opposition to request for subpoena feb3 p437

8/3/2019 Opposition to Request for Subpoena Feb3 P437

1/10

~ J l u h l i t of tlfe J4ilippillrll( f l , n n g t l ~ S S lIf t4t '4iliJlJl-itttS

~ t n a : f t '12 FEB-3 P4:37

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT C ~ : V : ~ ~ , ," W I : ~

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R TANAnA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.

Case No. 002-2011

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

OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTFOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

(Records of the Supreme Court)CHIEF JUSTICE RENATa c. CORONA, by counsel, as measure of extreme

caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of the instant case, without waiving hisright to file the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality ofthese proceedings, respectfully represents:

A. THE R"EQUEST FOR THEISSUANCE OF A S U B l ~ O E N A Opposition to &questfor Issuance ofSubpoena

Page 1 ofl0


2/10

DUCES TECUM UPON THERECORDS OF THE SUPREMECOURT IS IN VIOLATION OFTHE CONSTI-TUTIONALPRINCIPLE OF SEPA-RATIONOF POWERS.

1. In the Request for the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated 2February 2012, the House of Representatives seeks the issuance of subpoena ducestecum to Enriqueta E. Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme CourtEn Bane, to bring on7 February 2012 at 10:00 a.m. or on such dated and time as may be determined by theHonorable Impeachment Court, the official and/or true copies of the records of theSupreme Court enumerated therein.

2. Ostensibly, the subpoena is requested in relation to Article VII of theVerified Complaint, which accuses ChlefJustice Renato C. Corona, as follows:

ARTICLEvn

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUSTTHROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMERPRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HERHUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEMTHE OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TOFRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTINGTHE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OFTHE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAU,URE TO COMPLY WITHTHE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S OWN TRO

3. The Request should be denied as it runs afoul with the constitutionalprinciple of separation of powers.

Opposition to Requestfor Issuance 0/SubpoenaPage 2 0/10


3/10

4. Implicit in the principle of separation of powers is that each of the threedepartments-legislative, executive and judicial--elljoys the privilege againstdisclosure of the decision-making processes. Indeed, government cannot operateunless it employed the doctrine of privilege to preserve the confidentiality of itscommunications. I f government officials employed in decision-making capacitiesanticipated public disclosure of their confidential communications, the officials wouldwithhold unpopular proposals for fear that the officials would endanger their owninterests. By withholding possible proposals from consideration, government officialswould jeopardize the integrity of the decision-making process and risk theimplementation of unsound public policies. Consequently, the institution of theprivilege is to free all persons involved in the decision-making process from the

apprehension of voicing unpopular proposals.1

5. For the Supreme Court, it is called Judicial Privilege. This privilegeagainst disclosure facilitates the open exchange of ideas among the Members of theCourt as they engage in making decisions and rulings in the cases under consider.ation.At the same time, it assures the integrity of the decisions of the Court. Consequently,to the extent that the Request seeks to produce records of the Supreme Court andthereby invite inquiry into the decision-making process of the Supreme Court, itviolates Judicial Privilege and should be denied.

1 "The Doctrine ofJudicial Privilege: the Historical and Constitutional Basis Supporting a Privilegefor the Federal Judiciary", Washington and Lee Law Review (V01. 44-213), p. 223, citing Soucie v.David, 448 F2d 1067 (D.c. Cit. 1971).Opposition to Request or Issuance tf ubpoena

Page 3 iflO


4/10

6. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Courf are clear. All Courtdeliberations are executive in character, confidential in nature and cannot be disclosedto third parties, unless the Supreme Court itself allows its disclosure. Section 2, Rule10 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides:

Section 2. Confidentiality of court sessions. - Court sessions are executive iu character,with only Members of the Court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall notbe disclosed to outside parties except as may be provided herein or as authorized by theCourt.

The Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson shall record the action or actionstaken iu each case for transmittal to the Clerk or Court or Division Clerk of Court after eachsession. The notes of the Chief Justice and the Division must treat with strictconfidentiality, shall be the bases of the miuutes of the session.

7. While the Honorable Tribunal has authority to issue subpoena ducestecum, it cannot issue the same witllOut discrimination especially so when the samewould be tantamount to an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a co-equaldepartment to implement and act in accordance with its Internal Rules. In Sen. MiriamDifcnsor Santiago, et aL P. Sen. Tel!ftsto T. Guingona, fr. et aL3, the Supreme Court refusedto interfere with the internal workings of the Senate, holding:

" It would be an unwarranted iuvasion of the prerogative of a coequal department forthis Court either to set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thiuks the Househas disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated iu the political arenato seek a rematch iu the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in thatdepartment itself. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquireiuto complaiuts, real or imagined, oflegislative skullduggery. It would be acting iu excess ofits power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of discretion were it to do so. x x x Inthe absence of anything to the contrary, the Court must assume that Congress or anyHouse thereof acted iu the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules, anddefer.ence r.ather than disr.espect is due the judgment of that body.

