Impeachment Paper

8/10/2019 Impeachment Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impeachment-paper 1/21

ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ t vþÿÿÿ sÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÁ € ð ¿

v bjbj´V´V 4ŗ < < n ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ · ì ì // / / / ÿÿÿÿ C C CC L , C O) » Ü ŕ ŕ ŕ ŕ r r r ò( ô( ô( ô( ô( ô(ô( i+ ¢. > ô( / r rr r r ô( / / ŕ ŕ Û ) t t t r n / ŕ /

ŕ ò( tr ( t t Ţ V' hn( ŕ ÿÿÿÿ `HÑ èÌ C à 6 ¾'Þ( ) 0 O) Î' I. ^ I. n(I. / n( p r r t r rr r r ô( ô(t r r r O)r r r r ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ I. r r rr r rr r r ìõ :

Background of the CaseThe impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona took a different routefrom the case of former President Joseph Estrada and former OmbudsmanMerceditas Gutierrez. Instead of a filing made by a citizen andendorsed by a Member of the House of Representatives, the verifiedcomplaint or resolution of impeachment was signed by 188 Congressmenwhich more than complies with the one-third requirement under Section3 (4), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. As a result of this fast-track process, the verified complaint no longer passed thru the HouseCommittee on Justice to determine if it is sufficient in form andsubstance. Moreover, because of this method, the verified complaintalready constitutes the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the

Senate shall forthwith proceed.Under Section 3 (6), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Senateshall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath oraffirmation. Since for this particular case the person on trial is theChief Justice of the Supreme Court, only the Senate President shallpreside. To get the ball rolling, CJ Corona would have to be formallyissued a writ of summons and a copy of the Articles of Impeachmentafter which he would have 10 days to give his Answer. Once the Senate



receives the Answer, the prosecution team from the House ofRepresentatives will have five days to submit their reply, should theyopt to do so. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of theSenate is needed to convict the Chief Justice.If convicted, the Chief Justice shall be removed from office and shallbe disqualified to hold any office under the Republic of the

Philippines. He will also be liable and subject to prosecution, trial,and punishment according to law. It is, thus, clear that the liabilitydoes not end at the Senate, the person impeached shall also be heldfor appropriate action as a result of his illegal and improper acts.Impeachment TrialThe 1987 Philippine Constitution says the grounds for impeachmentinclude culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft andcorruption, and betrayal of public trust. These offenses areconsidered Ŗhigh crimes and misdemeanorsŗ under the PhilippineConstitution. The President, Vice President, Supreme Court justices,and members of the Constitutional Commission and Ombudsman are allconsidered impeachable officials under the Constitution.

As reported by HYPERLINK "http://inquirer.net" \t "_blank"inquirer.net , the eight grounds of impeachment against CJ Corona are:Betrayal of public trust due to subservience to PampangaRepresentative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during her presidency, from thetime of his appointment as Supreme Court justice to his midnightappointment as Chief Justice. Examples are his partiality in theMegapacific contract decision, Fernando Poe Jr. case, the Lambinoversus Comelec case (peopleřs initiative), David v Arroyo and Neri vSenate (executive privilege).Culpable violation of the Constitution for non-disclosure of thestatement of assets, liabilities and net worth.Undue closeness to Macapagal-Arroyo as shown by the appointment of theChief Justiceřs wife to a seat in the Bases Conversion and DevelopmentAuthority.Betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitutionwhen he issued a status quo order ante that had suspended the hearingsof the House justice committee on the impeachment case againstprevious Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.Voting on the cityhood cases and the creation of the province ofDinagat.Creation of the ethics committee to look into the plagiarism caseagainst SC Justice Mariano del Castillo, which resulted in clearingDel Castillo of any liability.Temporary restraining order on the travel ban on Mrs. Arroyo.Refusal to account for judicial development funds, special allowances

and other court collections.The Senate impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona startedlast January 16, 2012. The proceedings are currently the most watchedevent in the country. The Philippine broadcast, print and online newsmedia are all closely monitoring the developments in the Monday toThursday afternoon to early evening hearings where the Congressmen-prosecutors with the help of private lawyers are doing their bests toprove their charges against the Chief Justice.On Marital and Filial Privilege:



The second day of the Corona impeachment trial at the Senate proved tobe interesting and delved into several basic legal principles andprocedures. The first involves marital and filial privilege as broughtabout by the denial by the impeachment court of the prosecutionřsrequest to subpoena the wife and children of the impeached ChiefJustice.

Marital and filial privilege is found under Sections 22 and 24 (a),Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which state to wit:ŖSec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. ŕ During theirmarriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or againstthe other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in acivil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crimecommitted by one against the other or the latterřs direct descendantsor ascendants.ŗ ŗSec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. ŕ The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned inconfidence in the following cases:(a)The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be

examined without the consent of the other as to any communicationreceived in confidence by one from the other during the marriageexcept in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal casefor a crime committed by one against the other or the latterřs directdescendants or ascendants.ŗ The second legal principle tackled is the right to self incrimination.This issue cropped up when the impeachment court denied theprosecutionřs motion to subpoena several documents related to thepurchase of properties allegedly acquired by Corona and his familythrough ill-gotten means. The right to self-incrimination is enshrinedin the Bill of Rights and found under Section 17 Article III of the1987 Constitution which provides that Ŗno person shall be compelled tobe a witness against himselfŗ. It is worth mentioning that an ordinarywitness may invoke the right but he may only do so as eachincriminating question is asked. On the other hand, an accused in acriminal case (who is akin to an impeached official) may invoke theright, but unlike the ordinary witness, he may altogether refuse totake the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.So what were the important legal lessons in day 3 of the trial? First,is the importance of obeying a subpoena. As defined under the Section1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, a subpoena is a process directed toa person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or thetrial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by competentauthority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also requirehim to bring with him any books, documents, or other things under his

control, in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.Ms. Vidal tried to convince the senators-jurors that she needed theauthorization of the Supreme Court before submitting the SALN to theimpeachment court, she had no choice but to comply since the saiddocuments were requested through a validly issued subpoena. Had shecontinued to be non-cooperative, she could have been cited forcontempt.



