona received a substantial salary, aside from other perks of thejob, including cars and various travel opportunities. In exchange, as discussedabove, the voting record of Respondent in the Supreme Court indicate anunmistakable pattern of favoring Arroyo in cases brought before the SupremeCourt challenging her policies and actions. All theseforegoing facts betray the Respondent’s lack of qualification as Chief Justiceas he has demonstrated a lack of competence, integrity, probity, orindependence.

3.19. Respondentreportedly dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses.Numerous personal expenses that have nothing to do with the discharge of hisofficial functions, such as lavish lunches and dinners, personal travels andvacations, and fetes and parties, have reportedly been charged by theRespondent to judicial funds. In essence, Respondent has been reportedly usingthe judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to theJudiciary personal expenditures.[26]

3. It is therefore apparent that thereis reasonable ground to hold Respondent for the reported misuse of publicfunds, and in acts that would qualify as violations of the anti-graft andcorrupt practices act, including malversation of public funds, and use ofpublic funds for private purposes.

A. IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT CORONA FAILED TOMAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT IN CONNECTION WITH THE VIZCONDEMASSACRE CASE, IN THE PROCESS, CASTED DOUBT UPON THE INTEGRITY OF THE SUPREMECOURT ITSELF.

3.21. All judges must “exhibit and promote high standards of judicialconduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which isfundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.”[27]To do so, they must “that his or her conduct, both in and out of court,maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession andlitigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.”[28]Included in this prescription of what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptableconduct is that rule that judges “shall not knowingly, while a proceeding isbefore or could come before them, make any comment that might reasonably beexpected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifestfairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public orotherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.”[29]Likewise, “(j)udges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by wordsor conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group onirrelevant grounds.”[30]

3.22. Despite these strictures, Respondent has directly, deliberately,and shamelessly attempted to destroy the credibility and standing of theSupreme Court with respect to one important and publicly-celebrated case thatwas before it on automatic appeal: the celebrated Vizconde Massacre case.[31]

3.23. Sometime in early September 2010, Lauro Vizconde, surviving memberof the Vizconde family who were murdered in 1991, and Dante Jimenez of theVolunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) paid a courtesy call upon theRespondent in his chambers after his appointment as Chief Justice.

3.24. During the courtesy call, Vizconde asked the Respondent about thestatus of the multiple murder case against Hubert Webb and the other accused,which was at the time pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Despite theobvious impropriety, Respondent, instead of rebuffing Vizconde for asking thequestions, engaged Vizconde in a personal and ex-parte conversationregarding a case then pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

3.25. Worse, in the course of the conversation, Respondent falsely toldVizconde, in the presence of Jimenez, that fellow Justice Antonio Carpio wasallegedly lobbying for the acquittal of Hubert Webb. It must be emphasized thatJustice Carpio inhibited from this case. According to Vizconde in a swornAffidavit dated January 27, 2011, Respondent said that “Talagang brina-brasoat ini-impluwensiyahan ni Carpio ang kanyang mga kasama para mapawalang-sala siWebb [Carpio was really arm-twisting and influencing his colleagues to acquitWebb],” or words to that effect. Jimenez corroborated Vizconde's statement inhis own sworn Affidavit dated January 26, 2011.

3.26. The fact that Respondent spoke with Vizconde regarding a casepending before the Supreme Court is in itself already a serious breach of therule of confidentiality that must be maintained by the Court with respect tocases pending before it, as well as the deliberations of the members of theCourt. Such confidentiality is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that membersof the Court are insulated from lobbying and pressure coming from any of thelitigants of a pending case. Respondent's action, as Chief Justice, is initself unbecoming and unworthy of a Chief Justice.

3.27. Indeed, in Re: Letter of Presiding JusticeConrado M. Vasquez,[32]the Supreme Court sanctioned a justice of the Court of Appeals for a similaract of discussing a pending case with interested parties for having “failed tomaintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him.”The Supreme Court further held:

“Taking his conversation with hisbrother and his encounters with Mr. de Borja together, Justice Sabio gives theimpression that he is accessible to lobbyists who would unfairly try tomanipulate court proceedings. Even assuming arguendo that Justice Sabio was notmoved by his brother's request and that he rejected Mr. de Borja's bribe offer,the Court feels compelled to call Justice Sabio's attention to his ownshortcomings under the circumstances. At the very least, Justice Sabio shouldhave realized that his discussions of court matters, especially those that havenot yet been made of public record, with persons who are interested in the casewere incredibly indiscreet and tended to undermine the integrity of judicialprocesses. We see no reason to reverse the Panel's finding that Justice Sabio'sconversations with his brother and Mr. de Borja were ‘indiscreet andimprudent’.”

3.28. Significantly, Respondent signedand concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court.

3.29. Worse, however, is the fact that Respondent intrigued against thehonor and integrity of a fellow Justice in his absence, in the process,maligning and undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court as aninstitution. By painting for Vizconde a picture of a Court that is subject tothe influence of one out of 15 Justices, and making it appear that the eventualdecision of the Court in the case would be attributable to internalarm-twisting and influence, Respondent destroyed the credibility of the veryinstitution that he was supposed to be leading.

3.30. In trying to pin the blame of a possible acquittal upon a fellowJustice, Respondent was himself sowing the seeds of discontent and distrust ofthe Supreme Court with a party litigant. As it happened, Vizconde and Jimenezdid raise the supposed internal arm-twisting and influence before the mediawhile the case was in the final stages of decision. By provoking Vizconde topre-empt the decision with negative publicity, Respondent himself is guilty ofdirectly undermining the trust and confidence of the public in the SupremeCourt regardless of what its decision would have later turned out to be.

3.31.Worse still, is that the act of theRespondent violates Sec. 3(k) of Rep. Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act, which prohibits any official from “(d)ivulging valuableinformation of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him onaccount of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing suchinformation in advance of its authorized release date.” It is clear from thecontext of the conversation with Vizconde and Jimenez, that Respondent wassignalling the latter to prepare for an acquittal, and giving them someone toblame therefor. Given the high profile of the case, it is not unreasonable toassume that at the time of the conservation, the Supreme Court had alreadybegun deliberations on the case, and that Respondent already had a sense ofwhat the decision of the Court would probably be.

B. RESPONDENT CORONA WITH UNDUE HASTE, IMPROPRIETY ANDIRREGULARITY, DISMISSED THE INTER-PETAL RECREATIONAL CORPORATION CASE[33] UNDERSUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.

