Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall

discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with
patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.

According to Kinchin (2007) a renowned author and public administration educator, the ethics of
public service is based on five key basic virtues; which include fairness, transparency,
responsibility, efficiency and no conflict of interest.

What are the five principles of public service ethics?

10 Core Values of Public Service: Read: Principles of public administration

Values and principles of public service identify the core public sector ethical values expected of anyone
working and performing public duties. This article will further explain them with examples, and reasons
for ethical standards in the public sector.

1. Honesty

People working in the public sector or service must poses the highest quality of honesty. Must not be
involved in the wastage of public resources, corruption, nepotism, or stealing. Public offices must not be
used for personal business, but for the public interest.

2. Integrity

Public servants should avoid accepting bribes, accepting gifts, and anything that might compromise
integrity. Must be ready to save without engaging in acts of favoritism, nepotism, or corruption.

3. Accountability

Accountability strives to promote a high level of work, promote honesty, encourage dependability, and
garner trust from members around you. It is the practice of being held to a certain standard of
excellence. It is the idea that an individual and public administrators are responsible for their actions
and, if that individual chooses unfavorable actions, they will face consequences.

4. Loyalty

What is the true meaning of loyalty in public administration?

Loyalty is the quality of staying firm in your friendship or support for someone or something. Loyalty to
the duties and responsibilities of administrators. Synonyms: faithfulness, commitment, devotion,
allegiance More Synonyms of loyalty. countable noun.
5. Respect

Respect means that you accept somebody for who they are, even when they’re different from you or you
don’t agree with them. Having respect in your relationships builds feelings of trust, safety, and well-
being. Respect doesn’t have to come naturally – it is something you learn.

6. Privacy

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test should then take into consideration the standards provided
under the DPA. This means that employees must be aware of the nature, purpose, and extent of the
processing of his or her personal data in the workplace.

7. Impartiality

What is an impartiality example?

Think of it as a question of fairness. Suppose you went to a baseball game and you found out that the
umpire was the uncle of a player on one of the teams. Most people would say that the umpire should
not work that game, because there would be a strong appearance that he might not make the calls fairly
and impartially.

8. Objectivity

This is the quality or character of being objective: lack of favoritism toward one side or another: and
freedom from bias. Many people questioned the selection committee’s objectivity.

9. Efficiency

Efficiency is the often measurable ability to avoid wasting materials, energy, effort, money, and time in
doing something or in producing the desired result. In a more general sense, it is the ability to do things
well, successfully, and without waste

10. Professionalism

Being a professional in your chosen field means much more than just holding a college degree and
donning a business suit.
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE XI
ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members
of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof,
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the
proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a
majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days
from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared
for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all
the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by
the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When
sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the
Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose
of this section.

Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function
and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the
Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise
be appointed.

Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies,
shall be appointed by the Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law.

Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special
Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be
provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.

Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines,
and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and
independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any
elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have, for ten years
or more, been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as
provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.

Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at
least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees
for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies
shall be filled within three months after they occur.

Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members,
respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary which
shall not be decreased during their term of office.

Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without
reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office.
Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on
complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof.

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any
act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties.

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at
fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith.

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions
entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and
report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.

(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of
its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.

(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence.

(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the
Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.

(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions
or duties as may be provided by law.

Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or
employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription,
laches, or estoppel.

Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business
purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or
financial institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any
firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter
as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net
worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices,
and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to
the public in the manner provided by law.

Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all
times and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the
status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.

Republic Act No. 6713             February 20, 1989

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC

OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR
EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics
in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and
shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with
patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term:

(a) "Government" includes the National Government, the local governments, and all other
instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the Republic of the Philippines including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and their subsidiaries. lawphi1.net

(b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.
 (c) "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously, or any act or liberality, in favor
of another who accepts it, and shall include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous
disposition thereof. It shall not include an unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not
given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.

(d) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly, a gift from a person
other than a member of his family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion of a
family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal
nor insignificant, or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor.

(e) "Loan" covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as guarantees, financing
arrangements or accommodations intended to ensure its approval.

(f) "Substantial stockholder" means any person who owns, directly or indirectly, shares of
stock sufficient to elect a director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the parties to
a voting trust.

(g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their spouses and unmarried children
under eighteen (18) years of age.

(h) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons unless the context indicates otherwise.

(i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an
officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial
interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties
therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.

(j) "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal of interest in property by voluntarily,

completely and actually depriving or dispossessing oneself of his right or title to it in favor of
a person or persons other than his spouse and relatives as defined in this Act.

(k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a public official or employee within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and
employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and
execution of official duties:

(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always
uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in
public funds and revenues.

(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge
their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.
They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or
peddlers of undue patronage.
 (c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall
at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to
their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as
members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to
everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.

(e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend
prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by
law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall
provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable
language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings
whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules
and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of
the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed
rural and urban areas.

(f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced
goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country
and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty
against foreign intrusion.

(g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit

themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle of public
accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the
military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country
above loyalty to persons or party.

(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest
lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant
or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote (1) observance
of these standards including the dissemination of information programs and workshops
authorizing merit increases beyond regular progression steps, to a limited number of
employees recognized by their office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of
ethical standards; and (2) continuing research and experimentation on measures which
provide positive motivation to public officials and employees in raising the general level of
observance of these standards.

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties, all public
officials and employees are under obligation to: lawphi1.net
 (a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials and employees shall, within
fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means
of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the
request.

(b) Submit annual performance reports. - All heads or other responsible officers of offices
and agencies of the government and of government-owned or controlled corporations shall,
within forty-five (45) working days from the end of the year, render a performance report of
the agency or office or corporation concerned. Such report shall be open and available to the
public within regular office hours.

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously. - All official papers and documents must
be processed and completed within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof and must
contain, as far as practicable, not more than three (3) signatories therein. In the absence of
duly authorized signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer in charge shall sign for and in
their behalf.

(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. - All public officials and employees
must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at
all times, act promptly and expeditiously.

(e) Make documents accessible to the public. - All public documents must be made
accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within reasonable working
hours.

Section 6. System of Incentives and Rewards. - A system of annual incentives and rewards is
hereby established in order to motivate and inspire public servants to uphold the highest standards
of ethics. For this purpose, a Committee on Awards to Outstanding Public Officials and Employees is
hereby created composed of the following: the Ombudsman and Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission as Co-Chairmen, and the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and two government
employees to be appointed by the President, as members.

It shall be the task of this Committee to conduct a periodic, continuing review of the performance of
public officials and employees, in all the branches and agencies of Government and establish a
system of annual incentives and rewards to the end that due recognition is given to public officials
and employees of outstanding merit on the basis of the standards set forth in this Act.

The conferment of awards shall take into account, among other things, the following: the years of
service and the quality and consistency of performance, the obscurity of the position, the level of
salary, the unique and exemplary quality of a certain achievement, and the risks or temptations
inherent in the work. Incentives and rewards to government officials and employees of the year to be
announced in public ceremonies honoring them may take the form of bonuses, citations,
directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations, local and foreign scholarship grants,
paid vacations and the like. They shall likewise be automatically promoted to the next higher position
with the commensurate salary suitable to their qualifications. In case there is no next higher position
or it is not vacant, said position shall be included in the budget of the office in the next General
Appropriations Act. The Committee on Awards shall adopt its own rules to govern the conduct of its
activities.

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or
indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of
their office.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant,

counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.

(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees
shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by
reason of their office and not made available to the public, either:

(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or

(2) To prejudice the public interest.

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or
accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any
operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
their office.

As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents to:

(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of nominal
value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;

(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of a

scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or

(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or expenses for
travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as allowances, transportation,
 food, and lodging) of more than nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or
consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office,
branch or agency to which he belongs.

The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose of this subsection, including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any educational, scientific or
cultural exchange programs subject to national security requirements.

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees have an obligation to
accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets,
liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and
employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or
temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses
and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

The two documents shall contain information on the following:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair
market value;

(b) personal property and acquisition cost;

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds,
and the like;

(d) liabilities, and;

(e) all business interests and financial connections.

The documents must be filed:

(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;

(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and

(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated
documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of
office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate
government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may
show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial
connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any
office in the Government.
 Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required
statements jointly or separately.

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the
Ombudsman;

(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with
the Office of the President.

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their
respective regions;

(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the
Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in
their respective regions; and

(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every public official or employee
to identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the
Government in the form, manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made
available for inspection at reasonable hours.

(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10)
working days from the time they are filed as required by law.

(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to
cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of
certification.

(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10)
years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed
unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under
this Act for:

(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or

(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for
dissemination to the general public.
Section 9. Divestment. - A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times.
When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise
within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or
interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption.

The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.

The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those who serve the Government in an honorary
capacity nor to laborers and casual or temporary workers.

Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. - (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of
the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said
statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a
determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the
reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of
both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render
any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each
instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar
factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with
it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b)
hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds
office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing
any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months'
salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense
after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a
heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of
Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient
cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.

(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or

accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the
same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.

(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains
or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which
such action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to
 exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction hereunder or under any
other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Section 12. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, Administration and Enforcement of this Act. -
The Civil Service Commission shall have the primary responsibility for the administration and
enforcement of this Act. It shall transmit all cases for prosecution arising from violations of this Act to
the proper authorities for appropriate action: Provided, however, That it may institute such
administrative actions and disciplinary measures as may be warranted in accordance with law.
Nothing in this provision shall be construed as a deprivation of the right of each House of Congress
to discipline its Members for disorderly behavior.

The Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act, including guidelines for individuals who render free voluntary
service to the Government. The Ombudsman shall likewise take steps to protect citizens who
denounce acts or omissions of public officials and employees which are in violation of this Act.

Section 13. Provisions for More Stringent Standards. - Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
derogate from any law, or any regulation prescribed by any body or agency, which provides for more
stringent standards for its official and employees.

Section 14. Appropriations. - The sum necessary for the effective implementation of this Act shall be
taken from the appropriations of the Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, such sum as may be
needed for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 15. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to
any person or circumstance is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 16. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees and orders or parts thereof inconsistent herewith,
are deemed repealed or modified accordingly, unless the same provide for a heavier penalty.

Section 17. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after thirty (30) days following the completion of its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved, February 20, 1989.

A public service or service of general (economic) interest is any service intended to address

specific needs pertaining to the aggregate members of a community. [1][2] Public services are available
to people within a government jurisdiction as provided directly through public sector agencies or via
public financing to private businesses or voluntary organizations (or even as provided by family
households, though terminology may differ depending on context). Other public services are
undertaken on behalf of a government's residents or in the interest of its citizens. The term is
associated with a social consensus (usually expressed through democratic elections) that certain
services should be available to all, regardless of income, physical ability or mental acuity. Examples
of such services include the fire brigade, police, air force, and paramedics (see also public service
broadcasting).
Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, they are usually
subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors for social and political
reasons. Public policy,[3] when made in the public's interest and with its motivations, is a type of
public service.
A public service is something such as health care, transport, or the removal of waste which is
organized by the government or an official body in order to ...
 the business of supplying a commodity (such as electricity or gas) or service (such as
transportation) to any or all members of a community.

