Tapalla, Gian Carlo C.

L- 110522 The basic idea of government of the Philippine[s] xxx [is] xxx a representative government, the office being mere agents and not rulers of the people xxx where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and holds the office as a trust for the people whom he represents - Justice George Malcolm, Cornejo v. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188, 194 (1920). These words are cited in numerous cases and it reminds us how our public officers should always be guided of truth and justice. The Constitution guides public officer through Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. In the same way, the Filipinos are emphasized and reminded on Section 1, Article II of the same Constitution Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. These articles work hand in hand to keep public officers wary of their actions and to make the people vigilant to any public officers who are attempting or are already in the process of tainting the prestige and dignity of their offices. The words of the Constitution are clear as to how the disqualification and removal of the President, Vice President, Members of the Constitutional Commission, Ombudsman, and Members of the Supreme Court. These Sections of Article XI have already proven its power among the line of public officers who went through impeachment, vis--vis; the words have already protected the people from public officers who had took advantage of their position. Several public officers were once at the verge of impeachment but never pushed through except for Former President Joseph Estrada. In this line of public officers who were once subject to impeachment proceedings, the countrys very first Supreme Court Justice to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Recently, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is now facing the trials of impeachment. Filed by representatives Niel C. Tupas Jr., Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Lorenzo R. Tanada III, Reynaldo V. Umali, Arlene J Bag-ao a and signed by One hundred eighty eight (188) house representatives, the articles of impeachment were submitted to the Senate on December 13, 2011 and the trial has commenced on January 16, 2012. Corona was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption. The following are the Eight Articles of Impeachment submitted by the prosecutiont: 1. Betrayal of public trust: Coronas track record was marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice which continued to his dubious appointment as a midnight chief justice and up to the present. 2. Culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust: Corona failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

3. Culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust: Corona failed to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that [a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flipflopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants cases pending before the Supreme Court. 4. Betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez. 5. Culpable violations of the Constitution: Through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province. 6. Betrayal of public trust: Corona arrogated unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate an alleged erring member of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment. 7. Betrayal of public trust: Through partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favour of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Courts own TRO. 8. Betrayal of public trust and/or graft and corruption: Corona failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections. Considering these facts presented, it is ridiculous for me to conclude on something that is still on going. Personally discussing the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Corona is just like playing my fingers on murky water. I might just confuse myself more about the issues. It is critical as far as my knowledge and competencies as of this moment. However, as a graduate of Broadcast Communication as my pre law, I have what vantage point for me to take. Section 4 of the 1987 constitution states that No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. This section is not just a guide but an attribute to the Filipinos of what can they express. In this country, where Media is considered as a fourth estate, airing or publishing an impeachment case is like serving caviar instead of tuyo. You dont get this scenario everyday. Its a feast of cameras and a parade of media men all focused

in this Topsy - Turvy situation. What do these media networks do is provide what the people want to see. Yes, it is convenient to watch the impeachment in the comfort of your home, but are we really getting what we want to know or are we getting what the media would want us to know? Is the media really biased in presenting the corona impeachment? On February 1, 2012, Iloilo representative and lead prosecutor Representative Niel Tupas appeared in Hot Copy, a morning show hosted by Karen Davila in ANC Channel, a subsidiary network of ABS CBN. This prosecuting lawyer made gave brief discussions about the impeachment and at the same time discussed some points and his views about the case. There was also one time when Karen Davila said that she is somehow close with Tupas wife and that they were even classmates. The Code of Professional Responsibility under Rule 13.02 states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or a against a party. What just Tupas did is a total violation of the said rule. Somehow his words during the interview may prevent or obstruct the impeachment proceeding, Though the following day the defense was asked to give an opinion, I still find it unethical in a sense that, those who have first watched Tupas interview could have accepted it as true. It would be fair if both of them were invited on the same date so that whenever there will be a question, either side can answer right away. However, words are spreading that the reason why ABS CBN somehow favors the prosecution is because of one of their talents is the sister of the President Kris Aquino. Though these are merely allegations but we cannot deny the fact that what just happened in Hot Copy was a total favour to give more highlight to the prosecution. For the print media, what I liked reading is the Inquirer. Reading an inquirer newspaper is totally different from what you watch from ABS CBN. Its style is strong to the point that it is somehow against to almost anything. However, during this impeachment, most of the articles were written somehow with a slant on Corona. On January 17, 2012, an article written by Marlon Ramos, goes with the title: Defense to block attempts to compel Corona kin to appear on witness stand. This title has a positive effect on readers and probably for those people who are Coronas side, this is a good news to them. This story was reported on screen by Henry Omaga Diaz and was published by ABS CBN in their website. However, what the website said about what happened was, Corona relatives eyed as prosecution witnesses. For this title, a person who is in favor of Coronas removal from office will find this as a good news. The social network, a growing industry for media consumers, is a source of all information about the case. Unfortunately, people post blogs, statuses, tweets, and we are not sure how the truthfulness of their claim. We can never be sure about the source of their emotions for the impeachment case and I find it really dangerous is that, an emotion of one can be passed along to his or her friends. Its a network. It will reach massively. The media has its own biases. It cannot deny that fact. It is a rule among these media groups to determine what they want their consumers to absorb. The media consumers are just like sponges that siphon anything that comes. The best thing to do is to have an image without any bias. We are all human, and we do have our own

biases but for the case of people who work in media what is required for them is to present themselves as neutral. The impeachment case is something that should be presented to people as somehow will educate them about the government and about their rights. Its is not for entertainment because if thats what they really wanted, they could have just played all Manny Pacquiao matches. As for us people, we need to be critical with what we see. We cannot always rely with what we see on TV alone. We have to check all other sources. We have to educate ourselves and shape opinions based on what we learned and not of what we heard. We do not have to be that intelligent for us to understand that we are being abused. Its media versus free trials. A study conducted by Charles Montado of California State University shows that a televised trial has a higher percentage of conviction as compare to those who have none. This just means that Media can stir up peoples emotions and in the country, most of the time it works. Lastly, it is ideal that the government is considering the right for a speedy and impartial trial. However, even if I havent learned the rules yet, all activities done in the court should always comply with existing laws. The prosecution cannot be desperate enough to the point that they present things which are not required from them. All I fear as of this moment, as the trial continues, is probably a walkout from the prosecution and through media, they will encourage viewers or listener to gather and make protest. I believe that it defeats the propose of the law which we, ourselves, created. What the men cannot punish here will still be punished elsewhere.