2 Section 2 RuIe 10.3 G.R. No. 134577, 18 November. 1998.

***

Opposition to Requestfor Issuance 0/SlIbpoenaPage 4 '!flO


5/10

This Court has no authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude into that exclusiverealm, without running afoul of constitutional principles that it is bound to protect anduphold -- the very duty that justifies the Courts being. Constitutional respect and abecoming regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal branch prevents this Court fromprying into the internal workings of the Senate. To repeat, this Court will be neither atyrant nor a wimp; rather, it will remain steadfast and judicious in upholding the rule andmajesty of the law."

B. PRESCINDING FROM THEFACT THAT ARTICLE VII OFTHE VERIFIED COMPLAINT ASBARRED BY JUDICIALPRIVILEGE, THE CHARGEUNDER THE ARTICLE ISPREMATURE AS THE CONSO-LIDATED CASES WHERE THEQUESTIONED TRO WAS ISSUEDARE STILL PENDING BEFORETHE SUPREME COURT ANDYET TO BE FINALLY DECIDED;CONSEQUENT-LY THEREQUEST FOR SUBPOENADUCES TECUM IS IMPROPER.

8. Prescinding from the fact that Article VII is barred by Judicial Privilege, theinclusion of this Article as among the grounds for impeachment against Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona is premature, as the consolidated cases Gloria Macapagal-Atroyo v.Hon. LeiJa M. De Lima, et at.: are srill pending and yet to be finally decided by theSupreme Court. Indeed, no action outside of the consolidated cases may be takenuntil they are finally decided. To allow any such action as the accusation under Article

4 G.R. Nos. 199034 and 199046 respectively entided "Gloria MacapagalArroyo v. Hon. Leila M. DeLima, in her capacity as Secretary rfthe Depanment rfJumce and Ricardo A. David,Jr., in his capacity asCommissionerrfthe B u ! ~ a u riflmmigration"and! 'Jose MiflteiT. Arroyo v. Hon. Leila M. Dc Lima, in hercapacity as Secretary, Departtnent rfJlls/ice, &i'ardo V. Paras III, in his capacity as ChiifState CoulJ.rel,Department rfJustice and Ricardo A. David, Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner, Bureau rfImmigralion"

Oppositiol1 to Requestfor Issuance rfSlIbpoenaPage 5 rf10


6/10

VII of the Verified Complaint is an undue intrusion into the exclusive domain of theSupreme Court as it still has to decide with finality the consolidated cases.

9. Improper for being premature as Article VII is as a ground forimpeachment against Chief Justice Renata C. Corona, so is the present Request of theIssuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum. The Request is clearly improper to produce therecords and documents of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases that are yet tobe finally decided. Surely, the production of the records and documents in a pendingcase would invite scrutiny and discussion of such records when no final decision hasyet been rendered therein. In pari materia is the Supplemental Opinion of Mr. JusticeArturo Brion in Lejano v. People rif the Philippines' that the Court must be free "fromembarrassment ot influence in it's all important duty of deciding a case":

"Comments on the merits of the case may refer to the credibility of witnesses, thecharacter of the accused, the soundness of the alibis offered, the relevance of the evidencepresented, and generally any other comment bearing on the guilt or innocence of theaccused. [ The Janger posed by this class of speech is the undue influence it may directlyexert on the court in the resolution of the criminal case, or indirectly through the publicopinion it may generate against the accused and the adverse impact this public opinion mayhave duting the trial. The significance of the sub judice nne is highlighted in criminal cases,as the possibility of undue influence prejudices the accused's right to a fair ttial. "Theprincipal purpose of the sub judice rule is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial systemby protecting it from undue influence.'" Public opinion has no place in a criminal trial. Weruled that --

it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that couti:s andjuries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from everyextraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence ptoduced incourt; and that the detepnination of such facts should be uninfluenced bybias, prejudice or sympathies.';

C. THEEXERCISES SUPREME COURTJURISDICTION------------5 G.R. No. 176389, 14 December 2010.

Opposition to Requestfor Isstlance ofSubpoenaPage 6 ofl0


7/10

OVER THE CONSOLIDATEDPETITIONS FILED BY THEARROYO SPOUSES TO THEEXCLUSION OF ANY AND ALLCOURTS, INCLUDING THEHONOR-ABLE IMPEACHMENTCOURT.