A public service is something the government provides to citizens. Things like fire departments,
schools, and court systems are all considered public 

public services

A public service is something the government provides to citizens. Things

like fire departments, schools, and court systems are all considered public
services. People who want to help the community go into public service.

Almost every public service fulfills an essential need of the people who live in a city, town, or
state. These include water systems, law enforcement, roads and bridges, and ambulances.
Public services are just what the term sounds like: vital services for the public. Most people
agree that public services, which are generally funded by taxes and fees, should be available to
all people.

Definitions of public service

1. noun

 a service that is performed for the benefit of the public or its institutions

synonyms:community service

see more

2. noun

 employment within a government system (especially in the civil service)

see more

Renato Corona, the 23rd chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, was impeached on
December 12, 2011. Corona was the third official, after former President Joseph Estrada in 2000
and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in March 2011, to be impeached by the House of
Representatives.[1]
The Senate, convened as an impeachment court, began the impeachment trial on January 16, 2012.
This was the second impeachment trial in the history of the Philippines, as Gutierrez had resigned
prior to the start of her trial. On May 29, 2012, Corona was found guilty of article two of the articles of
impeachment that had been filed against him pertaining to his failure to disclose to the public
his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.[2]

Appointment of Corona as chief justice[edit]

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administers the oath of office to Supreme Court of the Philippines Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona at the Malacanang Palace on May 17, 2010

Chief Justice Reynato Puno was to retire on May 17, 2010, seven days after the presidential
election. However, the constitution prohibits President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from appointing
anyone two months before the presidential election up to the end of her term. This caused a suit to
be brought to the Supreme Court, in which the high tribunal ruled on March 17, 2010, that the ban on
appointments does not cover the judiciary. The court ruled on the case with finality on April 20, 2010,
with nine justices concurring, one dissenting and two dismissing the petition for being premature.
Chief Justice Puno and Associate Justices Corona and Antonio Carpio abstained from ruling on the
case. The court then ordered the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to proceed with its nomination
process and subsequently submit its shortlist of nominees for the Chief Justice to Arroyo. [3]
Corona was appointed chief justice on May 12, 2010. He was the "most senior" Supreme Court
justice among the four nominees of the JBC.[4]
With Benigno Aquino III winning the election, he invited all heads of the three branches of
government to his inauguration, although instead of the tradition of him being inaugurated by the
chief justice, he instead chose to be sworn in by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the
sole dissenter on the case.[5]

Conflict between Aquino and Corona[edit]

On December 6, 2011, at the National Criminal Justice Summit at the Manila Hotel, Aquino said in a
speech that Corona, who was seated meters away from him, is beholden to Arroyo. Aquino
questioned the court's granting of a temporary restraining order lifting the watch list order of
the Department of Justice against Arroyo, Arroyo's midnight appointment of Corona, and the ruling
of Camarines Sur's two new legislative districts as constitutional despite falling short of the required
population set by the Constitution.[6]
Impeachment[edit]
On the December 12, 2011, flag-raising ceremony at the Supreme Court, Corona revealed that there
was "a secret plan to oust me from office by any means, fair or foul." Corona said that he would not
resign.[7]
Later in the day, a caucus amongst Aquino's allies in the House of Representative was called.
Minority leader Edcel Lagman said that discussion amongst Aquino's allies heightened when the
Committee on Justice passed an impeachment case involving Associate Justice Mariano del
Castillo on his alleged plagiarism. Lagman further said that if the vote passed, he would question its
"legal and factual basis."[8] The deputy presidential spokesperson, on the other hand, stated that the
Palace "is not privy to the discussions of the Liberal Party in the House." [9]
At the conclusion of the majority bloc's caucus, Committee on Justice chairman Niel Tupas,
Jr. presented the impeachment complaint; after the presentation, only two representatives asked for
more questions, while an overwhelming majority asked to sign the complaint. He said that there
were no instructions from the Palace to impeach Corona, nor was the pork barrel of representatives
who did not sign would be held back, but he said that he informed the president of their decision to
impeach Corona, and that the president supported it. The House of Representatives then voted in
session to endorse the complaint, getting 188 votes, well above the one-third (95) of the members
required by the Constitution. [10]
Navotas representative Toby Tiangco resigned from the majority bloc, and the chairmanship of the
Committee on Metro Manila Development, after the impeachment was passed by the House of
Representatives. Tiangco said that the complaint was approved without the members of Congress
scrutinizing it.[11] Batangas 2nd District representative Hermilando Mandanas, who did not sign the
complaint, was relieved of the chairmanship of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mandanas
quoted Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. on saying that the Aquino administration wanted his
removal.[12] The majority bloc was not surprised with Tiangco's resignation from the majority, with
Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II describing Tiangco as a "maverick" and has "more than many
times identified himself with the minority."[13]

Articles of Impeachment[edit]
These are the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona: [14]

# Case Violation

Partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the
Betrayal of public
1 time he was appointed as associate justice to the time of his 'midnight
trust
appointment' as chief justice.

Betrayal of public
Failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as trust and/or
2
required under the Constitution. culpable violation of
the constitution

3 Failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under the constitution that Betrayal of public
provides that "[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven trust and/or
competence, integrity, probity, and independence" in allowing the Supreme Court culpable violation of
 to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping
decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with
the constitution
Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with
litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Betrayal of public
Blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo
trust and/or
4 ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning
culpable violation of
the impeachment of then-Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.
the constitution

Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res

Betrayal of public
5 judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion
trust
of Dinagat Island (sic) into a province.

Arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and

jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the Supreme Court for the Betrayal of public
6
purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by trust
the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

Partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former

president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order
to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of Betrayal of public
7
justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO trust
in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court's own
TRO.

Culpable violation of
Failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special the constitution
8
Allowance for the Judiciary collections. and/or graft and
corruption

^* The Prosecution withdrew Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 on February 29, 2012. The Senate
continued to deliberate on Articles 2, 3 and 7.

Impeachment trial[edit]
The Senate received the articles of impeachment on December 13. Tupas and Reynaldo Umali
delivered the articles of impeachment, with Tupas saying that the process was not railroaded. [15]
Employees of the judiciary staged a court holiday on December 13 in support of Corona; this
meant many courts were closed.[16] In a speech delivered in front of Supreme Court employees,
Corona branded Aquino as building a dictatorship, stated that he will not quit, and that his
conviction will result in Aquino controlling all three branches of government. [17] The Executive
replied via Executive Secretary Edwin Lacierda that it not out to control all branches of
government but wanted an independent Supreme Court, told Corona to go on a leave on
absence, and that the impeachment is "not an attack on the judiciary. This is a case of
accountability against Chief Justice Corona." [18]

Legal teams[edit]
Prosecution[edit]
The prosecution team includes the members of the House of Representatives, who are all
members of the majority bloc, with several private prosecutors. Niel Tupas, Jr. is the chief of the
prosecution team.[19]

Article
Name Party District
(Primary/secondary)

Raul Daza Liberal Northern Samar–1st 1st/2nd

Niel Tupas, Jr. Liberal Iloilo–5th None/2nd

Bayan
Neri Colmenares Party-list 7th/1st
Muna

Marilyn Primicias-
NPC Pangasinan–6th 2nd/5th
Agabas

Elpidio Barzaga NUP Dasmariñas 5th/2nd

Giorgidi Aggabao NPC Isabela–4th 3rd/8th

Kaka Bag-ao Akbayan Party-list 4th/3rd

Oriental Mindoro–
Reynaldo Umali Liberal 8th/4th
2nd

Rodolfo Fariñas Nacionalista Ilocos Norte–1st 6th/None

Sherwin Tugna CIBAC Party-list None/3rd, 6th

The prosecutors from the House of Representatives enlisted the help of private practitioners to
assist them; this was opposed by the defense, saying that only the prosecutors from the House
of Representatives are the "sole prosecutors". The Senate allowed the existence of the private
prosecutors citing "matter of rule and precedence". The private prosecutors who are allowed to
assist the public prosecutors in impeachment proceedings are: [20]

 Mario Bautista
 Arthur Lim
 Demetrio Custodio
 Jose Benjamin Panganiban
 Clarence Jandoc
 Ernesto Viovicente
 Frederick Vallestero
 Winston Ginez
The prosecution also named representatives Miro Quimbo, Lorenzo Tañada III and Juan
Edgardo Angara as their spokespersons.
Defense[edit]
Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez described Corona's defense team as a
"powerhouse legal team".[21]

1. Serafin R. Cuevas, former Supreme Court associate justice, trustee of New Era
University
2. Jacinto Jimenez, professor at the Ateneo Law School
3. Jose Roy III, former dean and president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila
4. Eduardo de los Angeles, former dean of the Ateneo Law School
5. German Lichauco II, partner of the Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Ongsiako law firm
6. Dennis Manalo, partner of the Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Ongsiako law firm
7. Ramon Esguerra, general counsel of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
8. Tranquil G.S. Salvador III, former dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Pasay
9. Karen Jimeno, formerly of the Quisumbing, Torres, Evangelista firm
Ernesto "Jun" Francisco, Jr. quit the defense team for he feared that his previous dealings with
Senator Manny Villar will be a reason to question his loyalty to the defense's cause.[22]

Opening day[edit]
The Senate convened as the impeachment court for the first time on December 14. The
senators took their oaths before Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; Enrile was sworn in
by Antonio Trillanes, the youngest senator.[23]

Holiday recess[edit]
The next day, the impeachment court served summons to Corona, who was received by the
Supreme Court.[24] Four days later, Vicente Millora, a former president of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), filed a petition at the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the
pending trial, asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and to declare the articles of
impeachment null and void. Millora contended that the impeachment case did not go through
constitutional means as it was passed with "undue haste, railroaded, fast-tracked, and signed
but not sworn to by the 188 respondent lawmakers." [25] The prosecutors responded by asking the
Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. [26] Additional petitions questioning the constitutionality of
the impeachment were filed by Vladimir Cabigao, Danilo Lihaylihay, Oliver Lozano, and Allan
Paguia and Homobono Adaza.[27]
The Senate received Corona's answer on December 26 which asked for the Senate to dismiss
the case for "failing to meet the requirements of the Constitution." [28] Antonio Carpio, one of the
possible replacements for Corona if he is successfully removed, reportedly was assigned the
case concerning the constitutionality of the impeachment, with Corona expected to recuse
himself from the discussion.[29]
In a press conference, the prosecution team revealed that Corona owns a high-end penthouse
condominium unit in Bellagio, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig worth ₱14.51 million in 2009. Tupas asked
if this condominium unit is included in Corona's state of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN),
saying that Corona's SALN has been made unavailable to the public. [30] The senators scolded the
prosecutors, saying that they are not allowed to discuss the merits of the case so as not to
preempt the impeachment trial. This came as an anonymous source disclosed that Corona
owned another condominium unit in nearby Bonifacio Ridge worth between ₱5 to 8 million, and
a house and lot in Quezon City.[31] The prosecutors agreed to stop issuing statements to the
media until the trial's start.[32]
Corona asked the impeachment court for a preliminary hearing; this was the first motion the
impeachment court would hear. [33] Meanwhile, the prosecution asked the Senate to subpoena
documents on 45 properties allegedly belonging to Corona. Aside from the documents, the
prosecution also asked for the appearances of Corona, his wife and children. Quimbo said that
"At least 40 of these properties were not declared in Chief Justice Corona's 2002 SALN, the last
year when he made such (a) declaration." [34] Corona replied that he owned five pieces of real
estate properties, and all appeared on his SALN. [35]
On the other hand, the defense wanted to summon Tupas, Belmonte, Jesus Crispin Remulla,
Mandanas, Tiangco and Secretary-General Marilyn Barua-Yap. Ponce Enrile consulted the
other senators, asking if they were allowed to summon people connected to the House of
Representatives due to "inter-parliamentary courtesy."[36]

