Newsbreak stories cited in impeachment complaint

Newsbreak
These tracked a petition submitted by then Ombudsman Gutierrez, as well as the voting pattern of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

MANILA, Philippines – In the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Renato Corona, two Newsbreak stories were cited as sources of information related to specific charges against him.

The first is about the accusation that Corona “blatantly disregarded” the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case involving resigned Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

The complaint said Corona “with undue haste” immediately tabled Gutierrez’s petition in 2010, with the High Tribunal eventually stopping the House from initiating impeachment proceedings against her. Yet, “not all the Justices had received or read the petition,” the complaint said, It added: “This was confirmed by Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her dissenting opinion to the Feb. 11, 2011 decision stopping the House from impeaching Gutierrez. The latter eventually resigned. Replacing her is one of the justices who voted against the status quo ante order, Conchita Carpio-Morales.”

The complaint cited a Newsbreak story on it, which noted that while a “a Supreme Court delivery receipt showed that most of the justices received Gutierrez’s petition, 3 justices received the petition only on Sept. 15, 2011, a day after the status quo ante order was granted.” The 3 justices were Presbitero Velasco, Luis Bersamin and Jose Perez; they all voted in favor of the status quo ante order that favored Gutierrez.

Below is the full Newsbreak story on the Gutierrez petition, published on March 2, 2011:

MANILA, Philippines – This is a copy of the delivery receipt which indicates the dates individual justices of the Supreme Court received copies of the petition filed before the court by Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez (G.R. No. 193459) in September 2010.


Newsbreak cited this receipt earlier, in its report, “SC justices reveal haste in Ombudsman vote,” which cited the concurring opinion of  Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, saying, “The petition consists of 60 pages, excluding the annexes. All the justices should have been given time, at least an hour or two, as is the practice in such urgent cases, to read the petition before voting on the issuance of the status quo ante order.”

Carpio’s opinion was eventually cited by Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas, in a speech he delivered on February 22, which prompted members of the House Committee on Justice to move on the Gutierrez complaint without waiting for the high court to make its February 15 ruling final.

The receipt shows that 5 justices—Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, and Jose Perez–received the petition on the 15th of September—a day after the Supreme Court En Banc ruled on the petition. (The Gutierrez petition, G.R. No. 193459, is on top of the list.)

The eight magistrates who granted Gutierrez’s petition were Chief Justice Renato Corona, along with Justices Velasco Jr., Perez, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama and Diosdado Peralta.

Gutierrez filed her petition on September 13, 2010. The day after this, on September 14, the court issued the status quo ante order that effectively halted House Justice Committee proceedings on the impeachment cases filed against her by former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and by Renato Reyes of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, in his separate concurring opinion with the February 15 ruling, said he received the Gutierrez petition in the afternoon of the 14th, after the en ban. The receipt shows that Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno also received her copy on September 14.

The other Newsbreak story that was cited in the complaint was regarding the voting pattern of Corona.

Below is the full story, published on Feb. 4, 2010 www.on abs-cbnnews.com

MANILA, Philippines –The voting record of Supreme Court
Associate Justice Renato Corona, who has finally broken his silence and accepted the nomination for Chief Justice, shows that he has consistently sided with the administration in politically-significant cases.

When Newsbreak tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices,
including the two leading contenders for chief justice—Corona and
Justice Antonio Carpio—from 2001 to early 2008, Corona lodged a high 78 
percent in favor of Arroyo, with Carpio at 42 percent.

Corona is the sole senior magistrate to consider, what many legal experts say, is a midnight appointment to the SC.

He has deviated from his colleagues in the High Court who have said
they would vie for the post only under a new administration. His
biggest rival for the post, Justice Antonio Carpio, agreed to be
nominated if the appointment will be made by the next president.
Another magistrate, Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, held the same view.

Various sectors have argued that President Arroyo should not pick
the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retires on May 17,
because of the appointment ban.

The 1987 Constitution bars the president from issuing appointments
two months before the elections, which, in this case, starts on March
11, and until the end of his or her term.

Clashing positions
This is not the first time though that the two most senior justices, Carpio and Corona, clashed in their stance.


In Quinto v. Comelec, Corona voted with the majority, which struck
down as unconstitutional the provisions in the Omnibus Election Code
and the Poll Automation Act stating that appointive officials are
considered effectively resigned once they file their certificates of
candidacy (COC).

These provisions, the 8 concurring justices said, tilt the balance
in favor of elected officials who can still remain in their seats
despite filing their COCs.