3.32. Respondent was accused by Fernando Campos ofunethical conduct when he met ex partewith the lawyer of the adverse party in connection with a pending case beforehim. In an attempt to defend himself against thecomplaint for unethical conduct filed against him by Campos, Respondentexplicitly admitted violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct. In his letterdated February 8, 2010 to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Respondentrefuted the claim of Campos that he allegedly met with a lawyer of PhilwebCorporation in connection with a case pending before him but countered that:

“On the contrary, it was Campos himselfwho actively tried to pressure me into deciding G.R. No. 186711 in his favor. I was pestered by calls from differentpeople on his behalf. By his own admission in his ‘executive summary,’ heasked Justice Angelina Gutierrez, Santiago Kapunan and Leonardo Quisumbing,among others to intercede for him.” (Emphasis supplied)

3.33. In his very own words, Respondent admittedthat various persons were able to communicate with him in connection with acase that was pending before him precisely in an attempt to influence him inhis resolution of the said case. In allowing himself to be approached bypersons which he knew were trying to exercise their influence over him on aparticular case pending before him and in failing to take or initiateappropriate disciplinary measures against such actions, Respondent violatedbasic precepts of the New Code ofJudicial Conduct, which provides, among others, that:

“Canon 1

Independence

Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise thejudicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the factsand in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free fromextraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct orindirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

xx x

Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family,social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. Theprestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the privateinterests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression thatthey are in a special position to influence the judge.

Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be freefrom inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive andlegislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefromto a reasonable observer.”

“Canon II

Integrity

Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that notonly is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in theview of a reasonable observer.

Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct ofjudges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary.Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiateappropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel forunprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.”

“Canon III

Impartiality

x x x

Sec. 2. Judgesshall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains andenhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in theimpartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.”

“Canon IV

Propriety

Propriety and the appearance ofpropriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.

Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety inall of their activities.”

3.34. Again,in Re:Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez,[34]the Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to a failure to maintain thehigh standard of independence and propriety that is required of a judge. Toreiterate, the Supreme Court further held:

3.35.Again, Respondent signed and concurred with the above-mentioned Resolution of theSupreme Court. Surely, Respondent, as Chief Justice, cannot be exempt from thesame rule and principle. As Chief Justice, he must in fact be held to a higherstandard. The Supreme Court further said of justices:

“While it may betrue that from a psychological stand point ordinary persons can have a widevariety of valid reactions to any given situation, Justice Sabio should bear in mind his high office as a magistrate ofthe appellate court sets him apart from ordinary persons. Beingthe subject of constant public scrutiny, members of the bench should freely andwillingly accept behavioral restrictions that may be viewed by ordinarycitizens as burdensome.”[35] (emphasis supplied)

3.36. Moreover, Respondent not only should havescrupulously guarded his reputation as a Supreme Court Justice, it behoovedupon him to have done a positive act to ensure that Campos and the latter’semissaries be dealt with administratively for the brazen attempt to influence amagistrate of the Supreme Court.[36] This he utterly failed to do.

3. For his abject failure to meet thestandards required of a Justice, including suspicion of accumulation ofill-gotten wealth and misuse of public funds and other acts of corruption asdiscussed elsewhere in this Petition, as well as allowing a member of hisfamily to accept the benefit of appointment directly through the formerPresident’s desire in violation of the continuing Constitutional qualificationthat a member of the judiciary must be a person of provencompetence, integrity, probity, and independence, Respondent should be impeached.

IV. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUSTAND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT BLATANTLYDISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUOANTE” ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THEIMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.

4.1. On September 13, 2010, Ombudsman MerceditasGutierrez filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the SupremeCourt seeking to enjoin the Committee on Justice of the House ofRepresentatives from proceeding with the impeachment proceedings against her.Gutierrez’s sixty-paged Petition prayed for a Temporary Restraining Orderagainst the impeachment proceedings.

4.2. With undue haste, the following day afterfiling, Respondent immediately tabled Gutierrez’s Petition despite the factthat not all the Justices had received or read the Petition. Respondentrailroaded the proceedings in order to have a Status Quo Ante Orderissued in favor of Gutierrez. This wasconfirmed by Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her Concurring Opinion to theFebruary 15, 2011 Decision[37]:

“On afinal note, the issuance of the Status Quo Ante Order in this case wasmost unfortunate. It was issued over the objections of Justices Antonio Carpio,Conchita Carpio Morales, and myself. I believed then, as I believe now, thatthe Court, in issuing the said order, was overly intrusive with respect to apower that does not belong to it by restraining without hearing a co-equalbranch of Government. This belief wasmade more acute by the fact that the order was voted upon in the morning of 14September 2010, without the benefit of a genuinely informed debate, sinceseveral members of the Court, myself included, had not yet then received a copyof the Petition.”

4.3. A Supreme Court delivery receipt publishedby the news magazine Newsbreak also showed that most of the justices receivedthe Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices who voted toissue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition only on September15, 2011, a day after the status quoante order was granted. These justices were Justices Velasco,Bersamin and Perez.[38]

4.4. The issuance of the Status Quo Ante Orderis a betrayal of the public trust since it clearly showed Respondent’shigh-handedness, bias, subservience and partisanship. The issuance of a StatusQuo Ante Order against a co-equal branch of government, without even thebenefit of the Justices' reading the decision, is a tyrannical abuse of powerto favor a litigant and to obstruct the impeachment process. The issuance ofthe order also directly violates the principle of separation of powers sincethe Supreme Court prevented the House from doing its constitutional mandate ofinitiating impeachment proceedings.

V. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLEVIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND PARTIALITY INCONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RESJUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF GERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVINGTHE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO APROVINCE.

5.1. The principle of immutability of finaljudgments is one of the primordial rules for having a credible and effectivesystem of administration of justice. Under this principle:

“Litigationmust end and terminate sometime and somewhere and it is essential to aneffective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment hasbecome final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived ofthe fruits of the verdict.”[39]

5.2. Asexplained by the Supreme Court in its earliest years, such a principle is animportant requirement for a credible and effective system of administration ofjustice, thus:

“Itis true that it is the purpose and intention of the law that courts shoulddecide all questions submitted to them `as truth and justice require,’ and thatit is greatly to be desired that all judgments should be so decided; butcontrolling and irresistible reasons of public policy and of sound practice inthe courts demand that at the risk of occasional error, judgments of courtsdetermining controversies submitted to them should become final at somedefinite time fixed by law, or by a rule of practice recognized by law, so as tobe thereafter beyond the control even of the court which rendered them for thepurpose of correcting errors of fact or of law, into which, in the opinion ofthe court it may have fallen. The very purpose for which the courts areorganized is to put an end to controversy, to decide the questions submitted tothe litigants, and to determine the respective rights of the parties. With thefull knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit theirrespective claims for judgment, and they have a right at some time or other tohave final judgment on which they can rely as a final disposition of the issuesubmitted, and to know that there is an end to the litigation.”[40]

5.3. Respondent, however, has turned his back onthis time-honored principle of the immutability of final judgments in not justone, but several, cases of public significance, thus allowing the Court to gainpublic notoriety as a “flip-flopping” Court.[41]At least two of these flip-flops are known to have been instigated through personalletters or ex-parte communications addressed to the Respondent.