On HYPERLINK "http://www.abogadomo.com/archives/1372" \o "The CoronaImpeachment Trial: Inhibition of Senator Judges" Inhibition ofSenator Judges :Another interesting highlight of the impeachment trial was when Ms.Vidal called to the witness stand by virtue of a subpoena requested bythe prosecution. At first, she was a very hesitant witness. Questions

propounded by Atty. Mario Bautista elicited very few information andwere expectedly confronted by objections from the defense, led byAtty. Serafin Cuevas. Ms. Vidal eluded questions concerning theStatement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of Chief JusticeRenato Corona and hid behind the May 2, 1989 En Banc Resolution of theSupreme Court that required authorization before the Clerk of Courtcan release the SALN of any justice.An objection was posed by Atty. Cuevas to a question propounded bysenator-juror Franklin Drilon to Ms. Vidal. A sheepish Atty. Cuevashad to backtrack when reminded by Senate President Enrile that thiswas not allowed under the Rules on Impeachment promulgated by theSenate. At the end, it took the queries of Senator Franklin Drilon and

several senators-jurors and a firm order from Senate President JuanPonce Enrile to convince Ms. Vidal to turn over the SALN of ChiefJustice Renato Corona to the impeachment court.Even during proceedings in regular courts, a judge is allowed toquestion witnesses and any lawyer worth his salt would not object tothis. As held by the Supreme Court in several cases, a judge is calledupon to ascertain the truth of the controversy before him. He mayproperly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite andprevent unnecessary waste of time (Domanico v. Court of appeals, 122SCRA 218, 225 [1983]) and clarify obscure and incomplete details afterthe witness had given direct testimony (Valdez v. Aquilizan, 133 SCRA150, 153 [1984]). After all, the judge is the arbiter and he ought tosatisfy himself as to the respective merits of the claims of bothparties in accord with the stringent demands of due process(People v. Ancheta, 64 SCRA 90, 97 [1975]).The defense panel in the Corona Impeachment Trial is planning to askfor the inhibition of certain senator-judges, ostensibly for showingbias and partiality towards the prosecution and acting as prosecutorsthemselves. We now tackle the rules and jurisprudence regarding theinhibition and disqualification of judges to see if there is legalbasis for the defense panelřs plan. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court sets forth the rule oninhibition and disqualification of judges, to wit:SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges. Ŕ No judge or judicial officershall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child,

is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, orin which he is related to either party within the sixth degree ofconsanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has beenexecutor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which hehas presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is thesubject of review, without the written consent of all parties ininterest, signed by them and entered upon the record.



A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualifyhimself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other thanthose mentioned above.This rule enumerates the specific grounds upon which a judge may bedisqualified from participating in a trial. It must be borne in mindthat the inhibition of judges is rooted in the Constitution,

specifically Article III, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that noperson shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without dueprocess of law. Due process necessarily requires that a hearing isconducted before an impartial and disinterested tribunal [Gutierrez v.Santos, G.R. No. L-15824, May 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 249.]because unquestionably, every litigant is entitled to nothing lessthan the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. All the other elementsof due process, like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if theultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge[Rallos v. Gako, A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 and RTJ-99-1484 (A), March 17,2000, 328 SCRA 324.].The second paragraph of the rule addresses voluntary inhibition. Based

on this provision, judges have been given the exclusive prerogativeto recuse themselves from hearing cases for reasons other than thosepertaining to their pecuniary interest, relation, previous connection,or previous rulings or decisions. The issue of voluntary inhibition inthis instance becomes primarily a matter of conscience and sounddiscretion on the part of the judge. [Latorre v. Ansaldo, A.M. No.RTJ-00-1563, May 31, 2001, 358 SCRA 311.] It is a subjective test theresult of which the reviewing tribunal will generally not disturb inthe absence of any manifest finding of arbitrariness and whimsicality.This discretion granted to trial judges takes cognizance of the factthat these judges are in a better position to determine the issue ofvoluntary inhibition as they are the ones who directly deal with theparties-litigants in their courtrooms. [Gutang v. CA, 354 Phil. 77(1998).] Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the authority forvoluntary inhibition does not give judges unlimited discretion todecide whether or not they will desist from hearing a case. [Peoplev. Kho, G.R. No. 139381, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 290.] The decisionon whether or not judges should inhibit themselves must be based ontheir rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailingin the cases brought before them. [Gacayan v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483, September 17, 1999, 314 SCRA 682.] Similarly, the right of aparty to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who doesnot appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independentin handling the case must be balanced with the latterřs sacred duty todecide cases without fear of repression. [Webb v. People, G.R. No.

