Of David(e) and Judicial Goliaths

By Terence Eyre Belangoy

[ Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. visits Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, MARCH 28, 2O12. In honor of that occasion, this essay recounts his contributions to the Judiciary  during his tenure.]

        Under the leadership of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Supreme Court of the Philippines could be best described as a proactive Supreme Court. The Court has taken upon itself not only to adapt to dynamic changes, and combat undesirable yet endemic practices taking place around it--- in the realm of technology and communications, industrialization and globalization, societal changes, cultural transformations, political uncertainty, graft and corruption, among others--- but to tackle them head on. The Supreme Court’s proactivity is clearly evident with its adoption of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR), with then Chief Justice Davide as its staunchest advocate.

        The Supreme Court is akin to a collegial body of “legal Davids” taking on present-day “Goliaths.” Of course, it is common knowledge how it all ended. 

David, Davide and Legal Davids

         

       This analogy to the Biblical story in the Book of David is not at all incidental.  The Chief Justice himself insinuated of his “kinship” with the Biblical character. The only difference between Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Biblical David is the letter e.[1]

        The above account is definitely facetious, but it has a ring of truth to it. With all the transformations--- not all salutary--- happening in many sectors of society, nationally and internationally, these changes may as well be intimidating, juggernaut Goliaths while our Supreme Court Chief Justice and Justices, together with the rest of the Judiciary’s personnel, are fearless, highly-skilled modern-day Davids. (A very interesting side story: a recent Reuters report tells of a discovery by archeologists of a shard of pottery which carried a Semitic inscription of the name of Goliath in Ramat Gan, Israel, lending strong credibility to the Biblical story; but this is altogether another topic.)  

Big Brother

        One such “Goliath” looming in the periphery of the judicial horizon is incidentally and figuratively called Big Brother--- rapid advancement in technology, and its various cousins (information technology, communications, life technologies, etc.) which are continuously making their effects felt in Philippine society in general, Philippine Judiciary in particular, and definitely affecting the dispensation of justice and the rule of law.

        The Supreme Court, consistent with its proactive stance, through the APJR, is embracing technological trends with open arms.

        In fact, the First component of the APJR is the “Judicial Systems and Procedure” which concerns itself with the administration of cases and courts. Initiatives in Alternative Dispute Resolution, computerized case management system, streamlined court rules and similar activities are also programmed under this component. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in one of the lectures in the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series, delivered on October 19, 2005 at the Far Eastern University Auditorium has subclassified this component under the general heading of “Improvement of Judicial Facilities and Tools.”

        The APJR, through the Committee on computerization, has embarked on a total computerization of the entire judiciary. Consistent with this computerization program, the Supreme Court has, during the past five years, provided every courtroom in the country with at least one computer.[2]

        The Court has also launched its fully electronic library (e-library), the first of its kind in Asia.

        The Benchbook for Trial Court Judges is another easy-to-reach tool which enables magistrates to decide points of law quickly as they arise in the course of the trial; this comes in digital and paper versions.

        New Rules of Procedure were also promulgated to enable the members of the bench to rule immediately on legal issues connected with the new sciences and technologies.  The new rules cover, among others, admission of electronic evidence, infringement of intellectual property rights, corporate rehabilitation, and intra-corporate controversies, among others.

        In the controversial nascent field of biotechnology, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ethical issues would unavoidably arise.

“The Courts, as defenders of the rule of law, must make an informed stand as they adjudge among conflicting interests, and the judges in these cases would have to be conversant in genetics, microbiology and biotechnology as to be able to scientifically assess the evidence presented to them by any number of experts.

        Judges are expected to keep abreast with these scientists, if not be ahead of them in some respects.

        While these scientific issues have not yet found their way into our jurisdiction, they are nevertheless knocking upon our doors. With the aid of developments in Information Technology, they will soon be breaking down these doors. By then our courts may be deluged with novel cases.

        The Philippines, for its part, will participate actively in this exchange, more to anticipate than to react to technological trends consistent with the PROACTIVE stance that the Supreme Court has taken in most other issues.”[3]

High-Technology Yet “High-Touch” Judiciary

          Despite the Judiciary’s gung-ho efforts, as initiated by the Supreme Court, to modernize and keep apace with the technological breakthroughs for a more efficient administration of justice, it makes it a point to always touch base with the very people it is supposed to serve---especially the marginalized--- and the various publics affected by its various activities.

In the highly-influential book “Megatrends,” foremost social forecaster John Naisbitt wrote: “Whenever new technology is introduced, there must be a counterbalancing human response--- that is, “high touch”--- or the technology is rejected. Whenever INSTITUTIONS introduce new technology, they should build in a high-touch component; if they don’t, people will try to create their own or reject the new technology. We must learn to balance the material wonders of technology with the spiritual demands of our human nature.”

        Indeed, people want to be with people; and the more technology is pumped into an institution, or into society, the more people would want to be (or be in proximity) with people.