5.4. Three celebrated cases have particularlyestablished the Supreme Court's “flip-flopping” reputation: the League ofCities v. COMELEC[42]case involving the creation of 16 new cities,the case of Navarro v.Ermita[43]which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province,and the FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al.[44]case which involved the retrenchment (previously held to be illegal) of flightattendants by the nation’s flag carrier. In the the League of Cities and FASAP cases, the Respondent'sculpability was betrayed by the fact that the flip-flop was preceded by personaland ex-parte communications, not pleadings, from a lawyer of aparty, and which were granted without giving the other party any notice or dueprocess. In the Navarro case, the flip-flop was instigated by the interventionof non-parties who stood to benefit financially and politically from there-opening of a final and executory judgment to the original case.

5.5. The League of Cities v. COMELECcase was originally decided by the Supreme Court on November 18, 2008, whereinthe Court declared as unconstitutional and void the conversion of 16municipalities into cities due to failure to meet the legal requirements forincome for cities under the Local Government Code. Upon motion forreconsideration, The Court affirmed its judgment on April 28, 2009, after theCourt denied a prohibited second motion for reconsideration filed by the 16municipalities. The ruling became final on May 21, 2009.

5.6. Despite the finality of the originaljudgment, as well as the standing prohibition against a second motion forreconsideration, the “aggrieved” parties persisted in seeking a reversal of theCourt's original decision. They filed several pleadings all obviously intendedto circumvent the prohibition against second and subsequent motions forreconsideration and to subvert the rule on immutability of final judgments, towit:

a. Motion to Amend the Resolution of April 28,2009 By Declaring Instead that Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration of theResolution of March 31, 2009 and Motion for Leave to File, and To AdmitAttached Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision Dated November 18,2008 Remain Unresolved and to Conduct Further Proceedings Thereon (Motion toAmend the Resolution of April 28, 2009);

b. Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolutionof 2 June 2009;

c. Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending Incidents;

d. Appeal to Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S.Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura to Participate in theResolution of Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of June2, 2009.

5.7. On January 19, 2009, the legal counsel [whois reportedly also the lead counsel of former President Arroyo in her Plunderand other cases: see Annexes “X” to “X-2”] for the sixteen(16) cities, Estelito Mendoza, wrote a personal letter (not a pleading)to the Supreme Court, through the Respondent, asking for the Court toreconsider its decision by allowing the participation of justices who were notpresent during the deliberation of the original decision dated November 18,2008. Another personal letter (not a pleading) was sent to the SupremeCourt, through the Respondent, by the local chief executives of the sixteen(16) municipalities/prospective cities.[45] [To repeat, Estelito Mendoza is also the sameperson who filed Administrative Matter No. 10-2-5-SC, and was among thepetitioners in the Supreme Court who posited that former President Arroyo mayappoint the next Chief Justice; and through which petition, made it possiblefor the Arroyo Supreme Court to legitimize and provide a strained basis for themidnight and constitutionally-prohibited appointment of Respondent – despitethe clear ban under the Constitution.]

5.8. On December 21, 2009, the Supreme Courtreversed the decision of November 18, 2008 despite the fact that the decisionwas already final and executory, and that the pleadings and communications thatled to the decision were either expressly prohibited pleadings or non-pleadingsthat have no place in litigation or the Rules of Court.

5.9. This prompted the League of Cities to file amotion for reconsideration to reverse the December 21, 2009 ruling, calling theattention of the Court to the inconsistency of the decision with the standingRules of Court and the principles of finality of judgment. On August 24, 2010, the Supreme Courtreversed the December 21, 2009 decision and reinstated its original November28, 2008 decision.

5.10. Despite this ruling, the Supreme Court underRespondent's leadership then entertained an unusual and totallyunprecedented fourth motion for reconsideration filed by the 16municipalities on September 14, 2010. On February 15, 2011, the Court grantedthe motion for reconsideration, and reversed the reversal of the reversal ofthe original decision, i.e., it reinstated its highly irregular decisionreversing a judgment that had long been final and executory.

5.11. Subsequently, in the case of Navarro v.Ermita[46] dealingwith the constitutionality of the creation of the Province of Dinagat Island,the Supreme Court under Respondent's watch again performed judicial acrobaticswhen it reversed its original decision even though it had already becomefinal and executory, a status all the more highlighted by the fact thatthere was already an Entry of Judgment.

5.12. In this case, the Supreme Court had decidedagainst the constitutionality of the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islandback in February 10, 2010. The judgment became final and executory, and anEntry of Judgment was made on May 18, 2010. According to the Rules of Court,the Entry of Judgment is a ministerial act that records the absoluteirrevocability of a decision of a court, after the same has become final andexecutory. Beyond all plausible reason, however, the Supreme Court found themeans to conduct the verbal gymnastics and semantic contortions necessary toperform a totally unprecedented judicial somersault.

5.13. This amazing maneuver was accomplished uponthe instigation, a full month after the entry of judgment, of so-called motionsfor intervention by the prospective provincial officials and congressionalrepresentatives of Dinagat Island, which were denied by the Court consideringthat they were not even parties to the original proceedings and interventioncannot be allowed after the case has already been terminated. This was followed by an “Urgent Motion toRecall Entry of Judgment” dated October 10, 2011 filed by these non-parties,which the Court then granted, paving the way for a reconsideration and reversalof the judgment which was already final.

5.14. In so doing, the Supreme Court, underRespondent's leadership, has made a travesty of its own rules of procedure, anddemonstrated that there is actually only one important rule: “where there's awill (and connection?), there's a way.” And everything that lawyers know aboutjudicial procedure, common sense, fair play, and Justice will become moot andacademic when confronted with this perversion of the Rules of Court. Soblatantly contrary to all judicial reason was this act of the Court that evenAssociate Justice Brion pointed out in his Dissenting Opinion that the decisiondirectly violated its own internal rules and at least three major foundationsof the administration of justice, particularly:

a. the ruleon reconsideration by allowing a motion for reconsideration contrary to therule against second motions for reconsideration and after the proceedings hadalready terminated;

b. the ruleon finality of judgments, by re-opening a case that already attained finalitythrough the artifice of a motion to “recall entry of judgment”; and

c. the ruleon intervention by allowing intervention after the proceedings had alreadyterminated.