127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243.] The defense must thereforeprove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincingevidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particulartrial.On Article 2 (the non-disclosure of the Statement of Assets,Liabilities and Net Worth):The first four days of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice RenatoCorona centered on the second impeachment article on the non-disclosure of CJ Coronařs statement of assets, liabilities, and net



worth (SALN). Impeachment Article II on the alleged failure of CJCorona to disclose to the public his SALN has Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3pertaining to CJ Coronařs non-disclosure and non-inclusion of realproperties allegedly owned by him.The command on making assets and liabilities public is qualified bythe clause Ŗin the manner provided by law.ŗ Under Republic Act 6713,

the law provides: that it shall be Ŗmade available for inspection atreasonable hoursŗ and Ŗshall be made available for copying orreproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filedas required by lawŗ. Corona, furthermore, had the duty as ChiefJustice, to establish compliance procedures for the SALN requirement.The first three city registrar of deeds (Taguig City, Quezon City, andMarikina City) had taken the witness stand and produced titles anddeed of sales of various properties owned by the CJ Corona and hisfamily. Taken on their face, these documents already pointed to bigdiscrepancies in the list of properties and their price-values enteredin the SALNs and as recorded in the register of deeds.The HYPERLINK "http://pcij.org/blog/2012/01/24/saln-or-ill-gotten-

wealth-what-is-article-ii-really-about" Article 2 of Impeachmentreads, "Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitutionand/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to thepublic his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as requiredunder Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution." Paragraph 2.2reads, "Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement ofassets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution."Paragraph 2.3 reads, "It is also reported that some of the propertiesof Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets,liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corruptpractices act."This is why we are still hearing about the many HYPERLINK"http://article8jester.blog.com/2012/01/25/coronas-ill-gotten-wealth/"posh properties owned by Chief Justice Corona.Property after property of Corona was revealed with their listedvalues. These include some of the most prime addresses in the country,including The Columns in Makati, Bellagio at The Fort and others inQuezon City.HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Kim_Henares"

BIR Commissioner Kim Henares was called to HYPERLINK"http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationsubcategoryid=200&articleid=771164" testify for the prosecution . Kim Henares hasbeen with the BIR even under the Arroyo Administration. At least shewas being a sport about the subpoena. No one in their right mind wouldwant to spend an entire day at such slow moving proceedings.

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago was quick to point out thatHYPERLINK "http://pcij.org/blog/2012/01/25/prosecutors-want-bir-head-henares-on-witness-stand" Henares could only testify as to theauthenticity of the documents presented and not the accuracy of thedocuments, which is the more relevant testimony needed.HYPERLINK "http://verafiles.org/2012/01/26/miriam-keeps-prosecutors-

on-their-toes/" Senator Judge Santiago even reprimanded theprosecution team for not presenting a proper or fitting witness. The



defense team was also not spared a reprimand. Both panels had to bereminded how to properly conduct themselves during the trial.Once again, the prosecution panel looked like it had no idea what itwas doing, or didnřt seem to read the rulebook on how to go abouthandling impeaching a Supreme Court chief justice. They had alreadyHYPERLINK "http://pcij.org/blog/2012/01/24/tell-me-how-liberal-you-

want-it-enrile" asked for leeway from the court in the handling ofthe trial, making it an administrative process rather than a criminalprocedure. So far, the Senate has been quite fair and neutral withthem.Senate President Enrile had allowed the prosecution panel to let theBIR head to testify, but only to act as a witness HYPERLINK"http://pcij.org/blog/2012/01/25/enrile-lets-henares-take-stand-but-only-to-authenticate" who could testify authenticity of the ITRdocuments.The defense team objected to it of course. The defense team Atty.Cuevas even accepted the BIR documents presented by the prosecution soas to avoid having the Commissioner take the stand.

After all, Henares isnřt the personal accountant of the Chief Justiceand had no way of determining what Corona and his wife decided todeclare or leave off the income statements. Henares also did notpersonally prepare any tax filings of the couple. She was accepted asa witness, but not an expert witness.Henares ended up authenticating the Alpha list instead. It turned out,the Chief Justice doesnřt even have an ITR filed between 2002 and2010. However, this doesnřt automatically mean that he is corrupt orhas ill-gotten wealth.Government employees are listed on what is called a BIR Alpha list,which is a list of people who work for government that have theirincomes automatically deducted for tax purposes. However, if a personhas incomes outside of any earnings from the government, he shoulddeclare it separately.Perhaps these properties were acquired using loans (therefore listedas liabilities).The numbers certainly donřt add up. It doesnřt take a genius to seethat there is something wrong and that the Chief Justice certainlyseems to own more than what he has originally declared on paper.However, many of these properties were acquired before Corona becameChief Justice. The impeachment has to be based on Coronařs actionswhile he is a Supreme Court Justice. This means this his real estateshopping spree before becoming Chief Justice may be basis of taxevasion, but not necessarily grounds for his impeachment as thecurrent Chief Justice.

This is an impeachment trial, not a witch hunt for all HYPERLINK"http://article8jester.blog.com/2012/01/25/coronas-ill-gotten-wealth/"his assets and liabilities or activities before he was appointed tolead the highest court in the land.I was hence not surprised when the following day, the Megaworldmarketing director stated that what the company had given the Coronařswas a P5-million price reduction because of water damage sustained bythe unit as a result of a typhoon; a further P3 million discount sincethe consideration was paid within one year, and a further P2 million



discount. Now it can be told, it was not a P10-million discount. Justa 5 million discount over and above another 5 million price reduction.Senator Serge Osmena rightfully demanded from Megaworld evidence ofthe alleged water damage, as well as evidence of insurance coveragesince almost all buildings, finished or otherwise, has insuranceagainst water damage. These will prove if the damage to the unit was

in fact commensurate to the price reduction. Anent the discount, Ithink Megaworld has for all intents and purposes admitted that it gavethe Coronas an extraordinary discount since it has previously admittedthat normal discounts for cash transactions is only 15 percent of theselling price. If the normal selling price is P24 million, as itclaimed, the maximum discount should only have been P3.6 million. Whydid Megaworld officials give the Coronas P5 million in discount?In any case, the material point already proven by the prosecution isthat the Coronas grossly understated the value of the Bellagioproperty since it was only declared as having a value of P6 million.Worse, there was a complete omission of the P14 million cash that theyused to purchase the property. Previously, the prosecutors also proved

