MEMORANDUM

TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:

March 14, 2012

Questions Presented

Is nondisclosure of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) to

the public a violation of Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, and as
such be deemed a sound and considerable ground for impeachment?

Are the complaints and allegations concerning the inaccurate declaration of

certain properties of the respondent and his accretion of ill-gotten wealth
sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirement of an acceptable indictment in a
case?

Was the respondent informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against
him, it being a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

Was the charge filed sufficiently verified by the complainants?

Answers

No. What the Constitution provides is that a public officer shall, upon assumption
of office and as often as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath
of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. Implementing this policy, R.A. 6713, the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
imposes on public officials the obligation to accomplish and submit declarations
under oath of their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business
interests. There being no violation, there is no probable cause to impeach
Corona. Further, no evidence was presented against the chief magistrate
particularly on the ground that he failed to disclose his Statements of assets,

liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

No. It is a basic principle in procedural law that complaints should be based on

ultimate facts. Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either
directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the
wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The ultimate facts which are to be
pleaded are the issuable, constitutive, or traversible facts essential to the
statement of the cause of action; the facts which the evidence on the trial will
prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of
those facts. The notion of ultimate and evidentiary facts as essential ingredients
of a complaint is well defined in Philippine law.

No. It is necessary that there should be reasonable certainty in the statement of

accusation. Thus, an information is bad if it is stated that there is probable cause
to suspect that accused has committed the crime, instead that he did commit it.
An information which alleges that a defendant is accused of having committed
an offense (merely stating it), but which does not directly charge that defendant
committed the offense, is insufficient. Furthermore, since the charge in an
information must be made with such definiteness and certainty to enable the
accused to prepare for trial, it must follow that the charge must not be stated
hypothetically or argumentatively.

No. Complainants did not base their charges on their personal knowledge, much
less on authentic documents, at the time they filed the Verified Complaint. What
is blatantly obvious is that Complainants filed the instant Complaint based on
matters which were merely reported and suspected. This, on its own, already
exposes the defect in the Complainants verification, which should be based on
personal knowledge or authentic records. It is a mandate in procedural law that a
pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on
information and belief, or upon knowledge, information and belief, produces no
legal effect. The allegations made by the complainants are conjectural and
speculative.

Statement of Facts

On December 12, 2011, at the Supreme Court s flag-raising ceremony, Chief

Justice Renato Corona bares an oust plot against him, but does not reveal who is

behind it. Later on that day, congressmen who are members of the majority coalition
gathered inside Andaya Hall of the House of Representatives for a caucus. At the start of
the meeting, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., gave his opening statement.
Majority Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales explained the House leaderships stand on Chief
Justice Renato Coronas impeachment. Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. gave a presentation on
the

articles

of

impeachment.

House majority members begin exiting Andaya Hall. Deputy Speaker Jesus Crispin
Remulla said members of the majority were asked to voluntarily sign the impeachment
complaint against Corona. Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casino divulged that Corona is
being impeached based on three offenses: betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption
and

culpable

violation

of

the

Constitution.

House majority ends caucus. Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. House justice panel chair,
enumerates articles of impeachment to the media, and revealed that more than 100
lawmakers have already signed the complaint. ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio
Tinio

said

congressmen

lined

up

to

sign

the

impeachment

complaint.

House Minority Edcel Lagman criticizes the majoritys move to impeach Corona,
describing it as the mother of all blackmails. He claimed that lawmakers who signed
the complaint were threatened that their priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
or pork barrel will be withdrawn if they will not approve Coronas ouster.
Belmonte, Gonzales and Tupas hold a press conference to explain how the House
majority decided to send the impeachment complaint against Corona straight to the
Senate for trial.
At the end of the briefing, more than 160 lawmakers had already signed the
complaint. House Secretary General Ma rilyn Baura-Yap also begins verifying the
signatures

on

the

complaint.

Deputy Minority Leader Danilo Suarez warns of the bad design of the Aquino
administration to remove its opponent from government posts. He said Corona is being
pressured to step down from his post, similar to what happened to former Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez, who quits her post before she was scheduled to face a Senate
trial.

By 7:30 in the evening of the same day, at the House plenary, Gonzales moves
to endorse the impeachment complaint, which was signed by a total of 188
congressman, to the House secretary-general. Deputy Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella,
who was presiding over the session, ordered the House secretary-general to transmit
the

complaint

to

the

Senate

despite

opposition

from

the

House

minority.

A member of the House of the Representative, Crispin Remulla was interviewed over the
radio and revealed that no documents were given to the congressmen but were only
shown a nine-minute power point presentation about the complaint and then they were
asked

to

sign

it.

Discussion

Clearly, what the Constitution and the law require is the accomplishment and
submission of their SALNs. CJ Corona has faithfully complied with this requirement
every year. From that point, it is the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court who has
custody over his declaration of assets, liabilities, and net worth. At any rate, CJ Corona
has not prevented the public disclosure of his declarations of assets, liabilities, and net
worth. Firstly, it is not for the Chief Justice to unilaterally decide whether to disclose or
not to disclose them. Secondly, the release of the SALNs of Justices is regulated by law
and the Court's various Resolutions cited above. Thirdly, CJ Corona never issued an

order that forbids the public disclosure of his above declarations.

