Motion to Inhibit Jan26 P207

8/3/2019 Motion to Inhibit Jan26 P207

1/15

l\epubUc of tbe .fJbilippineg

~ e n a t e SITTING AS THE I M P E A C H M i E N ' { n C @ { l j R ~ ~

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OFTHE SUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES. Case No. 002-2011REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C.TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A.ABAYA, LORENZO R. TANADA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.BAG-AO, et aI., .Complainants.x----------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO INHIBIT (Senator Judge Franldin M. Drilon)

Chief Justice Corona, through the undersigned counsel, mostrespectfully states and avers the grounds and legal bases relied upon to call forthe recusal of Senator Judge Franklin M. Drilon, viZ':

1. '1 'he Prosecution caused the issuance of a subpoena for Atty.Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, for the purpose ofhaving her testify and produce the Statement of Assets, Liabilities andNetworth (SAL,N) of CJ Corona. Suffice it to state that the production of thesedocuments are considered by both parties of crucial importance for variousreasons, such as the compliance of C] Corona with R A. 6713 and the binding

Motion to InhibitPage 1 of15


2/15

-

force of Suprerne Court Resolutions providing guidelines for the disclosure ofthe SALNs.

2. Be that as it may, the Impeachment Court issued a subpoena dutestecum ad 'testifitandum against Atty. Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of theSupreme Court. At the hearing of 17 January 2012, during the examination ofAtty. Vidal, counsel for C] Corona manifested that there would be no crossexamination. Up to that point, the witness did not produce or surrender theSALN s of CJ Corona.

3. Unquestionably, the introduction of the SALN has been a crucialissue for CJ Corona, in as much as the Prosecution has no evidence whateverto support the essential allegations in their Complaint. For the Defense, thesubpoena for the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court was part of a fishingexpedition of the Prosecution. Be that as it may, Atty. Vidal took the witnessstand and completed the direct examination by the Prosecution. Defensecounsel waived the cross examination.

4. At the tirrle that the Defense waived cross-examination, there wasnothing more to be done but to excuse the witness. It appears, however, thatthe Prosecution found an ally in Senator-judge Drilon, who proceeded to"cross-examine" and badger Atty. Vidal in the guise of "clarificatory' questions,

The Presiding Officer. Any cross?Mr. Cuevas. No cross, Your Honor, for the Defense.The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged.



3/15

Senator Drilon. Before you discharge.}h e Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from Iloilo.Senator ,Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to avail of the two (2) m i n u t e ~ allowed under our Rules to ask question. Madam Witness, did I hear you correctly that the subpoena issued by tllts Court was submitted to the Supreme Court for their disposition? Ms. Vidal. 1 am actually asking for authorization. Senator Drilon. A.nd if no authorization is issued, you will not bring the documents ordered by this Co urt to be (produced)? Mr. Cuevas. Sorry to object, Your Honor. The question is hypothetical, YourBonot. Senator Drilon. We are the Judges, how can this Counsel object to my question? The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Mr. Cuevas. I am sony, Your Honor. I thought we are allowed to go thatfar. Sen. Drilon. The Counsel is overdoing it. He is objecting to the question of a Judge. Mr. Cuevas. No. Because apparently, the question tends toelidt an answer-(favoting) the Prosecution. Senator Hrilon. Of course, we want to have an answer to these questions. The Court issued the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Sen. Drilon. And we are part of the Court. So, we ate asking the question to the witness. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. I am sorry. The Presiding Officer. May I beg the indulgence of the Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officet:. A Member of this House of the Senate is entitled to ask questions to the witnesses presented and to the Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I realize that. The Presiding Officer. That is their privilege. Mr. Cuevas. I realize that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And this is a new fomm where lavrycrs operate so we understand. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I apologize especially to you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Your apology--The distinguished gentleman ftOm

