Why did renato corona impeached

Long battle ahead for Gloria Arroyo. Row over Philippines judge post. Renato Corona is the first head of the Philippine judiciary ever to be impeached. The chief justice denies violating the constitution. If found guilty he is likely to be forced from office. Gloria Arroyo was stopped as she tried to leave the country in November.

The Supreme Court itself, in Aytona v. Castillo , 1 where it decided to uphold President Diosdado Macapagal in voiding the midnight appointments of his predecessor, Carlos P. Garcia, paid tribute to one of its former chiefs. Said Ambassador declined to qualify being of the opinion that the matter should be left to the incoming newly-elected President. With this precedent in mind, and with the healthy attitude towards limiting official power at the close of an administration, so as not to sabotage the next, the present Constitution enshrined a clear prohibition on midnight appointments.

When President Fidel V. Ramos tried to make judicial appointments in the closing days of his administration, the Supreme Court voided them, 2 restating the strict ban on appointments, not just to executive department positions, but the judiciary. The decision of Mrs.

His usefulness and ruthlessness were proven from the time he served as her Presidential Chief of Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and as Acting Executive Secretary: all positions of the highest trust, confidence, and utility to her in her official and personal affairs. His loyalty and subservience thus earned him an appointment to the Supreme Court as Associate Justice at a time when Mrs. Arroyo was facing numerous challenges and besieged by a public clamor for accountability.

Faced with a vacancy in the position of Chief Justice, she then went one step further and conspired with Respondent Corona to maneuver his appointment as Chief Justice: by breaking precedents established by her own father which premised midnight appointments as malicious interference in the ability of a newly-elected president to have a free hand in fulfilling his mandate.

In the Supreme Court, Respondent has consistently acted in a manner that protects Mrs. His leadership of the Supreme Court has severely eroded public confidence in the very decision-making process of the High Court, due to the manner in which the Court has handed down decisions, only to reconsider, overturn, and overturn again, those decisions: resulting in an unprecedented state of flux in terms of the verdicts of the highest court in the land.

As Chief Justice, Respondent has been lavish in the spending of public funds; blind to ethical standards of behavior expected not only of him, but his family; intrigued and conspired against his fellow justices; and behaved more like a scofflaw than Chief Justice in refusing to disclose his assets and liabilities.

Not only has he behaved in a manner that is inconsistent with the dignity and probity expected of a member of the high court, but has used his administrative powers for partisan political ends, to protect other officials put in office for the same reason he was appointed: to Mrs. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and ensure she evades accountability for her acts.

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

Public office is premised on the maintenance of public trust; having betrayed that trust, Respondent Renato Corona is manifestly unfit to continue as Chief Justice. He must be impeached. Therefore, this action for impeachment is brought against Chief Justice Renato C. Complainants are current Members of the House of Representative, responsible Filipino citizens and taxpayers, and are all of legal age. For purposes of the instant Verified Complaint for Impeachment, complainants may be served with pleadings, notices and processes at the House of Representatives, Constitution Hills, Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

He may be served with summons and other processes at his office address at the Supreme Court Building, City of Manila. When Respondent assumed office as Chief Justice on May 17, , he did so despite a Constitutionally-imposed ban on appointments which the Supreme Court made possible and permitted under an interpretation that strained credulity, logic and common-sense and even worse, effectively broke the law.

The Justices that made this possible constitute a voting block that Respondent leads as Chief Justice. The appointment was met with widespread 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. This was notwithstanding the fact that of the three branches of Government, the Judiciary was the most greatly dependent upon moral ascendancy and ethical integrity as the foundation of its power and legitimacy.

However, he attempted to camouflage his brazen ambition by taking his oath of office before then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in secret, supposedly at ten in the morning of May 17, , beyond the scrutiny of the mass media and the public. Instead of assuring and strengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, Respondent has instead demonstrated he is predisposed to favor and protect Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had appointed him to his position as Chief Justice in brazen disregard of the Constitution.

The Complainants 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 of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Respondent betrayed the Public Trust, committed Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Graft and Corruption in the following manner:. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon.

Placido B. However, in the case of Arturo de Castro v. Mendoza, Philippine Bar Association vs. JBC, et al. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done. However, as a matter of public record, from his very promotion to the highest position in the judicial hierarchy, Respondent has violated these premier provisions.

Thus, in Biraogo v. Simply, Respondent prevented any such body from being created now or in the future — thereby protecting his patroness from investigation. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive Secretary Paquito N.

Ochoa, Jr , 11 is equally appalling. Executive Order No. These Midnight Appointments were made possible by Mrs. Arroyo churning out appointments for plum posts in government owned and controlled agencies, on a daily basis and backdating them to before the constitutional ban on appointments during an election period. Likewise, the same was made in complete disregard of the intent and spirit of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments, effectively depriving the new administration of the power to make its own appointments to these positions.

Again, the instant case reflects an affront to the independence of the judiciary. It is likewise a case of judicial overreach upon a co-equal branch of government meant to derail its efforts to curb corruption by successively nullifying its issuances.

As Associate and Chief Justice, Respondent has ignored ethical precedents, behaved with a lack of integrity, casting the Supreme Court in disrepute. Judges are expected to be beyond reproach, financially, ethically, and the use of their authority and powers.

Partisanship, a wilful refusal to recuse himself so as to avoid any possible imputation of a conflict of interest, including the paying back of debts of political gratitude or loyalty, are a betrayal of public trust and contrary to the canons of judicial conduct. Commission on Elections , supra , the Supreme Court denied the petition of then Sen.

Benigno S. This new district was upheld contrary to the explicit constitutional requirement 13 that mandates a minimum population of two hundred fifty thousand , for the creation of a legislative district.

Then Sen. Aquino argued that Republic Act No. Despite this clear fact, Respondent Corona voted in violation of the Constitution against then Sen. Worse, Respondent, who at that time was already being considered by Mrs. Arroyo as the next Chief Justice, did not inhibit himself. Thus, a vote in favor of the new district was a vote in favor of Mrs. Arroyo and ensure his appointment. In simplest terms, Respondent wanted and needed something from Mrs. Arroyo i.

Arroyo, in turn, wanted or needed something for Respondent i. The People can do the math. Aside from the specific cases herein discussed, the following cases decided by the Court with Respondent as Chief Justice further betray his consistent lack of independence and bias towards protecting Arroyo:. It is provided for in Art.

In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution. The Senate will serve as the judge to determine whether the Chief Justice should be removed from his position. The impeachment proceedings will be televised live and it is expected to end in three months.

This is yet another issue related to the corruption of the former administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is close to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, he was Arroyo's former staff before he was appointed to the court in Prosecutors wanted to prove that Corona has been protecting the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from investigation and prosecution for a string of corruption charges by ruling in her favour.

Other grounds for impeachment against Corona included the dubious nature of his appointment as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court as then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was concluding her term as president. The appointment of Corona was considered a "midnight appointment" — made just a month before the Aquino administration was to begin. The complaint against Corona also included a betrayal of public trust "through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration.

Both Sereno and Corona have been publicly called out by presidents. Then president Benigno Aquino III consistently lashed out against Corona, calling his removal as key to achieving transparency and reforms in the judiciary. Aquino, however, had already divested his shares in READ: Corona found guilty, removed from office.

Sereno, meanwhile, has been asked various times by President Rodrigo Duterte to resign. The impeachment complaint filed against her is also supported by Duterte, even after he previously said he will not meddle with the process.