January[edit]
January 16[edit]
On the morning of January 16, the first day the Senate was set to receive the prosecution and
defense teams, Corona stated in a speech that "there is no turning back" on the impeachment
trial. Corona stated that he did nothing wrong to the president or to the people, that he did not
steal from anyone, and that the 45 properties included double entries, properties belonging to
his wife and in-laws, and denied the accusation that the World Bank loan was not his
responsibility. Corona added that there are people acting in a conspiracy to remove him from
office: those who want to prevent the distribution of Hacienda Luisita, a hacienda owned by the
family of President Aquino, to its farmer-beneficiaries, a vice presidential candidate who lost
the 2010 vice presidential election, and an associate justice who wants to succeed him as chief
justice.[37]
The trial started at 2:10 p.m, with Senate President Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, calling
the Senate to order. Two senators, Miriam Defensor Santiago and Loren Legarda, were absent
on the first day. Niel Tupas led the public prosecutors in presenting themselves, followed by the
private prosecutors, who stated that they are under the complete control of the public
prosecutors. Corona's defense also presented themselves, with defense chief Serafin Cuevas
presenting Corona at the gallery, and entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant. [38]
Majority floor leader Tito Sotto moved to tackle the defense's motion for a preliminary hearing.
The defense argued that impeachment complaint was "fatally defective" as there was a defect in
the verification of the 188 signatures. The presiding officer prohibited Tupas' request allowing
private prosecutor Mario Bautista to argue in behalf of the prosecution. Tupas instead was the
one who argued for the prosecution, saying that the impeachment complaint was passed
according to the rules of the House of Representatives. [38]
Sotto then moved to tackle a motion filed by private lawyer Fernando Perito to cite the
prosecution for indirect contempt on their press conference stating that Corona had ill-gotten
wealth. The presiding officer also dismissed the request, stating that Perido is not a party to the
case. The president officer then requested all parties to refrain from issuing statements relating
to the case outside of the impeachment court.[38]
January 17[edit]
The Senate threw out a motion to subpoena Chief Justice Corona, his wife and family by a vote
of 14–6. Initially, the request was decided upon Senate president Ponce Enrile as presiding
officer but was contested by Senate minority leader Alan Peter Cayetano citing that there was a
need to compel them to testify over allegations that the properties were placed under the names
to ill-gotten wealth. Enrile, however said that such a request will forfeit the right of self-
incrimination and giving evidence by under duress. Meanwhile, the motion of the defense to
deny the appearance of private prosecutors of the prosecution was denied, thereby the
prosecution's privilege to retain the use of private prosecutors. [39]
However, the Senate approved subpoenas to the clerk of the Supreme Court Enriqueta
Esguerra-Vidal and the register of deeds and land assessors in the cities
of Makati, Marikina, Pasay, Parañaque, Quezon City and Taguig, where the alleged properties
of Corona are found. The Senate compelled that documents such as the statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth, land titles and of the such, be presented to the impeachment court. [40]
The trial was postponed early due to the prosecution's lack of preparation in presenting
witnesses to testify the authenticity of documents presented. Cavite Representative Elpidio
Barzaga was to present evidences on the second article. Counsel Serafin Cuevas said that no
notice was given to the defense panel to prepare on the second article as the panel was
prepared on the manner of the complaint filed. [41]
On the same day, the Supreme Court unanimously deferred its decision on whether to issue a
temporary restraining order (TRO) or not to stop the impeachment trial. Five petitions, headed
by former Misamis Oriental governor Homobono Adaza were consolidated by the court and
required the Senate to comment on the petitions within ten days. Supreme Court spokesperson
Jose Midas Marquez said that the court could issue an order at any time and or call for oral
arguments. He furthers on that the matter is with the Senate and says the process is ongoing.
The petitions were filed due to the alleged railroading of the impeachment complaint against
Corona.[42]
January 18[edit]
Supreme Court clerk of court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, turned over copies of the statements of
assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of Chief Justice Corona from the years 2002 to 2010 to
the Senate. This was after the constant compelling of senator-judges and the prosecutors.
Esguerra-Vidal insisted that she be given permission to release the said documents citing a
Supreme Court ruling dated on May 2, 1989; that prohibits "deceptive requests for information"
with regard to the release of SALNs of the judiciary. Senate President Ponce Enrile told that she
had to comply with the said subpoena and give the said documents to the Senate. Supreme
Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez would later say that the clerk was not in any legal
hurdle as Corona authorized the release of the documents. [43]
Meanwhile, Marianito Dimaandal, head director of the Malacañang Records Office testified and
said that SALNs of Chief Justice Corona from 1992 to 2010 exist. As custodian, Dimanadal
stated that the SALNs are certified true copies and had attested to their authenticity. Yet, he
later said that he was position on the veracity of the contents of the documents. [44]
Defense counsel Cuevas asked the Senate to remove the second article of the complaint.
Cuevas said that "The fact alone that there is SALN is proof enough that he has filed and
complied with the rules and regulation on the matter, that resolves the problem." Senate
president Ponce Enrile clarified that such release of the SALNs is response to the subpoena
given to the clerk and doesn't overrule the said article. [43]
The following are the SALNS filed by Chief Justice Corona from 2002 to 2010 with assets
declared during those years:[45][46]

Year of SALN Date of filing Assets declared (in terms of PHP)

2002 March 10, 2003 ₱14.96 million

2003 April 12, 2004 ₱7.359 million

2004 April 25, 2005 ₱7.359 million

2005 April 20, 2006 ₱8.359 million

September 23,
2006 ₱9.559 million
2007

2007 April 11, 2008 ₱11.059 million

2008 April 28, 2009 ₱12.559 million

2009 April 11, 2010 ₱14.559 million

2010 April 29, 2011 ₱22.938 million

January 19[edit]
The prosecution presented Taguig–Pateros Register of Deeds Randy Rutaquio. Rutaquio
presented the certificate of title of condominium units at the Bellagio worth ₱14.6 million under
the names of Renato and Cristina Corona, and a deed of sale on a Megaworld property sold by
the Corona couple to their daughter Ma. Charina. Under cross-examination, Rutaquio said that
he was not present when the certificate of title and deed of sale were processed, although these
would've gone through him as he passed through the registration of sales. [47]
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano asked the prosecution that if Article II was on Corona's non-
disclosure of his SALN, and they did not possess Corona's SALN when they submitted the
complaint, how were they able to come up with the complaint; prosecutor Elpidio Barzaga said
the charges were "based on reports". Senator Francis Escudero asked prosecutor Niel Tupas,
Jr. who wrote the complaints; Tupas answered that it was a collaboration. Escudero said that he
was confused since each article must correspond to a singular act, and asked that both
prosecution and defense submit a legal memorandum on the matter.
The impeachment court excused Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner Kim Henares
as she was not able to bring Corona's tax documents. The prosecution then presented Quezon
City acting register of deeds Carlo Alcantara. Alcantata testified that Corona sold his Burgundy
property to his daughter Carla Corona-Castillo. Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas told the court
that he would cross-examine Alcantara on the next trial day as he would study Alcantara's
submitted documents. The prosecution then presented Marikina Register of Deeds Sedfrey
Garcia but he was told to return on the next trial day.[47]
January 24[edit]
While the defense submitted its memorandum regarding Article II, the prosecution failed to
submit theirs before the trial began; Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile ordered the prosecution
to pass it before the trial starts on the next day. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who has
been absent at the trial up to this point, asked both the prosecution and the defense how many
witness will they present for the entire trial. When Tupas could not give an answer, Santiago
scolded the prosecution, saying that they should "not waste the time of this court." Cuevas
stated that they have 15 witnesses and over 20 documents to present. [48]
Tupas then asked Enrile to be "more liberal" in allowing the prosecution to ask questions. Enrile
was so offended he offered to resign "if somebody cannot accept his rulings." Tupas said "We
just want flexibility to listen to the witnesses." Senator Manuel Villar said that while he believes
Enrile was handling the trial well, he can't please everyone. Enrile then approved Santiago's
motion asking both the prosecution and defense the exact number of witnesses they will
present. Santiago also said that the court should be more liberal in accepting evidence, after
what had happened in the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada where they prevented the
opening of the second envelope. [48]
January 25[edit]
Enrile announced that the court will allow presentation of evidence for paragraphs 2.2
(nondisclosure of SALN) and 2.3 (non-inclusion of properties in the SALN), but not for paragraph
2.4 (alleged ill-gotten wealth) of Article II. The court also allowed the subpoena of the income tax
returns of the Corona couple. The prosecution presented BIR Commissioner Kim Henares as
their witness although Enrile asked how her testimony will be relevant to the case. In the end,
she was allowed to testify although any statement on Corona's ill-gotten wealth will be
disallowed. Santiago scolded both the prosecution and defense for long debates. [49]
Private prosecutor Arthur Lim began his direct examination of Henares. The prosecution
presented an "alpha list", a document submitted by a company listing its employees, salary, and
tax withheld. Enrile allowed the presentation of the Supreme Court's alpha list. Henares stated
that the Supreme Court had not kept an alpha list from 2002 to 2005 and gave a testimony on
Corona's income and taxes based on the court alpha list from 2006 and 2010 as well as on
Corona not having an income tax return. Henares was allowed to present Cristina Corona's
income tax return. She testified that Mrs. Corona was a one-time taxpayer for a property
transaction on September 9, 2003. Mrs. Corona purchased the property worth 11 million pesos
although she had no recorded income that year.[49]
Lim asked if Mrs. Corona was in other alpha lists. The defense objected but Enrile allowed
Henares to answer. She testified that Mrs. Corona was in the alpha list of the Camp John
Hay Management Corporation where she was the CEO and president. The prosecution
presented documents from alleged Corona properties in Taguig, Makati, and Quezon City. [49]
January 26[edit]
Senator Santiago asked the prosecution on what provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act are they charging Corona with. Arthur Lim replied that they are accusing Corona of
violating paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) of Section 3 of the law. Santiago answered that these
provisions were irrelevant in Article II, since it accuses Corona of not disclosing his SALN. She
said that the more appropriate law should have been the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees which requires submission of SALN. [50]
The court prohibited all parties to release documents that were merely "marked" as evidence,
and cautioned the discussion of the contents of documents. This comes as the income tax
returns of the Coronas were brandished on television and on the internet. Senator Escudero
asked the court to only cover Corona's acts as chief justice since documents are dated even
prior to him becoming one. Enrile replied that the Senate will decide on this on a caucus. [50]
The prosecution continued their direct examination on Henares. She said that the BIR found out
that Corona's daughter, Ma. Carla Corona-Castillo, was able to buy an ₱18 million property from
her mother Cristina despite only having a monthly taxable income of ₱8,478. Lim asked Henares
about the McKinley Hill property in Taguig; she replied that another Corona daughter, Ma.
Charina, bought the property from Megaworld Corporation. Henares added that Charina never
filed an income tax return, and was a one-time taxpayer, for the McKinley Hill transaction. On
the cross-examination, Cuevas asked Henares if the Secretary of Finance told her "durugin mo
na si Corona (crush Corona, if possible)." Replies replied "No." Senator Arroyo said that the
subsequent investigation of the BIR and the impeachment trial can be "twin moves" against the
Coronas.[50]
The senators asked more questions on Henares. Pangilinan questioned if the BIR overlooked
other income sources from the Coronas. She replied that the BIR exhausted all efforts, including
alpha lists. Cayetano asked if there were any discrepancies with Corona's returns from his
SALN; Henares answered that Corona failed to fill up the acquisition cost column, and that
Corona included some properties on the next year's SALN instead of the year it was purchased.
Henares also said that Corona only had one source of income. [50]
Several senators also cautioned the spokespersons when discussing the merits of the case
outside the court. Enrile said "they may discuss the procedure but not the content." [50]
January 30[edit]
The Senate Secretary, acting as the clerk of court of the Senate sitting as an impeachment
court, read the resolution prohibiting the presentation of evidence not related to Corona or to his
family, as well as the court's decision not to allow presentation of evidence about Corona's ill-
gotten wealth.[51]
Enrile then allowed the prosecutors' motion to present witnesses and evidence on Article III
instead of Article I and VII, which was earlier agreed upon. Enrile also allowed the presentation
in the articles in the following order: Articles II, III, I, VII, IV, V and VI. Tupas also clarified that
they won't present 100 witnesses as earlier reported. [51]
The prosecution presented Megaworld Corporation financial director Giovanni Ng as their
witness; he produced the contract to sell on Corona's Bellagio penthouse worth ₱14 million, and
the deed of absolute sale of McKinley Hills property to Charina Corona, which was not disclosed
in Corona's 2009 SALN. Ng was not able to answer how much was the price of the Bellagio
penthouse; private prosecutor Joseph Joemar Perez moved to subpoena Megaworld's senior
vice president for marketing on the next hearing. Senator Aquilino Pimentel III asked Perez on
why the prosecution was focusing on the cost of the properties, he answered that Ng told them
that Corona's 40% discount worth ₱40 million fell under Article III.[51]
When asked by Senator Jinggoy Estrada if Megaworld routinely sells their properties with a
discount, Ng said that the company usually gives a 15% discount to buyers who pay on shorter
terms; Corona was given a bigger discount since the property needed repairs. Ng, answering a
question from Senator Franklin Drilon, said that Charina Corona received a ₱2.3 million discount
on the McKinley Hill property. Chief Justice Corona asked the company to put the property
under his daughter's name.[51]
Private prosecutor Jose Antonio Hernandez next presented Aniceto Visnar, Jr., formerly of
the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation. Visnar told the court that the Corona couple fully
paid a ₱9.1 million condominium unit in Bonifacio Ridge in 2005, contrary, as prosecutors say, to
Corona's SALN where it states that he bought the aforementioned property in 2004 worth ₱2.3
million. In the cross-examination, defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra said that a notice of
acceptance for the Bonifacio Ridge property did not exist, and that Bisnar should be unfamiliar
with the property and whether or not Corona's wife sourced the money used to pay for the unit
from a loan.[51]
January 31[edit]
Noli Hernandez, senior vice president of Megaworld, testified that the Bellagio tower purchased
by the Corona couple received a steep reduction in its price after a typhoon struck the property
while it is being constructed; Megaworld reduced the price from ₱24 million to ₱19.6 million. The
senators asked the connection between Corona's purchase of the property, and Article II of the
articles of impeachment; prosecutor Elpidio Barzaga replied that the Corona's purchase of the
property was not included in his SALN. Senator Sergio Osmeña III asked Hernandez to produce
proof of the damage, while Senator Francis Pangilinan asked Hernandez to submit to the
Senate the engineer's report. [52]

