l\epubUc of tbe .

fJbilippineg
<!Congreg!j of tbe Jf\N 26 P 2 :07

SITTING AS THE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.
CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
Case No. 002-2011
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C.
TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A.
ABAYA, LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.
BAG-AO, et aI., .
Complainants.
x----------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO INHIBIT
(Senator Judge Franldin M. Drilon)
Chief Justice Corona, through the undersigned counsel, most
respectfully states and avers the grounds and legal bases relied upon to call for
the recusal of Senator Judge Franklin M. Drilon, viZ':
1. '1 'he Prosecution caused the issuance of a subpoena for Atty.
Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of
having her testify and produce the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Networth (SAL,N) of CJ Corona. Suffice it to state that the production of these
documents are considered by both parties of crucial importance for various
reasons, such as the compliance of C] Corona with R A. 6713 and the binding
Motion to Inhibit
Page 1 of15

force of Suprerne Court Resolutions providing guidelines for the disclosure of

the SALNs.
2. Be that as it may, the Impeachment Court issued a subpoena dutes
tecum ad 'testifitandum against Atty. Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the
Supreme Court. At the hearing of 17 January 2012, during the examination of
Atty. Vidal, counsel for C] Corona manifested that there would be no cross
examination. Up to that point, the witness did not produce or surrender the
SALN s of CJ Corona.
3. Unquestionably, the introduction of the SALN has been a crucial
issue for CJ Corona, in as much as the Prosecution has no evidence whatever
to support the essential allegations in their Complaint. For the Defense, the
subpoena for the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court was part of a fishing
expedition of the Prosecution. Be that as it may, Atty. Vidal took the witness
stand and completed the direct examination by the Prosecution. Defense
counsel waived the cross examination.
4. At the tirrle that the Defense waived cross-examination, there was
nothing more to be done but to excuse the witness. It appears, however, that
the Prosecution found an ally in Senator-judge Drilon, who proceeded to
"cross-examine" and badger Atty. Vidal in the guise of "clarificatory' questions,
The Presiding Officer. Any cross?
Mr. Cuevas. No cross, Your Honor, for the Defense.
The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 2 of15
Senator Drilon. Before you discharge.
}he Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from Iloilo.
Senator ,Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to avail of the two (2)
m i n u t e ~ allowed under our Rules to ask question.
Madam Witness, did I hear you correctly that the subpoena issued by tllts
Court was submitted to the Supreme Court for their disposition?
Ms. Vidal. 1 am actually asking for authorization.
Senator Drilon. A.. nd if no authorization is issued, you will not bring the
documents ordered by this Court to be (produced)?
Mr. Cuevas. Sorry to object, Your Honor. The question is hypothetical,
YourBonot.
Senator Drilon. We are the Judges, how can this Counsel object to my
question?
The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute.
Mr. Cuevas. I am sony, Your Honor. I thought we are allowed to go that
far.
Sen. Drilon. The Counsel is overdoing it. He is objecting to the question of
a Judge.
Mr. Cuevas. No. Because apparently, the question tends toelidt an
answer-(favoting) the Prosecution.
Senator Hrilon. Of course, we want to have an answer to these questions.
The Court issued the subpoena.
Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Sen. Drilon. And we are part of the Court. So, we ate asking the question to
the witness.
Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. I am sorry.
The Presiding Officer. May I beg the indulgence of the Counsel?
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officet:. A Member of this House of the Senate is entitled to
ask questions to the witnesses presented and to the Counsel.
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I realize that.
The Presiding Officer. That is their privilege.
Mr. Cuevas. I realize that, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. And this is a new fomm where lavrycrs operate so
we understand.
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I apologize especially to you, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Your apology--The distinguished gentleman ftOm
Motion to Inhibit
Page 3 if 15
Iloilo may proceed.
~ ~ e n a t o r Drilon. I already forgot my question, Your Honor.But again, the
subpoena dNa,.\' tWlJll requires, you, Madam, to produce the sworn Statements
of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or a SALN of Chief Justice Renato C
Corona for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011. And you said, you submitted these to the Court for their disposition.
Now, if the Comt does not approve the subpoena, are YOli going to bring
these documents to the Court?
