motion to stop reception of evidence

8/3/2019 Motion to Stop Reception of Evidence

1/4

~ u h l klIf f411 lII4ilippiullSQhruguss nf tIfc lII4ilippittcl>

uStnaft

'"'~ ~ ) ? i 1 i u ' i e"

CZHf1f& cf g!,:S"nebru

'12 FEB -8 1\9 :09SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.

REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA III,

REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.,

Complainants.

. .. ~Case No. 002-2011

)(--------------------------------------------------J{

MOTION TO STOP RECEPTioN OF EVIDENCE(in rdation to FASAP CASE and ARTICLE III)

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (CJ Corona), through his undersigned

counsel, most .respectfully states that:

1. In the Verified Complaint filed by the Complainants, CJ Corona is

being made liable for the alleged flip-flopping of decision by the Supreme

Court in the cases of FASAP v. Philippine Airlines (FASAP Case). Accordingly,

the Prosecution has begun presenting evidence on the afore-mentioned cases.

Pagel qf4Motion to Exclude Presentation ofEvidence


2/4

2. As a precautionary measure, and to prevent violation of the

rights of any parties involved in these cases, it must be emphasized that the

FASAP is still pending before the Supreme Court, hence, covered by the

suijudice rule. In the case of Mo'!fort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation

v. RnlandoV. Ramirez, (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357, 28 March 2001) the Supreme

Court defined the suijudice rule and elaborated on its application, vii;:

Suijudicc is defined as, "under or before a judge or court; under judicialconsideration; undetermined" (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,1990). A case in point is Evan B. Calida vs. Judge fulfael Santa/cds (A.M. No.RTJ-99-1443, March 14, 2000) wherein the Court made the followingpronouncement:

Th e issue of whether or no t the plaintiff made admissions as toits liability and whether or not the plaintiff was caught injlagrantedelicto are still suijudicc. The trial of th e merits of Civil Case No.9441 before th e regional trial court is still going on an dbesides the question poised by these issues ar e judicial incharacter as these go to th e assessment by respondent of

th e evidence of th e parties. In such case the remedy of thecomplainant are those found in the Rules of Court and no t anadministrative case.

Th e issues of prior physical possession and lack of sufficient basis in arrivingat a decision in Civil Case No. 822, ar e st/bjt/dice du e to the fact that th eCourt of Appeals has yet to render its decision on th e matter.Complainant's remedy regarding these matters is the final resolution of CivilCase No. 822 which, understandably, cannot be treated in this administrativecase. (Emphasis supplied)

3. The su1:Jildice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to

judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or

obstructing the administration of justice\ This matter was raised by CJ Corona

in his Answer to Article V, particularly pars. 15, 16 and 17 which aver:

15. Th e other two cases-Navarro and FASAP- ha ve no t yet beendecided with finality since they are still subject of unresolved motions forreconsideration. Consequendy, it would be inappropriate and unethical forthe Chief Justice to dwell on their merits in this Answer.

16. Besides, it would also be unfair, improper, and premature for the

1 RegbisM. Romero11 ofah v. Senatorji'lggI!J E. Estrada dnd Se/Jate Committee on Labor, EmployfIJet1tand Hllmall RJ!lJtlrcesD,whPRleII!,G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009

Page 2 0[4Motion to Exclude Presentation ofEvidence


3/4

Impeacbm':nt Court to discuss the merits of these two cases since such couldvery well influence the result o f the case pending with the Supreme Court. Atany rate, i f th e Impeachment Court decides to look into these two cases, thenit may have to give the parties to the case the opportunity to be heard. Thiswould amount to an attempt to exercise judicial power.

17. Fo r the above reasons, C] Corona cannot make any comment onthe Navarro an d FASAP Cases, for he would be required to take a stand onth e issues. I t will be recalled that he inhibited in FASAP. In Navarro, he islikewise prohibited from making any comment as it is still subjudice.

4. The foregoing discussions places the issue regarding the FASAP

case well within the suo/udiee rule an d therefore, any evidence presented in this

regard should not be allowed by the Impeachment Court until the FA S A P Case

is settled before the Supreme Court.

5. At the very least, it would be in the best interests o f all concerned

for th e Honorable Impeachment Court to consider the implications of any

discussions on cases pending before the Supreme Court, in light of the

principle of separation of powers between the branches o f government.

WHEREFORE, it IS respectfully prayed that this Honorable

Impeachment Court stop, disallow and exclude the introduction o f any

evidence pertaining to the FASAP Case.

8 February 2012, Makati City for Pasay City.

Respectfully Submitted byCounsel for Chie f Justice Renato C. Corona.

JOSEM. IIIPTR No . 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati City

IBP LR N 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)Roll of Attorneys No. 37065

MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

Page J '!f4Motion to Exclude Presentation if Evidence


4/4

DENNIS P. MANALOPTR No. 3175833; 2 January 2012, Makari CityIBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati City

Roll No . 40950, 12 April 1996MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010

Counsel for CJ CoronaSuite 1902 Security Bank Centre6776 Ayala Avenue, Makari City 1226

Copies furnished:

House of RepresentativesBatasan CompLex

Batasan Hills, Quezon City

Senators of the Republic of the PhilippinesGSIS Building ,"'=.........- , . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ " " " . - - - - - " Macapagal Highway He; . ~ : ;" : ' C ~ L : : : ' " J n O NPANEl.

Pasay City

Pag' 4 of4Motion to ExcludePreJ'6'lttation ifEtJidollce

motion to stop reception of evidence

Documents