Motion to InhibitPage 3 i f 15


4/15

Iloilo may proceed.~ ~ e n a t o r Drilon. I already forgot my question, Your Honor.But again, thesubpoena dNa,.\' tWlJl l requires, you, Madam, to produce the sworn Statementsof Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or a SALN of Chief Justice Renato CCorona for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,2011. And you said, you submitted these to the Court for their disposition.Now, if the Comt does not approve the subpoena, are YOli going to bringthese documents to the Court?Ms. Vidal. I follow the Resolution of the Court dated May 2, 1989.Senator Drilon. Please answer my question, yes or no. Will you bring it if the Court does not authorize you to bring them? Ms. Vidal. The Supreme Court has its rules which is a coequal body as the Senate so - Senator Drilon. So yoq will no t -oMs. Vidal. I am awaiting instructions from the Court.Senator Drilon. Assuming that the instruction is not to authorize you, consistent with the resolution of the Court to bring the SALN of the Chief Justice, you will not obey the subpoena of this Court? The Presiding Officer. Witness, I must remind you that while we respect the separation of powers, we obey the subpoena of the Supreme Court .. Ms. Vidal. Yes, sir.The Pt'csiding Officer....and we hope and expect that the Supreme Court as a coccfual branch will equally respect the processes of this Court. And so, kindly answer the question of the Senator from Iloilo. Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. I placed the subpoena in the agenda of the Court for its information and I await the instruction of the Court which I

Ibelievc-The Presiding Officer. But are you not the custodian of the records? Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. As custodian of the records, you have disposition over those records? Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And so therefore, if we call on you to produce those records, thell you must produce them? Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All dght. May 1 request Counsel for the respondent to please take note of this: that this Court under the Constitution has the sole power to try and decide this case and we must not be impeded by lany agency of government in the performance of our duty.

Motion to InhibitPage 4 rflJ


5/15

Mr. Cuevas. We take notc of that, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. Just asking the view of the witness as a custodian of these'records. It is no t your view that the order of this Impeachment Court 1ssubject to the apptovalof the Supreme Court. In other words, you do notsubscribe to the proposition that the order of this Court for you to producetIlls SALN is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court?Ms. Vidal. As the Clerk of Court, I have the obligation to inform them of whatever subpoena or matter is brought before me. So, I will just await instructions. Senator Drilon. If the instruction is not to produce the SALN, you will not follow the subpoena of this Impeachment Court? Please answer yes or no? Ms. Vidal. Yes, I will follow, Your Honor. I just gave it to them for their information and authorization. Senator Drilon. All right. So you just gave it to the Court for their information-Ms. Vidal. lnforrnation and authorization which I believe that they will also grant. Senator Drilon. No, no. If you have no authorization, will you bring this SALN in compliance with our subpoena? Ms. Vidal. If the Court requires me to do so, I will do so. The Impeachment COl l rt, I mean; Sen:ltor Drilon. If the Impeachment Court requires you to do so, you will

. do so?Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, at this point, you have not brought the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Ne t Worth asked for in the subpoena? Ms. Vidal. I have brought them with me.Senator Drilon. You have brought the SALN with you, is that correct, Mndam Witness? Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. May I ask now the witness to produce before this Comt the documents that were subpoenaed by this Court in a subpoena dn!ccl Jmiuary 17,2012 as th e witness said that she has these documents with her? The Presiding Officer. The witness must comply. Subtnit to the Court the Sl.lilPr)(,IlH that you brought to this Court. Semtnr Drilon. The SALN, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The SALN. Ms. Vidal. Yes, but I have not received the-I have placed it also in the Agenda of the Court.

Motioll to II/hibitPage 50]15


6/15

Senalor Drilon. I thought that..

,The Presiding Officer. We did not subpoena the Supreme Comt. Wesubpoenaed you to produce the record in your custody. So you ate nowordered by the Chair to surrender these records to this Court.Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.