5.15. In fact, Associate Justice Brion could nothide his absolute disgust with the Court's ruling in his dissent, closing it asfollows:

“Unlikethe case of Lazarus who rose from the dead through a miracle, Dinagat resurrected because the Courtdisregarded its own rules and established jurisprudential principles. Ofcourse, it can similarly be called a miracle as no reversal could have takenplace if just one of the series of transgressions pointed out did not takeplace. How such resurrection can happen in the Supreme Court is a continuingsource of wonder!”[47]

5.16. These two cases ongerrymandering are, of course, on top of the case of FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.[48],which showcases the Supreme Court’s penchant for issuing flip-floppingdecisions. In this case, the SupremeCourt had already promulgated a decision dated 22 July 2008, holding that theretrenchment effected by PAL in 1998 of more than 1,400 of its flightattendants was illegal. This decisionbecame final after the Supreme Court denied, with finality, PAL’s Motions for Reconsideration on 02 October 2009and 07 September 2011. Curiously,however, the Resolutions denying PAL’s Motions for Reconsideration wererecalled by another Resolution in what seemed to be a separate administrativecase, A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, on the sole basis of a personal lettersubmitted to the Supreme Court by Estelito Mendoza, PAL’s lawyer. And as with the League of Cities v.COMELEC case, no opportunity was given to the otherparty to respond to Estelito Mendoza’s personal appeal letter. What these flip-flopping decisions clearlyestablish is that the Supreme Court, under Respondent Corona’s watch, iswilling to bend over backwards to accomodate mere letters bearing the signatureof Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s lawyer.

VI. Respondent Betrayed the Public TrustBy Arrogating Unto Himself, And To A Committee He Created, The Authority AndJurisdiction To Improperly Investigate An Alleged Erring Member Of The SupremeCourt For The Purpose Of Exculpating Him. Such Authority And Jurisdiction IsProperly Reposed By The Constitution In the House of Representatives via Impeachment.

6.1. Canon2, sec. 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct demands extremely high moralstandards of all judges and Justices: they must “ensure that not only theirconduct is above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of areasonable observer.” This is butconsistent with a very long line of jurisprudence laid by the Supreme Court thatjudges should avoid all forms of impropriety, including the appearance ofimpropriety. It is also practically a universal rule among judiciariesworldwide.

6.2. TheVinuya vs. Executive Secretary[49]case concerned a petition by other legal scholars on behalf of the survivingFilipino “comfort women” (women pressed into sexual slavery by occupyingJapanese forces during the Second World War), on the theory that theprohibition against rape and sexual abuse in times of war is jus cogensin international law, and therefore the State had a duty to pursue their claimsfrom the Japanese government. Upon review of the Court's decision denying thecomfort women's petition, it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committedby the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.

6.3. Thealleged plagiarism in Vinuya comprised the verbatim lifting,without attribution and encompassing both the original authors' written textand footnotes, of significant portions of books and articles from internationallaw journals that supported the theory. At least three foreign authors workswere allegedly plagiarized. But aside from the issue of plagiarism itself,after copying from the articles, the Court allegedly made them appear tosupport the opposite conclusion; i.e., the Court used them to deny thepetition, whereas the materials per se should have been seen to favorthe grant thereof.

6.4. Itappears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court,Respondent, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee thatdetermined the culpability of a Justice of the Supreme Court – an impeachableofficer. Respondent had no power to do this since under the Constitution, thepower to make accountable impeachable officers belonged to the House ofRepresentatives. Thus, Respondentbetrayed the public trust by arrogatingunto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction toinvestigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court. To reiterate, suchauthority and jurisdiction has been reposed by the Constitution in the House ofRepresentatives via impeachment. By constituting such a committee, and byarrogating unto himself power to determine the culpability of Justice delCastillo and exonerating him in the end, Respondent thereby encroached on thesole power and duty of the House of Representatives to determine, byimpeachment, whether Justice Del Castillo was to be held accountable, inviolation of the principle of separation of powers of the Legislature and theJudiciary.

6. It may be recalled that the originalauthors separately complained to the Supreme Court about the incident,[50]while the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Respondent,speaking through the Court Administrator, initially announced that no actionwould be taken on the matter.[51] This was despite the receipt of thecomplaints from the first of three authors. Only when the number of authors hadincreased to three did the Respondent decide to act by announcing the formationof an Ethics Review Committee comprised of members of the Court to investigatethe matter.[52]

VII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUSTTHROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOROF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYOIN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THEENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THEEFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONSOF THE SUPREME COURT’S OWN TRO.

7.1. TheSupreme Court, under the Respondent, inexplicably consolidated the separatepetitions filed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husbandMiguel Arroyo in order to question the validity of the Watch List Orders issuedagainst them by the Department of Justice pursuant to DOJ Circular No. 41ironically issued by the DOJ under Arroyo’s administration. By consolidatingthe petitions, the Supreme Court under Respondent unduly gave Miguel Arroyo anunwarranted benefit since the alleged urgent health needs of President Arroyowould now be extended to him.[53]

7.2. Worse, the Supreme Court, under theRespondent, immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the TRO despite thefact that there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo’s petitionthat casts serious doubts on the sincerity and urgency of her request to leavethe Philippines. As detailed in the dissent of Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno,President Arroyo presented"inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements" about hersituation. Justice Sereno cited documents submitted by the former president'sdoctors belying her claims of threat to life. Aside from changes in the list ofcountries she wanted to visit, President Arroyo was also planning toparticipate in two conferences. Hence, Justice Sereno noted: "It seemsincongruous for petitioner who has asked the Department of Justice and thisCourt to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, tocommit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk ofworsening her physical condition."

7.3. Moreover,it appears from reports that the ponente to whom the petitions wereraffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules of the SupremeCourt, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente.Evidently, in view of certain objections against the grant of the TRO, aholding of a hearing within the short period of five (5) days was recommended.Despite this recommendation, the Respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes(as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO infavour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of theirown internal rules.

7.4. It also appears from the coordinated acts ofthe Arroyos that they were coordinating with Respondent’s Court. For how can itbe explained that they made multiple bookings on the same day expecting thatthey can leave the country on the very same day their plea for a TRO was to bedecided? It is not difficult to see that the hasty issuance of the TRO was abrazen accommodation to the Arroyos. Not only that. Respondent bent overbackwards to aid and abet the Arroyos’ plan to leave the country on the veryday of the session on their TRO plea. The Court’s office hours that usually endat 4:30 pm were extended to allow the Arroyos to post a measly P2 million bondlater and the Court process server was drafted to serve the TRO upon the DOJand the OSG after office hours.

7.5. Also, despite that fact that the Court, underRespondent, laid down conditions for the issuance of the TRO, Respondentallowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact that it wasestablished that President Arroyo and Miguel Arroyo failed to comply with anessential pre-condition that was meant to ensure the vesting of courtjurisdiction in the event the Arroyos flee prosecution. The condition was, towit:

“(ii) The petitionersshall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receivesubpoena, orders, and other legal processes on their behalf during theirabsence. The petitioners shall submit the name of the legal representative,also within five (5) days from notice hereof;” (Emphasis supplied.)