Ms. Vidal. I follow the Resolution of the Court dated May 2, 1989.
Senator Drilon. Please answer my question, yes or no. Will you bring it if
the Court does not authorize you to bring them?
Ms. Vidal. The Supreme Court has its rules which is a coequal body as the
Senate so-
Senator Drilon. So yoq will not-
oMs. Vidal. I am awaiting instructions from the Court.
Senator Drilon. Assuming that the instruction is not to authorize you,
consistent with the resolution of the Court to bring the SALN of the Chief
Justice, you will not obey the subpoena of this Court?
The Presiding Officer. Witness, I must remind you that while we respect
the separation of powers, we obey the subpoena of the Supreme Court ...
Ms. Vidal. Yes, sir.
The Pt'csiding Officer....and we hope and expect that the Supreme Court
as a coccfual branch will equally respect the processes of this Court. And so,
kindly answer the question of the Senator from Iloilo.
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor. I placed the subpoena in the agenda of the
Court for its information and I await the instruction of the Court which I
I
believc-
The Presiding Officer. But are you not the custodian of the records?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. As custodian of the records, you have disposition
over those records?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. And so therefore, if we call on you to produce those
records, thell you must produce them?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. All dght.
May 1 request Counsel for the respondent to please take note of this: that
this Court under the Constitution has the sole power to try and decide this
case and we must not be impeded by lany agency of government in the
performance of our duty.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 4 rflJ
Mr. Cuevas. We take notc of that, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. Just asking the view of the witness as a custodian of these
'records. It is not your view that the order of this Impeachment Court 1s
subject to the apptovalof the Supreme Court. In other words, you do not
subscribe to the proposition that the order of this Court for you to produce
tIlls SALN is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court?
Ms. Vidal. As the Clerk of Court, I have the obligation to inform them of
whatever subpoena or matter is brought before me. So, I will just await
instructions.
Senator Drilon. If the instruction is not to produce the SALN, you will not
follow the subpoena of this Impeachment Court? Please answer yes or no?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, I will follow, Your Honor. I just gave it to them for their
information and authorization.
Senator Drilon. All right. So you just gave it to the Court for their
information-
Ms. Vidal. lnforrnation and authorization which I believe that they will also
grant.
Senator Drilon. No, no. If you have no authorization, will you bring this
SALN in compliance with our subpoena?
Ms. Vidal. If the Court requires me to do so, I will do so. The Impeachment
COll rt, I mean;
Sen:ltor Drilon. If the Impeachment Court requires you to do so, you will
. do so?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. Now, at this point, you have not brought the Statement of
Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth asked for in the subpoena?
Ms. Vidal. I have brought them with me.
Senator Drilon. You have brought the SALN with you, is that correct,
Mndam Witness?
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. All right. May I ask now the witness to produce before this
Comt the documents that were subpoenaed by this Court in a subpoena
dn!ccl Jmiuary 17,2012 as the witness said that she has these documents with
her?
The Presiding Officer. The witness must comply. Subtnit to the Court the
Sl.lilPr)(,IlH that you brought to this Court.
Semtnr Drilon. The SALN, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. The SALN.
Ms. Vidal. Yes, but I have not received the-I have placed it also in the
Agenda of the Court.
Motioll to II/hibit
Page 50]15

Senalor Drilon. I thought that..
,The Presiding Officer. We did not subpoena the Supreme Comt. We
subpoenaed you to produce the record in your custody. So you ate now
ordered by the Chair to surrender these records to this Court.
Ms. Vidal. Yes, Your Honor.
I
Senator Drilon. Can we ask now the Clerk of Court to reCClVe these
documents?
Ms. Vidal. I am really in a quandary, I am in dilemma because we arc
covered by the 1'Ules of the Supreme Court and also by this Honorable Court.
So I request that at least I get the authorization Erst from the Court
I submit them?
Senator Drilon. \'{1e do not believe that that is proper, Your Honor. Because
to tlO so would subject the orders of this Impeachment Court to the approval
of the Supreme Court. Because if the Court does not authorize the release of
the statement of assets and liabilities of the ChiefJustice, then the subpoena
is tlefe:l ted, Your Honor.'