        The principle of high-technology/ “high touch” is a modern version of the ancient Greek ideal of balance. The principle symbolizes the need for balance between physical (the need for advancement, in this case technological advancement) and metaphysical/spiritual (the desire of people to be an integral component of the justice system) reality. Luckily, the Davide Court is not remiss in this regard.

        “Technology holds a promise, not a threat. I see a future where legal practitioners will still enjoy intimate professional relationships with their clients. In the first place, people look for more than just legal advice and assistance from counsel. In every case, the fiduciary character of the service is sealed by a determination of trust and reliability, which can only be cultivated or confirmed through face-to face- encounters. Secondly, and especially in a developing nation such as the Philippines, fundamental change in the traditional practice of law will surely proceed at a manageable pace without displacing those who are presently unfamiliar with the required technologies. Lastly, at some point in the evolution of legal servicing, the old ways will inevitably co-exist with the new paradigms, as we achieve a balance between technological advances and due process as traditionally understood.[4]

More importantly, the Fifth component, “Access to Justice by the Poor”, ensures that the marginalized, disadvantaged, dispossessed and other valuable sectors will always have affordable and effective means of attaining justice.

        This ability of the Supreme Court NOT to be viewed as an institution smugly ensconced atop an ivory tower far beyond the reach of the hoi polloi or ordinary mortals is very important. This would endear it more to the people and the varying publics (including the very important “donor community”) thus ensuring a continued support for the Supreme Court and for its reform programs.

        The responsiveness of the Supreme Court in this regard is incorporated in the Sixth component of the APJR.

        The Sixth (the last) component, “Reform Support Systems”, installs mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of the reform efforts. The focus here is public education, information and communication, on the assumption that public awareness of the functions and achievements of the judiciary would encourage people to support the courts.

        Support for the Supreme Court itself and for its various programs involves both internal support and external support.

        With the myriad reforms the Supreme Court is undertaking or will undertake for the Judiciary, there is bound to be resistance. This resistance could stem from the Judiciary itself, specifically its various personnel who would be affected by the changes.

        One of the “Policies and Strategies” of the “Reform Support Systems” of the APJR involves “Judicial Organization Culture.”

        This resistance could be reduced through communication with employees to help them see the logic of change. It is difficult for individuals to resist change in which they participated. Greater involvement in the decision-making process reduces resistance, obtains commitment and increase quality of the change decision.[5]

        Externally, the Judiciary has to contend with the various publics: the other pillars of the criminal justice system which would surely be affected by the changes within the Judiciary, the “donor community” from which the Judiciary sources some of its funds, the other branches of Government, and the public at large.

        The Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter of all legal controversies, has to make sure that all its decisions would not only be followed but would have the faith and confidence of the people. Instances are rife when the public sometimes see Supreme Court decisions as partial, especially those highly-contentious cases such as the impeachment, the legitimacy of a government swept into power by people power movements viewed by some sectors as “mob rule,” allegations of infringement into the prerogatives of the other co-equal branches of the government, and the like.

        To meet the above challenges, the APJR has included a “Public Awareness Strategies” by (a) Institutionalizing the Court’s public information, education and communication system (b) Improve quality and quantity venues for information exchange on judicial functions, reform agenda and achievement (c) Enhance judicial-mass media relations. For these purposes, a Public Information Office (PIO) was created. It primary purpose is to bring the courts closer to the people. 

        This interface between the Supreme Court as an institution together with its various personnel on the one hand, and the public, on the other hand, is raised to a more esteemed level as the Davide Court is also imbued with a passion for excellence and public service. 

        The Vision Statement of the Davide Watch encapsulates the above thrust. The Davide Watch Vision Statement boldly exclaims: “A Judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provide quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.” This must also be correlated with the Third component of the APJR, “Human Resources Management Development”, which covers the selection, hiring, education, promotion and remuneration of justices, judges and other officials and employees.

        “The speedy and impartial dispensation of justice will ultimately depend upon the judge. While electronic research facilities, computerized facilities and stately courtrooms--- all of which money can buy---are desirable components of judicial reform, in the end, justice is delivered by a human being who must be upright, credible and competent--- qualities that money cannot buy.”[6]

Feminine Grace and the High Court

        That the Supreme Court is not only concerned with efficiency, excellence, and service is also apparent in the way it exists with the various cultural and societal transformations unfurling around it.

        One such positive social change is the increasing role of women in society. Throughout the years, the women’s liberation movement has been gaining ground. Although none of these feminine inroads have been mentioned in either the APJR or in the “Davide Watch: Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession Toward the Third Millennium,” the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Davide has been an unwitting yet willing witness to this cultural transformation.

        A record five lady Justices (Justice Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Justice Minita Chico-Nazario) now sit in the Supreme Court--- all career jurists who have dedicated their lives to public service and the law.