ISenator Drilon. Can we ask now the Clerk of Court to reCClVe thesedocuments?Ms. Vidal. I am really in a quandary, I am in dilemma because we arccovered by the 1'Ules of the Supreme Court and also by this Honorable Court.So I request that at least I get the authorization Erst from the Courtb c r n n ~ I submit them?Sena tor Drilon. \'{1e do not believe that that is proper, Your Honor. Becauseto tl O so would subject the orders of this Impeachment Court to the approvalof the Supreme Court. Because if the Court does not authorize the release ofthe statement of assets and liabilities of the ChiefJustice, then the subpoenais tlefe:l ted, Your Honor.'

5. Many of the questions propounded to Atty. Vidal bordered on thepower of the Impeachment Court to ~ s s u e a subpoena and commandcompliance thetewith. What cannot be denied, however, is that the interferenceand pressure exerted by Senator Judge Drilon against Atty. Vidal resulted in theproduction ()f the SALNs of C] Corona, which the prosecution ~ a s unable toaccomplish on its own.

6. At the next sesslO11; Senator judge brilon again, displayed his

partiality by directly' caus1l1g the introduction Df evidence from a documentintended to cast doubts on the role Chief justice about the acquisition ofproperty by his daughter. As it turns out, Cj Corona acted as the attorney-in-

Ifact in the transaction. Senator Judge Drilon, made sure'to highlight this fact, asif to suggest that C] Corona was the beneficial owner of the prbperty. This ruse

was cleverly done while suppressing the fact thatCJCorona had to act as anattorney-in.:.fact because his daughtet, Charina, is based abroad and cannot

1 Transcri[)t of Stenographic Notes, pp. 25-8, 18 January 2012.Motion to Inhibit

Page 6 0/1.5


7/15

personally complete the purchase herself. The transcript of 19 January 2012clearly illustrates the partiality of Senator Judge Drilon, viZ.:

Senator Drilon. Do you have a copy of the TeT? Mt . Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Who is the seller? Mr. Rutaquio. It is the Megaworld Corporation, sir. Senator Drilon. Is that in the Deed of Sale? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Scnator prilon. Do you have a copy of the Deed of Sale? :r..1 r. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir. Senator Drilon. What is the date of the Deed of Sale? 1\1r. Rutaquio. October 21, 2008, Sir. Senator Drilon. Now, does the name "Renato Corona" appear in that Deed of S a l ~ ?

Mr. Rutaquio. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. As attorney-in-fact, is there a Renato Corona? Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So it is Renato Corona acting as attorney-in-fact for Charina Corona. Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President,2 (Emphasis supplied)

7. The Prosecution presented the Deed of Sale in an attempt to linkCJ Corona to the ownership of the condominium unit, but was surprised tolearn that his name did not appear as the buyer on the document. To save theday for the Prosecution, Senator Judge Drilon took the floor and propoundedquestions to highlight the role of CJ Corona in the sale, but without balancing

I2 Transcript of Stenographic Notes, pp. 30-31, 19 January 2012.



8/15

the information with the fact that Charina is based abroad and can only act(through an attorney-in-fact.

8. It is beyond cavil that this turn of events has put in question theintegrity of the proceedings and members of the Impeachment Court. Everymeasure must be taken to guard against the erosion of public confidence in theImpeachment Trial of CJ Corona, lest the proceedings be rendered legallyvulnerable

9. The provisions of the Rules of the Impeachment Court providefor the propounding of questions to a witness, viZ.:

XV. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the partyproducing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.

* * *:A'VIL I f a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he/she shall do sowithin two (2) minutes. 1\ Senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or

counsel. He/she may also offer a motion or order, in writing, which shall besubmitted to the Presiding Officer.