7.6. The Special Power of Attorney dated November15, 2011 which they issued to their counsel fails to state that their counselhad the power to receive subpoenas, orders and other legal processes. Instead,they only empowered their counsel to “produce summons or receive documentaryevidence”:

“That I, GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, of legal age, married, Filipino with residence at 14 Badjao Street,Pansol, Quezon City, do hereby name, constitute and appoint ATTY. FERDINANDTOPACIO, likewise of legal age, Filipino, with office address at Groundfloor, Skyway Twin Towers, H. Javier St., Ortigas Center, Pasig, Metro Manila,as my legal representative in the Philippines and to be my true and lawfulattorney-in-fact, for my name, place and stead, to do and perform the followingacts and things, to wit:

1. To sign, verify, and file a writtenstatement;

2. To make and present to the court anapplication in

connection with any proceedings in the suit;

3. To produce summons or receive documentaryevidence;

4. To make and file compromise or a confessionof judgment

and to refer the case to arbitration;

5. To deposit and withdraw any money for thepurpose of any proceeding;

6. To obtain copies of documents and papers; and

7. Generally to do all other lawful actsnecessary for the

conduct of the saidcase.” (Emphasis supplied.)

By virtue of the Arroyos’ abjectfailure to comply with this pre-condition, the TRO should not have been issued,nor deemed effective.

7.7. Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to complywith Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011 deliberations, by a voteof 7–6, found that there was no compliance with thesecond condition of the TRO. Consequently, for failure to comply with anessential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a vote of 7-6, the Supreme Courtdecided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO ofthe noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlierResolution. As succinctly stated in Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s dissent:

“The majority arguedthat such a clarification is unnecessary, because it is clear that the TRO isconditional, and cannot be made use of until compliance has been done. It wastherefore the sense of the majority that, as an offshoot of the winning votethat there was failure by petitioners to comply with Condition Number 2, theTRO is implicitly deemed suspended until there is compliance with suchcondition. Everyone believed that it would be clear to all that a conditionalTRO is what it is, conditional.”[54]

7.8. However, the Supreme Court Spokesperson,Midas Marquez, made a public claim which was aired in all media outlets thatthe Court ostensibly decided that the TRO was effective despite non-compliancewith an essential condition of the TRO. He even posited that the Arroyos canstill leave the country. It is notablethat Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and publicmisrepresentation. Respondent, as ChiefJustice, should have called to task Marquez for misleading the public as to theimport of the Supreme Court’s en bancruling. Instead, he remained silent and did not bother to contradict Marquezthereby aiding Marquez in spreading false news about the action of the SupremeCourt.

7.9. Worse, the Respondent did not correct thedecision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect theagreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations onNovember 18, 2011. Respondent subverted the will of the Supreme Court andimposed his unilateral will by making it likewise appear that the TRO waseffective despite non-compliance with his own imposed pre-condition.

7.10. Clearly, therefore, Respondent knowingly fedMarquez the wrong sense and import of the deliberations of the Court on the TROissue. This false messaging intended for the public was deliberately made byRespondent to make it appear that indeed the Arroyos can leave immediately andat any time. Clearly, Respondent’s action showed bias and a partisan stance infavor of the Arroyos. Respondent’s action of causing a false message andtwisting the sense and understanding of the Court during its deliberations onthis matter, betray not only his lack of independence, competence and probity,but more importantly, the moral fiber to dispense justice as he would allow a frustrationof justice for the Filipino People for personal gain and commitment to hismidnight benefactor.

7.11. Worse, despite the finding that the Arroyosfailed to comply with an essential condition of the TRO, the Supreme Court,headed by Respondent Corona in a 9-4 vote, ruled that the TRO was in effect.

VIII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUSTAND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FORTHE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIALALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ)COLLECTIONS.

8.1. The Supreme Court has an independent source ofincome other than its share in the national budget. It collects from everylitigant filing a complaint docketfees, which are used for the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) andbasic legal fees, which go to the Judicial Development Fund (JDF). Itis worth noting that the Judiciary Development Fund and the Fiduciary Fundpartake of the nature of trust funds. The JDF is being collected for thebenefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure andguarantee the independence of the Judiciary in the administration of justice.It is also intended to augment the allowances of the members and personnel ofthe Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of officeequipment and facilities.

8.2. Respondent has reportedly failed and refused toreport on the status of the JDF Funds and the SAJ collections. Under hisleadership, the Supreme Court has reportedly failed to remit to the Bureau ofTreasury all SAJ collections in violation of the policy of transparency,accountability and good governance. There is likewise the reported failure ofRespondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions inthe judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.

8.3. In particular, the annual audit report ofthe Supreme Court of the Philippines (Annex “Y”) contained theobservation that unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38Billion (page 38 of Annex “Y”).

8. On the other hand, the Special allowance forJudiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amountof P559.5 Million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparationof bank reconciliation statements and non-recording /uncorrected reconcilingitems. (page 41 of Annex “Y”)

RESOLUTION and PRAYER

WHEREFORE,pursuant to the procedure laid down by Section 3, Article XI of the 1987Constitution on Accountability of Public Officers, the undersignedComplainants, as Members of the House of Representatives, constituting at least one-third of all themembers thereof, hereby file the instant VerifiedComplaint/Resolution of Impeachmentagainst Respondent Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Accordingly, it is most respectfully prayedthat in accordance with Rule IV of the Rules of Procedure in ImpeachmentProceedings promulgated by the House of Representatives, to transmit to theSenate of the Philippines the instant VerifiedComplaint/Resolution of Impeachment toserve as the Articles of Impeachment for trial.

Thereafter,undersigned Complainants respectfully pray that the Honorable Members of theSenate conduct trial forthwith and thereafter, render a judgment of convictionagainst Respondent Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Otherreliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

QuezonCity, Metro Manila, December 12, 2011.

1. [1] L-19313, January 19, 1962.

[2] A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC November 9, 1998, “In Re:Appointments dated March 30, 1998, of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. PlacidoB. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City andof Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively.”

[3] Esguerra, C., Pazzibugan, D. “Palace hides Corona oath-taking from media”,Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 18, 2010. A copy of the article is attached as Annex “A”.

[4] Poblete, J. “Ratings decline for top officials,” BusinessWorld, October12, 2011. A copy of the article isattached as Annex “B”.

[5] A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998, 298SCRA 408.

[6] G.R. Nos. 191002, 191032,191057, A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, G.R. No. 191149, 191342, 191420, March 17, 2010

[7] Sec. 1, Canon 2, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[8] Sec. 2, Canon 2, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[9] See“Justice Corona’s voting record favors Arroyo”, Newsbreak, February 04, 2010<http://www.newsbreak.ph/2010/02/04/justice-coronas-voting-record-favors-arroyo>. A faithful printout is attached as Annex“C” hereof.

[10] G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010.

[11] G.R. No. 193519, October 12, 2010.