        The first woman to be admitted to the Bar, in 1911, was Maria V. Francisco. Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma made history as the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

        Today, there are still more male justices and judges in our courts, but this is changing. This change, and the Supreme Court’s (and other institutions for that matter) concurrence to it is laudable.

        “Social Science affirms that a woman’s place in society marks the level of civilization,” said Elizabeth Stanton, champion of women’s suffrage.

Hands Off the Cookie Jar

On the not-so-positive side, a “culture” which is said to be endemic in most government offices is the “culture” of graft and corruption. The Davide Watch, and the APJR through its Fourth component, seeks to curb graft and corruption in the Judiciary. The Fourth component, “Institutional Integrity Development”, addresses concerns in graft and corruption and puts in place mechanisms to detect and punish corrupt practices of some judges and lawyers.

        To implement the call for integrity in the Judiciary, the entire Court has agreed to adopt a more stringent and timely measures to discipline the judiciary and to rid it of the corrupt, the unethical, and the misfit. Specifically it has hastened the adjudication of administrative cases. In the pursuit of transparency, the Court, at the suggestion of the Chief Justice, has created a Committee on Public Information (CPI). To assist the Committee, a Public Information Office (PIO) has also been created. The CPI and PIO were created to lend more transparency to the Court’s work and thereby increase public understanding of its role and work in society.[7]

        Legal and Judicial education is intended to enhance not only the intellectual ability of lawyers and magistrates, but also their ethical standards. During the last six years, the Supreme Court has fined, warned, censured, admonished, reprimanded, ordered arrested, suspended or disbarred lawyers for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[8]

        Magistrates decide litigations only on the basis of the rational relationship between the law and the facts, free from any extraneous influence. They should not allow the “ships” that plague public service--- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowships---to interfere in their judgments.[9] 

  

Judicial Independence

          All of the of the above reforms--- and the enthusiasm of all judicial personnel, our legal Davids, in facing present challenges, the modern-day Goliaths--- would all be for naught without the Second component, perhaps the most important of all the components, of the APJR. The Second component “Institutions Development” seeks to establish mechanisms to strengthen the Judiciary as an institution independent from other branches of government. Included in this component are the systems to implement the constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, to improve judicial accountability, and to devise personnel and financial policy that will give the judiciary the flexibility needed to address the many demands upon it.

        Judicial Independence under the Davide Watch means two things: (a) Fiscal Independence and (b) Independence from Partisan Politics.

        Fiscal Independence means the freedom of the Judiciary to determine its own fiscal affairs. The Judicial branch is not assured of an automatic budgetary increase to cope with inflation. Judicial salaries are still pegged to the Salary Standardization Law, which in sum spells low compensation. As a result, very few brilliant and ethical lawyers join the Judiciary.

        Independence from partisan politics requires the involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) in filling up of vacant positions in the Judiciary in accordance with the periods mandated by law.

Leadership By Example

Amidst all of these reforms, nothing transcends the fact that the very person at the helm of this wave of transformation, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. himself, leads by example, thereby positively influencing all within the Judiciary. He has adopted an inside-out approach, focusing on his circle of influence rather than on his circle of concerns; it was his own metanoia which has also become the metanoia of the entire Judiciary, so to speak.

        “As Chief Justice, I pledge that I shall spare no effort in leading the Judiciary by example. For those who know me, you know that I don’t take this pledge lightly,” announced Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his very first public appearance at a Kilosbayan forum.

        With all of the above reforms taking place in the Judiciary, and with a Chief Justice like Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who initiated it all, the Judiciary would remain an exemplary, steadfast bastion of justice despite whatever unpredictable changes that would occur in this millennium and even in the next millennium to come.

        Hail to (former) Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.! Hail to the men and women of the Judiciary!

[This essay, originally titled “Legal Davids amidst modern-day Goliaths,” was written and submitted by the author to the Supreme Court under then CJ Davide during a Commemoration titled Davide Watch: Action Program for Judicial Reforms prior to his retirement. The author was then Associate Editor of the FEU Law Journal and represented his alma mater, the Far Eastern University-Institute of Law. For other articles of this author, check out his blog JUSTIFIED at http://justifiedmaster.blogspot.com/]

JUSTIFIED/Legal Davids amidst modern-day Goliaths

---

[1] Taken from the Closing Remarks of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. delivered at the 5^th Centenary lecture, “Protecting Civil Liberties in a State of Continuing Emergency,” by Madame Justice Dorit Beinisch.

[2] “The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005, at the Far Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.

[3] A portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at the Fourth Centenary Lecture, “Life Technologies and the Rule of Law,” by Dr. Franklin M. Zweig of the Einstein Institute for the Science, Health and the Courts (EINSHAC).

[4] A portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at the 12^th Centenary Lecture, “The Paperless Court: Technology and the Courts in the Region”, by Justice Robert D. Nicholson.  