10. Rule XVII provides for the right of a Senator to put a question toa prosecutor or counsel, or to a witness. The express limitation in Rule XVIIon the right of a Senator-judge to propound a question is that "he shall do sowithin two (2) minutes." I t is, however, incorrect to assume that a Senator-judge would be justified to propound questions that amount to prosecuting thecase or the witness, such in a case like this where the questions of SenatorJudge Drilon were clearly intended to accomplish what the prosecution failedto do, viZ':

Motion to InhibitPage 8 0]15


9/15

1The Court has acknowledged the right of a trial judge to questionwitnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which"Presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides.3 But no t onlyshould his examination be limited to asking clarificatory questions, the rightshould be sparingly and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court shouldstay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in theconduct of tria14 * * * Hardly in fact can one avoid the impression that theSandiganbayan had allied itself with, or to be more precise, had taken thecudgels for the prosecution in proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta.* *The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of dueprocess was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court,with it s overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate andadvocate * * A substantial portion of the TSN was incorporated in themajority opinion not to focus on "numbers" alone, but more importantly toshow that the court questions were in the interest of the prosecution andwhich thus depart from the common standard of fairness and impartiality.s(cmpllllsis supplied)

11. In open court Senator Judge Drilon began to propound questionsmore akin to cross-examination and loaded with veiled threats, securing for theProsecu Lion what they failed to do by themselves. As clearly enunciated inTabuena, when the judge takes the cudgels for one of the parties, he loses thecold neutrality of an impartial judge, amounting to violation of the right of alitigant to due process of law. In other words, the refusal of an openly partialand biased judge is a violation of the Constitution.

12. Significantly, the Presiding Officer ruled that Defense counselcannot object to any questions propounded by a Senator Judge, citing RuleXVII. \,(!hilc the exemption of Senator Judges from the objections of theparties Clll1l0t be disputed, it must be stressed that the questions propoundedby Senator Judge Drilon sought to elicit the very same responses as the PrivateProseclltor attcillpted to obtain during his conduct of the direct testimony. Insum, it was Senator Judge Drilon who carried on the cudgels for the3US v.F-.lII!/in'lu, 27 Phil. 45; US I). Lim Ktli, 35 Phil. 504; US I). Binqyao, 35 Phil. 23 4York v. {)I, 299 Fcd. 778. SInjra at 1)01


10/15

ProseD::', i l l and accomplished what they failed to do.

1 ), The actjons of Senator Judge Drilon have sparked controversyeven among the members of the viewing public. I t cannot be doubted thatmany persons perceive the conduct of Senator Judge Drilon very disconcertingbecause of the obviously partisan character he exhibited. Indeed, it is nowpublic knowledge that a brief verbal tussle ensued between Senator JudgeDrilon and former SenatorP'racisco "Kit" Tatad. 6

14. \Xlhile it is a constitutionally created body, the ImpeachmentCourt is in reality a collegiate trial court, i.e., where trial takes place before morethan one judge.. ['he lule is well-known that "a trial judge should notpart icipatein the examinal.ion of witnesses as to create the impression that he is allied withthe prosecution.'

15. To repeat) tbe rule against interference bya judge is sofundamental in character that it amounts to a violation of the Constitution, viZ':

But what ;1 ppcars to be a more compelling reason for their acquittal isthe violati()n of the accused's basic constitutional right to due process."Respect for tile Constitution', to borrow once again Mr. JqsticeCruz's words, "is more important tha11 securing a conviction based Of1a violation of'the rights of'the accused" While going over the records, wewere strud by the way the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the(luestionin!', a defense witness and of the accused themselves. Tabuena

