substantive grounds (e.g. that the lifting of the watchlist order was saddled with
conditions, some of which had not been satisfied).
Impeachment proceedings and verdict
The articles of impeachment
Within barely a month of this showdown, Congress mustered 188 votes to impeach
Chief Justice Corona. The votes were apparently mobilized over one weekend, and
the signatures were gathered by the afternoon of the following Monday.
Corona was charged with betrayal of public trust or culpable violation of the
Constitution through the following: (a) his “partiality and marked subservience” to
President Arroyo, including his midnight appointment; (b) his nondisclosure of his
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, a constitutionally required document,
and incomplete reporting of such assets; (c) unethical conduct, e.g. “flip-flopping”
by the Supreme Court on decisions at the behest of well-connected counsel,
partiality to Arroyo, and conflicts of interest; (d) intrusion by the court in the
impeachment of the ombudsman (who subsequently resigned) and of a Supreme
Court justice found to have plagiarized (who was cleared by the court); (e)
intrusion by the court in lifting the watchlist orders against President Arroyo; and
(f) his failure to account for special funds entrusted to the judiciary.
The prosecution would eventually drop the following charges: the midnight
appointment, “flip-flopping” on some cases, intrusion into the ombudsman’s
impeachment, the plagiarism cover-up, and the mishandling of the special
judiciary funds. Accordingly, the chief justice was tried only on the following
charges: first, the non-filing and misdeclaration of assets and liabilities; second,
unethical conduct; and third, leading the court to lift Arroyo’s watchlist orders.
Chief Justice Corona was found guilty of failing fully to disclose his bank
deposits, in particular his foreign-currency deposits, and was removed. Twenty
senators voted for a guilty verdict, while three voted to acquit. The Senate held
the two other charges to have been moot and did not vote thereon.
Balancing the impeachment power and judicial review
The Supreme Court itself recognized the “concededly political character”^115 of the
impeachment process when it said:
Impeachment, described as “the most formidable weapon in the arsenal
of democracy,” was foreseen as creating divisions, partialities and
enmities, or highlighting pre-existing factions, with the greatest danger
that [citing theFederalist Papers] “the decision [in impeachment cases]
(^115) CJ Coronav.Senate.