[5] Chapter 5: “Reform Support Systems”, Action Program for Judicial Reforms 2001-2006, August 2001.

[6] “Judging the Judges” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Address delivered during the 5^th Anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan.  

[7]  Chapter 5: Setting the Standards of the book “Leadership by Example” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban

[8] pp. 17-18, “The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005, at the Far Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.

 

[9] “Judging the Judges”, address delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, during the 5^th anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan.

Impeachment profiles I: Atty. Tranquil Salvador III

 Atty. Tranquil Salvador III; file photo

                  Tranquil Salvador III . . . with the Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles Law office ; President of the University of Sto. Tomas Student Council (College of Arts and Letters) and subsequently of the Ateneo Law Student Council (ALSC). He was an Associate Editor of the Ateneo Law Journal in 1989. He was the first Chairman of the Association of Law Students of the Philippines for the National Capital Region in 1990. As president of the ALSC, he was given the Evelio B. Javier Leadership Award.

                  He is presently the Dean of the Law School of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Pasay (PLP); reviewer and professor of law in Ateneo de Manila University, School of Law (ADMU), the Law School of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), Far Eastern University (FEU), FEU-La Salle and San Sebastian College (SSC), University of the East (UE), Juris Law Center, University Belt Consortium and adviser to the Far Eastern University Law Review, PLM Law Student Council and PLM-Alternative Lawyering Center.

from Whos who in impeachment trial cj corona 

interviewed by ANC

In action at the Impeachment trial

law.ateneo.edu Salvador III profile

Mindanao leaders comment on Corona's trial

Mayor Custodio with Shamcey Supsup; gensantos.gov.ph photo

“My only hope is for the process to take its course."

“For me, public office is a public trust.  If the public does not trust you anymore, whether it is valid or not…it (Corona’s continued stay as chief justice) is going to be a disservice to the institution.”--- 

 General Santos City Mayor Darlene Antonino Custodio

LPP photo

"I just hope the country will emerge stronger, wiser and more mature after the trial, regardless of the outcome." --- Misamis Oriental Gov Oscar Moreno 

Gov. Dominguez; sarangani.gov.ph photo

“I just hope that when all these are over with, we will be able to restore the respect and dignity of public office." 

---Sarangani Gov. Miguel Rene Dominguez

www.rappler.com/ Mindanao leaders on Corona's trial

Go forth and multiply. . . responsibly

 

 Don't just be dictated by any group or organization, religious or otherwise;  

Read and know the RH Bill

  www.senate.gov.ph/SB 2378 (Reproductive Health Bill)

Sardines versus stones

[Ms. Gina Lopez's 6-point argument for the environment; excerpts from her essay "Stand for the environment " in rapplerdotcom, where she cited Dipolog City's bottled sardines industry, alternative to mining as a source of revenues although threatened by the latter's impact on the environment.] 

Gina Lopez speaks for the environment; mrcheapjustice blog photo

1. Biodiversity holds pre-eminent value

Biodiversity is the different flora and fauna that provide our people with fresh air, food. It is life. In the universe of what is important, it holds pre-eminent value.

Our country ranks No. 1 in endemicity per unit area, which means the flora and fauna found here cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

Given that our country is also the number one typhoon-hit country in the planet, it is disturbing that mining priority areas are right on top of bio diversity areas, agricultural areas, water catchment areas.

Biodiversity areas are often also rich in mineral resources. Mining in these areas will damage our biodiversity irreversibly.

Reforestation does not replicate an ecological system. No amount of planting trees will bring biodiversity back. Our country and the world stands much more to gain by leaving these sites alone.

The business community needs to understand that it is good business sense to keep our biodiversity alive. That an economic path - which is just focused on money - is not to going to bring on the well being of our people.

2. Island ecosystems

This is an interweave of different ecological systems: forests, mountains, coral reefs, mangroves, farmlands - all intertwined in a specific location where rivers and streams lead into the sea.

Any kind of mining in these islands - whether they be large scale or small scale - is grossly irresponsible especially since our country is hit by typhoons every year!

3. Mining has a very poor track record

The highest incidence of poverty is in the mining sector. The poorest areas in the country are mining areas: Samar, Surigao, Benguet, Zambaonga.

Even in mining areas where the municipality has upgraded to first class, the incidence of poverty remains high.

For instance, in Caraga, the GDP went up by P40 billion from 2007 to 2009. However, the incidence of poverty went up from 46% to 49%, attributed to mining.

We have hundreds of unrehabilitated mine sites. After decades of mining, we do not even have one rehabilitated mine site. So why are we continuing this path ?

4. National government earns very little from mining

It accounts for only 1.3% GDP and 0.36% of employment.

There is a 5-year tax holiday so operations are usually front-loaded during these years.

We have no standard of evaluating what we are giving up. For all the billions of dollars poured into the country from mining - how much is net for the country after we subtract the cost of development?

At the end of the day, if the communities around the mine site remain poor and at risk, why do we continue to do it?