UTatad, Drilon !!f/or'I'r by David Santos, ~ ' + ' - ' - 1 - L . . - " ' - - " " - - " " - " " " " l " + ' - ' - ' ~ " " ' - " . ' - ' - ' = ~ U - " . ' - " - - ' ' ' - l = ' - ' ' . - ' - ' - ' c o v e r a g c / c o r o n a - i 1 1 1 ! 1 Q 1 l ~ h m e n t / 9 8 4 - t a t a d , - d 1 : i l o n . t i f f . o v e r - t r i a l , last accessed 25 January2012; Tatad qtlip ge/.l Drilon'J ire, by Lira Dalangin-Fernandez and Karl John C. Reyes,http: I b y ~ v w . i n t e r ~ . l . k , ; v o n . c o m . L a l ' t i d e / 2 2 3 5 9 / t a t a d : q u i p - g e t s - d r i l o n - i r e , last accessed 25Jmuary 2012; Drillil,' rej1./J(jJ to il1hibit, by Richie Horario,h t t p \ l ' ~ : w , manij:, [ . , ' . l ~ , ~ . ~ ~ . . L _ ~ ~ _ ' . : ~ : " ~ . ! " " U o . " e ~ ' . ! . L _ ' ' ' ' + , - . - , " - ~ ~ ~ ~ ! L ! ~ ' ' ' - - ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ , ' - ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' - ' ' , last accessed 25 JaIl:7P(lO. 1), Opida, 142 S( :itA 29 S.

/'v.totion to inhibitP a ~ f { e 100/15


11/15

and Peralta may not have raised this as an error, there is nevertheless noimpedime11l for us to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversalsince the geltled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open toreview, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errorsas may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made thesubject of :lssignments of error or not.

***

But more importantly, we note that the questions of the court were in thenature of cn SS ex.aminations characteristic of confrontation, probing andinsinuation." * ~ ( E m p h a s i s supplied)

16. Indeed, Senator Judge Drilon's claims of fealty to the function ofeliciting the tru b and attaining justice are unavailing and irrelevant. Theinitiative displayed by Senator-judge Drilon, can be construed as unequivocaldemonstration 0 to his allegiance to the cause of the Prosecution, or at the veryleast, a lack of cold neutrality and impartiality. Judges should remember thatthey are judges for both the prosecution and the defense, v i ~ :

"We doubt not that the sole motive of the learned judge was toascertain the truth of the transaction, but it is never proper for a judgeto discharge the duties of a prosecuting attorney. However anxious ajudge may he for the enforcement of the law, he should always rememberthat he is as much judge in behalf of the defendant accused of crime, andwhose libert y is in jeopardy, as he is judge in behalf of the state, for thepurpose of s:lfeguarding the interests of society.,,9 (Emphasis supplied)

17. Ind ('cd, when a judge exceeds his fair bounds in questioning a'>11:',

witness, there is no one who can validly object to restore or ensure the cold,neutrality of an j I1lpartial judge. As witnessed in the proceedings, the PresidingOfficer ruled th,ll the right of a Senator-judge to ask questions is not in doubt.

Be that as it may, jurisprudence defines the limits within which the privilege toask questions may be exercised, viZ':8LuiJA. Tabuena 1). J i()IlIJrtlb/e Sandiganbqyan, G.R. No. 103501-03, consolidated with Ado!!o M. Peralta v. Hon. S a n d Z ~ , J / I b q y a n , G.R. No. 103507, 17 February 1997. 9 M u r p ~ y v. State, 13 Ca. App. 431,79 S.E. 228.

Motion to InhibitPage 110]15


12/15

"Ordinarily II is not good practice for the presiding judge himself to examinewitnesses Hl length. The circumstances may be such in a given case as tojustify the e, )l i f t in so doing. * * * This court, however, has more than oncesaid that the examination of witnesses is the more appropriate function ofcO\lnsel, antl lhe instances are rare and the conditions exceptional which willjustify the presiding judge in conducting an extensive examination. It isalways emb:1 rrassing for counsel to object to what he may deem improperquestions b\ ,Ile court. Then, in conducting a lengthy examination, it wouldbe almost ill1possible for the judge to preserve a judicial attitude. While he isnot a mere ligurehead or umpire in a trial, and it is his duty to see that justiceis done, 11,' will usually not find it necessaty to conduct suchexaminatioJl" 'fhe extent to which this shall be done must largely be amatter of discretion, to be determined by the circumstances of eachparticular Cl ' i t ' , bu t in so doing he must not forget the function of the judgeand assume that of an advocate. * * *,,10