that two other properties, a lot in McKinley Hill and another unit atthe Spanish Bay Tower at the Fort, were also not declared in the SALN.Again the reason all public officers are required to file their SALNsannually is to enable the public to inquire whether there has been anincrease in a public officerřs assets on a year-to-year basis giventhat their incomes are fixed by law. If a public officer could notadequately explain how he acquired the additional assets, the lawpresumes it to have been ill-gotten.I am distraught too at Megaworldřs spin in its releases. It claimedthat it have lost two cases and won only one case from the SupremeCourt. It is always silent on the fact that its victory was worth P25million and that the decision was penned by Corona himself. Ithighlights a loss where it failed to collect P5 million, omitting thefact that this involved the same losing party in Cobardo. It alsohighlights a loss in the case of Tanseco vs. Megaworld where Coronawas a member of the division that rendered the judgment.The point, though, is that a magistrate should be purer than Caesarřswife. No upright and becoming magistrate should have accepted anextraordinary discount specially from a winning litigant in his owncourt, moreso if he himself penned the winning decision. True, theprosecution failed to introduce what it characterized as a 40-percentdiscount into the records. But that doesnřt matter. What matters isthat the people now know the kind of magistrate Corona is.

CONCLUSION

The process of impeachment recognizes a very fundamental problem in ademocracy and provides a drastic relief. The problem is the adamantstand of a tenured but erring high public official to remain in hisposition in an important branch of government. There is resistance.The legal relief is a decree from the Senate removing him from hishigh position. He is likewise barred from ever holding any publicoffice, no matter how insignificant. To the ousted, the emotionaldenouement is disgrace and humiliation. There can be no spin of amoral victory against partisan voting. It is simply total defeat.



What attracts people to the Corona impeachment is that the respondentis the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a public official who issupposed to do justice but is accused of doing the opposite.Magistrates have traditionally been considered as learned people whoshould be regarded with high esteem. Unlike political officials, aJustice's performance of his official decision-making duties is

cloaked in secrecy. Nevertheless, at least here in the Philippines,even the intellectual elite rarely criticize them as their reputationfor eruditeness and honesty seem to precede them.There is a tendency to treat these public officials as immune fromcriticisms and incrimination. Our laws even provide that, in the eventa judge's decision turns out to have legally violated theconstitutional rights of a citizen, he cannot be held liable fordamages, unless his acts can be proven to be criminal in nature.But Justices of the Supreme Court are still public officials who mustbe held accountable for their actions. In the United States,criticisms of a Justice's official views/decisions and even personallives have been accepted as necessary. These magistrates have even

humbly acknowledged such criticisms as important and have evenreminded the citizenry of their essentiality.

In the ultimate analysis, this impeachment proceeding against ChiefJustice Corona does not present to us a especially extraordinary case.The underlying principle is still basic. Public office is a publictrust. Accordingly, "men and women in robes" must also always be opento scrutiny. They betray this sovereign trust, they forfeit theirpositions.But even high officials deserve to be given due process of law. Wasdue process accorded to the Chief Justice in the determination ofwhether or not he was really impeachable? Are the issues to beresolved in this impeachment case purely legal or are they matters ofpolicy? At the time judgment is to be made, should the Senator-Judgeslook at the evidence focusing on Chief Justice Corona alone like in anordinary civil case? Or should the Senator-Judges focus on the ChiefJustice in relation to the future of the very institution he leads,the Judiciary and more particularly the Supreme Court? At the end ofthe day, will the issue basically be: Is Chief Justice Corona stillgood for the Supreme Court?Whatever the outcome of the impeachment trial of Supreme Court ChiefJustice Renato Corona, it is already evident that he is not only theone in trial. Other SC justices perceived to be with him, theinstitutions of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, and even theSenate and senators, will all be under the lens of the peopleřs

scrutiny during the impeachment trial.Of course, the focus will be on CJ Corona. However, the articles ofimpeachment can very well apply to the majority of the associatejustices of the Supreme Court. It is in this sense that theimpeachment trial may well be the trial of the institution itself.However, the nature of an impeachment process is one of a correctivemeasure, targeted at those officials at the top of the power chain whootherwise cannot be removed. In this case, the cleansing of the ranksof the SC justices is being done in order to regain the trust of the



people in the institution. It therefore is well within theaccountability principle in a democratic governance regime.It is not true that impeachment weakens the Supreme Court or thejudiciary. Nor does it constitute a constitutional crisis orŔmore far-fetchedŔa return to a dictatorship. Precisely, an impeachment process,as a constitutional process, is a democratic instrument that provides

a check on the powers of the highest officialsŔincluding the ChiefJustice of the Supreme Court.Impeachment also provides a rare opportunity for people to really getto know the lives and behavior of these officials and decide forthemselves whether they are fit or not for the powerful jobs they wereelected or appointed to. The people remain the ultimate actor andjudge in the process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HYPERLINK "http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/specials/cjontrial/impeachment-infographic.html"http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/specials/cjontrial/impeachment-infographic.html

©¢"# ¯ ¿ À Ñ¶Ñ¨Ñ›~iT;T;

1 j h hnţ CJ OJ PJ QJ UaJ mH sH ( h hnţ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ) hhnţ B* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ ph h hnţ CJ OJ QJ aJ hh½G| 5•>* OJ QJ h h 5•>* OJ QJ ( h h2!l CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ( h hCJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ( h h½G| CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mHsH . h h2!l 5•>* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH

$A Ü î ° 5 Ü M æ Ù # È i 4 í

× × × Ï ´ ×› › › › › ›› ›

$ „ť `„ť a$ gd $&F „h dŦ d d [$ \$ ^„h a$ gd $ „ť d d -D MÆ



ÿÿÿÿ [$ \$ `„ť a$ gd $ a$ gd $ „ť dŦ d d[$ \$ `„ť a$ gd $ dŦ d d [$ \$ a$ gd î ú û i 4 U ± ² 3 4 š › " &$ 3$ Œ%éÐ»°¥°xfxfxfxQ9Q . h hr ŕ 6•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ( h hr ŕ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH " h

CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ( h h'f CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mHsH . h h'f 5•>* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH h h: ) OJ QJ h húOJ QJ ( h hnţ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH 1 j h

hnţ CJ OJ PJ QJ UaJ mH sH + h hnţ >* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH 4U ² * 6 Ť " 4$ Œ% $& ³( ¶* Ñ- N/ Â/ V2 ô2 m6"9 ;> í × × × ×× × × × Ä ®® ® × × × ×× × × $ „ť dŦ d d [$\$ `„ť a$ gd oŔ $ dð ¤d ¤d @& [$ \$ a$ gd $ „ť dŦ

¤d ¤d [$ \$ `„ť a$ gd $ dŦ d d [$ \$ a$ gd Œ% %% & & !& "& #& $& [& d& m& p& ¾& Á& È& Ñ& (( )( +(³( µ( À( ( ) È) * * * ´* æÈ¯È¯Èæ¯šˆšˆšˆšˆšsašasasašˆšL( h oŔ h oŔ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH " h<P• CJ OJ PJ QJ aJmH sH ( h h<P• CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH " h oŔ CJ OJPJ QJ aJ mH sH ( h h oŔ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH 1 hh2!l 5•>* CJ OJ PJ QJ \•aJ mH sH : j h h2!l 5•>* CJ OJ PJ QJ U\•aJ mH sH 1 h h'f 5•>* CJ OJ PJ QJ \•aJ mH sH ½* =, ?, ¥, Ä, Ì, Î, ¯- ±- Ó- Ô- Â4 Õ46 6 6 6 j6 28 x8 : %: ÷: ; ñ; < X= ëÓëÁëÓëÓë¬ ŕ • ŕ ÁjRj ŕ • ŕ • ŕ • ŕ • ŕ . h h<P• 6•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ( h h<P• CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH . hh2!l 6•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ( h h2!l CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ( hhr ŕ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH " h<P• CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH. h h oŔ 6•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ( h h oŔ CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH X= ]=

f= œ= ¢= ;> I> ŗ> g? h? i? Á? ? E@ F@ G@ ·@Ñ¶¬¶šˆym`UMUB:+ h hœT OJ QJ mH sH hYWÒ OJ QJ hhYWÒ OJ QJ h oŔ OJ QJ h húOJ QJ h hú0J OJ QJ h oŔ OJ QJ mH sH h h oŔ OJ QJ mH sH

" h hœT 5•>* OJ QJ mH sH " h h'f 5•>* OJ QJ mH sH " h<P• CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH ( hh2!l CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ mH sH . h h2!l 6



•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ( h<P• 6•CJ OJ PJ QJ ]•aJ mH sH ;> ŗ> G@ B §C -F aG :HJ NK ©L }N ŘO NP ƒQ hR ŢS S Ś ¦Ñ µ š š š š

š š š š š šš š $ „ť dŦ £ £ -DMÆ

ÿÿÿÿ `„ť a$ gd<P• $ „ť dŦ d d -D MÆÿÿÿÿ [$ \$ `„ť a$ gd<P• $ „ť `„ť a$ gd<P• $ „ť `„ť a$ gd oŔ $ „ť `„ť a$ gd $ a$ gd ·@ @ Î@ @ B §C ²C ³C

D D 3D 4D 6E 7E ÎE ÏE ŧF ũF 0G 1G @G AG :H ;H €H •HH ţH -H §H I I 1I 2I JJ KJ J ¬J ÆJ ÇJ»›»›€›»e»e»›»›€›»›»›€›»›»›€›»›»›€› 5 h hYWÓ B* CJ OJ PJQJ ^J aJ mH

ph333 sH5 h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mH phÄ$0 sH> j h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ U^J aJ mHph333 sH5 h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mHph333 sHh h<P• OJ QJ mH sH h hœT OJ QJ mH sH h

oŔ OJ QJ mH sH 'ÇJ NK OK ¤K ¥K ÌK ÍK dM eM ¹M ºM ÊMËM N N ZO [O yO zO ºQ »Q T ¬T HV IV ›V œV ¥V ·V WW êX äÄäÄ©ÄäÄäÄ©ÄäÄä¨ŢŢ¨sdh hœT CJ OJ QJ aJ 5 h hRg B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mH ph333 sH5 h hYWÒ B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mHph333 sH5 h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mH phÄ$0 sH> j h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ U^J aJ mHph333 sH5 h h<Y B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mH ph333 sHS V W X Ø[ 7_ Ha c c 'c „e Ïg i j Ţj

ä Ì À À À À

À ¸ › | | || $ „Ū „ť d U Ū -D MÆ

ÿÿÿÿ ]„Ū `„ť a$ gd $ „Ū „ť d Ū -D MÆÿÿÿÿ ]„Ū `„ť a$ gd $ a$ gd$ „ť `„ť a$ gd $ „ť £ £ -D MÆÿÿÿÿ `„ť a$ gd $ „ť dŦ £ £ -D MÆÿÿÿÿ `„ť a$ gd<P• êX ëX ¦Y ©Y c c 'c µn s s ¦s

