Memorandum Chief Justice Functions Feb13P326

8/3/2019 Memorandum Chief Justice Functions Feb13P326

1/13

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SENATE'.' !0}ffJ. ,: uf tl! " ' : d ' H ~

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTATIVES NIH C. TUPAS,JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA, III,REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.BAG-AO (other complainantscomprising one third (1/3) of thetotal Members of the House ofRepresentatives as are indicatedbelow.)

'[ ? FEB 13 P3 :26

CASE NO. 002-2011

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

MEMORANDUMThe HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS, in accordance with the

Honorable Court's directive during the hearing held on 7 February 2012/ by way of thisMemorandum, respectfully submits:

1 On 7 February 2012, the Honorable Court ordered the Prosecution to submit a legal Memorandum on the powersof the Chief Justice of control and supervision over the members of the Supreme Court.


2/13

The Role and Function of the Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court

2

"Let me start off by saying that the Chief Justice has two major roles: first,he is the highest magistrate of the land, the primus inter pares (the firstamong equals) among the fifteen members of the Supreme Court; andsecond, he is the leader of the entire judicial branch of governmentcomposed of about 2.000 justices and judges plus about 26.000employees nationwide; as well as of the Philippine bar composed ofabout 40.000 lawyers.As primus inter pares, the Chief Justice presides over all en bane sessionsof the Supreme Court. He is thus able to control the flow of theproceedings. He shapes the Court's agenda. opens the discussion of thecases and summarizes the arguments. Nonetheless, like his fourteencolleagues, he has only one vote. So, it is by his moral ascendancy andpersuasive skills, not by any boss-subordinate relationship, that the ChiefJustice leads the Supreme Court.On the other hand, the Chief Justice is also the Chief Executive Officer ofthe entire judiciary.Outside the realm of decision-making in the Supreme Court in whieh hehas one solitary vote. the Chief Justice is the unquestioned administrativeboss of the entire Judicial Department of government; nothing happenswithout his say-so. But more than a boss. he is the leader of the judiciary.The 2,000 justices and judges, as well as the 26,000 court personnel allover the country, hold him up for inspiration and example. Indeed, theChief Justice is looked up to as the leader who inspires, motivates, andleads other officials to work unceasingly, to rise above their punylimitations, to excel beyond themselves, and to achieve collectively theirloftiest dreams and highest aspirations." (emphasis supplied) 2

1. In these terms does former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban describe the influence andpivotal role of the Chief Justice within the Court he leads. Indeed, in the recent case of DeCastro v. Judicial and Bar Council,3 Justice Brion's separate opinion instructs us that "(tlheChief Justice is the head of the Judiciary in the same manner that the President is theChief Executive and the Senate President and the Speaker of the House head the twoHouses of Congress." xxx

2 Panganiban, Artemio V., Visionary Leadership By Example, February 7, 2007. Available athttp://cjpanganiban.ph/speeches/visionary-leadership-by-example (last accessed February 12, 2012).'G.R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010


3/13

3

2. It should be added too that the Chief Justice holds the power of the purse, having theexclusive power to disburse millions of pesos of the Judicial Development Fund (JDF)4 andthe Special Allowance for the Judiciary.s

3. In more particular terms, the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (the "SC Internal Rules,,)6which "govern the internal operations of the Supreme Court and guide its exercise ofjudicial and administrative functions x x x" provide the functions ofthe Chief Justice.