5. Alternatives to mining

This was my "fight" with Manny Pangilinan, when he said that the sites where there is mining are largely mined because not much else can be done there anyway. I so very much disagree!!

There have been and there are beautiful sites that are currently being mined - which should never have been mined.

For example there is mining on top of the rice granary of Palawan. Why was this ever allowed? There is mining in protected areas.

The reality is, our beautiful, protected areas are rezoned to allow for mining applications, which only makes more glaring the government inability to ensure the common good.

6. Mining threatens food security

That is a fact because mining threatens water.

We have documents and lab reports where mining operations have damaged farm lands, and fishery resources and the disadvanted continue to lack in compensation.

7. Mining threatens health

We have documented cases where children, and adults have suffered due to the mine sites.

In Palawan there are already evidences of rivers containing carcinoogeneic substances documented by Friends of the Earth, Japanese NGO. Data exists that hexavelent chromium levels in Tagupog River near Batarazza exceed the normal. Hexavelent results in cancer, nerve damage and death.

6. There is another way!

In Dipolog City, the sardines business provides jobs and income to 2,000 people from 14 barangays. This is all put to risk by approved mining in Sergio Osmeña since the river that runs through Sergio Osmeña is the same river that runs through Dipolog. Last year the sales from the sardines reached P79 Million! I have projects in Puerto Princesa where poor communites are now able to send their kids to college after only 2 years of eco tourism and where each family now earns up to P15,000 a month!

The economy of Puerto Princesa is hitting the roof without mining but through tourism and agriculture. Camarines Sur and Bohol are similar economic models that have gone tourism successfully.

Do we have any economic model of mining where the community AROUND is happy and healthy and the enviromment is beautiful and rehabilitated.

As far as I know there is none. So why are we doing this?!

www.rappler.com/Stand for the environment

The Miriam Defensor-Santiago show

photo from Google

               The Madam Miriam, Asia's Dragon Lady, never disappoints. The only one exciting in the Impeachment trial, aside from the Conspiracy theories-slash-scripts by the prosecution panel aka the "small lady" of Rep. Umali and the "garage door evidence" of Rep. Banal.

Here is the Lady-Senator from Iloilo in some of her most spitfire and controversial scenes in the Corona Impeachment trial such as the "Hear no evil" firestorm versus Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre; the "Waaah" expression; the "gago" invective; "Duty my foot"; and her love-hate (he "loves" her; she hates him) relationship with her favorite bitch whipping boy, Lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas. 

                  Enjoy the colloquy show!

Video grabs from the Impeachment trial

                                    

                                                 Hear no evil                                           

Waah!

                                                             G. a. g. o.

                                                                         
                                                          Duty my foot!

 

                                                    3.0!

                                                                                                 
                                                                3.0!

facebook.com/Sen-Miriam-Defensor-Santiago

senate.gov.ph/Miriam Defensor Santiago bio 

wikipedia.org/Miriam_Defensor_Santiago


  

The Corona Impeachment trial

WHAT IS IMPEACHMENT:

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as other punishment.

The word “impeachment” derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). (In its more frequent and more technical usage, impeachment of a person in the role of a witness is the act of challenging the honesty or credibility of that person.)

WHO IS CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA:

2010 – 23rd chief justice of the SC by PGMA

2002 – Appointed as an associate of the SC in 2002 by PGMA

2001 – Presidential chief of staff of PGMA
1998 – Chief of staff ; spokesperson of VPGMA

Presidential counsel and deputy executive secretary to Pres. Ramos

Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, one of the youngest magistrates ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, was appointed to the highest tribunal on April 9, 2002. His age notwithstanding, he brings with him depth and perspective gained from many years of experience as a law professor, private law practitioner and member of the Cabinet under two Presidents, Fidel V. Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Justice Corona had a sterling record as a student. He graduated with gold medal honors from the Ateneo de Manila grade school in 1962 and high school in 1966. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree, also with honors, from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1970. It was here where he honed his skills in writing and argumentation, the indispensable tools for writing decisions with clarity, persuasion and sagacity. He was the editor-in-chief of The Guidon, the university student newspaper of the Ateneo and was secretary-general of the College Editors Guild of the Philippines from 1968 to 1970. He was also the captain of the overall champion team of the 1970 Annual Debating Tournament of the Ateneo School of Arts and Sciences.

Justice Corona finished his Bachelor of Laws at the Ateneo Law School in 1974. Having married right after college, he held a full-time job in the Office of the Executive Secretary in Malacañang Palace while attending night classes in law school. Despite the heavy demands of work and family, however, he was a consistent honor student, graduating no. 5 in his class. That same year, he placed 25th highest out of 1,965 candidates in the bar examinations.

After law school, he pursued the Master of Business Administration course (without thesis) at the Ateneo Professional Schools. In 1981, he was accepted to the Master of Laws program in Harvard Law School where he focused on foreign investment policies and the regulation of corporate and financial institutions. He was conferred the LL.M. degree by Harvard Law School in 1982.

