Corona petition mooted

Supreme Court of the Philippines

"x x x.

The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote, has dismissed on the ground of mootness the petition of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona assailing the impeachment case initiated against him by the members of the House of Representatives and trial conducted by the Senate. In a 15-page decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court En Banc held that the constitutional issues raised by former Chief Justice Corona “had been mooted by supervening events and his own acts.”

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. did not take part in the deliberations, while Justice Arturo D. Brion was on leave.

Chief Justice Corona was convicted on May 29, 2012 by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. The Court noted that he immediately accepted the verdict and without any protest vacated his office. The Judicial and Bar Council is at present interviewing candidates for the next Chief Justice.

The Court explained that “[a]n issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.”

In his petition, former Chief Justice Corona argued that the Impeachment Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it proceeded to trial on the basis of the complaint filed by the lower house which complaint was constitutionally infirm and defective for lack of probable cause. He added that there was grave abuse of discretion also when the Impeachment Court did not strike out the charges discussed in Art. II of the complaint which, aside from being a “hodge-podge” of multiple charges, do not constitute allegations in law, much less ultimate facts, being all premised on suspicion and/or hearsay.

Likewise, former Chief Justice Corona contended that the Impeachment Court abused its discretion when it allowed the presentation of evidence on charges of alleged corruption and unexplained wealth which violates petitioner’s right to due process because first, Art. II of the complaint did not mention “graft and corruption,” and second, it was clear under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Constitution that “graft and corruption” is a separate and distinct ground from “culpable violation of the Constitution” and “betrayal of public trust.” Lastly, the former Chief Justice questioned the issuance of subpoena for the production of his alleged bank accounts as requested by the prosecution despite the same being the result of an illegal act considering that those documents submitted by the prosecution violates the absolute confidentiality of such accounts under Sec. 8 of RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act, which is also penalized under Sec. 10 thereof. (GR No. 200242, Chief Justice Corona v. Senate, July 17, 2012)

x x x."