4. Under Section 1, Rule 2 of the SC Internal Rules, the activities of the Supreme Court areadministered under the leadership of the Chief Justice, to wit:

"Section 1. Exercise of judicial and administrative functions. - The Courtexercises its judicial functions and its powers of administrative supervisionover all courts and their personnel through the Court en banc or itsDivisions. It administers its activities under the leadership of the ChiefJustice. who may, for this purpose, constitute supervisory or specialcommittees headed by individual Members of the Court or workingcommittees of court officials and personnel." (emphasis supplied)

5. The numerous functions of the Chief Justice under the SC Internal Rules include thefollowing:

5.1. He chairs the sessions of the court on en bane matters and cases (See: Section 2,Rule 2);

5.2. At his call, he reorganizes the Divisions when a new member isappointed. He is also given the prerogative to consider factors other thanseniority in the composition of Divisions (or Division assignments) (See: Section8, Rule 2);

5.3. He designates the members of the permanent Committees in theSupreme Court such as the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court,Security, Bids and Awards, and others (See: Section 12, Rule 2);

4 Presidential Decree 1949, Establishing A Judiciary Development Fund And For Other Purposes (1984).5 Republic Act 9227, An Act Granting Additional Compensation In The Form Of Special Allowances For Justices,Judges And All Other Positions In The Judiciary With The Equivalent Rank Of Justices Of The Court Of Appeals AndJudges OfThe Regional Trial Court, And For Other Purpose (2003).6 A.M. No. 1-4-20-5C.


4/13

4

5.4. He establishes and chairs the Supreme Court's Ethics Committee (See:Section 12, Rule 2);5.5. He designates the positions for members of the Supreme Court in the

Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal(See: Section 13, Rule 2);

5.6. He designates from among the members of the Supreme Court on thebasis of seniority, the two (2) raffle committees (See: Section 2, Rule 7);

5.7. He receives the report of the Clerk of Court on the classification of casesfor raffle (See: Section 4, Rule 7);

5.8. He may direct or order the conduct of a special raffle when advised bythe Clerk of Court that an initiatory pleading prays for the issuance of atemporary restraining order or an urgent and extraordinary writs, and the casecannot be included in the special raffle (See: Section 6, Rule 7);

5.9. He may act when the Supreme Court is in recess and "the urgency of thecase requires immediate action" (See: Section 6[g], Rule 7);

5.10. When a member of the Supreme Court is on leave or there is a vacancy ina Division, he designates another member from the other Divisions by rotation,according to reverse order of seniority to be acting member (See: Section 4,Rule 8);

5.11. His office is the repository of rollos7. It is where the Rollo Room is locatedand all rollos are kept (See: Section 2, Rule 9);5.12. He assigns consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the

case having the lower or lowest docket number has been raffled, subject toequalization of case load by raffle; (See: Section 5, Rule 9);

5.13. In case of a lost rollo, he directs the Judicial Records Office to reconstitutethe rollo (See: Section 6, Rule 9);

5.14. He records the action(s} taken in each case for transmittal to the Clerk ofCourt after each session. His notes are the bases of the minutes of the sessions(See: Section 2, Rule 10);

5.15. He approves the Minutes of any session (See: Section 8, Rule 11);5.16. He accepts dissenting, separate or concurring opinions (See: Section 7,

Rule 13);5.17. In all decided cases whether by the Court en bone or by a Division, he

issues a certification regarding the conduct of consultation among the membersof the Court and the assignment of the writing of the decision to a memberafter such consultation (See: Section 8, Rule 13);

7 Section 1, Rule 9 provides: "The rolla of a case. The original of all pleadings, communications, documents andother papers filed by the parties shall be encased in a rollo, which shall serve as their official repository forpurposes of the case. The roJ/a shall be properly and sequentially paginated by the Docket Division of the JudicialRecords Office to prevent intercalation or detachment of a page."


5/13

5

5.18. The original of all decisions and resolutions, as well as separate,concurring or dissenting opinions are submitted to him accompanied byelectronic copies (See: Section 9, Rule 13);

5.19. He is informed of the promulgation of a decision or resolution withintwenty four (24) hours thereof (See: Section 2, Rule 14);

5.20. He directs the Staff Head to deliver immediately the electronic copy ofthe decision or resolution to the Management Information System Office(MISO) (See: Section 3, Rule 14);

5.21. He decides on policy considerations and determination of matters andissues;(See: Section 3(e), Rule 4)

5.22. He may authorize the correction of typographical errors discovered afterthe promulgation of a decision or resolution (See: Section 1, Rule 17).