10. Thcxe is another reason why the instant Request should be denied. Theexclusionary principle teaches us that once a Court acquires jurisdiction over a case, itexcludes all other courts and tribunals.

11. Not only that, the doctrine of adherence to jurisdiction as held in thecase of Jose E. Amego, Jr., et al. v. The Hon. Court OJ Appeals, ct a/.6 remains with theSupreme Court Uiltil its final resolution or disposition of the case:

"It is settled that once jurisdictio.n is acquired and vested in a Court, said Court maintainsits jurisdiction tmtil judgment is had."

12. As the consolidated cases are still penc1ing and the Motion forReconsideration on the Resolution, dated 15 November 2011, has yet to be resolvedby the Supreme COuti, the Honorable Impeachment Court may not receive any andall documents sought to be produced by the Prosecution, nay, pass upon Article VII,until final judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid consolidatedcases.

6 G.R. No. 112193, 13 March 19%.Opposition to Request or Issuance rifSubpoena

Page 7 rif10


8/10

D. THE DOCUMENTSSUBJECT OF THE REQEST FORSUBPOENA DUCES TECUMARE IMMATE-RIAL,IMPERTINENT, AND IRRELEVANT AND SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS IT CLEARLYSHOWS THE INTENT OF THEPROSECUTION TO GO ON AFISHING EXPEDITION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INSTANT REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OFSUBPOENA DUCES TECUMSHOULD BE DENIED.

13. Perusal of the Article VII of the Verified Complaint would show thatcomplainants utterly failed to establish even a prima facie case against Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona for culpable violation of the Constitution for the allegedunwarranted issuance of the TRO in favor of the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo as the said Article sets forth nothing butconjectures, presuppositions, bare suspicion and unwarranted conclusions of law.

14. While it is true that the Honorable Impeachment Court is empowered toissue subpoena dtlces teCltn, and ad testijicandttm under Resolution 39 otherwise known asthe "Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials", the same cannot be issued withoutdiscrimination as it is required that the Complaint must set forth the facts constitutingan impeachable offense, there being a specific grounds for impeachment; otherwise,subpoena becomes an instrument of abuse and opposition.

Opposition to Requestfor Issuance i f ubpoe!1aPage 8 ifl0


9/10

15. Well settled is the rule that, in order to entitle a party to the issuance to asubpoena duces tecum, it must appear clear and unequivocal that the documents orrecords sought to be produced contain evidence relevant and material to tlle issuebefore the court, and that such' documents are not otherwise privileged or excludedfrom production before the court.7 The P ~ o s e c u r i o n miserably failed to show the,relevance and materiality of the documents it seeks produced or that the saiddocuments are not otherwise, by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence,privileged or excluded from production, in connection with Article VII of the VerifiedComplaint. The truth is that the documents sought to be produced are inlmaterial,irrelevant and impertinent as tlley are barred for being privileged and excluded fromproduction under the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.

16. The Prosecution should denied the opportunity to embark on a fishingexpedition to build its case against the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. TheProsecution must tender evidence, independent or outside of tlle records of theSupreme Court in the consolidated cases, to prove its case under Article VII of theVerified Complaint. As stated in the case of Kilosbqyan IJ Comdec,8 not only is it theProsecution's legal obligation but its moral duty to submit its own evidence to prove its case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of tlle provisions of the Constitution, law,

jurisprudence and arguments adduced, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

7 Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court '!IAppeals, et aL 215 Phil. 858 G. R. No. 128054,16 October 1997.

Opposition to Reque.llfor Issuance '!ISubpoenaPage 9 '!ItO


10/10

Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated 2 February 2012, be DENIED,for utter lack ofmerit.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona further prays for such other relief as may bejust and equitable in the premises.

Muntinlupa City for the City ofManila, 3 February 2012.

Respectfully Submitted byCounsel for ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona

JOSEM.IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati CityRoll ofAttorneys No. 37065

MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

JOEL L. BODEGONCo-Counsel

PTR No. 0753243,21 Jan. 2011, Muntinlupa CityRoll ofAttorneys No. 25935IBP (Lifetime) No. 03998, SorsogonMCLE Compliance III-0011018

COPY FURNISHED:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESBatasan ComplexBatasan Hills, Quezon City

HOUSE OF P,[O"PRFSENTI,T.lVES

SENATORS of the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSenateGSIS BuildingPasay City

Opposition to Requestfor Issuance 0[SubpoenaPage 100[10

opposition to request for subpoena feb3 p437

Documents