[12] See “Arroyo issues midnightmadness of appointments”, ABS-CBN News at ,a faithful printout of which is attached as Annex “D” hereof; see also thelist of Midnight Appointees from ABS-CBN News , a faithfulprintout of which is attached as Annex “E” hereof.

[13] Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitutionfor the creation of legislative districts mandates that "Congress shallmake a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards"fixed in Section 5. These constitutional standards, as far as population isconcerned, are: (1) proportional representation; (2) minimum population of250,000 per legislative district; (3) progressive ratio in the increase oflegislative districts as the population base increases; and (4) uniformity inapportionment of legislative districts "in provinces, cities, and theMetropolitan Manila area."

[14] Section 5, Article VI of the 1987Constitution for the creation of legislative districts mandates that"Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based onthe standards" fixed in Section 5. These constitutional standards, as faras population is concerned, are: (1) proportional representation; (2) minimumpopulation of 250,000 per legislative district; (3) progressive ratio in theincrease of legislative districts as the population base increases; and (4)uniformity in apportionment of legislative districts "in provinces,cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area."

[15] Seehttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/justices/j.corona.php.

[16] Cabulisan v. Judge Pagalilauan, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1363, October 12,1998.

[17] In Re: Derogatory News Items Charging Courtof Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio Demetria with Interference on Behalf of aSuspected Drug Queen, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March27, 2001.

[18] G.R. No. 178083 in relation to AdministrativeNo. 11-10-1-SC.

[19] G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056; August 24,2010, February 15, 2011, April 12, 2011, June 28, 2011.

[20] Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Counciland President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et. Al, supra.

[21] A.M. No.RTJ-99-1433, June 26, 2000.

[22] Dawa v. JudgeDe Asa, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1144, July 22, 1998; Clerk of Court Buencamino v. Judge De Asa, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1148,July 22, 1998

[23] Canon 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics(Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1, 1946 of the Department ofJustice).

[24] Garganerav. Jocson, A.M. Nos. RTJ-88-227, RTJ-90-624, RTJ-88-270,RTJ-87-124, RTJ-88-269, RTJ-88-267, and RTJ-88-279, September 01, 1992.

[25] Dulay v.Lelina,A.M. No. RTJ-99-1516, 14 July 2005.

[26] See JHMC’s Press Release, “JHMCL Whistle blower’s act is apre-emptive move”, July 25, 2010, available at <http://www.baguiomidlandcourier.com.ph/city.asp?mode=

%20archives/2010/july/7-25-2010/city2.txt>. A faithfulprintout of the article is attached as Annex “M” hereof.

[27] Sec. 8, Canon 1, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[28] Sec. 2, Canon 3, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[29] Sec. 4, Canon 3, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[30] Sec. 2, Canon 5, New Code of JudicialConduct.

[31] People of the Philippines v. Lejano, et. al., G.R. 176864,December 14, 2010.

[32] AM No. 08-8-11-CA,October 15, 2008.

[33] G.R. No. 186711.

[34] AM No. 08-8-11-CA(October 15, 2008)

[35] Ibid.

[36] Section 3, Canon IIof the New Code of Judicial Conduct imposes upon judges an obligation to “takeor initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or courtpersonnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.”

[37] G.R. No. 193456, September 14, 2010.

[38] See Annex“N”, a copy of the delivery report as sent by the Supreme Court to the Hon.Rodolfo Fariñas. See also Annex “N-1” for a faithful printout of thedelivery receipt as published by Newsbreak in its article “Delivery receiptshows justices voted on Gutierrez petition before receiving copies, availableon.

[39] Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 156687-88,May 21, 2009, citing Lim v. Jabalde,G.R. No. 36786, 17 April 1989, 172 SCRA 211, 224.

[40] Arnedo v. Lorente, 18 Phil 257 (1911), at262-263

[41] See for example, Requejo, R.“Supreme Court flip-flops 3^rd time, OKs 16 new cities” ManilaStandard, February 17, 2011 (Annex “O” hereof);Requejo, R. “Cities' league deplores high-court flip-flop” Manila Standard,March 10, 2011 (Annex “P” hereof); Echeminada, P. “Supreme Court flip-flop confusescity mayors” Philippine Star, February 19, 2011 (Annex “Q” hereof); Gomez, C.“Row on cities rages as SC ‘flip-flop’ ribbed”, Philippine Daily Inquirer,March 4, 2011 (Annex “R” hereof); “Dinagat wins in new SC flip-flop” SurigaoToday, May 2, 2011, Online: http://www.surigaotoday.com/2011/03/dinagat-wins-in-new-sc-flip-flop.html (Annex “S”hereof); Romero, P. “SC justice hits peers over flip-flop” Newsbreak, April 27,2011 (Annex “T” hereof).

[42] League of Cities v. COMELEC, supra.

[43] G.R. 180050, April 12, 2011.

[44] FASAP v. PAL, supra.

[45] Cinco, M. “Dear SC letters stir suspicion oncityhood,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 11, 2010. A faithful printout of the article, as foundin,is attached as Annex “U”.

[46] Supra.

[47] Ermita v. Navarro, supra.

[48] Supra.

[49] G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.

[50] See “Law prof questionsplagiarism of work”, Malaya, August 24, 2010, available at < http://www.malaya.com.ph/08242010/news7.html>;a faithful printout of which is attached as Annex “V”. Seealso the individual letter of Dr. Christian Tams, which used to be availableat , a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex“V-1”; e-mail of Dr. Mark Ellis, which was quoted extensively in Pazzibugan,D., “Author files complaint with SC”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 31, 2010,a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex “V-2”; and a comment made by Dr.Evan Criddle in response to Ku, J. “International Law plagiarism bedevilsPhilippines Supreme Court Justice”, , a faithfulprintout of which is attached hereto as Annex “V-3”.

[51] Pazzibugan, D. “High court not probingplagiarism” Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 21, 2010. A copyof the article is attached as Annex “W”.

[52] Aning, J. “Supreme Court refers plagiarismcase to ethics committee” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 27 July 2010. A copy of the article is attached as Annex “X”.

[53] G.R. Nos. 199034 and 199046, November 15, 2011.

[54] G.R. Nos. 199034 and 199046, November 18, 2011.

BnW "welcomes" GMA to VMMC

2011-12-10T11:20:00.001+08:00

The Black & White Movement is part of the Bantay Gloria Network. The other coalition members are Akbayan Party List, Pinoy Power, PPVR, Pinoy Pinay, Yellow Ribbon Movement, FPJPM, Alab Katipunan, Up-All, LP Youth, among many other civil society and people's organizations.