18. Sellillor Judge Drilon sought to qualify his actions as neutral andmotivated by th e desire for truth. The 'search for truth' poses no excuse torelieve a judge from his duty to observe the perception of impartiality. Theimportance of 1111partiality and the perception of impartiality are beyond cavil,Vtz:

A judge shm:tld avoid impropriety and the appearance of improprietyin all his aCllvities. 11 Stated differently, "I t is an ironclad principle that ajudge mus f lot only be impartial; he or sh e must also appear to beimpartial. Hence, the judge 'must, at all times, maintain theappearance of fairness and impartiality. His language, both written andspoken, must be guarded and measured, lest [he best of intentions be1msconstrucd.>1,12

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible orimproper CUJ1duct ofjudges.13 As stressed by the Court in Magaratlg v. JudgeGaMino .B. .1i1rdill, Sr.14 "Judges must adhere to the highest tenets of judicialconduct. They m u s ~ be the embodiment of competence, integrity andindependence is A judge's conduct must be above reproach.16 Like Caesar'swife, a judg" must not only be pure but above suspicion.17 A judge's privateas well as o:Ylcial conduct must at all times be free from all appearances of

Wpco. v. BernJ!t:ili, 25() 111. 63,95 N.E. 50IlProJet'Utor SaI,)ctdor l ~ l i i : z 1). Judge Agelio L BringaJ, MTC, Branch I, Butuan City, A.M. No.M1J-00-126, 6 April ?()OO, p. 8.uDe Vera v. DatltlJ./fI, ,\.Ivr. No. RTJ-99-1455, 13 July 1999, 310 SCRA 213, citing Peo. v.Serrano, 203 SCRA 1 I (1991), citing .Fet'utldo v. Bcrjametl, 180 SCRA 235 (1989)BIn Re:Judge Bet!famill fl . V i r r ~ y , 202 SCRA 628 (1991)14A.M. No. RTJ-99-t cI48, 6 April 2000, pp. 11-12.15Rule 1.01, Code oCJudicial Conduct.16Canon 31, Canons (l fJudicial Ethics. Canon 31, Canons ofJudicial Ethics.17Paiatlg v. 20.1'(/, 58 S C : I ~ r \ 776 (1974)

http:///reader/full/judges.13http:///reader/full/judges.13http:///reader/full/reproach.16http:///reader/full/reproach.16http:///reader/full/suspicion.17http:///reader/full/judges.13http:///reader/full/reproach.16http:///reader/full/suspicion.17


13/15

impropriety lind be beyond reproach."IR Viewed t'iJ-a-1JiJ the factual landscapeof this case, it LS clear that respondent judge transgressed Canon 2, Rules 2.00and 2.CI1 o( the Canons of Judicial Ethics. I-h; acts have been less thancircumspect. lie should have kept himself frce from any appearance ofimpropriety ; l l1d "hould have endeavored to dislance himself from any actliable to crellte an impression of indecorum. He must, thus, be sanctioned.19In t h i ~ reganl. I he Court pointed out in Rallo.f, et ,I/. I). }ttc{J!,c lri!leo Lee Cako, }f:,RTC /lrani'h ;. cd)// City/" that:

Well known is the judicial norm that 'judges should notonly be impartial but should also appear impartial'Juri:;: q udence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled tono[11 1 1 ~ ~ k:-;s than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.The olher elements of due process, like notice and hearing,would become meaningless if the ultimate decision isrendlTcd by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not onlyrendn just, correct and impartial decisions, but must doso ill a manner free of suspicion as to their fairness,imp;,rtiality andintegrity.21 (Emphasis supplied)