R.A. 6713 recognizes the public's right to know the assets, liabilities, net worth
and financial and business interests of public officials but subject to limitations provided
in Section 8 thereof:
(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.
Further, the Supreme Court noted that requests for copies of SALNs of justices
and judges could endanger, diminish, or destroy their independence and objectivity or
expose them to revenge, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, or other dire fates. For this
reason, the Supreme Court resolved in 1989 to lay down the following guidelines for
considering requests for the SALNs of justices, judges, and court personnel:
(1) All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities shall be
filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, in the case of any Justice; or
with the Court Administrator, in the case of any Judge, and shall state the
purpose of the request.
(2) The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as
the right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under
specific circumstances, the need for the fair and just adjudication of litigations
may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for information which shall

otherwise be freely available. Where the request is directly or indirectly traced to

a litigant, lawyer, or interested party in a case pending before the court, or where
the court is reasonably certain that a disputed matter will come before it under
circumstances from which it may, also reasonably, be assumed that the request
is not made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose, but to fish for information
and, with the implicit threat of its disclosure, to influence a decision or to warn the
court of the unpleasant consequences of an adverse judgment, the request may
be denied. (Emphasis supplied)
(3) Where a decision has just been rendered by a court against the
person making the request and the request for information appears to be a
fishing expedition intended to harass or get back at the Judge, the request may
be denied.
(4) In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where
the nature of their work exposes judges to assaults against their personal safety,
the request shall not only be denied but should be immediately reported to the
military
(5) The reason for the denial shall be given in all cases.

Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence, and it would be absurd if mere
suspicion and speculation would be treated as a valid basis to oust an incumbent Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the High Court had the occasion to rule upon general
accusations as follows:

Phrases like "in flagrant breach of public trust and of their fiduciary
obligations as public officers with grave and scandalous abuse of right and power
and in brazen violation of the Constitution and laws," "unjust enrichment,"
"embarked upon a systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth," "arrogated
unto himself all powers of government," are easy and easy to read; they have
potential media quotability and they evoke passion with literary flair, not to
mention that it was populist to flaunt those statements in the late 1980s. But they
are just that, accusations by generalization.

Further, it has been held in the Kuratong Baleleng Case that the recital of facts
constituting the acts necessary for committing a crime are indispensable requirements
for a valid information alleging an offense, viz.:
The noble object or written accusations cannot be overemphasized. This
was explained in U.S. v. Karelsen:
The object of this written accusations was First; To furnish the accused
with such a discretion of the charge against him as will enable him to make his
defense and second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection
against a further prosecution for the same cause and third, to inform the court of
the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to
support a conviction if one should be had. In order that the requirement may be
satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of
certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable
particularly of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant) and circumstances. In
short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and
circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged.

No less than Article III of the Constitution mandates that due process be
accorded to any person, and an element thereof is the right to be informed of the
charges against him,viz.:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him

Pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution, CJ Corona has the right to be
fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately
prepare for his defense. Therefore, Complainants continuous introduction of evidence
on matters outside the clear wording of Article II undoubtedly violates CJ Coronas right
to due process.
It is essential, therefore, that the accused be informed of the facts that are
imputed to him as "he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense." The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such
particularly as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to
have committed in relation to his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the

mere allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed by the
accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a
conclusion between of law, not a factual averment that would show the close intimacy
between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.
The test is whether the act is described in intelligible terms with such particularity
as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. The raison
detre of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. In Justice
Laurel's words, "the administration of justice is not a matter of guesswork." The name of
the game is fair play, not foul play. We cannot allow a legal skirmish where, from the
start, one of the protagonists enters the arena with one arm tied to his back.
The use of particular words like suspected, reported and accused, without
more, conveys no specific allegation of every necessary circumstance and fact to
constitute graft and corruption or accumulation of ill-gotten wealth. In other words, the
mere suspicion that the respondent accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of
high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits is insufficient.The Supreme
Court has ruled that -At best, the bare testimonies of Dr. Doromal and deceased Commissioner
Bautista, in the eyes of the Court, yield nothing but mere uncorroborated
speculations or suspicions insofar as the PCGG attempt to establish the prima
facie case against SIPALAY. But a fact cannot be found by mere surmise or
conjecture. Suspicion cannot give probative force to testimony which in itself is
insufficient to establish or to justify an inference of a particular fact, for the sea of
suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or
compass. And it is not the habit of any courts of justice to yield themselves up in
matter of right to mere conjectures and possibilities, courts are not permitted to

render verdicts or judgments upon guesses or surmises. (Emphasis supplied)

Conclusion
There was no probable cause to impeach Corona since no evidence was
presented against the chief magistrate particularly on the ground that he failed to
disclose his Statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
Clearly, Article II of the Grounds for Impeachment does not charge CJ Corona of
failing to disclose properties in his SALN. It does not charge him of inaccurate disclosure
of properties in his SALN. It does not charge him of undervaluing the disclosed
properties in his SALN. Most importantly, Article II of the Grounds for Impeachment does
not charge CJ Corona of ill-gotten wealth and/or graft and corruption.
Considering that the allegations under paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint
are not in accordance with what the law on pleadings require, it is as though such
allegations have not been made or written. There can be no proof that could be offered,
much less accepted or utilized on this issue of non-disclosure of SALN, on the basis of
insufficient allegations.
Moreover, the allegations in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Complaint do not
contain ultimate facts. Tersely put, there is no allegation in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 that
could be considered as ultimate facts which need to be proven by evidence during the
trial. Hence, introduction of evidence that would attempt to prove the speculations and
conjectures contained in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 must not be allowed.