Lawyer Teddy Te, who follows closely the impeachment proceedings while based in New York, is of the view that Corona is near surrender.
Here's Teddy Te's Facebook entry on Feb. 8:
"From a tactical point of view, the Corona petition is almost the white flag--almost. The allegation about 'grave abuse of discretion' by another branch of government is, I think, deliberate: to avoid an outright dismissal on the ground that it is a political question. The re-allegation of the insufficiency of the impeachment complaint is also, I think, deliberate: to allow this petition to be consolidated with the other pending petitions to stop the trial and also to confer standing in case the standing of the other petitioners (Lozano, Paguia, Adaza, Millora, et al.) is denied.
" From a purely academic point of view, however, the Corona petition is a mother lode of ethical and legal issues that would keep every law class occupied. Some interesting questions that the petition raises, for instance:
1. Is it ethical for a sitting Chief Justice to ask for relief from the very Court he leads and from which he has not taken leave?
2. Is it ethical for a sitting Chief Justice to not disclose in his petition that the documents and testimonies subject of his TRO application are NOT YET ADMISSIBLE as they have yet to be formally offered and considered?
3. Is it ethical for a sitting Chief Justice, who should be primus inter pares (first among equals), to ask for inhibition of two of his fellow Justices?
4. Is it ethical for a sitting Chief Justice to treat the public office he holds as his personal "property" such that he should invoke the due process clause (which covers ONLY life, liberty and property)?
5. Is it ethical for a Chief Justice to not say "no" to the petition in light of all of the above?
x x x."