6. In relation to the third Article of Impeachment against Chief Justice Corona, the follOWingpowers and functions of the Chief Justice are directly relevant:

6.1. He may direct the immediate inclusion of any matter in the agenda (Section 2,Rule 11);

6.2. He provides the Clerk of Court with his notes on the actions taken by theCourt. The copy of the Agenda containing his handwritten notes shall serve asthe basis fo r the preparation of the minutes of the session by the Office of theClerk of Court (See: Section 3, Rule 11);

6.3. He approves the draft minutes of the sessions of the Court. Extendedresolutions showing the actions of the Court on the cases on the agenda arereleased to the parties only after he has approved the minutes in writing (See:Section 4, Rule 11);

6.4. He gives the final approval to any minute resolution. Also, he may direct thepreparation of unsigned extended resolutions and approve the same. He alsoorders the Clerk of Court to release duly approved minute and unsignedextended resolutions (See: Section 6, Rule 11).

The FASAP Case

7. It is recalled that in FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al. docketed as G.R. No. 178083(the "FASAP Case"), the Supreme Court had issued a Decision dated 22 July 2008 holding


6/13

6

that the retrenchment effected by Philippine Air Lines ("PAL") in 1998 of more than onethousand four hundred (1,400) of its flight attendants was illegal.

8. Subsequently, that Decision dated 22 July 2008 became final after the Supreme Courtdenied, with finality, PAL's motions for reconsideration, explicitly stating that "no furtherpleadings will be entertained." These denials are contained in Resolutions issued by theSupreme Court in the FASAP case (G.R. No. 178083) dated 02 October 2009 and 07September 2011.

9. The Decision of the FASAP case would have, in the normal course of things, remainedundisturbed were it not for letters written and sent by Atty. Estelito Mendoza to theSupreme Court on four (4) dates, namely September 13, 16, 20 and 22, all of 2011.Respondent Corona was given copies of 3 of the 4 letters written by Atty. Mendoza.

9.1. Significantly, Atty. Estelito Mendoza is the same person who filed A.M. No. 10-2-S-SCwhich, consolidated with other cases in De Castro v. ludicial and Bar Council (supra),gave occasion for the Supreme Court to declare as legal the appointment as ChiefJustice of respondent Renato C. Corona.

9.2. More telling, previous to writing the letters starting on September 13, 2011, Atty.Estelito Mendoza was not the lawyer of PAL in the FASAP case and never representedthe airline since the FASAP case started in 1998.

10. The Supreme Court, through an Order rendered by a division, required FASAP to furnish PALwith copies of the letters which the members of FASAP individually sent to the justices. TheOrder was not considered as an administrative matter, but was considered as a matter to beresolved under the main case, G.R. No. 178083. Against established norm and despite


7/13

7

defying all reasonable expectations, the letters of Atty. Mendoza were successfully includedin the agenda of the Supreme Court en bane as evidenced by the Court's Resolution dated04 October 2011 (hereinafter "the October 4, 2011 Resolution") under his control and notas a matter under the main case G.R. No. 178083 (which is already under the control of aparticular division).

11.. Given that the Decision in the FASAP case was already final and moreover, that no furtherpleading would be entertained, the letters sent by Atty. Mendoza should never have beenconsidered, much less acted upon by the Court en bane. Further, it is curious that theletters did not retain the docket number of the FASAP case (i.e. G.R. No. 178083) but wereassigned a docket number reserved for Administrative Matters, i.e. A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC.8This is highly irregular and causes confusion. And yet, had the letters remained as part ofG.R. No. 178083, it would have been addressed and resolved by the Division to which it was

assigned - with little justification for the participation of the Chief Justice. With a "new"Administrative Matter however, the Chief Justice could now justify his participation,allowing the matter to be placed in the Court's agenda prior to its being accepted by theCourt en bane.