February[edit]
February 1[edit]
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director Benito Cataran testified on Corona's ₱11
million loan from his wife's Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI) in 2003. Cataran said that the
SEC revoked BGEI's articles of incorporation and considered the company as dissolved in 2003.
after it did not file general information sheets to the SEC from 1991 to 1997. Enrile countered
that the corporation can't be considered as dissolved as it still has to undergo liquidation, and
that the SEC can't dissolve corporations; its own stockholders or the government can do that.
The senators commented that corporations that are suspended by the SEC can still lend money,
and can still be sued.[53]
Ayala Land assistant vice president Nerissa Josef testified on the Corona family's purchase of
property at the Columns condominium in Makati. She said that the Coronas paid three
installments within one year, in 2004. The prosecution noted that Corona, who only included the
property in his 2010 SALN, should have included it starting from his 2004 SALN, on the year
when the deed of absolute sale was issued. However, the defense countered that the Coronas
refused the property due to defects, and that the Coronas only started possessing the property
in 2008.[53]
February 2[edit]
Carlo Alcantara and Sedfrey Garcia were cross examined; the former was asked about the
Coronas' properties in Quezon City, while the latter on their properties in Marikina. The
prosecution and defense then argued on whether wrong entries in SALN constituted betrayal of
public trust, with Tupas quoting Joaquin Bernas, saying that "betrayal of public trust" was a
"catch-all phrase" covering offenses that may not even amount to crimes. [54]
The senators asked the prosecution on how many properties the Coronas really have. The
prosecution said that the list given to them by the Land Registration Authority had 45 items, but
they were not bound to abide by those. Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked on the prosecution's
release of the list to the media, but the prosecution said they did not. [54]
Burgundy Realty Corporation Vice President Gregg Gregonia testified that the Coronas had
bought a condominium unit and a parking lot at One Burgundy Plaza in Quezon City in October
2000. Upon query upon the purpose of Gregonia's testimony, the prosecution said that Corona
did not timely disclose the property on SALN.[54]
February 6[edit]
Enrile, despite objections from the defense, allowed Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
commissioner Kim Henares to testify. Henares produced the income tax returns of Constantino
T. Castillo III, Corona's son-in-law to his daughter Carla. The prosecution explained the
connection with Castillo's tax returns and the case, saying that the Castillo couple did not have
the financial resources to buy the property for P18 million from the Corona couple. Henares also
said that the BIR was in the process of investigating Corona. The defense asked her if Corona
can correct the SALNs as per civil service rules; she said that Corona can't, since they were
under oath, and that filing SALNs would've been useless. The prosecution asked Henares on
Corona's under-declarations in his SALNs as compared to his tax returns; she enumerated
properties that were not listed, and discrepancies in net worth. [55]
The Senate then issued a subpoena on Corona's bank records, ordering the managers
of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank)'s Katipunan branch and Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI) Ayala branch to testify on February 8. The Senate based their subpoenas from
documents submitted by the prosecution. Senator Francis Escudero asked where did these
come from, as possession of these documents was a violation of the Bank Secrecy Law; House
prosecutor Reynaldo Umali said that a "small lady" handed the documents to him. Majority
leader Tito Sotto ordered the Senate sergeant-at-arms to review the CCTV to identify the "small
lady".[55]
February 7[edit]
The prosecution proceeded to present the third article of impeachment: Corona's alleged “flip-
flopping" on Supreme Court cases. The prosecution first presented Roberto Anduiza, president
of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), which had
sued Philippine Airlines for laying off its members while on strike. Anduiza said that Corona
participated from the deliberations even if Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez earlier
said that the Chief Justice was recusing. Anduiza told the court that FASAP originally won the
case at the National Labor Relations Commission, but Philippine Airlines elevated the case up to
the Supreme Court. In 2008, the court ordered Philippine Airlines to reinstate crew members
who were laid off. However, in 2011, the court reversed its ruling after Philippine Airlines
lawyer Estelito Mendoza wrote to Corona. Anduiza said that while Corona recused in 2008, he
was not among those who did not participate in the 2011 deliberations. [56]
Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked House prosecutor Rodolfo Fariñas on why he did not sign the
impeachment complaint; Fariñas replied that he was a "slow reader", and that the 188
representatives who signed were "speed readers", and that his signature was no longer needed.
Fariñas then discussed with Enrile on how the House of Representatives' impeachment process
works, and that the House of Representatives and the Senate are working together to oust
Corona.[56]
February 8[edit]
Corona filed a petition for certiorari that sought the Supreme Court to issue a temporary
restraining order on the impeachment trial, citing grave abuse of discretion by the Senate. In a
separate petition, Corona asked for the recusal of Associate Justices Maria Lourdes
Sereno and Antonio Carpio, who had been publicly against Corona, and a special raffle on the
case. Corona, on his first petition, also asked the court to prohibit the implementation of the
Senate's subpoena to the bank managers, and to prevent them from testifying and submitting
documents; he also asked to stop the presentation of evidence pertaining to paragraphs 2.3 and
2.4 on the article alleging his ill-gotten wealth, and that to declare the impeachment complaint
null and void ab initio, and that to make permanent the previous temporary restraining order. [57]
PSBank also petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent them from testifying as it is against the
Foreign Currency Deposits Act to publicize bank accounts on foreign currencies. [58]
At the start of session, Senator TG Guingona said that the Senate, as an impeachment court,
has the sole power to try impeachment cases, and that the Supreme Court should not interfere
with the impeachment trial. Meanwhile, Senator Pia Cayetano admonished Fariñas on his
remarks the previous day, and that senators' and the house prosecutors' functions are different,
as long as the impeachment trial is concerned. Enrile then cautioned the participants or else the
Senate will impose its power to maintain order; Fariñas apologizes for his remarks. [59]
After a caucus discussing the petitions filed in the Supreme Court, the Senate deny the motions
to defer the subpoenas to PSBank and BPI, and to defer presentation in the FASAP case.
Serafin Cuevas then cross examines Roberto Anduiza; after the cross examination,
Senator Loren Legarda asks how the FASAP case is connected to the Article III. House
prosecutor Kaka Bag-ao says yes.[59]
The defense objects to the presentation of the PSBank manager, citing the petition filed in the
Supreme Court. Enrile rules that since there is no temporary restraining order, the Senate can
proceed. The prosecution presents PSBank president Pascual Garcia III, with private prosecutor
Demetrio Custodio stating the purpose of illustrating that Corona owns ten accounts. Garcia only
brought peso accounts; he argues that if he exposes any dollar accounts, it will also expose him
and his bank to criminal liability. After a discussion, Enrile orders Custodio to submit a letter
detailing the reasons why he should not be cited for contempt, and ordered him to return the
next day.[59]
The Senate then reads the decision on issuing subpoenas to Supreme Court justices asked by
the prosecution. The Senate denied the motions, citing confidentiality on the Supreme Court's
decisions, and on the separation of powers doctrine.[59]
February 9[edit]
Cuevas and Guingona argued on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in the impeachment trial held
at the Senate. Cuevas said that Guingona's statement two days earlier implied that the Senate,
as an impeachment court, is higher than the Supreme Court; he stated that "impeachment
procedures are still subject to SC's power of review." Guingona countered that the Supreme
Court can't impose its will since the Senate "is not a co-equal branch" when it is sitting as an
impeachment court.[60]
After explaining that Annabel Tiongson, the PSBank Katipunan branch manager, was "stressed",
Pascual Garcia III decided that it was himself who will testify. Senator Estrada asked if the
Tiongson was a "small lady"; Garcia replied that Tiongson is a tall woman. Garcia also replied
that his bank did not leak Corona's bank records. He also answered that all five account
numbers in the subpoena existed in that PSBank branch. Estrada also asked what "PEP" and
"K" meant on the bank records; Garcia answered that "PEP" meant "politically exposed person",
but he refused to answer what "K" on "700k" meant, saying that as an annotation to a
photocopied document, he can not say that it was bank-sourced "original document." [60]
BPI Ayala branch manager Leonora Dizon testified that Corona owns a checking account, and
had an ending balance of more than ₱12 million as of December 2010. [60]
February 13[edit]
The Senators demanded an explanation upon the defense when they accused Executive
Secretary Pacquito Ochoa bribed the senators ₱100 million each to vote on a resolution against
the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order on Corona's dollar accounts. Defense lawyer
Judd Roy apologized to the Senate and emphasized that there was no malice in their
statements. Senator Estrada dared the defense to reveal their source, and Senator Antonio
Trillanes ordered them to write an explanation on why they should not be cited for contempt. The
Senate then announced that they voted 13–10 to uphold the Supreme Court's restraining order.
[61]