5. Many of the questions propounded to Atty. Vidal bordered on the
power of the Impeachment Court to a subpoena and command
compliance thetewith. What cannot be denied, however, is that the interference
and pressure exerted by Senator Judge Drilon against Atty. Vidal resulted in the
production ()f the SALNs of C] Corona, which the prosecution unable to
accomplish on its own.
6. At the next sesslO11; Senator judge brilon again, displayed his
partiality by directly' caus1l1g the introduction Df evidence from a document
intended to cast doubts on the role Chief justice about the acquisition of
property by his daughter. As it turns out, Cj Corona acted as the attorney-in-
I
fact in the transaction. Senator Judge Drilon, made sure'to highlight this fact, as
if to suggest that C] Corona was the beneficial owner of the prbperty. This ruse
was cleverly done while suppressing the fact thatCJCorona had to act as an
attorney-in.:.fact because his daughtet, Charina, is based abroad and cannot
1 Transcri[)t of Stenographic Notes, pp. 25-8, 18 January 2012.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 6 0/1.5
personally complete the purchase herself. The transcript of 19 January 2012
clearly illustrates the partiality of Senator Judge Drilon, viZ.:
Senator Drilon. Do you have a copy of the TeT?
Mt. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. Who is the seller?
Mr. Rutaquio. It is the Megaworld Corporation, sir.
Senator Drilon. Is that in the Deed of Sale?
Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor.
Scnator prilon. Do you have a copy of the Deed of Sale?
:r..1 r. Rutaquio. Yes, Sir.
Senator Drilon. What is the date of the Deed of Sale?
1\1r. Rutaquio. October 21, 2008, Sir.
Senator Drilon. Now, does the name "Renato Corona" appear in that Deed of
S a l ~ ?
Mr. Rutaquio. No, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. As attorney-in-fact, is there a Renato Corona?
Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. So it is Renato Corona acting as attorney-in-fact for Charina
Corona.
Mr. Rutaquio. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President,2 (Emphasis supplied)
7. The Prosecution presented the Deed of Sale in an attempt to link
CJ Corona to the ownership of the condominium unit, but was surprised to
learn that his name did not appear as the buyer on the document. To save the
day for the Prosecution, Senator Judge Drilon took the floor and propounded
questions to highlight the role of CJ Corona in the sale, but without balancing
I
2 Transcript of Stenographic Notes, pp. 30-31, 19 January 2012.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 7 of15
the information with the fact that Charina is based abroad and can only act
(
through an attorney-in-fact.
8. It is beyond cavil that this turn of events has put in question the
integrity of the proceedings and members of the Impeachment Court. Every
measure must be taken to guard against the erosion of public confidence in the
Impeachment Trial of CJ Corona, lest the proceedings be rendered legally
vulnerable
9. The provisions of the Rules of the Impeachment Court provide
for the propounding of questions to a witness, viZ.:
XV. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party
producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.
* * *
:A'VIL If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he/she shall do so
within two (2) minutes. 1\ Senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or
counsel. He/she may also offer a motion or order, in writing, which shall be
submitted to the Presiding Officer.
10. Rule XVII provides for the right of a Senator to put a question to
a prosecutor or counsel, or to a witness. The express limitation in Rule XVII
on the right of a Senator-judge to propound a question is that "he shall do so
within two (2) minutes." It is, however, incorrect to assume that a Senator-
judge would be justified to propound questions that amount to prosecuting the
case or the witness, such in a case like this where the questions of Senator
Judge Drilon were clearly intended to accomplish what the prosecution failed
to do, viZ':
Motion to Inhibit
Page 8 0]15
1
The Court has acknowledged the right of a trial judge to question
witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which
"Presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides.
3
But not only
should his examination be limited to asking clarificatory questions, the right
should be sparingly and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court should
stay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the
conduct of tria1
4
* * * Hardly in fact can one avoid the impression that the
Sandiganbayan had allied itself with, or to be more precise, had taken the
cudgels for the prosecution in proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta.