12. It should be pointed out that two (2) unsanctioned personal letters were submitted to theSupreme Court Clerk of Court by Estelito Mendoza, PAL's lawyer. In the letters dated 13 and29 September 2011, Atty. Mendoza asked for the following confidential information fromthe Clerk of Court: (a) the identity of the present Member-in-Charge of the FASAP case; (b)the circumstance by which the Member-in-Charge was designated; and (c) the names oftheMembers of the Supreme Court who participated in the deliberation and voted on the

Resolution dated 7 September 2011.

8 The matter was entitled Re: Letters o j Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: G.R. No. 178083 - Flight Attendan ts andStewards Association o j the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), Patria Chiong et 01.


8/13

813. Clearly, the letters sent by PAL's counsel were seeking for only one request - be advised on

the names of the members of the Court who deliberated and voted on the Resolutiondenying PAL's Second Motion for Reconsideration. The letters were bereft of anystatement regarding the authority of the division to issue the Resolution. Thus, beingmerely an administrative proceeding, the respondent-led en bane should have acted in itsadministrative capacity and should have limited the discussion on whether to advise PAL'scounsel on the names of the members of the Court who deliberated and voted on theResolution. It cannot touch upon the final Resolution in G.R. No 178083 which is an entirelyseparate case, unless both are consolidated.

Respondent Chief Justice'$ participation inthe FASAP case14. In this matter of Renpto C. Corona's participation in the FASAP case, it is critical to

remember that in his Answer to the Verified Complaint, Corona asserts that he "took nopart in the FASAP eaSIi/, having inhibited since 2008.,,9 This is untrue and is contrary todocumentary evidenc,. namely the October 4. 2011 Resolution itself. On its face, theResolution shows that respondent Corona took part in the decision to recall the final andexecutory judgment in the FASAP case inasmuch as it indicates only Justices Carpio, Velasco,Jr., leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo and Brion to have taken no part therein. Further, as theResolution is iSSUEld by the Court en bane, it was released only with the approval of theChief Justice (Rule 11, section 4 of the SC Internal Rules). Thus, the participation of theChief Justice in the FASAP case is readily shown, and his subsequent prevarication on thematter, proved.

15. Aside from Corona's participation in the issuance of the October 4, 2011 resolution, there isyet another set of falsities in Corona's Answer relative to Article 3 of the ImpeachmentComplaint. According to Corona, "(t)he Supreme Court uniformly treats all letters as official

9 Answer, page 37.


9/13

9

communications that it must act on when warranted. The practice is that all letters areendorsed to the proper division or the Supreme Court en bane to which their subjectmatters are pending. No letter to the Supreme Court is treated in secret."

16. And yet, all of Atty. Mendoza's letters were kept secret from FASAP and its counsel. FASAPwas never given an opportunity to read them, much less comment on them. As it turnedout, FASAP knew about the letters written by Atty. Mendoza only after the Supreme Courten bane had already considered and acted on them.

17. The reason for the denial of FASAP's right to notice and opportunity to comment isapparent. The respondent, acted upon the letters of PAL's counsel in an administrativematter (A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC) so that the main case (G.R. No. 178083) will not attain finality.The 7 September 2011 Resolution denying PAL's 2nd Motion for Reconsideration (which

was recalled by the Supreme Court en bane) was received by both PAL and FASAP on 19September 2011. According to the Rules of Court, the said Resolution would have beenfinal and executory after fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof of both parties or after04 October 2011.10 Therefore, the Supreme Court had only until the very last day of 4October 2011 to act on the case. And this is exactly what respondent Chief Justice did atthe expense of the right of FASAP to notice and opportunity to comment.

