Article 3. Respondent committed culpable violation of the constitution and betrayed the public trust by the failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the constitution that provides that "a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence" in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of a flip-flopping decision in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS: Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao, Akbayan Rep. Kaka Bag-ao, Cibac Rep. Sherwin Tugna
BACKGROUND:1. The SC under Corona’s leadership reversed a supposedly final decision declaring Philippine Airlines’ retrenchment of thousands of flight crew as illegal, after entertaining a mere letter from PAL’s lawyer, Estelito Mendoza. The Court entertained the letter even without seeking the comment of the other party, the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, showing Corona’s lack of ethical principles. Earlier, it also entertained a letter from Mendoza, which caused a flip-flopping in the case of League of Cities versus Comelec (discussed in detail in Article 5).
2. Corona compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina, accepted a 2007 appointment from former President Arroyo to the board of the John Hay Management Corporation, a subsidiary of the government-owned Bases Conversion Development Authority. Her appointment was a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that “judges shall not use or lend the prestige of judicial office to advance their private interests, or that of a member of their family.†It was meant to secure Corona’s loyalty to Arroyo.
3. In JHMC, fellow board members accused Mrs. Corona of misconduct and negligence, and filed complaints against her. Instead of acting on the complaints, Arroyo ordered all JHMC members to resign and promoted Mrs. Corona as OIC chairman of the board.
4. Corona met with Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption to discuss the Vizconde Massacre case, violating the Court’s rule of confidentiality on pending cases. According to Vizconde himself in a sworn affidavit, Corona told him that Justice Antonio Carpio was trying to influence his colleagues to acquit Hubert Webb. Corona not only discussed a pending case, he also sowed intrigue against a fellow Justice.
5. Fernando Campos, a lawyer and businessmen, accused Corona of unethical conduct when he met with the lawyer of the other party in a pending case. Corona allegedly dismissed his appeal on a ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission against his company with undue haste and impropriety.
CORONA’S ANSWER:1. It is a normal practice for lawyers and litigants to write the SC or the Chief Justice regarding their cases. The SC treats all letters as official and acts on them if needed.
2. Atty. Mendoza wrote a letter pointing out a mistake in raffling the FASAP case to the SC Second Division following the retirement of Justice Nachura. Since the Second Division could not agree on the reassignment of the case, the SC en banc took it up. Corona took no part in it.
3. The Court’s changing of rulings should not be blamed on Corona. The SC is a collegial body whose decisions are based on the consensus of the majority. Also, Corona’s vote in the case was consistent.
4. The Court did not flip-flop in the case of the League of Cities. The two parties filed appeals and the justices had to perform their duties to act on them. More so, only three judges of the total of 23 who took up the case in various stages changed their minds, and these were not in the same instance.
5. In the first place, a judge has the right to change his mind regarding a case. Even the Court’s rules recognize that judges are human and commit mistakes.
6. Mrs. Corona was appointed to JHMC in April 2001, even before CJ Corona’s appointment to the SC. No law prohibits the wife of a Chief Justice from pursuing a career in government. Her appointment also never influenced Corona’s decisions in the Court.
7. The impeachment court is not the forum to hear Mrs. Corona’s alleged misconduct as part of the JHMC board. She has answered the charges and is prepared to face her accusers in the proper forum.
8. It was only Dante Jimenez who was supposed to pay a courtesy call on Corona. Lauro Vizconde just tagged along, and Corona was surprised to see him.
9. Corona never told Vizconde and Jimenez that Justice Carpio was lobbying for Webb’s acquittal. Vizconde and Jimenez were the ones who brought up Carpio’s alleged maneuvers in the case during the meeting. In 2006, a Court of Appeals Justice warned Corona and Vizconde that someone in the SC was lobbying to acquit Webb.
10. Fernando Campos was never able to prove that Corona met with the lawyer of the other party in a pending case. Corona dismissed Campos’ appeal through a minute resolution because it should have been brought to the Court of Appeals, and because he failed to show that SEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its decision against his company.
PROSECUTION’S REPLY:1. That Corona sees nothing wrong with entertaining mere letters from lawyers without informing the other party shows that he is not fit to be a judge, more so a Chief Justice.
2. It is not true that Corona did not take part in the FASAP case. The October 4 en banc resolution indicates that he was not one of those who inhibited. In short, he took an active part in deliberating the FASAP case and voted in favor of recalling what should have been a final decision of the SC.
3. Even if Corona’s vote in the League of Cities case was consistent, he did not do anything as the SC’s leader to prevent the seemingly never-ending change in its decisions.
4. The Court’s flip-flopping cannot be denied and has been widely criticized by legal experts.
5. Corona’s claim that there was no impropriety in the appointment of his wife to the JHMC board was unsubstantiated.
6. Corona’s meeting with Jimenez and Vizconde, even if Vizconde just tagged along, smacks of “extremely disturbing†impropriety. He could have politely declined a meeting with them, knowing they are parties to a pending case.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45747.0