* *The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due
process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court,
with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and
advocate * * A substantial portion of the TSN was incorporated in the
majority opinion not to focus on "numbers" alone, but more importantly to
show that the court questions were in the interest of the prosecution and
which thus depart from the common standard of fairness and impartiality.s
(cmpllllsis supplied)
11. In open court Senator Judge Drilon began to propound questions
more akin to cross-examination and loaded with veiled threats, securing for the
Prosecu Lion what they failed to do by themselves. As clearly enunciated in
Tabuena, when the judge takes the cudgels for one of the parties, he loses the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge, amounting to violation of the right of a
litigant to due process of law. In other words, the refusal of an openly partial
and biased judge is a violation of the Constitution.
12. Significantly, the Presiding Officer ruled that Defense counsel
cannot object to any questions propounded by a Senator Judge, citing Rule
XVII. \,(!hilc the exemption of Senator Judges from the objections of the
parties Clll1l0t be disputed, it must be stressed that the questions propounded
by Senator Judge Drilon sought to elicit the very same responses as the Private
Proseclltor attcillpted to obtain during his conduct of the direct testimony. In
sum, it was Senator Judge Drilon who carried on the cudgels for the
3US v.F-.lII!/in'lu, 27 Phil. 45; US I). Lim Ktli, 35 Phil. 504; US I). Binqyao, 35 Phil. 23
4York v. {)I, 299 Fcd. 778.
SInjra at 1)01<.: 7.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 9 qf15
ProseD::', ill and accomplished what they failed to do.
1),
The actjons of Senator Judge Drilon have sparked controversy
even among the members of the viewing public. It cannot be doubted that
many persons perceive the conduct of Senator Judge Drilon very disconcerting
because of the obviously partisan character he exhibited. Indeed, it is now
public knowledge that a brief verbal tussle ensued between Senator Judge
Drilon and former SenatorP'racisco "Kit" Tatad.
6
14. \Xlhile it is a constitutionally created body, the Impeachment
Court is in reality a collegiate trial court, i.e., where trial takes place before more
than one judge.. ['he lule is well-known that "a trial judge should notparticipate
in the examinal.ion of witnesses as to create the impression that he is allied with
the prosecution.'
15. To repeat) tbe rule against interference bya judge is so
fundamental in character that it amounts to a violation of the Constitution, viZ':
But what ;1 ppcars to be a more compelling reason for their acquittal is
the violati()n of the accused's basic constitutional right to due process.
"Respect for tile Constitution', to borrow once again Mr. Jqstice
Cruz's words, "is more important tha11 securing a conviction based Of1
a violation of'the rights of'the accused" While going over the records, we
were strud by the way the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the
(luestionin!', a defense witness and of the accused themselves. Tabuena
UTatad, Drilon !!f/or'I'r by David Santos,
last accessed 25 January
2012; Tatad qtlip ge/.l Drilon'J ire, by Lira Dalangin-Fernandez and Karl John C. Reyes,
http: last accessed 25
Jmuary 2012; Drillil,' rej1./J(jJ to il1hibit, by Richie Horario,
manij:,
last accessed 25 JaIl:
7P(lO. 1), Opida, 142 S( : itA 29 S.
/'v.totion to inhibit
100/15
and Peralta may not have raised this as an error, there is nevertheless no
impedime11l for us to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal
since the geltled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to
review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors
as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the
subject of :lssignments of error or not.
***
But more importantly, we note that the questions of the court were in the
nature of cn lSS ex.aminations characteristic of confrontation, probing and
insinuation." supplied)
16. Indeed, Senator Judge Drilon's claims of fealty to the function of
eliciting the tru l b and attaining justice are unavailing and irrelevant. The
initiative displayed by Senator-judge Drilon, can be construed as unequivocal
demonstration 0 to his allegiance to the cause of the Prosecution, or at the very
least, a lack of cold neutrality and impartiality. Judges should remember that
they are judges for both the prosecution and the defense,
"We doubt not that the sole motive of the learned judge was to
ascertain the truth of the transaction, but it is never proper for a judge
to discharge the duties of a prosecuting attorney. However anxious a
judge may he for the enforcement of the law, he should always remember
that he is as much judge in behalf of the defendant accused of crime, and
whose libert y is in jeopardy, as he is judge in behalf of the state, for the
purpose of s:lfeguarding the interests of society.,,9 (Emphasis supplied)
17. Ind ('cd, when a judge exceeds his fair bounds in questioning a
'>
11:';,
witness, there is no one who can validly object to restore or ensure the cold,
neutrality of an j I1lpartial judge. As witnessed in the proceedings, the Presiding
Officer ruled th,ll the right of a Senator-judge to ask questions is not in doubt.