PSBank branch manager Annabelle Tiongson said that the bank records previously presented
that were supposedly from their bank were fake and did not come from PSBank. Majority floor
leader Tito Sotto said, quoting a report from the Sergeant-at-Arms, that no small lady was seen
from their CCTV; Enrile then gave the prosecution 24 hours to explain how they acquired the
bank records.[61]
February 14[edit]
Senate President Enrile stated that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction upon the
impeachment trial; he also assumed responsibility for the issuance of the subpoena that was
based on the prosecution's supposedly fake bank records. The senators scolded the prosecution
for using allegedly spurious bank documents to issue subpoenas. The prosecution replied that
they could not vouch for the authenticity of the bank documents. [62]
The defense pointed out that several senators were acting as private prosecutors. Enrile replied
that it is up to the senators if they want to ask the witness questions. Both the prosecution and
the defense called for an early dismissal to celebrate Enrile's 88th birthday; it was approved
without objections.[62]
February 15[edit]
Upon asking questions on Annabelle Tiongson, the PSBank branch manager; Senator Estrada
said that Tiongson's cousin was the running mate of Tupas' brother in 2010. Tiongson answered
that she does not know Tupas, and that she didn't care about the politics of her relatives; Tupas
also denied knowing the PSBank branch manager. Answering another question from Estrada,
Tiongson said that the allegedly fake bank documents may have been retrieved from other
sources. Tiongson, upon query from Senator Franklin Drilon, said that while the bank documents
used PSBank's standard form, some entries have been altered. Enrile then ordered PSBank
President Pascual Garcia III to bring PSBank's original copies of the bank records, but only
covering details that are not covered by the restraining order. [63]
February 16[edit]
PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified that information derived from the bank documents
submitted by the prosecution as "authentic", although some of the information are different.
Three of the bank accounts, Estrade noted, were closed on December 12, 2011, the day Corona
was impeached.[64]
Senator Loren Legarda asked Tiongson on how the copies of the bank records were leaked; the
latter denied divulging it to anyone but said that Quezon City representative Jorge Banal asked
for her assistance. She said that Banal went to the PSBank branch carrying the documents and
he asked for her guidance; Banal explained that he went to the bank to ask for assistance on
what "$700K" meant. The Senate ordered Banal to return to the court on the next session day. [65]
February 20[edit]
PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP; the
central bank) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) audited several accounts in that
branch, including Corona's. Garcia said that in order form to follow the Anti-Money Laundering
Act, they should label accounts from people such as politicians and government appointees in
high positions; this caused them to classify Corona's account under "PEP" or politically-exposed
person.[66]
However, Senator Teofisto Guingona III said that the AMLC denied having audited Corona's
account. Garcia then said that the AMLC specialist just checked if the accounts were properly
labeled, and did not check on the balances. Senator Jinggoy Estrada still maintained that he
believes that the prosecution-submitted bank record was authentic, alleging that the AMLC
photocopied one of the signature cards.[66]
Annabelle Tiongson returned to the witness stand and told the court how Representative Jorge
Banal approached her; she was shocked that Banal possessed what resembled the bank's
security cards. She then arranged to check if the original documents were still in the vault.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago noted that whoever got possession of the bank records must
explain how he/she could have gotten hold of them. [66]
February 21[edit]
BPI submitted evidence to the Senate pertaining to Corona's bank records worth ₱12 million as
of 2010. The Senate prohibited BPI assistant manager Mara Arcilla since the Senate only
requested for the records. Tupas then informed the court that the prosecution had finished
presenting witnesses for the second article of impeachment. [67]
After an objection from the defense, Enrile disallowed the prosecution to present a witness
from Philippine Airlines who would've testified on the Corona couple's allegedly benefits
received from the airline, saying that the testimony would expand the scope of the third article.
However, private prosecutor Marlon Manuel was still able to put on record that the Corona
couple were given Platinum Cards by Philippine Airlines; this enabled them to travel on first
class for free; defense counsel Serafin Cuevas objected to Manuel's statements but Enrile
allowed it to remain.[67]
February 22[edit]
House prosecutor Giorgidi Aggabao informed the court that they will drop from Article III the
charges that Corona's independence was compromised when his wife Cristina accepted an
appointment to the board of the Camp John Hay Development Corporation, but they will retain
the alleged flip-flopping by Corona on the FASAP vs. Philippine Airlines case. [68]
Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima testified that Corona had influenced the court in allowing the
temporary restraining order relieving the prohibition of former president Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo to leave the country. Using the dissenting opinion by associate justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, de Lima said that Corona corrected the draft of the decision, and instructed Supreme
Court spokesperson Midas Marquez to mislead the public by stating that the restraining order
was still in effect even if Arroyo was not able to abide by it. [68]
Cuevas questioned de Lima's authority in superseding a decision of the Supreme Court, as only
the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the law. De Lima ignored the restraining order
issued by the Supreme Court and ordered Arroyo to be blocked at Ninoy Aquino International
Airport. The defense argued that the Supreme Court decision was not solely an action of
Corona, as there were other seven other justices who concurred with him. [68]
February 23[edit]
Enrile ordered the court to disregard portions of de Lima's testimony, retaining only the portion of
de Lima's narration of Sereno's dissent. House prosecutor Raul Daza stated that Corona
favored Arroyo in about 80% of the cases, and that they separated Article I and VII since there
were still pending cases in the Supreme Court that are included in Article I. [69]
February 27[edit]
Enrile announced that Senator Antonio Trillanes withdrew his motion to send questions to
Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno via the mail, and that he disallowed the prosecution's
motion on allowing the Philippine Airlines official to testify.[70]
Enrile asked the prosecution to invite Justice Sereno instead of summoning her, as the Senate
had already voted not to issue subpoenas on Supreme Court justices, with Senator Francis
Escudero adding that it is the prosecution's job to present its witnesses, and they should not rely
on the Senate's summoning powers.[70]
The prosecutors called former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's doctor at the St. Luke's
Medical Center to the witness stand to confirm if Arroyo's medical certificate was valid, which
was later used by the Supreme Court to allow the Arroyo couple to leave the country for medical
reasons. They then had a direct examination on Emma Abanador, the Office of the Vice
President's administrative officer. This is for establishing that Corona had already established
ties with Arroyo even when she was serving as Vice President, and prior his appointment to the
Supreme Court. The final prosecution witness was ABS-CBN cameraman Edmond Losalla who
authenticated the raw videos of the Supreme Court's November 15, 2011, press conference that
allowed the Arroyos to leave the country, and an interview to Arroyo lawyer Ferdinand Topacio.
The defense argued that Losalia's testimony was irrelevant to the case. [70]
February 28[edit]
The Iglesia ni Cristo held their Grand Evangelical Mission at Rizal Park, causing massive traffic
jams. This also caused some of the defense lawyers to be tardy at the trial; the Senate allowed
the trial to start at a later time in order for the entire defense team to be present. [71] Later, the
Supreme Court issued an order preventing its employees from testifying at the impeachment
trial, saying that it is not waving its judicial privilege. This bars two of its process servers that
served the restraining order to the Justice Department from testifying. [72] Enrile respected the
court's ruling, but will tackle the issue on a caucus the following week to determine their next
course of action.[73]
At the Senate, after the prosecution had presented witnesses and evidence for Articles 2, 3 and
7, House prosecutor Niel Tupas, Jr. announced that they will drop five articles of impeachment,
with the reservation that they can present evidence on Corona's dollar bank accounts once they
receive a favorable decision from the Supreme Court; this meant they will no longer present
witnesses and evidence pertaining to Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and that the defense will be able
to present their case; Enrile requested the prosecution to make a formal offer before the Senate
considers their request.[74]
February 29[edit]
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago scolded the prosecution for withdrawing five articles, saying
that they should not have bragged about their victory, and labeling those who were bragging
about the strength of the case as "gago" (idiots) Vitaliano Aguirre, a well-known lawyer he would
cover his ears after the latter's tirade against the prosecution. House prosecutor Rodolfo
Fariñas later successfully asked the Senate to remove the word "gago" from the records. Tupas
then said that they would no longer pursue the testimony of Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and
they would rest the case with reservation. When Senator Francis Escudero asked Tupas on
whether the dropping of the articles of impeachment constitutes an amendment of the complaint,
and whether the 188 signatories were consulted, Tupas said that there was no consultation,
although they told the Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. about it. The defense said that they will
still present evidence on the five dropped articles, and ask the Senate to acquit Corona on
those. Enrile gave the prosection until March 2 to submit a formal offer to drop those five
articles.[75]
Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked who was the prosecutor who had covered his ears while
Santiago was scolding them; it was identified as private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre II (he would
become Justice Secretary four years later). When asked for the reason, Aguirre said that, for the
first time forty years, it was the first time he saw a judge lecture the prosecution in court. The
Senate later cited Aguirre for contempt, and House prosecutor Fariñas apologized in behalf of
the prosecution. Enrile adjourned the trial until March 12. [76]