Carpio sided with the 3 other justices in the minority. In his
dissenting opinion, he wrote that “An appointive public official who
files a certificate of candidacy violates the express constitutional
ban on civil service officers from engaging in any partisan political
activity except to vote.”

The petition was filed by Arroyo’s election lawyer, Romulo
Macalintal. The case involved then Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto and DENR
Director Gerino Tolentino, who argued that they should only be mandated
to leave their posts at the start of the campaign period.

Philippine Star reported that then Solicitor General Agnes
Devanadera filed her comment on the case and urged the SC to resolve
the issue. 

Devanadera, as it turned out, was one of the Cabinet officials who
would benefit from the SC ruling. Currently the justice secretary, she
has filed her certificate of candidacy for the congressional seat of
the first district of Quezon province.

Aside from Devanadera, other Cabinet officials who gained from the decision were:
    •    Executive Sec. Eduardo Ermita, who seeks to represent the first district of Batangas in the House of Representatives;
    •    Presidential legal counsel Raul Gonzalez, who’s running for mayor of Iloilo City;
    •    Department of Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, who’s running for Congress in the 3rd district of Bohol;
    •    Budget Sec. Rolando Andaya, who aims to reclaim his post as representative of Camarines Sur.
Kokoy Romualdez
Corona also voted in favor of another Arroyo ally, Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez.
The SC, in a vote of 8-4, reversed itself and ruled that Romualdez
cannot be prosecuted for holding two government positions and receiving
compensation for these posts because the charges against him had
already prescribed. This means that the filing of charges was done
beyond the 15-year prescriptive period.

Romualdez’s youngest son, Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez, is the senior
vice-president for finance of the Lakas-Kampi-CMD political party.

Romualdez was able to run unopposed in 2007 after Arroyo asked Leyte
Rep. Remedios “Matin” Petilla, who planned to run for re-election in
May, to give way. Petilla did, and was later appointed as chairperson
of state-owned IBC-13 and vice-president of the Philippine Amusement
Gaming Corp (PAGCOR).

Carpio dissented in this case.

Crucial cases 
Prior to these cases, Corona and Carpio had contrary opinions on other important policy issues:
    •    The SC, in a vote of 8-7, declared the
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the
government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front unconstitutional. Corona
said it was moot and academic because the MOA-AD was not signed; Carpio
sided with the majority.
    •    The SC, in a vote of 9-4, ruled that the RP-US
Visiting Forces Agreement did not violate the Constitution, but said
that the transfer of rape convict Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith to the US
Embassy was not in accordance with the agreement. Corona was with the
majority, Carpio dissented.  
    •    The Court struck down the People’s Initiative
case which sought to revise the Constitution and change the current
presidential form of government from presidential to parliamentary.
Carpio wrote the decision; Corona dissented.
    •    The SC declared the joint venture agreement
(JVA) signed by PEA and Amari null and void for violating Section 3,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of public
domain. The High Court also enjoined the said entities from
implementing the JVA. Corona was with the majority initially, but when
the SC denied with finality the motions for reconsideration filed by
Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, he reversed himself and
dissented. Carpio wrote the ponencia.
    •    The SC upheld executive privilege, which then
Socio-economic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri invoked when asked in a
Senate inquiry what Arroyo’s instructions were to him on the aborted
$329-million NBN-ZTE telecommunications deal. Corona sided with the
majority; Carpio dissented

It will be worth watching now how the two will vote on the case
questioning the constitutionality of President Arroyo’s martial law
proclamation last December.

Arroyo placed Maguindanao under military rule after armed supporters
of the political clan Ampatuans allegedly caused unrest in the area,
following the arrest of Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr. for the
November 23 Maguindanao massacre.

Ties to Arroyo
Interestingly, though, the two were previously closely affiliated
with Arroyo before they were appointed to the SC. Their appointment to
the Tribunal initially even rang the alarm bells for court watchdogs
and observers, who doubted their capacity to be independent jurists.

Carpio was a senior partner of the Carpio Villaraza & Cruz law
firm, (more popularly known as The Firm), whose clients included the
 Arroyos.


During the height of calls for the ouster of then President Joseph
Estrada in 2001, The Firm played a key role in ensuring a swift
changing of guards, which entailed installing then Vice President
Arroyo to the presidency.

Carpio helped draft the letter of Arroyo to then Chief Justice
Davide, which stated that she will take over the position as Estrada
was already “permanently incapable” of functioning as chief executive.
During that time Corona was also by Arroyo’s side, as her chief of
staff and spokesperson.  He has also served her as chief presidential
legal counsel, acting executive secretary, and presidential chief of
staff.
When the two entered the Court, however, their differences emerged.