Ës u %u Su Tu Yu [u eu gu ÖÎÖ¿¯œ~~~rfWEW" hN/ß hN/ß 5



•>* CJ OJ QJ aJ hN/ß 5•>* CJ OJ QJ aJ hN/ß CJ OJ QJ aJ húCJ OJ QJ aJ h h<P• OJ QJ mH sH h h¯Tÿ OJ QJ

mH sH $ h húCJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ h hú5

•CJ OJ QJ aJ h húOJ QJ mH sH h h<P• OJ QJ h hœT OJ QJ 5 h

hœT B* CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ mH ph333 sHŢj k µn &p *q ¸r -t Su Tu Uu Vu Wu Xu Yu fu gu

v v à Ô È È ÈÈ È Ô Ô Ô ÔÔ Ô ¼ ¼ ± ±

$&F a$ gdN/ß

$ „ť `„ť a$ gdN/¦

$ „ť `„ť a$ gd$ „ť `„ť a$ gd $ „Ū „ť d U Ū -D MÆÿÿÿÿ ]„Ū `„ť a$ gd gu hu tu ¶u Àu Áu

vvv v îáÑáîÀîáÑh¸ Š hN/¦ 0J CJ OJ QJ aJ hN/¦ hN/¦ >* CJ OJ QJ aJ hN/¦>* CJ OJ QJ aJ " j hN/ß >* CJ OJ QJ UaJ 2 1h :p*i÷ °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %° °Ð °ÐÐj

˜ ţ ţ ţ ţ ţ ţ ţ ţ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 v v v v v v v v v 6 6 6 6 6 6 > 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ¨ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 ¸ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 h H 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ° 6 2 À Ð à ð0 @ P ` p € À Ð à ð 2 ( Ø è0 @ P ` p € À Ð à ð 0 @ P `p € À Ð à ð 0 @ P ` p € À ť Ŧ 0 @ P ` p € À Ð à ð

0 @ P ` p € À Ð à ð 0 @ P `p € 8 X ø

V ~ OJ PJ QJ _H mH nH sH tH J `ñÿ J¾bx N o r m a ld ¤È CJ _H aJ mH sH tH ` " `

¯Tÿ H e a d i n g 2 dð ¤d ¤d @& [$ \$ 5•CJ$ OJ PJ QJ \•aJ$ D A`òÿ¡ D



D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i óÿ³ R0

T a b l e N o r m a l ö 4Öl 4Ö aö( k ôÿÁ (

0 N o L i s t

D ³@ ò D&*- L i s t P a r a g r a p h„ť ^„ť m$ f ^` f

&*- 0N o r m a l ( W e b ) dð ¤d ¤d [$ \$ B* CJ OJ PJ QJaJ ph < U`¢ <

ú0 H y p e r l i n k 7

€>* S*€Y( ph$0 * W`¡ ! *ú

` S t r o n g 5•\•. X ¢ 1 .

ú@E m p h a s i s 6•]•R þ/¢ A R ¯Tÿ H e a d i n g 2 C h a r 5CJ$ OJ PJ QJ \^J aJ$ \ þ/ R \ ¯Tÿp o s t m e t a d a t a dð ¤d ¤d [$ \$ CJ OJ PJ QJaJ PK

! ‚Š [Content_Types].xml¬ŘËjÃ0 EŚ…Ūƒť¥Ørº(ØÎ¡Iw},Óä±-j„4 Éßwì¸Pº-t# bÎ©{U§ã ŖTU^h…d}«)»×*1P ƒ'¬ Ŗ^××W 0)©ŤTţ9< Ŗl#¤Ü$yi} ; À~@‡æ¥(ŒHœťu* D× zƒÈ/0Š ðûù$€˜ X3aZ¡Ó Â,D0 j~3¦¥Îb~ i>ƒ ØÍ 3¿\`õ?ê/ç [Ø ¬¶Géâ\•Ä!ý-Rk.ŖsŪÒ».. ŕ ·´aæ¿? ÿÿ PK

! ¥Ö§çÀ 6_rels/.rels„ÏjÃ0

‡…´ƒ}QÓÃ %v/C/£} á(•h" Û ëÛOÇ

»„Ś¨=Ū§‹ŗ š ÃC?Ëhv=¿•‚…£%[xp¢{µ_P¢<Í1 H¥0¤ ˆÖOR§Bd ÓJE4b$•£Řq_× ˜ţ 6LÑR×7`®«ÿ³Ã0ÐţOÁ• ¯,E n7ŗLib«/S´«eÒ ťµ¸Ũ ÿÿ PK

! kyŔ ƒ Š theme/theme/themeManager.xmlÌMÃ @á}¡wÖ7c»(Eb²Ë§» Cœ A ÓŸ×ƒ7Î¦ Õ›K Y,œŠeÍ.ˆ·Ŧ|,£ «ÔH ,l æx ª ¦IÈsQ}#Õ…-µŧ µ+Õ!,ŧ^¹$j=‹GWÑŚ)E+&



8ý ÿÿ PK! ŔµâŔ P theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6 ¿ Øw toc'v uŠØ±›-M

n‡ i‰ŔØP¡@ÓI} Ô€ Ãºa‡ Øm‡a[ Ø4Ö:l ť¯GRřX^ř6ØŠ->$ ùãûÿ ©«×îÇ!)OÔ^ŨrÍC$y@Ŗŧ /-yH*œ ˜„ª´)ŘũµŚ¦»Š×UDb‚`}"×q‹ŗJ×ŕŔ¤

ÃX^æ)I`nÐEŒ Šp) øÆli¹V[]Š1M<ŗ Èũ ÖťPŖ6r= ¯‰řzÀgb I g…Á uSÖe b€OÀ¶

ÃRÁD©Ÿ·ªqu ¯g‹˜Z¥ª§o~ÖºlAplxŠpT0-Ś -+[ } `j ×º´zAÏ ƒŤVŔ2ÍF•ÞÉiŔ@qţv·¬5\|‰ŪÊœÐ-N£Ñle²X¢ d søµÚjcsÙÁ Å7çðÎf·»êàÈWŦŨ+-Õ‹7 ˆ` - ÔgÒ È˜³Jø À×j |‚h(¡K³ D-Šµ ¦¡dX ïJÆØ‡(x$(ð:Á¥ ;äË¹!ÍI_ÐTµ½ S1¢ŚŚ¯ţ?E ţ ?øøÃ ?ZBÎmœ„U/¿ŨÏ ¢?ţ~ ÕxYÆÿÃ'¿y5Óg&Î‹/Ÿ‹¯>ŨŨ»G ŦMGeøÆD¡›íó 3Vq%'#q¾ ÃÑŠÍ$ŗ8ÁšK ŨţŠ Í)f©w 9:µ ¢ x}rÏ x ‰‰¡ œw¡Ø rÎ:\TZaG*©y8IÂjæbRÆc|X»‹ ¿Í