Be that as it may, jurisprudence defines the limits within which the privilege to
ask questions may be exercised, viZ':
8LuiJA. Tabuena 1). J i()IlIJrtlb/e Sandiganbqyan, G.R. No. 103501-03, consolidated with Ado!!o M.
Peralta v. Hon. G.R. No. 103507, 17 February 1997.
v. State, 13 Ca. App. 431,79 S.E. 228.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 110]15
"Ordinarily II is not good practice for the presiding judge himself to examine
witnesses Hl length. The circumstances may be such in a given case as to
justify the e, )lift in so doing. * * * This court, however, has more than once
said that the examination of witnesses is the more appropriate function of
cO\lnsel, antl lhe instances are rare and the conditions exceptional which will
justify the presiding judge in conducting an extensive examination. It is
always emb:1 rrassing for counsel to object to what he may deem improper
questions b\ ,Ile court. Then, in conducting a lengthy examination, it would
be almost ill1possible for the judge to preserve a judicial attitude. While he is
not a mere ligurehead or umpire in a trial, and it is his duty to see that justice
is done, 11,' will usually not find it necessaty to conduct such
examinatioJl" 'fhe extent to which this shall be done must largely be a
matter of discretion, to be determined by the circumstances of each
particular Cl'it', but in so doing he must not forget the function of the judge
and assume that of an advocate. * * *,,10
18. Sellillor Judge Drilon sought to qualify his actions as neutral and
motivated by the desire for truth. The 'search for truth' poses no excuse to
relieve a judge from his duty to observe the perception of impartiality. The
importance of 1111partiality and the perception of impartiality are beyond cavil,
Vtz:
A judge shm:tld avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all his aCllvities.
11
Stated differently, "It is an ironclad principle that a
judge mus I flot only be impartial; he or she must also appear to be
impartial. Hence, the judge 'must, at all times, maintain the
appearance of fairness and impartiality. His language, both written and
spoken, must be guarded and measured, lest [he best of intentions be
1msconstrucd. >1,12
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper CUJ1duct of judges.13 As stressed by the Court in Magaratlg v. Judge
GaMino .B. .1i1rdill, Sr.14 "Judges must adhere to the highest tenets of judicial
conduct. They be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence is A judge's conduct must be above reproach.
16
Like Caesar's
wife, a judg" must not only be pure but above suspicion.17 A judge's private
as well as o:Ylcial conduct must at all times be free from all appearances of
Wpco. v. BernJ!t:ili, 25() 111. 63,95 N.E. 50
IlProJet'Utor SaI,)ctdor 1). Judge Agelio L BringaJ, MTC, Branch I, Butuan City, A.M. No.
M1J-00-126, 6 April ?()OO, p. 8.
uDe Vera v. DatltlJ./fI, ,\.Ivr. No. RTJ-99-1455, 13 July 1999, 310 SCRA 213, citing Peo. v.
Serrano, 203 SCRA 1 I (1991), citing .Fet'utldo v. Bcrjametl, 180 SCRA 235 (1989)
BIn Re:Judge Bet!famill fl. 202 SCRA 628 (1991)
14A.M. No. RTJ-99-t
c
I48, 6 April 2000, pp. 11-12.
15Rule 1.01, Code oCJudicial Conduct.
16Canon 31, Canons (l fJudicial Ethics. Canon 31, Canons ofJudicial Ethics.
17Paiatlg v. 20.1'(/, 58 776 (1974)
Motion to Inhibit
Page 12 of15
impropriety lind be beyond reproach."IR Viewed t'iJ-a-1JiJ the factual landscape
of this case, it LS clear that respondent judge transgressed Canon 2, Rules 2.00
and 2.CI1 o( the Canons of Judicial Ethics. I-h; acts have been less than
circumspect. lie should have kept himself frce from any appearance of
impropriety ;ll1d "hould have endeavored to dislance himself from any act
liable to crellte an impression of indecorum. He must, thus, be sanctioned.