18. Thus, (1) the fact that the mere letters of Atty. Mendoza were considered, (2) that theywere not assigned to the Division which decided G.R. No. 178083, (3) that they weremade to appear in the agenda of the Supreme Court en bane as an Administrative Matter,and worst or all (4) that they were kept from FASAP and its counsel all the while -

10 Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court states that "[a] party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgmentor final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party." Inrelation thereto, Section 2, Rule 36 states that "I f no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filedwithin the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in thebook of entries of judgments." Thus, the 7 September 2011 Resolution should have become final and executoryand should have been entered in the book of entries of judgment on 04 October 2011 had it not been for theOrder of the Supreme Court en bane recalling the said Resolution promulgated on the same day.


10/13

10

depriving them an opportunity to be heard, all these evince Corona's manifest partialitv.failure to act with integrity and independence as a member of judiciary.

19. But this is not all. The most pernicious aspects ofthe October 4,2011 Resolution, the ONLYResolution in which Corona openly participates. is apparent from a reading of its contents:

RESOLUTIONPursuant to Section 3 (m) and (n), Rule II of the Internal Rules of theSupreme Court, the Court En Bane resolves to accept G.R. No. 178083(Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines [FASAP]v. Philippine Airlines. Inc. [PAL], Patria Chiong et al.) and to takecognizance thereof.The Court En Bane further resolves to recall the resolution datedSeptember 7, 2011 issued by the Second Division in this case.The Court furthermore resolves to re-raffle this case to a newMember-In-Charge. (Carpio, Velasco. Jr., Leonardo De Castro and DelCastillo, JJ., no part. Brion, J., no part insofar as the re-raffle isconcerned.)

20. Thus, the October 4, 2011 Resolution had the intent and effect of defeating the finalDecision in the FASAP case in favor of the flight attendants by recalling the Court's twoearlier Resolutions denying PAL's Motions for ReconsiderationY In this way, the October4, 2011 Resolution - with the participation of Corona as Chief Justice - prevented theexecution of the Decision in the FASAP case. Thus, in shOWing manifest partiality towardsmere letters written by Atty. Mendoza, respondent Corona causes grave injustice to the1,400 employees who - after 14 years of legal struggle - continue to pray that at long last,they may see justice finally fulfilled.

The Chief Justice as the head and leader ofthe highest court

21. In fine, the Chief Justice had special opportunities to exercise influence to steer the court inthe proper direction. As primus inter pares and as the leader of the entire Judiciary, he has

11 Dated October 2, 2009 and September 7, 2011.


11/13

11

the power to direct the agenda and the flow of discussion, provide alternatives to the issuesat hand, and control the release of documents. This goes into his specific acts regarding hisparticipation despite prior inhibition and his express statements and instructions.

22. Chief Justice Corona, being the head of the highest court of the land, is obliged to upholdthe law and ensure that his department does not transgress any rights in the same way asthe heads of the other departments of the government are mandated to ensure that theirrespective departments do not incur violations of the law (Le. President, Senate Presidentand Speaker of the House).

23. The importance of the power of administrative supervision by the Chief Justice of thePhilippines has been discussed in recent jurisprudence,12 viz:

"Under Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is grantedthe power of administrative supervision over all courts and the personnelthereof. Pursuant to this power, the Court issues administrative circulars andmemoranda to promote the efficient and effective administration of justicexxx Through these circulars, memoranda and administrative matters and cases,the Court likewise interprets laws relevant to its power ofsupervision. (CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section, 6.)The Court likewise issuesrules concerning, among others, the protection and enforcement ofconstitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, theadmission to the practice of law, and the Integrated Bar. (/d., Article VIII, Section5(5).)

