Title
Supreme Court
Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 200242
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2012
Chief Justice Renato Corona's impeachment trial concluded with his conviction for non-disclosure of assets, rendering Supreme Court intervention moot.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200242)

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution:

  • Art. XI, Sec. 17 (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth disclosure)
  • Art. VIII, Sec. 7(3) (Judicial integrity, probity, and independence)
    Impeachment Rules (Senate Rule XVIII)
    Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
    Republic Act No. 1379 (Presumption in favor of registered property)
    Republic Act No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act)

Key Dates

December 12–13, 2011: Verified impeachment complaint endorsed by 188 House Members; transmitted to Senate
December 14, 2011: Senate convened as Impeachment Court
December 15, 2011: Petitioner formally charged under eight articles (betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption)
January 16, 2012: Trial commenced before the Impeachment Court
January 27, 2012: Court resolution allowing evidence on SALN nondisclosure (Art. II, pars. 2.2–2.3) but disallowing proof of ill-gotten wealth (par. 2.4)
February 6, 2012: Subpoenas issued to BPI and PSBank for bank records
February 8, 2012: PSBank filed certiorari petition to enjoin enforcement of subpoenas
February 9, 2012: Supreme Court issued TRO enjoining enforcement of Senate subpoenas and denied motion to inhibit Justices Carpio and Sereno
July 17, 2012: Supreme Court resolved petition moot and dismissed it

Impeachment Complaint and Articles

The complaint charged Corona with:
• Article I – Subservience and partiality favoring the Arroyo administration
• Article II – Failure to publicly disclose SALNs (Art. XI, Sec. 17) and alleged undeclared properties and bank accounts, suspected ill-gotten wealth
• Article III – Breach of integrity and probity by flip-flopping decisions, excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo, improper discussions with litigants (Art. VIII, Sec. 7(3))
• Article IV – Disregard for separation of powers via status quo ante order against the House in the Navarro-Gutierrez impeachment
• Article V – Wanton arbitrariness in res judicata issues involving newly created cities and provinces
• Article VI – Unauthorized investigative committee on a Supreme Court Justice, usurping the House’s impeachment power
• Article VII – Partiality granting TROs to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and distortion of Supreme Court rulings
• Article VIII – Failure to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary

Trial Proceedings and Evidence Rulings

  • Petitioner filed an Answer challenging the haste of impeachment, alleged political motives, and denial of due process.
  • Prosecution held press conferences disclosing alleged high-value properties and undeclared SALN items; Senate reminded prosecutors of media restrictions under impeachment rules.
  • Defense sought preliminary hearing and motions to exclude evidence on paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of Article II; both motions denied.
  • January 27 resolution: Evidence on nondisclosure (2.2, 2.3) admitted; evidence on ill-gotten wealth (2.4) disallowed, with statutory presumptions under RA 3019 and RA 1379 to guide the Court.
  • February 6 resolution: Subpoenas directed to BPI and PSBank officers to produce original bank documents and statements covering multiple accounts and years.

Constitutional and Legal Issues

  1. Scope of Senate’s subpoena power versus confidentiality under RA 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act).
  2. Distinction between “culpable violation of the Constitution,” “betrayal of public trust,” and “graft and corruption” as grounds for impeachment.
  3. Alleged mixture of hearsay, suspicion, and ultimate facts in the impeachment complaint.
  4. Alleged partiality of Senator-Judges and violation of due process during trial.
  5. Justiciability of impeachment incidents and the Court’s certiorari power over grave abuse of discretion by political departments.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner Argues:

  • Impeachment complaint defective for lack of probable cause and due process.
  • Senate resolutions admitting and enforcing evidence rulings constitute grave abuse of discretion/excess of jurisdiction.
  • Bank subpoenas violate confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426.
  • Certain Senator-Judges acted as prosecutors, breaching impartiality.

Respondents Argue:

  • Impeachment is a political process; issues of verification, procedural irregularities, and trial conduct are nonjusticiable political questions.
  • House and Senate possess exclusive constitutional
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.