u3 KGnD 1Ś N IB Ós€íîRêØu ŕ‚K>V.E L+M2#'šf‹¥i~©VŪvl³{ u8Óz‹ ºHÈ Ð*„ æ˜:ţ( WŘ ˜¤ ~ «¨JÈÁTøe\O*ŦtH G´€HYµæŔ }KN¦ÁP±*ŧ¶ËŤ±‹ Š T9/#·øA7ÂqZ… ť$*c? ¡qU ¦nwŦ N º %Ţ»O¯ ·iˆ4 =3 Ú ŕ PªÓäïÊ1£Pm\\9 ø Ř¥ MØŖ2aD]„;Yt»\ ¯¹[xřóù]}Wr´ÿ|]ŗÏg-´³ÚeW÷¶)6-r¼°C SÆ jÊÈišd Dť‡A´Îœ IqbJ#xÐºƒ 6k#¡A„Shţ& ÊŒt(QÊ% Ðp%m‡&]ÖcaS l=XÀ ¯\P1»Mh Ÿ9¢Mà¬ÌV®dDAí×aV×B©[ŧˆfJÃ-P |8¯„ A V^…¹f ÌH ín÷ÞÜ-Æ" €d>ÓzÏ«nœŗŠ¹ €Ø¨ŦŘ>bµ ·Ŕ&û ÜÎâ¤2»Æ v¹÷ÞÄKyÏD:²œœ,AGm¯Õ\nzÈi Ã© .uÏ‡YC¶ 6OMfŖ3o¥r$«Ã5…µœÂN H…T[XF64ÐT ,œ¬ËM0E)`#Ũ5XYƒ`ø×;º§%1UÖÖ m;š¤R>QD¢àØDìcp¿ UÐ' ®&LEÐ/pŤ-mŤœ%]Ê8fi„³rS4Ïd 7y\È`ÞJân¤² Î¯ŠI

R¥ Æÿ3Uô~ 7 +€ ×¸ #¯m q«BiDŨ¶€ÆÁÒ ˆ ¸‹…i*¸L6ÿ 9ÒÿmÎY &-À£iˆ …ŨHE‚=(K&N!VÏ.Kře„LD¤¤¨ {D ê ¸ª÷v EŤšdeÀNÆŸţeť(ÒMN9¦œ R´6 ŪÎ&3(aÑť/D¬ØUz³<¦{ËŠ‰Y›ÕÈ³ ̃ ¤¥‚VŔö¯)Â9·Z[±æ4^næÂ 5Á¡!J¶ ?ÿQ3eBo«C¶ µ Á‡ MÂ ¡řm<.vp Ŗ ªÁIYÑf-Ŗ¥Z¾Y_p§[ð=al-ÖY}Nc Í©ËÎ‹4vfavl¨Á³'SÆAÆ8Æ|Ó*•uâ£{àè-¸¦Ÿ0%M0Á7% ˜<€· ÍÓ¿ ÿÿ PK

!ÑŸ¥ ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels„M



Â0 „Ś‚wooÑº Ř&ŧˆť-Ò „5 6?$Qìí®,.‡a¶©i»ŕ É c2Þ1hª:¤qšÁm¸Ţ@R N‰Ö;d`‚Ţo7 gŘK(M&$R(.1˜r 'JŖœťŠT€§8¢Vä"£¦AÈ»ÐH÷u} ›

|Å$½b {Õ ŔPšÿ³Ũ8 ‰g/ ]ŪQAsÖ… (¡ÆÐ#›L Ê[ºº¦ ÿÿ PK -! ‚Š [Content_Types].xmlPK -! ¥Ö§çÀ 6

+ _rels/.relsPK -! kyŔ ƒ Š theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK -! ŔµâŔ P Ñ theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK -!

ÑŸ¥ ' › theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] Ŕ

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><a:clrMapxmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main"

bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1"accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4"accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink"folHlink="folHlink"/> nŗ ÿÿÿÿ Œ% ´* X= ·@ J X gu v < > @ A B D E G

I4 ;> S Ţj v = ? C F H ¿ í ú ! ²;

< 3< ŧ> 0? @? :@ €@ @ @ A 1A JB «B ÆB NC ¤C ÌC dE¹E ÊE F ZG yG HN ›N ¥N gm Àmn n X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ X ÿ Œ Xÿ Œ X ÿ € Ŧ8 Ŧ

@ ÿÿ ÿ €€€ Ś Ŧřð

ð0 ð( ðð

ðBð

Sð ¿ Ë ÿ

? Ŧ 8 > ¢ - „ 7Bq

x€ ‡ ·»`iÃÍ



! ŕ & + , 1 ‚ ‰! ! m! s! ! " Q" W" ¤" ›" 4$ <$ Ï$ Ø$ ²% ¹% E( P(. . . . û. / 20 90 =0 D0 2 2 3 3 ñ3 ø3 ü3 4Ó6 Ø6 H: N: B $B D D ŢF ŗF ¤G œG ÀG G ;O DO P ÿPQ "Q BR KR ›S S NW YW ºX ÁX X X øX Y Z Z gg n