As a young lawyer, Justice Corona served as special counsel at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He later became senior vice-president and general counsel of the Commercial Bank of Manila and later, a senior officer of the Tax and Corporate Counseling Group of the Tax Division of Sycip Gorres and Velayo (SGV & Co.).

In 1992, he was invited to join the administration of then President Fidel V. Ramos as Assistant Executive Secretary for legal affairs, concurrently head of the Malacañang Legal Office. In 1994, he was promoted to Deputy Executive Secretary and later Presidential Legal Counsel and member of the Cabinet.

While serving in Malacañang during the Ramos Administration, he earned the rare distinction of having solved the perennial backlog of cases in the Legal Office. As head of that critical agency, he not only served as one of the President’s legal advisers but also wrote decisions and recommendations which showed an insightful and exceptional understanding of legal issues, as well as a mastery of the diverse options for resolving them.

As legal counsel to President Ramos, then Secretary Corona held, in concurrent capacity, the positions of Vice-Chairman of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission; member of the Presidential Committee on Bail, Release and Pardon, the Cabinet Consultative Committee on the Government of the Republic of the Philippines- National Democratic Front (GRP-NDF) Peace Talks, and the Cabinet Committee on National Security. He likewise chaired the Appeals Committee of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) as well as various other presidential committees.

Committed to the principles of integrity, decency and simplicity, Justice Corona and his accomplishments in the public service have merited public recognition. He was honored with a special award by the Harvard University/Kennedy School of Government Alumni Association. In 1998, then President Ramos awarded him the distinctive Philippine Legion of Honor medal with the rank of officer.

After the term of President Ramos ended in 1998, he was invited by then Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to become her chief of staff and spokesman. It was in that capacity that he became deeply involved in the burning political issues of the day and, when Arroyo assumed the presidency on January 20, 2001, he played a crucial role in the new administration as Presidential Chief of Staff, Presidential Spokesman and later as Acting Executive Secretary.

A legal scholar at heart, he served as a member of the faculty of the Ateneo Law School for 17 years, teaching Commercial Law, Taxation and Corporation Law, the same subjects that became the focus of his many articles and columns in several newspapers. He also wrote for the Ateneo Law Journal. Justice Corona is currently finishing his doctoral studies in civil law at the University of Santo Tomas where he was given the award of Most Outstanding Graduate School Student.

His competence in the field of law is recognized in the Philippines and abroad. In 2006, he was conferred the degree of Doctor of Laws honoris causa by the University of Batangas for his “legal scholarship, professional integrity and judicial independence.” In 2007, he was again honored with another Doctor of Laws honoris causa degree, this time by the University of Cebu. He has lectured in and presented scholarly papers before several international law conferences and seminars, the latest of which were the 9th General Assembly of the Asean Law Association in Bangkok, Thailand and the interregional meeting of a multidisciplinary group of experts on the role of sanctions in ensuring better respect for international humanitarian law, sponsored by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland.

In 2004, the Province of Batangas conferred on him the Dangal ng Batangan award, the highest and coveted honor reserved by the province for its distinguished sons and daughters. And in 2005, he was chosen as one of the Outstanding Manilans by the capital City of Manila.

At present, the only two organizations he has limited his active participation in are the Harvard Law School Association of the Philippines (where he sits as a member of the Board of Trustees) and the Ateneo Law Alumni Association (of which he was once Chairman).

His judicial philosophy is centered on his commitment to uphold the Constitution and the law in order that the rights of every man, woman and child are protected and enhanced. When the voice of the weak and the oppressed is inaudible and unheeded, he believes that every effort must be exerted to provide them a forum where they can be heard and their rights recognized.

His personal advocacies include the formation of strong moral and ethical values in the legal profession, specially among the young lawyers. He is deeply committed to the cause of protecting and helping oppressed and abused street-children, and the rehabilitation of former inmates as useful members of society.

Born on October 15, 1948 in Tanauan City, Batangas, the self-effacing and hard-working Justice Corona is married to the former Cristina Roco. They are blessed with three grown-up children, all professionals and graduates of the Ateneo de Manila University and the University of the Philippines.

He is the proud and doting “Grandpa” to the jewels of his life — Franco, Santino, Anika, Katrina, Natalia and Caia.