19
In reganl. I he Court pointed out in Rallo.f, et ,I/. I). }ttc{J!,c lri!leo Lee Cako, }f:,
RTC /lrani'h ;. cd)// City/" that:
Well known is the judicial norm that 'judges should not
only be impartial but should also appear impartial'
Juri:;: q udence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to
no[11 k:-;s than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
The olher elements of due process, like notice and hearing,
would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is
rendlTcd by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only
rendn just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do
so ill a manner free of suspicion as to their fairness,
imp;,rtiality and integrity.21 (Emphasis supplied)
19. Tn I his case, the conduct of Senator Judge Drilon has drawn the
attention of the I)ublic, casting doubt on the integrity impeachment trial
process and even! he impartiality of the judges themselves. A judge must take
every effort to ;\ \'oid even the appearance of partiality. This rule is the rule of
thumb for all 111;1 \ mer of judicial conduct and comportment, and it is well-
entrenched in jU.\'I:-; j1 ruJence, tJiZ':
'i'i' * The pronouncement of this Court in the old case of
L/Hjlh' !'.. KtganarPcould again be said: All suitors are entitled to
llot1111lg short of the cold neutrality of an independent, wholly-free,
disiLlIl'l'ested 'j.und unbiased tribunal. Second only to the duty of
tell(;''1ing a jllst decision is the duty of domg it in a manner that will
not Ill'< lUse any suspicion as to the fairness and integrity of the
]udgl.c'It is not enough that a court is impartial, it must also be
perc'in:d as impartia1.
24
(Emphasis supplied)
laD' D
_
)
.

_.'-fi
A 275 (1996)
-",Sll'O 1). aci/II/OY,
19See Prudential Hali!- . 142 SCRA 223, (1986)
2(1 A.M. Nos. 1\.1] I 184 and RT}99-1484 (A), 17 March 2000, p. 19.
2.
I
Dacera,jr. v. Di::.y!!l. r., .\:VI R1J-00-1573, 2 August 2000.
Z2 29 SCRA 1(J5
2JCutierrez 1). StllttOJ,)! 1 :\ fay 1961. The excerpt was quoted in Austria fl. 1\1aJaque/, 31 August
1967.
24Alonte v. Sai'dl,llIo,"" G.R. No, 131652,9 March 1998 consolidated with Concep(;ion v.
Sal)e/lano, et al., C;.It 131728, 9 March 1998 d.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 130/'15
20. Finally, to demonstrate that rema.1fung as a member of the
Impeachment Court has become untenable, CJ (:orona reproduces the oath of
office sworn to by Senator Judge Drilon, viZ':
I swear (or affum, as the case be) that in all {hing:; appcHall1ing
to the trial ,)f the impeachmenr of Chief Jw;ticc :. Corona, now pending, 1 will do
impartial al:cnrding to the Consritutl(Jt1 LtHJ laws of the, Philippmes: (So help
meG,
Surely, the languag;e of the oad1 need,; no further elaboration or
cla.ri fication.
WHEl{EFORE, it is respectfully prayed [hat this Motion to Inhibit be
calendared rur hearing and after submission thereof, that the Impeachment
Court render judgment and Order the recusal, inhibition or disqualification of
Senator-judge I 'ranklin lV1. Drilon.
CJ Corona likewise prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises,
Makali l'or Pasay City 26 January 2012.
Respectfully submitted:
COUl1Sel for ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona.
Motion to Inhibit
Page 14 '1(15
JOSE OY III
PTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; lVlakati City
IBP LRc1\J 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
MANALO
P'I'R No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makati City
IBP No. 839311; 3 January 2011, lVlakati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996
MCLE Compliance No. IU-0009471, 26 Apri12010
Copy furnished:
House of Representatives
Batasan C011ln]ex
. I
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic
# ~
of the Philippines
GSIS Build!!
Macapagal HIghway
Pasay City
Motion to Inhibit
Page 15 q/15