March[edit]
Break[edit]
The Senate postponed the trial for a week to let the defense prepare for their presentation, and
for the prosecution to make an offer of evidence. Tupas asked the court to allow them to make a
final offer of their evidence, which was granted. The Senate will then decide on the prosecution's
offer on March 8; the trial is scheduled to resume on March 12. [77]
Both Enrile[78] and House of Representatives deputy minority leader Danilo Suarez expressed
their preferences for Corona to testify. The prosecution pointed out that Corona cannot be able
to explain how he acquired the alleged ₱31 million wealth. [79]
On March 2, the prosecution formally offered its evidence to the Senate [80] Cuevas also said that
Corona won't testify at the trial, saying that "the members of the impeachment court can
examine him on all angles and Justice Cuevas cannot object." [81]
On March 5, the Senate voted to accept peso bank records as evidence in the trial; [82] the next
day, the court voted to dismiss the defense's motion to suppress evidence related to Corona's
PSBank account, and to simply admonish instead of punishing private prosecutor Aguirre after
he was cited for contempt.[83]
Corona then had a media blitz on March 8, when he gave live interviews on TV and radio
stations; this was the first time he spoke after the trial started. In an interview at GMA's morning
show Unang Hirit, he said that he lost confidence in PSBank, citing PSBank clients saying that
his account details had been leaked, causing him to withdraw all of his deposits at its Katipunan
Avenue branch.[84] In the same interview, he also cited the Supreme Court's ruling on
the Hacienda Luisita, which ruled that the farmers should possess the lands, instead of the
current owners, which are family members of President Aquino. [85] The prosecution found
Corona's explanation on the PSBank withdrawal as "incredible." [86]
March 12[edit]
The court voted to accept the prosecution's offer of evidence, and doesn't entertain any motion
on the articles that were dropped by the prosecution. The defense presents Navotas
Representative Toby Tiangco, one of the congressmen not to sign the impeachment complaint.
Tiangco testified that the impeachment complaint was meant to "control or scare" the Supreme
Court. He narrated that Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., in a caucus on December 12, said that
Corona should be impeached due to his closeness with Representative Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo. He related that he almost signed the complaint, but hesitated as he was not able to read
the complaint in full.[87]
The Senate then voted to deny the defense's motion to discuss the complaint's validity, as
Corona was notified by the Senate of the trial, and the chief justice replied at the notification.
The Senate also voted to cite defense lawyer Jose Roy III in indirect contempt on his earlier
statement that the president urged the senators not to honor the Supreme Court's order
preventing them from scrutinizing the chief justice's dollar accounts. [87]
March 13[edit]
Tiangco ends his testimony after Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago asks him on his motives in
testifying at the trial. The court then hears the testimony of Araceli Bayuga. She discusses alpha
lists in the Supreme Court's tax records. The next witness, Demetrio Vicente, bought from the
Coronas one of the properties that is cited on the complaint. Vicente related the circumstances
of how he was not able to change the name of the owner of the title from Corona's wife to him. [88]
March 14[edit]
In her cross examination, Araceli Bayuga notes that Supreme Court justices are not required to
liquidate their allowances; all they had to do is to submit a certification. She added that
allowances are not taxed. Senators Antonio Trillanes and Alan Peter Cayetano expressed
apprehensions on Bayuga's testimony, saying that the scope is within Article 2.4 which was
already disallowed by the Senate. Cuevas replied that Bayuga's testimony was only
"preliminary". The defense then presented the secretaries of electoral tribunals in Congress in
which Corona was a member, which gave him earnings of five million pesos per year. [89]
March 15[edit]
Bayuga's cross examination continued. Bayuga is asked about the alpha list of the Supreme
Court's payroll. She is then discharged. The next witness, Roberto Villaluz, the officer-in-charge
(OIC) of the Taguig City Assessor's Office was asked to prove on Corona's financial statements.
The senators asks questions on fair market values of real properties. Enrile interrupts the
discussion, and reminds that the issue is whether Corona was truthful on his financial
statements. Villaluz is then discharged; the next witness is Rodolfo Ordanes, OIC of the Quezon
City Assessor's Office. Drilon manifests that since the witness would just be marking documents,
the process should expedited. Ordanes is not cross-examined as is discharged once he finished
marking the documents.[90]
March 16–18[edit]
After the Thursday session, the senators had differing opinions on the legality of Corona's
financial statements. Bongbong Marcos said that the absence of the acquisition cost was "not
questionable"; Edgardo Angara thought that public officials were given the choice on either "put
the acquisition cost or the fair market value or the assessed value." Recto stated that the "usual
practice" was to put the acquisition cost, while Antonio Trillanes noted that "the acquisition cost
is the basis of the computation for the total assets."[91]
Corona's defense team stated that they will present financial statements of other government
officials to denote what the "common practice" is.[92] The prosecutors disapproved of the plan,
saying that Corona cannot compare himself to other government officials since as Chief Justice,
he should be held up to a higher standard than other public officers. [93]
March 19[edit]
Four witnesses were presented by the defense. The city assessor of Makati, the registers of
deeds of Quezon City and Taguig, and the property manager of The Columns property in
Makati. Carlo Alcantara, the acting register of deeds of Quezon City, testified on Corona's Ayala
Heights and La Vista properties that were transferred to other people. The Ayala Heights
property, which cost 8 million pesos, was owned by Corona's wife, and was transferred to a
certain Rodel Rivera and his wife. The La Vista property, which cost ₱18 million, was transferred
by the Corona couple to their daughter Maria Clara. Alcantara also provided other transfers of
the Corona couple's properties in Quezon City, which cost a combined ₱25.5 million, to Maria
Clara's husband. Randy Rotaquio, the property manager of The Columns, testified that the
alleged properties of the Corona couple were actually registered under their daughter, Maria
Charina.[94]
March 20[edit]
The defense presented Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Eulalio Diaz III; Diaz
testified that he provided the Niel Tupas, Jr., the lead prosecutor, the list of 45 properties that the
Corona couple and their children were said to own. However, Diaz later said most of the
properties on the list either no longer belonged to the Corona couple, or were never registered
under the couple's names. The senators then chastised the prosecution panel and Diaz. When
asked on how this happened, Diaz replied that the list was "computer-generated". Tupas denied
that the prosecution misled the public, saying "We have every reason to believe the authenticity
of these documents." Diaz, upon further questions from Loren Legarda, admitted that the LRA
also included in the search the names of Corona's wife and children; that's how the LRA came
up with a list of 45 properties.[95]
March 21[edit]
The prosecution maintains that Corona owns 21 of the 45 properties submitted by the LRA; the
prosecution included in the 21 properties the properties that are named under the Corona
children but were allegedly actually owned by Corona. Miriam Defensor Santiago accused LRA
administrator Diaz of violating the Civil Code of the Philippines, and said that both Diaz and the
prosecution may be guilty of "gross negligence". Jinggoy Estrada then asked Diaz if he was
willingly aiding the prosecution or simply made a mistake; Diaz replied "I won't accept that I'm in
cahoots with prosecution. I also can't readily accept I made a mistake." When Bongbong
Marcos asked Diaz on why he made the list, he said he was following the prosecution's
orders. Loren Legarda told Diaz that he earlier said to Senator Santiago that he had no
knowledge that it will be used in the impeachment trial; Diaz answered that he knew that the list
would be used.[96]
March 22[edit]
The defense presents Miriam Monsuela of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC). The
prosecution objects to the witness, saying that her testimony, which would be about Cristina
Corona's earnings while employed by the JHMC, is immaterial; the court allowed her to
testify. Lito Atienza, the former mayor of Manila, was the defense's next witness. The former
mayor recalled the transaction involving a piece of property between the city government and
Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI), the defense says Mrs. Corona was authorized to act in
lieu of BGEI. Atienza testified that the sale, which cost the city ₱34,703,800 was legal. Upon
questioning by Franklin Drilon, the senator said that there is a "lack of due diligence" on part of
the city government on the purchase.[97]

Summer recess[edit]
Journalist Raissa Robles released on a blog a list of properties in the United States the Coronas
allegedly lived at. Corona countered that the California property was an apartment used by his
daughters on their physical therapy career in the U.S., and that the Florida property was owned
by a family friend; Corona concluded that they didn't own any property in the U.S. [98]

May[edit]
May 29[edit]
The senators cast their votes whether the Chief Justice is guilty or not guilty on the
impeachment case. Unlimited time was given to explain their votes. Senators Edgardo
Angara, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Franklin Drilon, Francis Escudero, Jinggoy
Estrada, TG Guingona, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Serge
Osmeña, Francis Pangilinan, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Bong Revilla, Tito Sotto, Antonio
Trillanes, Manny Villar and Senate President/Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile voted for
conviction. Most of them cited non-disclosure of property as a reason for conviction. While three
senators, Senators Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor Santiago and Bongbong Marcos voted for
acquittal. After Senator Enrile explained his vote, he later summarized the votes as follows, "The
Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, having tried Chief Justice Renato Corona, upon three
articles of impeachment charged against him by the House of Representatives, by a guilty vote
of 20 senators, has found him guilty of the charge under Article II. Now therefore, be it adjudged
that Renato Corona, is hereby convicted of the charge against him in Article II of the Articles of
impeachment, so ordered."[99][100]

Decision[edit]
The Senate gave its decision on May 29, 2012. The following table reflects the decision of each
senator. Only the 2nd, 3rd and 7th articles were considered; after the required two-thirds vote to
remove from office was reached on the first article being voted upon, the Senate decided not to
pursue voting on the last two articles.

Article of Impeachment

Senator Party Bloc

3r 6t
1st 2nd 4th 5th 7th 8th
d h

Majorit
Edgardo Angara LDP — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Minorit Not
Joker Arroyo Lakas — — — — — — —
y guilty

Minorit
Alan Peter Cayetano Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Minorit
Pia Cayetano Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Miriam Defensor Majorit Not

PRP — — — — — — —
Santiago y guilty

Majorit
Franklin Drilon Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Francis Escudero Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y
 Majorit
Jinggoy Estrada UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
TG Guingona Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Gregorio Honasan UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Panfilo Lacson Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Lito Lapid Lakas — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Loren Legarda NPC — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit Not
Bongbong Marcos Nacionalista — — — — — — —
y guilty

Majorit
Serge Osmeña Independent — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Francis Pangilinan Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Koko Pimentel PDP–Laban — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Ralph Recto Liberal — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Bong Revilla Lakas — Guilty — — — — — —
y
 Majorit
Tito Sotto NPC — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Antonio Trillanes Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Manny Villar Nacionalista — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Majorit
Juan Ponce Enrile UNA — Guilty — — — — — —
y

Votes needed to convict 16

Voted "Guilty" —  20 — — — — — —

Voted "Not guilty" — 3 — — — — — —

Total votes 23

Philippine President Is Impeached

ByABC News

M A N I L A, Philippines, Nov. 13, 2000 -- Philippine President JosephEstrada was impeached

by the country’s House of Representativestoday and will face trial in the country’s Senate
oncharges of bribery and corruption.

But voting patterns in the Senate, or upper house, later inthe day indicated Estrada could survive
the impeachment.

Lawmakers raised clenched fists and shouted “Erap Resign”as House Speaker Manuel Villar
announced the impeachment at thestart of the day’s session. Erap is Estrada’s nickname and
itwas the first time in Philippine history that a president hasbeen impeached.
Opposition concerns that Estrada supporters would attemptto delay the proceedings were pre-
empted by Villar, who readout a resolution approving the impeachment as soon as he
hadfinished regular prayers at the start of the day’s proceedings.

Senate Support for Estrada

Recent Stories from ABC News

Top Stories00:1000:36
 Hit man
in political murder-for-hiresentenced to 20 years
“The resolution is being endorsed to the Senate in the samemanner as prescribed in the rules of
procedure,” he said, assome lawmakers protested and others cheered.

The opposition has said 115 congressmen have endorsed themotion, more than the required 1/3
of the 218-member House.

“I did not want to be stopped on a technicality,” Villarlater told local television, adding he
deliberately did notallow the matter to come up for discussion since the requirednumber had
already signed assent.

“A vote was not necessary.”

Villar and 45 other congressmen defected from the rulingcoalition earlier this month after
charges emerged allegingEstrada had taken bribes worth millions of dollars fromillegal gambling
syndicates. The desertions pushed thegovernment into a minority in the House.