THE LEGAL PANELS

DEFENSE PANEL : Chief Justice Renato Corona

Serafin Cuevas Associate Justice  

Serafin R. Cuevas Tenure: June 01, 1984 – April 16, 1986

Birthdate: June 25, 1928 Place of Birth: Bacoor, Cavite Education: Elementary : Las Piñas Elementary School Secondary : University of Manila Bachelor of Laws, University of the Philippines, 1952 Passed the Bar exam, 1952 Professional Career: Professorial Lecturer, College of Law, University of the Philippines, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University Assistant Fiscal of the City of Manila Judge, Court of First Instance Associate Justice, Intermediate Appellate Court Associate Justice, Supreme Court, May 31, 1984 Notes: Served as Justice Secretary of Estrada. A known Lawyer of INC

Jacinto “Jack” Jimenez

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:

Bachelor of Arts (Cum Laude), Ateneo de Manila – 1964

Bachelor of Laws (Cum Laude), Ateneo de Manila – 1968

Third place in bar examination of 1968 with grade of 86.8%

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Practicing Lawyer since 1969

Junior Partner – Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles since May 1988

ACADEMIC POSITIONS: Faculty Member College of Law, Ateneo de Manila – 1970 up to the present Faculty of civil Law, University of Santo Tomas – 1989 up to the present College of Law, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila -1998 up to 2007

Bar Reviewer

Ateneo de Manila -1978 up to the present

University of the Philippines Law Center – 1982 up to the present

Far Eastern University – 1987 up to 1993

University of Santo Tomas – 1989 up to the present

Holder of Alexander Sycip Professorial Chair – 1983 to 1984 and 1986 to 1988

Holder of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee Professorial Chair – 1989 to 1990 and 1994 to 1997

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Director of Manila IV Chapter – 1979 to 1981, 1993 to 1985 and 1987 to 1989 Secretary of Manila IV Chapter – 1981 to 1983, 1985 to 1987 and 1989 to 1991 Member National Committee on Non-Judicial Appointments – 1981 to 1983 Delegate to the House of Delegates – 1981 to 1985 and 1987 to 1989 Alternate Delegate to the House of Delegates – 1979 to 1981, 1985 to 1987, 1989 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993 Philippine Bar Association – Member Philippine Association of Law Professors – Charter Member, Director-1986 to 1992, Secretary-1987 to 1990 Congress of Center for International Studies – Charter Member

Atty. Jacinto Jimenez has represented both Philippine and foreign clients in various dealings before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Central Bank, and Insurance Commission. He has also argued cases before the trial courts, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. He has extensive experience dealing with Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. In addition, Atty. Jacinto Jimenez has advised Philippine and foreign clients on regulatory and transactional matters, including international joint ventures and international technology transfers. He is known among generations of those in the Ateneo Law School community as the “walking SCRA.” The Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) is a compilation of Philippine Court decisions.

Jose “Judd” Roy III Roy is a former law dean and president of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila He started his legal career at the Supreme Court as chief of staff of then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa. Roy is also a batchmate of Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda at the Ateneo Law School.

German Lichauco II Practice: Civil Litigation, Corporate Litigation, Taxation, Criminal Litigation, Project Finance Education: Honors He is a partner at one of the biggest law firms in the country, Siguion Reyna Montecillo Ongsiako De La Salle University (A.B., 1987); Ateneo de Manila University (J.D., 1992, Second

Dennis Manalo He is a partner at one of the biggest law firms in the country, Siguion Reyna Montecillo Ongsiako A litigation expert

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra Managing Partner of Esguerra & Blanco Law Offices, a law firm. Atty. Esguerra recently founded with six other lawyers equally of known experience and expertise in various areas of Philippine law. The fields of specialization of Atty. Esguerra, are on Intellectual Property, Real Estate, Settlement of Estates and Estate Planning, Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Litigation. Atty. Esguerra also served in the Philippine’s Department of Justice as Undersecretary in charge of the National Prosecution Service, National Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Immigration and Witness Protection Security and Benefit Program. Atty. Esguerra serves as the Vice-Chancellor for External Affairs of the Alpha Phi Beta Chancery Inc., and a member of the Rotary Club, Makati Central. He serves as a Trustee and National Executive Director of People of the Philippines for Good Governance, Inc., President- elect of the Licensing Executives Society of the Philippines, Inc., Secretary-General of the Asean Intellectual Property Association, a Trustee and Vice-President of the Intellectual Property Association, Inc., Corporate Secretary of Filipinas Dravo Corporation, a Member of the International Trademark Association and the Asian Patent Attorneys Association. Atty. Esguerra has been a Director of Alaska Milk Corp. (AMC) since 2003. He is also an active member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and a Professorial Lecturer on Criminal Law at the University of the Philippines College of Law. Atty. Esguerra holds an A.B in Economics at the University of Santo Tomas and Bachelor of Laws from University of the Philippines. He graduated at the top five of his class and was hailed Chancellor, Order of the Purple Feather, of the U. P. College of Law Honor Society.

Tranquil Salvador III with the Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles law office President of the University of Sto. Tomas Student Council (College of Arts and Letters) and subsequently of the Ateneo Law Student Council (ALSC). He was an Associate Editor of the Ateneo Law Journal in 1989.  He was the first Chairman of the Association of Law Students of the Philippines for the National Capital Region in 1990. As president of the ALSC, he was given the Evelio B. Javier Leadership Award.