19. Tn I his case, the conduct of Senator Judge Drilon has drawn theattention of the I)ublic, casting doubt on the integrity impeachment trialprocess and even! he impartiality of the judges themselves. A judge must takeevery effort to ;\ \'oid even the appearance of partiality. This rule is the rule ofthumb for all 111;1 \mer of judicial conduct and comportment, and it is well-entrenched in jU.\'I:-; j1 ruJence, tJiZ':

' i ' i ' * The pronouncement of this Court in the old case ofL/Hjlh' !'.. KtganarPcould again be said: All suitors are entitled tollot1111lg short of the cold neutrality of an independent, wholly-free,disiLlIl'l'ested 'j.und unbiased tribunal. Second only to the duty oftell(;''1ing a jllst decision is the duty of domg it in a manner that willnot Ill'< lUse any suspicion as to the fairness and integrity of the]udgl.c'It is not enough that a court is impartial, it must also beperc' in:d as impartia1.24 (Emphasis supplied)

l aD ' D _ ) .S . ( ~ I >. ' - f i 275 (1996)",Sll'O 1). aci/II/OY,19See Prudential Hali!- . ( ~ / . l t 1 ' ( ) , 142 SCRA 223, (1986) 2(1 A.M. Nos. 1\.1] I 184 and RT}99-1484 (A), 17 March 2000, p. 19. 2. IDacera,jr. v. Di::.y!!l. r., .\:VI R1J-00-1573, 2 August 2000.Z2 29 SCRA 1(J52JCutierrez 1). Stl l t tOJ,)! 1 :\ fay 1961. The excerpt was quoted in Austria fl. 1\1aJaque/, 31 August1967.24Alonte v. Sai'dl,llIo,"" G.R. No, 131652,9 March 1998 consolidated with Concep(;ion v.Sal)e/lano, et al., C;.It 131728, 9 March 1998.

Motion to InhibitPage 130/'15
http:///reader/full/sanctioned.19http:///reader/full/sanctioned.19http:///reader/full/integrity.21http:///reader/full/integrity.21http:///reader/full/impartia1.24http:///reader/full/impartia1.24http:///reader/full/sanctioned.19http:///reader/full/integrity.21http:///reader/full/impartia1.24


14/15

20. Finally, to demonstrate that rema.1fung as a member of theImpeachment Court has become untenable, CJ (:orona reproduces the oath ofoffice sworn to by Senator Judge Drilon, viZ':

I ~ o k : m n l v swear (or affum, as the case be) that in all {hing:; appcHall1ingto the trial ,)f the impeachmenr of Chief Jw;ticc :. Corona, now pending, 1 will doimpartial l u ~ u c e al:cnrding to the Consritutl(Jt1 LtHJ laws of the, Philippmes: (So helpmeG,

Surely, the languag;e of the oad1 need,; no further elaboration orcla.ri fication.

WHEl{EFORE, it is respectfully prayed [hat this Motion to Inhibit becalendared rur hearing and after submission thereof, that the ImpeachmentCourt render judgment and Order the recusal, inhibition or disqualification ofSenator-judge I 'ranklin lV1. Drilon.

CJ Corona likewise prays for such other reliefs just and equitable underthe premises,

Makali l'or Pasay City 26 January 2012.

Respectfully submitted: COUl1Sel for ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona.

Motion to InhibitPage 14 '1(15


15/15

JOSE OY IIIPTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; lVlakati City

IBP LRc1\J 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime) Roll of Attorneys No. 37065

MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

MANALOP'I'R No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makati City IBP No. 839311; 3January 2011, lVlakati City Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996

MCLE Compliance No. IU-0009471, 26 Apri12010

Copy furnished:

House ofRepresentatives Batasan C011ln]ex IBatasan Hills, Quezon City

Senators of the Republic of the PhilippinesGSIS Build!!Macapagal HIghwayPasay City

Motion to Inhibit

Motion to Inhibit Jan26 P207

Documents

Transcript of Motion to Inhibit Jan26 P207