xxx xxx xxxAn administrative matter that is entered in the Court's docket is either anadministrative case (A.C.) or an administrative matter (A.M.) submitted to theCourt fo r its consideration and action pursuant to its power of supervision. AnA.C. involves disciplinary and other actions over members of the Bar, based onthe Court's supervision over them arising from the Supreme Court's author ity topromulgate rules relating to the admission to the practice of law and to theIntegrated Bar. Closely related to A.C. cases are the Bar Matter (B.M.) casesparticularly involving admission to the practice of law.(CONSTITUTION, ArticleVIII, Section 5(5).) An A.M. is a matter based on the Supreme Court's power ofsupervision: under Section 6, Article VIII. this refers to the Court'sadministrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof xxx

xxx xxx xxx

12 Brion, Separate Opinion, De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010


12/13

12

The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary in the same manner that thePresident is the Chief Executive and the Senate President and the Speaker ofthe House head the tw o Houses of Congress. xxxMore than the vote, Court deliberation is the core of the decision-makingprocess and one voice less is not only a vote less but a contributed opinion, anobservation, or a cautionary word less for the Court. One voice can be a bigdifference if the missing voice is that of the Chief Justice.Without meaning to demean the capability of an Acting Chief Justice, theascendancy in the Court of a permanent sitting Chief Justice cannot be equaled.He is the first among equals - a primus inter pares - who sets the tone for theCourt and the Judiciary, and who is looked up to on all matters, whetheradministrative or judicial. To the world outside the Judiciary, he is thepersonification of the Court and the whole Judiciary. And this is not surprisingsince, as Chief Justice, he not only chairs the Court en banc, but chairs as well thePresidential Electoral Tribunal that sits in judgment over election disputesaffecting the President and the Vice-President. Outside of his immediate Courtduties, he sits as Chair of the Judicial and Bar Council, the Philippine JudicialAcademy and, by constitutional command, presides over the impeachment ofthe President. (CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 2(6).) To be sure, the ActingChief Justice may be the ablest, but he is not the Chief Justice without themantle and permanent title of the Office, and even his presence as Acting ChiefJustice leaves the Court with one member less. Sadly, this member is the ChiefJustice; even with an Acting Chief Justice, the Judiciary and the Court remainheadless." (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

24. As a personification of the Court and the entire judiciary, the Chief Justice is duty-bound toensure that the Court does not figure in any instance of judicial conduct which mayirreparably damage the moral authority of the Court. This is his primordial duty as the headof the Supreme Court of the Philippines. By allowing the recall of an otherwise final andexecutory decision, Chief Justice Corona affixed his imprimatur on a violation by theSupreme Court of the tenets of judicial ethics and brought the Court into disrepute.

25. The nature of the office of the Chief Justice cannot be overemphasized. His term of office islonger compared to the terms of the members of the Executive Department and theLegislative Department. Members of these two departments are subject to the mechanismsof removal, recall, and election, and in certain instances impeachment. Respondent ChiefJustice Corona is only subject to impeachment; this is the check and balance mandated bythe Constitution.


13/13

13

26. Corona will enjoy the longest term since 1961 as the Chief Justice of the Philippines; in the110-year history of the Supreme Court, only three chief justices had terms longer thanhis.13 By the time Corona retires, he would have been a member of the SC for 16 years.

27. The proper administration of justice and public confidence in the rule of law will becompromised if the Chief Justice is left to take advantage of his office. It is the responsibilityof the Senate Impeachment Court to give life to the power of the sovereign to inquire intothe conduct of an impeachable officer and remove him for the public interest.

PRAYERWHEREFORE, the House of Representatives prays that this Honorable Court NOTE the

instant Memorandum.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIEDPasay City, Metro Manila, February 11, 2012.

By:

Copy Furnished:

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESRepublic of the Philippines

Ambrosio Padilla Hall2nd Floor, GSIS Bldg., Financial Center,

Roxas Blvd., Pasay City

AR ENE 'KArosecutor

Justice Serafin R. Cuevas (Ret.) et al.Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato CoronaSuite 1902 Security Bank Centre6776 Ayala AvenueMakati City, Philippines 1226

13 Panganiban, Transforming the Court, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 25 December 2010.

Documents

Memorandum Chief Justice Functions Feb13P326