He is presently the Dean of the Law School of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Pasay (PLP), reviewer and professor of law in Ateneo de Manila University, School of Law (ADMU), the Law School of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), Far Eastern University (FEU), FEU-La Salle and San Sebastian College (SSC), University of the East (UE), Juris Law Center, University Belt Consortium and adviser to the Far Eastern University Law Review, PLM Law Student Council and PLM-Alternative Lawyering Center.

Karen Jimeno JD/LlB UP College of Law ; Master’s degree in law (LlM) from Harvard University

Prosecution panel the Corona impeachment trial

Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr. (Iloilo, 5th District) Chief public prosecutor Chairperson, House Committee on Justice Finished Bachelor of Laws from the University of the Philippines in 1998 Served as junior partner at the Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila Law Offices from 1999 to 2004 Currently a member of the ruling Liberal Party (LP) chaired by President Benigno Aquino III Secondary prosecutor for Article I (partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration)

Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya (Cavite, 1st District) Chairperson, House Committee on Appropriations originally an officer of the Philippine Navy obtained a law degree from Ateneo de Manila University in 2005 currently serves as LP secretary-general assigned as the House prosecution team’s manager

Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao (Isabela, 4th District) obtained his law degree from Ateneo de Manila University in 1980 ranked 10th in the 1980 Bar examinations worked as associate attorney for the Siguion-Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office from 1981 to 1987 worked as lecturer and reviewer in commercial law at the FEU and the De La Salle University from 1989 to 1992 currently aligned with the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) lead prosecutor for Article III (lack of competence, integrity, probity and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel; in allowing his wife’s appointment to office; and in discussing with litigants’ cases pending in the Supreme Court)

Rep. Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao (Akbayan party-list) finished Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University in 1993 served as lead counsel for the Sumilao farmers. The case resulted in an agreement under which the farmers can reclaim their lands. served as executive trustee for the BALAOD Mindanaw law group lead prosecutor for Article IV (disregard of separation of powers in issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives during the impeachment proceedings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez)

Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, Jr. (Cavite, 2nd District) Chairperson, House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms finished a law degree, magna cum laude, from the Far Eastern University in 1975 worked as a certified public accountant and lawyer f0r 22 years from 1976 to 1998 worked as a pre-bar reviewer and law professor in civil law at the FEU until 1992 bolted the Lakas-Kampi-Christian Muslim Democrats coalition in 2010 and was one of the lawmakers who founded the National Unity Party, in which he currently serves as the vice-president for external affairs lead prosecutor for Article V (gerrymandering of 16 newly created cities and promotion of Dinagat Island into a province)

Rep. Neri Colmenares (Bayan Muna party-list) finished Bachelor of Laws from the University of the Philippines served as former secretary-general for the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers served as lead counsel of the party-list organizations and won the suit before the Supreme Court questioning the “First Party Rule” that unduly cut down the number of winning party-list representatives after the 2007 elections lead prosecutor for Article VII (partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of Mrs. Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroy0.

Rep. Raul Daza (Northern Samar, 1st District) Deputy Speaker graduated cum laude from the University of the Philippines College of Law practiced law in the Philippines from 1958 to 1969 and 1998 to 2001 served as deputy minister of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) under the presidency of the late Corazon Aquino. served as senior defense counsel in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada in 2000 currently aligned with the LP lead prosecutor for Article I (partiality and subservience in cases involving the Aroryo administration)

Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas (Ilocos Norte, 1st District) Vice-Chairperson, House Committee on Justice finished Bachelor of Laws from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1978 ranked 8th in the 1978 Bar Examinations aligned with the Nacionalista Party the only public prosecutor who did not sign the impeachment complaint against Corona lead prosecutor for Article VI (arrogating the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo of plagiarism)

Rep. Reynaldo Umali (Oriental Mindoro, 2nd District) obtained his law degree from the Manuel L. Quezon University in 1987 practised law for 10 years, while holding posts at the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council from 1990 to 1992 worked at the Bureau of Customs in 2003 and eventually became the agency’s deputy commissioner for revenue collection and monitoring currently aligned with the LP lead prosecutor for Article VIII (failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary collections)

Rep. Marlyn Primicias-Agabas (Pangasinan, 6th District) Chairperson, House Committee on Revision of Laws finished law from the San Beda College of Law aligned with the NP lead prosecutor for Article II (failure to publicly disclose the chief justice’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Rep. Sherwin Tugna (Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption party-list) obtained his law degree from Ateneo de Manila University in 2006 served as junior associate lawyer for the Puyat Jacinto and Santos Law Offices and the Angara Abello Concepcion Regalla and Cruz Law Offices from 2007 to 2008 secondary prosecutor of Articles III and VI

Source: A Primer on Chief Justice Corona’s Impeachment Case

from Who's who in the CJ Corona Impeachment