Chief Justice Corona Vs Senate of The Phil, GR # 200242 DIGEST
Chief Justice Corona Vs Senate of The Phil, GR # 200242 DIGEST
EN BANC
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
FACTS:
petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for immediate issuance of
temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction filed by the former
Chief Justice of this Court, Renato C. Corona, assailing the impeachment case initiated
by the respondent Members of the House of Representatives (HOR) and trial being
conducted by respondent Senate of the Philippines.
A caucus was held by the majority bloc of the HOR during which a verified
complaint for impeachment against petitioner was submitted by the leadership of the
Committee on Justice. After a brief presentation, on the same day, the complaint was
voted in session and 188 Members signed and endorsed it, way above the one-third
vote required by the Constitution.
Petitioner received a copy of the complaint charging him with culpable violation of
the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption, allegedly committed.
As to the charges against him, petitioner denied the same but admitted having
once served the Offices of the President and Vice-President during the term of former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
He prayed for the outright dismissal of the complaint for failing to meet the
requirements of the Constitution or that the Impeachment Court enter a judgment of
acquittal for all the articles of impeachment.
ISSUE:
RULING:
We ruled that the power of judicial review in this jurisdiction includes the power of
review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.
In the meantime, the impeachment trial had been concluded with the conviction of
petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-Judges. Petitioner
immediately accepted the verdict and without any protest vacated his office
An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and
value.18 In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would
be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.