Yesterday, BGN braved the rain and made it to the gates of Veterans Memorial Medical Center. Despite the presence of GMA supporters, the mood was calm and we got our message across:

These photos were taken from the front pages of the Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Re: Senator Escudero – Mixed Messaging

2011-12-02T17:29:00.001+08:00

The Blackand White Movement was dismayed to learn that some senators, among them Sen.Chiz Escudero, are unhappy that we, along with the Akbayan Party List, JunLozada, and JC Tejano, filed a motion for intervention and inhibition againstChief Justice Renato Corona because we are not “parties of interest”.

Is thesearch for truth limited only to the DOJ and Solicitor General? Is the truthregarding the actions of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo not of national interest? Whyshould civil society stand down?

“This is sosad and confusing. It wasn’t too long ago that we had Chiz’s full support andcooperation when we filed several impeachment complaints against GMA. Was thatsupport just for show? How could he have changed sides so easily? Why is he hittingus now?” says BnW Executive Director Leah Navarro.

BnW has been seeking redress from Gloria Arroyofor years and has not wavered in its advocacy to demand good governance fromour leaders. “Karapatan ng bawat mamamayang ninakawan ng boto, pera, at tiwalana maging mapagbantay sa pagsisiguro na mausig ang may kasalanan,” says BnWLead convener Enteng Romano. He went on to say, “That is what we thought Chiz alsobelieved. It is unfortunate that he has switched sides.”

PUT THE LITTLE GIRL TO SLEEP – A FANTASTIC FABRICATION

2011-12-01T08:12:00.001+08:00

The latest fabrication from the campof Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is an alleged assassination plot called “Put theLittle Girl to Sleep.” Her spokesperson, Elena Bautista-Horn, infers her bosswill be “put to sleep” by infiltrating St. Luke’s Hospital and poisoning herfood or drink. And she avers that the source of this information is none otherthan an official within the Aquino administration who is purportedly unhappyabout its actions against her boss.

Let’s make sure we heard right – GMA isunder threat of being silenced by sinister means? It’s true; millions ofFilipinos do not bear warm and fuzzy feelings for Mrs. Arroyo. However, it is alsotrue that the same millions want her to defend herself in court againstnumerous allegations of lying, cheating and stealing perpetrated under herleadership.

Again, let’s make sure we heard right- the information came from a disgruntled official within the Aquino administration?While it may be true that there may be disgruntled officials in the currentgovernment, they are probably holdovers from the GMA administration. Theseofficials are most likely the many midnight appointees of Mrs. Arroyo. Thesemidnight appointees are the obstacles, or booby traps, that mine the “daang matuwid.”

“This claim of a plot to assassinateGMA is a bizarre, fantastic fabrication. Contrary to the assertions of the GMAcamp, no one wants Mrs. Arroyo dead. We want her alive, healthy and ready toattend her trials so she can defend herself”, says Executive Director LeahNavarro.

She goes on, “Throughout Mrs. Arroyo’stenure, we saw so many people detained without cause, prevented from exercisingtheir rights; many were black-balled, insulted and harassed. Remember theBaywalk arrest of Dinky Soliman and Enteng Romano. Remember the kidnapping andeventual arrest of Jun Lozada. Remember the warrantless arrests of RisaHontiveros, Randy David, and Ronald Llamas through the infamous CPR.”

BnW Lead Convener Enteng Romano – “Wehave been clamoring for the truth from GMA since 2005. We want to know abouther involvement in the “Hello, Garci Scandal”, the “Fertilizer Scam”, the “ZTE-NBNDeal,” among so many others. Her administration evaded the truth through PD1017and EO464. Nothing will be gained from her passing. We agree with DBM SecretaryButch Abad – this is an absurd confabulation, dreamed up by desperate people,eager to escape accountability.”

The Black and White Movementcontinues to steadfastly support the efforts of our government to bring Mrs.Arroyo to justice. We exhort DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo to spare no expense atkeeping Mrs. Arroyo secure and safe from bodily harm, reinforce the PNPassigned to her security.

Clearly, GMA and her allies are acting true toform. Lying is second nature to them.

WHAT’S THE RUSH?

2011-11-15T23:31:00.001+08:00

In a country where court decisions,including Temporary Restraining Orders, are routinely challenged with Motionsfor Reconsideration, and the words "final and executory" are only asgood as the last appeal, we are not at all surprised that the Department ofJustice stood pat in keeping the former first couple under a Watch List Order.After all, the DOJ has not received the official copy of the Supreme Courtruling and therefore it cannot be considered in effect. And DOJ has the rightto exhaust all remedies, particularly the filing of an MR.

But the bigger question, to echo DOJSecretary Leila de Lima, is "why the rush?"

Certainly, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo'scondition is not life-threatening. Even her doctors tacitly admit it. Are theArroyos so afraid that their window of opportunity to leave the country mayclose when the sun rises tomorrow? It is becoming more evident that theirreasons for leaving the country in such haste may be other than getting medicaltreatment.

For sure, the legal and constitutionalramifications of this standoff between the executive and the judiciary will bedebated as nauseam by legal luminaries and regular folk. Whichever way thesearguments go, the Black and White Movement hopes that in the end, justiceprevails and the Arroyos will be held accountable. -- END

Payback?

2011-11-15T14:40:00.001+08:00

As one of her final acts asPresident, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo hastily appointed Renato Corona as ChiefJustice of the Supreme Court. We wondered why she blatantly ignored thepossibility that this midnight appointment would be legally questionable. Couldthis TRO be an act of “utang na loob”?

Against national interest, thePhilippine medical community, and the Aquino administration, eight justices ofthe Supreme Court, a majority of GMA appointees led by the Chief Justice, hasallowed GMA to leave the country at any time. Will she return?

Since 2005, the Black and WhiteMovement has demanded accountability and transparency from Gloria MacapagalArroyo. We want to believe that she will return to face her accusers and proveher innocence. But her track record is splotched with too many instances ofevasion. She has credibility issues with the Filipino people.

In the event she decides to remain abroad,the Filipino people may never know the truth behind so many issues that requireredress – cheating in the 2004 and 2007 elections, the Fertilizer Scam, theNBN-ZTE Deal, among others.

We hope that we will be proven wrong. However,if our assertions are proven right, then can we expect the justices that votedin GMA’s favor to resign?

A MATTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST

2011-11-10T16:01:00.000+08:00

PresidentAquino is right. He speaks for many Filipinos who are concerned over thepossibility that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo may not return after seeking medicaltreatment abroad. Seeking closure on the issue of cheating in the 2004elections is a national interest. To lose the opportunity for the state toexercise justice would be a national tragedy.

There are quarters that question the soundness of DOJ Sec. Leila de Lima'sdecision to deny GMA's request to travel. It is ironic that MC 41 was the sameused against GMA detractors. At the time, her allies were fully convinced ofits legal basis, but they now find MC 41 unconstitutional when applied to GMAand her family.

