of t4r J4ilippiurs

of tqr J4ilippinrs
cStnaft
'11. FEB -9 A9 :09
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF
RENATO C. CORONA AS
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL
C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.
Case No. 002-2011
It---------------------------------------------------------------------------------It
URGENT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
(RUSTAN'S and DESIGN CONCEPTS)
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona''), by counsel, states his bases for
disputing and challending the issuance of certain subpoenae, without waiving his right
to file the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality of these
proceedings, respectfully states:
1. This Honorable Impeachment Court issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum et
Dace.!" Tecum dated 1 February 2012 to The Authorized Officer of Rustan Commercial
Corporation (Rustan's), to bring "(a) Official Receipt OR No: 102768 Date:
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rnstan s and Design Exchange)
Page 1 0/7
06/16/2011 As per transaction # 60187/422 RECEIVED from Supreme Court in
the amount of P61,740.73 with attached Rustan's Itemized List consisting of nineteen
(19) items; (b) Pertinent Bridal/Gift registry on the 60
th
Wedding Anniversary of
James and Julie Dy; and (c) Other pertinent (sic) to this transaction on file with
Rustan's Office."
2. On even date, this Honorable Impeachment Court also issued a
subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum to THE OWNER/MANAGER of Design
Exchange Incorporated (Design Exchange), to bring the original and certified true
copies of "(a) Design EXCHANGE Incorporated Sales Invoice No. 4874 dated 10
June 2010 under the name 'c/o CRISTINA CORONA CJ RENATO CORONA'
amounting to P20,400.00; and (b) Design EXCHANGE Incorporated Sales Invoice
No. 4920 dated 29 June 2010 under the name 'RENATO CORONA CRISTINA
CORONA' amounting to P25,000.00."
3. CJ Corona respectfully moves to quash the said subpoenae for being
irrelevant and immaterial to the proceedings, on the basis of the reasons being
claimed in the Request for Issuance of Subpoenae filed on 31 January 2012. Plainly,
the grounds relied upon by the House of Representatives in Article III do not make
any mention of the subject matter indicated in the Request for Subpoenae, vii::
III. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED
THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEET AND
OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART.
VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT
PROVIDES THAT "[AJ MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST
BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY,
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rustan ~ and Design Exchange)
Page 20/7
PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THE
SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY
A COUNSEL WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-
FLOPPING DECISIONS 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.
4. To be sure, Art. III makes reference to 3 alleged acts of C] Corona:
"allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere lettets filed by a counsel which caused
the flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; creating an excessive
entaglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in
discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court."
5. Nowhere in Art. III is there any statement of ultimate facts that refer to
the use of judicial funds for personal expenditures. While allusions and incidental
references to misuse of funds is found in the Discussion of Art. III, the same neither
constitute statements of ultimate facts nor categorical assertions of misconduct. It is
clear from Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 that what the House of Representatives mention are
mere 'reports' of 'lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and fetes and
parties, * * reportedlY charged * * to judicial funds."
6. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that "(e)vidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules."
7. As the record of this case shows, CJ Corona has raised a continuing
objection to Complainants' presentation of evidence on his supposed acquisition of
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Bustan's and Design Exchange)
Pagel 0/7
wealth, and alleged acts of graft and corruption, on the ground that such charges are
beyond the scope of Article II of the Impeachment Complaint. Similarly, CJ Corona
respectfully reiterates said objection in respect of Article III. Furthermore, it is CJ
Corona's position that the continuous presentation of such irrelevant and immaterial
evidence -- which are- not based on ultimate facts -- would violate his constitutional
right to due process and to be properly informed of the charges against him.
8. The testimony of the authorized officers of Rustan's and Design
Exchange on certain transactiosn with these establishments, as well as the
presentation thereof, are therefore irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether or
not CJ Corona is responsible for the alleged flip-flopping of decisions, exceSSIve
entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo and discussions of pending cases.
9. The acts and violations imputed to CJ Corona in Article III are confined
to specific acts. Allowing the introduction of documents and testimony regarding
alleged impropriety of certain transactions with Rustan's and Design Exchange are
totally inconsistent with the allegaitions in Article III. Moreover, even a close perusal
of Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 do not make mention of purchases or acquisitions of goods
or gifts. Without conceding that Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 state violations or acts with
sufficient specificity, it cannot be helped but to draw attention to the very premise
relied upon in the said paragraphs, i.e., that the allegations therein rest on nothing
more than mere reports. To repeat, there is no statement anywhere in Article III of
the purchase of goods or gifts.
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rnstan's and Design Exchange)
Page 4 of7
10. CJ Corona draws attention the ratio of the Honorable Impeachment
Court in its Resolution of 30 January 2012, requiring that "amplification(s) of * *
accusatory language" must have a "demonsttable and logical relations to the grounds
allged in Article (111)." Absent such a showing, it would be incorrect and baseless to
conclude that "(s)uch allegation is relevant to the fact in issue." Similarly, it is
therefore improbable that any direct, logical connection can be established between
the purchases from Rustan's and Design Exchange with the facts in issue of flip-
flopping, excessive entanglement and discussions of pending cases. Indeed, there is
niether showing of materiality nor relevance.
11. Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states:
Relevancy; collateral matters. - Evidence must have such a relation
to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue.
12. Evidence is relevant if it establishes direcdy or indirecdy the existence
or non-existence of the facts in issue.
1
Evidence is relevant when it relates direcdy to
a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
2
Relevancy or
materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by
ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case.
3
The official receipts
and records of ttansactions, including the testimony, to be presented by the
authorized officers of Rustan's and Design Exchange are therefore INADMISSIBLE
AS EVIDENCE.
1 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. V Revised Rules on Evidence, 1999 Edition, p. 23.
2 Lejano v. People, C.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.
'Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006.
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rnstan:r and Design Exchange)
Page 5 0/7
13. From the foregoing, it is clear that the presentation of the official
receipts, other documents related to these transactions and the testimonies of the
authorized officers of Rustan's and Design Exchange are improper and violative of CJ
Corona's constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.4 Hence, this
Honorable Court's Subpoena dated 1 February 2012 should be quashed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
respectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment Court quash the Subpoena Ad
Testifacndum ef Duces Tecum addressed to authorized represenatitves of Rustan's and
Design Exchange, or in the alternative, issue an Order prohibiting them from
testifying and presenting documents on the allged. transactions with said
establishments, for being without basis, irrelevant and immaterial to Article II of the
Impeachment Complaint.
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.
Makati for Pasay City, 9 February 2012.
Respectfully Submitted by
Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
JOSE M. OY III
PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
4 Section 14, Art. III, Constitution.
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rnstan'.r and Design Exchange)
Page 6 0/7
DENNIS P. MANALO
PTR No. 31745833; 2 January 2012, Makati City
IBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010
Copies furnished:
House of Representatives
Batasan Pambansa
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
HOUSE PROSECUTION PANEL
Motion to Quash Subpoena
(Rnstan:r and Design Exchange)
Page 7 qf7