Trial This Month

The 22-seat Senate, meanwhile, voted 12-7 to replace SenatePresident Franklin Drilon — who
defected from Estrada’scoalition at the same time as Villar — with Senator AquilinoPimentel,
who is viewed as being independent.

The move was mooted by an Estrada supporter and in the votetwo senators abstained and one
was absent.

While there is no certainty the upper house will vote toremove Estrada, Monday’s result did
indicate that thepresident’s Senate supporters were stronger than previouslybelieved.

To remove Estrada from office, two-thirds of the Senate hasto vote in favor. The body is likely to
begin the impeachmenttrial later this month.

Recent Stories from ABC News

Top Stories00:0800:36
 Hit man
in political murder-for-hiresentenced to 20 years
Pimentel told the Senate any charges against Estrada had tobe substantiated.

“The charges against the president are just that for themoment — charges that are meant to be
proven and establishedwithin the impeachment process,” he said.

Estrada Reiterates Innocence

Estrada, speaking hours before proceedings began in the twolegislatures, reiterated his innocence
and said no amount ofprotests could make him step down.

“This is the last time I will be serving the public sowould I do that? ... I did not become president
to rake upmoney,” the embattled former film actor said.

He appealed to labor unions not to go through with aplanned nationwide general strike and
protest rallies onTuesday, saying only the poor would suffer.

“No amount of rallies can force me to step down,” Estradasaid in an interview on Manila radio
station dzRH. “I appeal toyou not to go through with it... We have a crisis. Let’s joinhands to
pull out of this, for the sake of the nation.”

Leftist and moderate unions have announced plans to launchstrikes, including transport
stoppages and factory walkouts, inManila and dozens of provinces around the country to
pressureEstrada to step down.

Estrada, who drew more than a million supporters to aprayer rally on Saturday, warned that
forcing him to resignwould create a dangerous precedent for future Philippinepresidents who
could be ousted from office on the basis ofunproven allegations.
The gambling pay-offs scandal has prompted calls fromchurch and business leaders for Estrada
to step down and badlyhammered the economy, causing the peso to plummet to a historiclow of
51.95 to the dollar two weeks ago.

Manila’s main share index fell 33 points, or 2.2 percent,on Monday as investors, worried that the
impeachment battlemight drag on, liquidated positions after last week’s strongrally.

Estrada is facing four charges, ranging from bribery andcorruption to betrayal of public trust and
culpable violationof the constitution.

Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

Add languages

 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Philippine Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached by the House of

Representatives on charges of the office's alleged underperformance and failure to act
on several cases during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. She became the
second official after President Joseph Estrada in 2000 to be impeached.
While the first impeachment complaint against her was filed in 2009, it was dismissed
later in that year in a 14th Congress dominated by Arroyo's Lakas Kampi CMD party. In
2010, with the election of Benigno Aquino III of the Liberal Party as president and
the concurrent elections to the House of Representatives and the subsequent political
realignment, two impeachment cases against her were voted as sufficient in form,
substance and grounds, and the House of Representatives Committee on Justice had
found probable cause on alleged betrayal of public trust as based on the two
complaints.
On March 22, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Gutierrez, sending
the committee report as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, which would have
acted as an impeachment court. A vote of at least two-thirds (16) of all senators (24)
was required to convict Gutierrez and remove her from office. Gutierrez, however,
resigned on April 29, 2011, thereby canceling the impeachment trial in the Senate.

Background[edit]
Main article: Impeachment in the Philippines
 Votes Total
Step
needed members

Approval by the Committee

on Justice*
The ombudsman is one of the several
impeachable officials: the others being the  Sufficient in
president, vice president, justices of form
the Supreme Court and the members of  Sufficient in 55
28
the constitutional commissions (Audit, substance
Civil Service and Elections). The following  Sufficient in
acts are considered as impeachable grounds
offenses: culpable violation of the  Determination
Constitution, treasons, bribery, graft and of probable
cause
corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal
of public trust. Furthermore, only one Approval by the House of
95 284
"impeachment proceeding" is allowed to Representatives
be held against an official in a year,
although the definition of the term Conviction by the Senate 16 24
"impeachment proceeding" and "year"
have been vague. The House of *While only a majority of the regular members (28) is needed to pass
a vote, the votes of the ex officio members such as the Deputy
Representatives has the sole power to Speakers are counted.
impeach, while the Senate has the sole
power to try the impeached official. The
House of Representatives needs one-third of its members to impeach an official, while
the Senate needs to muster two-thirds of its members to convict. [1]

2009 case[edit]
In 2005, Merceditas Gutierrez was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as
ombudsman, succeeding outgoing Simeon Marcelo who had resigned. After her
appointment, several figures of the Arroyo administration were involved in political
scandals such as the NBN-ZTE controversy, the Fertilizer Fund scam, the Euro
Generals scandal, among others.
In 2009, a group of civil society personalities led by former Senate President Jovito
Salonga filed an impeachment case against Gutierrez on March 2. The complaint,
referred to the Committee on Justice headed by Arroyo's partymate at Lakas Kampi
CMD Matias Defensor, Jr. of Quezon City, cited these issues:[2]

 Deliberate and inordinate action in the World Bank road project worth US$33 million
 Deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling dismissing the deal between Mega
Pacific Corporation and then Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin
Abalos worth PHP1.3 billion
 Filing late and defective information that undermined the cases against
former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, who was charged with extorting money
from former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez
 Gross inexcusable inaction on the cases filed by the Senate, former solicitor
general Francisco Chavez and murdered journalist Marlene Garcia-Esperat on
the Fertilizer Fund scam worth PHP1 billion;
 Failing to promptly resolve the Euro Generals scandal case despite evidence and
admission by the Philippine National Police comptroller, Director Eliseo de la Paz
  Committing grave abuse in dismissing and suspending local government officials,
specifically Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas, Sr. and Bataan Governor Enrique Garcia.
On November 18, the House Committee on Justice dismissed the case; while deeming
the complaint "sufficient in form," it was deemed as not "sufficient in substance." The
committee report stated that "The factual allegations are, at best, a rehash of the
allegations for the impeachable offense of betrayal of public trust," and that the
suspensions of Tupas and Garcia were justifiable. The report was brought to the
plenary on November 18.[3]

2010 cases[edit]
In 2010, two impeachment cases were filed against Gutierrez, both by left-leaning
parties: first from Akbayan Citizens' Action Party and one from the Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (BAYAN; New Patriotic Alliance). These two complaints were referred to the
Committee on Justice which is now chaired by Iloilo's 5th district representative Niel
Tupas, Jr. of President Aquino's Liberal Party at August 22.
While Akbayan and BAYAN are both left-leaning parties, they are ideological rivals.
Complaints[edit]
Akbayan complaint[edit]
In July 2010, former Akbayan representative Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel led the filing of
an impeachment complaint against Gutierrez. The complaint cited these issues: [1]

 Low conviction rate of the ombudsman

 Failure to act promptly on the Philippine National Broadband Network controversy
 Incurred inexcusable delay in the investigation on the death of ensign Philip Pestaño
 Legitimized the arrest of Hontiveros by the police at the height of the Hello Garci
scandal
 Failure to investigate Arroyo's PHP1 million dinner at New York's Le
Cirque restaurant
 Failure to act on the Mega Pacific scandal, among others
 Refusal to grant ready access to public records such as the Statement of Assets, Net
Worth and Liabilities of former Pampanga Rep. Mikey Arroyo.
BAYAN complaint[edit]
BAYAN filed their own case on early August 2010. Led by Renato Reyes, BAYAN cited
these issues on their complaint:[4]

 Failure to act on the Fertilizer Fund scam

 Failure to act on the Euro Generals scandal
 Failure to act on the Mega Pacific scandal
Sufficient in form and substance[edit]
The House of Representatives' Committee on Justice voted on September 1, 2010, that
the two complaints are sufficient in form. With the result, further hearings would be held
to determine if the two complaints are sufficient in substance. [5]
A week later, the committee voted that the two complaints are sufficient in substance:
the first complaint passed via a 41–14 vote, while the second complaint passed with a
41–16 vote, with Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP; Force of the Filipino
Masses)'s Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro's 2nd district abstaining as he refused
to recognize the second complaint. The committee vote was the first time an
impeachment complaint was deemed to be sufficient in substance since the Arroyo
presidency. The minority bloc tried to delay the vote by objecting the approval of the
minutes, and denying that they were supplied with copies of the complaints, even if their
staff had earlier stated that they had received them. Lakas Kampi CMD's Simeon
Datumanong of Maguindanao's 2nd district insisted that the second complaint be
barred; Majority leader Neptali Gonzales II of Mandaluyong answered that while the
constitution forbids two impeachment proceedings, it does not forbid two impeachment
complaints, adding that the two complaints can be consolidated for they were
simultaneously referred to the committee. [6]
On the same day, Iloilo 4th district Representative Ferjenel Biron and former Iloilo vice
governor Rolex Suplico of the Nacionalista Party disclosed that Tupas had a pending
case on the ombudsman, and that he should recuse himself from the proceedings.
Suplico filed a complaint against Tupas on the latter's alleged "ghost seminars" while he
was still a member of the Iloilo Provincial Board.[7] Tupas defeated Suplico in the 2010
Iloilo 5th district House of Representatives election, while Biron defeated Tupas' father
in the 2010 Iloilo 4th district House of Representatives election.
Supreme Court's status quo ante order[edit]
 How the justices voted

Granting[ Lifting[ Reconsideration[

Justice 8] 9] 10]

On September 13, Gutierrez filed Dissente

Corona Concurred Dissented
a petition for d
certiorari and prohibition to
the Supreme Court to stop the Concurre
Carpio Dissented Concurred
impeachment proceedings against d
her. Gutierrez cited the one-year
Carpio- Concurre
ban hearing more than one Dissented Concurred
Morales d
impeachment proceedings. Tupas
said that in a previous decision, the
Concurre
Supreme Court allowed two Mendoza On leave Concurred
d
separate complaints initiated at the
same time.[11] The next day, the
Concurre
court granted Gutierrez a status Abad Concurred Concurred
d
quo ante order, or all parties should
observe the conditions prior to the
Concurre
proceedings, thereby suspending Sereno Dissented Concurred
d
impeachment proceedings against
her.[12]
Concurre
Nachura On leave Concurred
The representatives protested d
the status quo ante order, with
Akbayan representative Walden Concurre
Villarama Concurred Concurred
Bello saying that "it is an d
interference with the prerogative of
a co-equal branch of government," Dissente
Brion On leave Dissented
adding that only Congress can d
"promulgate" its own rules on
impeachment. Speaker of the Dissente
Bersamin Concurred Dissented
House of d
Representatives Feliciano
Belmonte (Liberal, Quezon City– Dissente
De Castro On leave Dissented
4th) had earlier said that while it d
respects the court's decision, the
House of Representatives will Dissente
Peralta Concurred Dissented
proceed with its impeachment d
proceedings. The move was seen
to benefit Gutierrez, and former Concurre
president and now Pampanga 2nd Del Castillo Concurred d Concurred partially
district representative Arroyo;[13] partially
Five months later on February 15,
Concurre
2011, the Supreme Court
Perez Concurred d Concurred partially
dismissed their status quo
partially
ante order, "thereby effectively
allowing the House committee on
Velasco Concurred Recused Recused
justice to proceed with the
impeachment," said court
Concurrenc
spokesman Midas Marquez. There 8 7 7
e