* 3 4 [ Ř š › Ó w € Â' Ð' Î' é' Õ+ Ø+ à, --- +. k. E0 J0 P0 y0 2 <2 ð3 4 4 ?4 W5 _5 x5 ~5 ÅII ŸP P ÎS S řU ŕ U W W æY ïY øb ùb n 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 G8 G8 : ®; ¦Q ©Q k k ¦k Ëk m %m Smn n {‡ ¬Nªÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ia $vb8ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ @}÷¸ù<¤ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÝZ bsÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ jKƒghbVÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ h

„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . h„p

„˜Ū^„p`„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ř h„@

„Lÿ^„@ `„Lÿ‡h ˆH . h

„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . h„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ř h„ „Lÿ^„ `„Lÿ‡h ˆH . h„€ „˜Ū^„€ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . h„P „˜Ū^„P `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ř h„ „Lÿ^„ `„Lÿ‡h ˆH

. „ť „˜Ū Æ ť ^„ť `„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o(·Ŧ € „ „˜Ū Æ ^„ `„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o(o € „p„˜Ū Æ p^„p`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „@ „˜Ū Æ @ ^„@ `„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „ „˜Ū Æ ^„`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „ „˜Ū Æ ^„`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „ „˜Ū Æ ^„`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „€ „˜Ū Æ € ^„€`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ € „P „˜Ū Æ P ^„P`„˜ŪCJ OJ QJ o( £Ŧ h „ „˜Ū^„ `„˜ŪOJ

QJ o( ‡h ˆH ·Ŧ h „p„˜Ū^„p`„˜ŪOJ QJ ^J o( ‡h ˆH o h „@ „˜Ū^„@ `„˜ŪOJ QJ o( ‡h ˆH £Ŧ h „ „˜Ū^„`„˜ŪOJ QJ o( ‡h ˆH ·Ŧ h „ „˜Ū^„`„˜ŪOJ QJ ^J o( ‡h ˆH o h „„˜Ū^„ `„˜ŪOJ QJ o( ‡h ˆH £Ŧ h „€„˜Ū^„€ `„˜ŪOJ QJ o( ‡h ˆH ·Ŧ h „P



„˜Ū^„P `„˜ŪOJ QJ ^J o( ‡h ˆH o h „„˜Ū^„ `„˜ŪOJ QJ o( ‡h ˆH £Ŧ „ť„˜Ū^„ť `„˜ŪCJ OJ PJ QJ ^J o( . €

„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„p

„Lÿ^„p

`„Lÿ‡h ˆH . €„@

„˜Ū^„@ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . €

„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„ „Lÿ^„ `„Lÿ‡h ˆH . €„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . €„€ „˜Ū^„€ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„P „Lÿ^„P `„Lÿ‡h ˆH

. „& „^„& `„o( . ) €„

„˜Ū^„

`„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„Ø „Lÿ^„Ø `„Lÿ‡h ˆH . €„«

„˜Ū^„«`„˜Ū‡h ˆH . €

„x „˜Ū^„x `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„H „Lÿ^„H `„Lÿ‡h ˆH . €„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . €„ „˜Ū^„ `„˜Ū‡h ˆH . ‚„¸ „Lÿ^„¸ `„Lÿ‡h ˆH

. ÝZ ia{‡ jKƒg @}Ś ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ

*î¢â=řs

å úœT 'f : ) &*- <Y 2!l ¶bx ´G| <P• oŔ r ŕ +s˜ ŦN› nţ µ Ð YWÓ

N/ß Rgí *i÷ ¯Tÿ n n ÿ@ n ` @ ÿÿ U nk n o w n ÿÿ

ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ G ÿ* àAx Àÿ T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 € S y m b o l 3.

ÿ* àCx À ÿ A r i a l 7 ‡Ÿ C e n t u r y 5.

ÿ. á[` À) ÿ T a h o m a 7. ÿ áÿ¬ @Ÿ C a l i b r i ?= ÿ* àCx À ÿ Co u r i e r N e w ; € W i n gd i n g s A ï B Ÿ C a m b r i a Ma t h " qˆ Ŧť h R £KX æ m ]8 Ç m ¡]8 Ç !ð



´ ´ ••20 Öm Öm3ƒQ Ŧüý HP ðÿ $P ä

ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•ÿÿÿ•¾bx 2 !x x ÿÿ F i o n a F i o n a

Ūÿ …ŸOh Ř+'³Ù0

p x ˆœ ¬ ¸Ø

äð üä

FionaNormal.dotmFiona 3 Microsoft Office Word @ äp! @

´ ,èÌ @ ê6 èÌm ¡]

Ūÿ ÕÍÕœ. Ŗŕ +,§D ÕÍÕœ. Ŗŕ +,ù®, è

h p | „ Œ ŗœ ¬ ª¼É ä Ç 8 Öm

Title 8 8 @_PID_HLINKS ä A ðH p 1 ! K h t t p : / / w w w . a

b s - c b n n e w s . c o m / s p e c i a l s / c j o n t r i a l / im p e a c h m e n t - i n f o g r a p h i c . h t m l /

] Z E h t t p : / / a r t i c l e 8 j es t e r . b l o g . c o m / 2 0 1 2 / 0 1 / 2 5 / c o r o n a s - i ll - g o t t e n - w e a l t h / / - gX h t t p : / / p c i j . o r g / b l o g / 2 0 1 2 / 0 1 / 2 5 / en r i l e - l e t s - h e n a r e s - t a k e - s t a n d - b u t - on l y - t o - a u t h e n t i c a t e / k pG h t t p : / / p c i j . o r g / b l o g / 2 0 1 2 / 0 1 / 2 4 / te l l - m e - h o w - l i b e r a l - y o u - w a n t - i t - e n r il e / g / H h t t p :



ÿÿÿÿ À F' Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 DocumentMSWordDoc Word.Document.8 ô9²q

Impeachment Paper

Documents

Transcript of Impeachment Paper