That legal matter aside, the Black and White Movement believes that the concernfor GMA's return to good health is also a matter of national interest. Theoffer of the President to assist in getting Mrs. Arroyo the excellent medicalcare she deserves by flying in a specialist in hypoparathyroidism is evidenceof compassion. In truth, do we all not share this hope - that her welfare beseen to so she will be well enough to refute all claims against her?

Now, the Arroyos have made this a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.Should they stay or should they go? By your leave, your Honors, the ball is inyour court.

Justice Over Compassion

2011-11-08T17:26:00.002+08:00

The Black & White Movement lauds the courage of Department of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to rule not out of compassion but from deep discernment. Her decision, supported by President Benigno Aquino III, to disallow the former president from exiting the country was not made in haste.

It must have been a difficult decision to make. Filipinos are a naturally compassionate people. Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must have been hoping that sympathy would cause the government to allow her to travel abroad for medical reasons.

We are glad that the Aquino administration continues to live up to its commitment to fight for justice and accountability. -- END

Through The Eyes Of A Filipino

2011-08-22T06:32:00.000+08:00

By Hazelyne M. Elgar (as shared via email)

Listen to me!

You might think we are a poor nation,
but when I look around me I do not see just poverty.
Instead, I see farmers, back bent from sun up till sun down nurturing the land.
I hear fisherfolks heaving, as they gamble with their lives
amidst angry winds and rough water just to nourish their families.
I feel the weary legs of children from far-flung barrios,
as they cross rivers and mountains and walk for miles,
just to get to school because they still dream.
I see determination in the eyes of street children
playing tag with cars flying past on a ruthless highway
in order to augment their parent's meager earnings.
In the face of destitution, the Filipinos are steadfast.
That is courage.

You rebuke us for the graft and corruption plaguing our government,
but when my eyes skim the front pages of broadsheets, I do not see hopelessness.
Instead, I am inspired by stories about pushcart classes
and strangers swimming in deep murky flood waters to save nameless individuals.
I immerse myself in news
about how my countrymen unceasingly believe in the spirit of unity.
I revel because millions of Filipinos still voted for change.
At times when we are at the receiving end of the world's censure,
I choose to see the noble intentions of fallible men to help.
In tumultuous situations, when the urge to hold others culpable is difficult to resist,
I hear a leader embracing the liability just like a leader should.
In the face of adversity, the Filipinos are united.
That is courage.

You chastise millions of my countrymen
for leaving our motherland to seek greener pastures.
Answer me this:
have you ever listened to how they whimper at night because they long for home?
When Filipinas, forced to work away from their dear ones,
shed silent tears as they lull to sleep infants not their own
I begin to understand what unconditional love is.
You lure away our engineers, artists and teachers with a promise of a good life.
The loving hands of our nurses tend the health of your people.
Do not dare ask why we need to fill the void in your labor force!
The Overseas Filipino worker
is intelligent, ingenious, hard working and resilient.
I see that, and in my eyes they are heroes.
In the face of obligation, the Filipinos are self-sacrificing.
That is courage.

You are at liberty to express your opinion about my country,
but you can never take away my pride,
for I belong to a people united in faith and love.
I am Filipino, and no matter where I go I will always be one.
I do not doubt that the time for change will one day come for the Philippines.
Our flag, cast in the sun's glorious light, will be waving high.
My country men's sacrifices will not be in vain.
We will face the future with courage.
As one, we will reach out to the world and the world will embrace us.
Believe me, because I will take the lead.

CONGENITAL LIARS

2011-08-16T09:59:00.000+08:00

The brothers Arroyo, Mike and Iggy, must think we are all fools. Either that or lying must be so genetically ingrained in these brothers.

In an effort to save his elder brother from accountability yet again, Iggy Arroyo belatedly owns up to “leasing” five Robinson helicopters from LionAir’s Archibald Po and denies owning any of them. We have seen this before; this legal ploy by the Arroyos is not new. The first time was when Iggy admitted to being the notorious “Jose Pidal” to save his brother Mike from accusations of money laundering.

This tactic may have worked in their favor because Mike’s wife, Gloria Arroyo, was president at the time congress investigated the “Jose Pidal” scandal. However, under the dispensation of President Benigno S. Aquino III that is committed to eradicating corruption, and a new Ombudsman committed to fairness and accountability, this ruse will not work.

The Black & White Movement looks forward to learning that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has done away with parliamentary courtesy and has summoned Iggy Arroyo to testify to the veracity of his new claims. We look forward to seeing Mike Arroyo appear at the senate hearings to defend himself. Both brothers are not only hiding behind medical reasons, they are hiding from the truth.

We have had enough of lies. We have enough of the “wang wang” mentality.

STATEMENT ON THE RESIGNATION OF SEC. ALBERTO ALDABA LIM

2011-08-12T12:29:00.000+08:00

The Black & White Movement is saddened by the resignation of Sec. Alberto A. Lim from the Department of Tourism (DOT).

Bertie took the helm of the DOT at a time of transition brought about by the New Tourism Act and the attendant problems that go with it, both from within the department and within the industry itself.

And yet, amidst these myriad problems, he pushed for “Open Skies” and successfully steered it through the bureaucracy until President Benigno S. Aquino III proclaimed it a policy through an Executive Order. In a few years we should see its positive impact on tourism.

In the process of working in government, Bertie made enemies from powerful vested interests that benefited from a regime of protectionism. And their constant attacks against Bertie made it increasingly more difficult for him to do his job.

We, his co-conveners, respect his decision to devote more time to his family and wish Bertie well in his future endeavors. - END

MEETING WITH MILF – A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

2011-08-06T17:04:00.000+08:00

6 August 2011

One of the cobblestones that line the “matuwid na daan” is the hope for peace in Mindanao. Every Filipino deserves a life free from discord, violence and uncertainty. Our brethren in Mindanao deserve no less.

Without hoopla or fanfare, President Noynoy Aquino reached out to the leadership of the MILF, Chair Al Haj Murad Ibrahim, in an effort to reinvigorate the Mindanao Peace Process. The openness of the MILF leadership to meet showed a willingness to search for common ground.

By all accounts, it was a pleasant meeting, but its extraordinary importance was not lost on either of them. Chairman Murad was quoted by media as saying, "We are confident with your administration. You are unlike the previous administration. You are sincere."

It is noteworthy that this meeting, though informal, happened on the anniversary of the issuance of a Supreme Court TRO against the GMA administration’s Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).

The Black & White Movement lauds the President for quietly but actively pursuing the resumption of peace talks between the government and MILF. His assertiveness gives all sides in the peace process an advance in the right direction. This was a positive move, one that may well hasten the end to hostilities; bring about peaceful coexistence and economic development in Mindanao.

We laud the efforts of OPAPP Secretary Teresita Deles and GPH Chair Marvic Leonen as well as their counterparts in the MILF for laying the groundwork for this historic meeting.

We wish all parties well in this endeavor to finally forge lasting peace. All Filipinos deserve it. - END