Dissention 3 5 5
were seven justices concurring, five dissenting, and another two concurring on allowing
the first of the complaints from proceeding; Justice Presbitero Velasco recused himself
as his son is a member of the House of Representatives (representing Marinduque as
member of the Lakas-Kampi). Marquez said that while there were two separate
complaints, "there is only one proceeding." The court ruled that since Gutierrez can still
file an answer, hence there was no violation of due process.[9]
However, further hearings were held off as the Supreme Court as not given a final
decision on Gutierrez's petition. Speaker Belmonte said that the committee cannot meet
until the court's decision is finalized.[14] Meanwhile, the executive announced that it would
not interfere with the proceedings at the House of Representatives. [15] On February 22,
the committee voted to resume their impeachment hearings in a 21–5 vote, after a
meeting with Belmonte, who became convinced that the committee can proceed even
without the court's final decision, as stated by Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Taňada III of the
Liberal Party from Quezon's 4th district.[16]
Supreme Court Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno later disclosed that the Supreme Court
did not debate on the merits on Gutierrez's petition, saying that "several members of the
court" had not seen the petition, and that no resolution was made; spokesman Marquez
just delivered a news conference to announce the court's ruling. Sereno is the sole
appointee of President Aquino; the other 14 justices are appointed by Arroyo. [17]
Sufficient grounds[edit]
A day before the committee (February 28) met to decide if the two complaints are
sufficient in grounds, Gutierrez filed before the Supreme Court a motion for
reconsideration.[18]
At the hearing, Alagad party-list representative Rodante Marcoleta questioned if the
committee should wait for the court's decision on Gutierrez's motion for reconsideration.
After the minutes of the previous meeting was approved, Nacionalista Party
member Marc Douglas Cagas IV from Davao del Sur's 1st district motioned to
reconsider the approval of the minutes, which was denied by vice chairperson Rodolfo
Fariñas (Nacionalista, Ilocos Norte–1st) since Cagas was absent at the previous
meeting. After several minutes of arguing whether to wait for a Supreme Court
decision, Rodolfo Albano (Lakas-Kampi, Isabela–1st) motioned to wait for the decision;
the motion was defeated 8–37. Tupas read a letter submitted by Gutierrez, and the
representatives debated anew on whether to wait for the court's decision; Fariñas later
bared his plan on filing impeachment cases against the justices for not reading
Gutierrez's petition before issuing the status quo ante order. The committee ultimately
voted that both complaints were sufficient in grounds, with the first complaint passing on
a 41–12 vote, and the second complaint approved on a 42–12 decision. [19]
Determination of probable cause[edit]
The day before the hearing for the determination of probable cause, the Liberal Party
members of the House of Representatives adapted a position to support the
impeachment proceedings at a meeting where President Aquino attended. Apart from
the Liberals, seven representatives from militant parties support the impeachment of
Gutierrez.[20]
Gutierrez, who had been boycotting the hearings of the committee, instead sent her
lawyer and a reply at the March 8 hearing. On her reply, she stated that "She cannot
produce documents because this would render, according to her, moot and academic
the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court," said Tupas,
quoting Gutierrez. She further said that the subpoena given to her was oppressive, and
that she has confidentiality of records.[21] She instead attended a press conference of
the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines where she branded the committee
as a "kangaroo court," citing that as a reason for her non-appearance. Gutierrez said
that the proceedings were a "partisan political exercise," and that she denied asking for
support of Representative Arroyo and her allies in the House of Representatives. [22]
At the hearing, the representatives from the minority hit the lack of due process
accorded to Gutierrez, and the railroading of the proceedings. To emphasize the point,
minority leader Edcel Lagman (Lakas-Kampi, Albay–1st) and Pedro Romualdo (Lakas-
Kampi, Camiguin) brought with them a stack of documents two feet high delivered to
them the day before, on which they have to read to make an intelligent assessment of
the complaints. Representative from Iloilo's 2nd district Augusto Syjuco asked Tupas to
recuse himself as he has a pending case before the ombudsman, but Tupas dismissed
his request. Deputy Speaker Raul Daza (Liberal, Northern Samar–1st) remarked that
Gutierrez had already been given enough time to respond to the complaints. [10]
While the hearing was ongoing, the Supreme Court dismissed Gutierrez's motion for
reconsideration as the committee did not violate the one-year ban on multiple
impeachment proceedings, with the spokesman explaining that "These two complaints
were received (by the Justice committee) at the same time. Provided there is only one
proceeding – regardless of number of complaints – the impeachment proceeding can go
on," adding that the decision was final and no more appeals would be accepted. After
the committee was notified of the court's decision, the committee decided to put to a
vote in determining probable cause. The first (Akbayan's) complaint was voted upon
first, and passed with a 39–12 vote and one abstention, while the BAYAN complaint
also passed via 39–6 vote, with one abstention; the abstentions came from Lagman. [10]
Result of the vote[edit]
These were the results of the votes according to the Justice Committee: [23]

showRepresentativ
Party Bloc District First complaint Second complaint
e

*ex-officio members
Referral to the plenary[edit]
 Summary of votation

Akbayan BAYAN
complaint complaint Votes
Motion Date
needed
Y N A Y N A

September
Sufficient in form 39 1 0 31 9 0 28
1, 2010

Sufficient in September
41 14 0 41 16 1 28
substance 7, 2010

Sufficient March 1,
41 12 0 42 12 0 28
grounds 2011

Determination of March 8,
39 12 1 39 6 1 28
probable cause 2011

Votes
Motion Y N A Date
needed

Referral of the committee March 22,

212 46 4 95
report 2011

Result of the plenary vote: for sectoral

representatives, each box represents one representative, arranged alphabetically. A "yes" vote is colored
yellow.

After the committee votes, the committee will submit a committee report to the plenary
which shall be voted upon by the entire House. The committee created an 11-man
prosecution panel in case the House of Representatives votes to impeach the
ombudsman, while a seven-man committee was formed to draft the report. [24]
The senators from the Liberal Party on the hand, say that they were not given
instructions on how to deal with an impeachment trial, as there were no senators
present at the aforementioned meeting. Sergio Osmeña III said that the president may
have to be more discreet on it, while Gregorio Honasan remarked that Aquino should
"refrain from making statements that will be misconstrued as partisan
statements."[25] Senators Honasan and Osmeña are independents.
Meanwhile, the executive department denied that President Aquino "gave marching
orders" to Liberal Party members of the House of Representatives, and that
the separation of powers was not violated.[26] This comes as members of the minority
bloc criticized Aquino for "dictating" to his allies in the House of Representatives, with
Lagman saying that impeachment is not solely political process but is "impressed with
judicial process."[27]
The committee report will include the following six allegations that will prove that
Gutierrez betrayed the public trust:[28]

 Inaction of the ombudsman in the Fertilizer fund scam

 Inaction of the ombudsman in the Mega Pacific scam
  Inaction of the ombudsman in the Euro Generals scandal
 Failure to make immediate complaints against President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo due to the Philippine National
Broadband Network controversy
 Delay in the investigation of the death of Navy ensign Philip Pestaño
 Low conviction rate of the ombudsman
The following representatives shall compose the House of Representatives' legal team
that will present the committee report to the plenary. All are from the Liberal
Party unless stated otherwise:[29]

 Niel Tupas, Jr. of Iloilo's 5th district

 Rodolfo Fariñas of Ilocos Norte's 1st district (Nacionalista)
 Reynaldo Umali of Oriental Mindoro's 2nd district
 Lorenzo Tañada III of Quezon's 4th district
 Raul Daza of Northern Samar's 1st district
 Neri Colmanares (Bayan Muna sectoral representative)
 Arlene Bag-ao (Akbayan sectoral representative)
 Joseph Emilio Abaya of Cavite's 1st district
 Another representative to be decided by the plenary
The weekend before the plenary votes on the committee report, Joseph Emilio Abaya,
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, denied accusations that a text attributed
to him saying those who would not vote for the impeachment will not receive their share
of their pork barrel. Several non-Liberal Party representatives were angry with the text
message.[30] Meanwhile, Tupas disclosed that a "high-ranking officer" of the Iglesia ni
Cristo had been calling representatives to kill the impeachment complaint, or don't show
up at the vote. Bello remarked that this is against the separation of church and state.[31]
On March 21, the House of Representatives tackled the committee's report. Tupas,
Daza, Fariñas and Tañada delivered their sponsorship speeches in support of the
committee report.[32] After the sponsorship speeches, Representatives Lagman, Suarez,
Marcoleta, Carlos M. Padilla, Syjuco, Albano, Mitos Magsaysay and Cagas served as
interpellators. In the period of interpellation, Tupas gave way to Fariñas when it was
Syjuco's turn to interpellate. Syjuco then accused Tupas of vested interest; Deputy
Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella (NPC, Camarines Sur–4th) reminded him "to avoid
attacking personalities," and motioned to strike off Syjuco's remarks from the record for
being "unparliamentary language."[33] Syjuco, who called Tupas "a coward," was about to
divulge the meeting among Tupas, Tupas Sr., and Gutierrez; Tupas said that as being
his godfather at his wedding, he could not face Syjuco. Syjuco later cut short his
interpellation, but after accusing Tupas anew of using the impeachment as part of his
senatorial ambitions.[34]
Before midnight, the impeachment was put through a vote, after which Deputy Speaker
Fuentebella announced the result. With 4 representatives abstaining, 47 against, and
210 for the impeachment, the House impeached Gutierrez. [35] The minority bloc,
Nacionalista Party and the NPC did not have a common stand but instead had a
"conscience vote."[34] Tañada announced a correction in the tally after some votes were
misrecorded, with the revised tally having 212 votes for impeachment, with 46 against
and four abstentions.[36] The NPC withdrew the conscience vote and voted for
impeachment as a bloc; the newly formed National Unity Party, a party created by
Lakas-Kampi defectors was split with some members led by Southern Leyte
representative Roger Mercado going against the party's "no" stand. The sectoral
representatives also voted for impeachment, in opposition to their leader Rodante
Marcoleta (Alagad) who was against. Gutierrez lambasted her impeachment, calling the
decision "flimsy" and "lamentable," saying that she did not receive fair treatment and
that she is prepared to face the Senate, and blaming "dark" politics with the Justice
Committee's undue haste on the proceedings.[37]
The House of Representatives was having a difficult time on naming other members of
the prosecution, with Magtanggol Gunigundo I (Lakas-Kampi, Valenzuela–2nd) being
added; Elpidio Barzaga (NUP, Dasmariñas (Cavite–4th)) was reportedly considered but
his links to Arroyo was seen to be too strong.[38]

Senate impeachment trial[edit]

On March 23, Tupas and company, including the two leading complainants, personally
submitted to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment. [39] Later that day, the Senate
adopted its rules for impeachment, adopting the rules used in the 2000 impeachment
of Joseph Estrada with amendments such as maintaining the silence of the visitors and
neutrality among the senators.[40]
Gutierrez resigned on April 29, personally handling her resignation letter to President
Aquino; the president accepted the ombudsman's resignation. [41] With her resignation,
the senate canceled the impeachment trial. [42] The senators thanked the ombudsman for
"sparing" the country from a "tedious, divisive, and painful" impeachment
process; Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile thanked her as the senate can now
concentrate on legislative matters.[43]