The Chief Justice on President Aquino’s speech at the anniversary of Tagumpay ng Bayan, February 17, 2012

Statement of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona: On President Aquino’s speech at the anniversary of Tagumpay ng Bayan [Released on February 17, 2012] Ako po ay nananawagan sa ating pangulo na huwag pakialaman, pangunahan at impluwensiyahan ang Senate Impeachment Court. Mayroon pong proseso ang impeachment proceedings, at iyan po ay nakasaad sa ating Saligang Batas […]

Speech of Chief Justice Corona at the Ateneo Law School, February 10, 2012

Speech of Chief Justice Renato Corona: At the blessing of the Justicia Room, Ateneo Law School [Delivered on February 10, 2012] Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, Dean Sedfrey Candelaria (our congratulations for a well-deserved appointment), members of the faculty and students, guests, ladies and gentlemen, a pleasant good evening to […]

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. de Lima et al., G.R. No. 199034/Jose Miguel Arroyo v. de Lima et al., G.R. No. 199046

NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, You, Respondents, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing or implementing DOJ Department Circular No. 41 and Watchlist Order Nos. ASM-11-237 dated August 9, 2011, 2011-422 dated September 6, 2011 and 2011-573 dated October 27, 2011.

League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the “Resolution” dated August 24, 2010, dated and filed on September 14, 2010 by respondents Municipality of Baybay, et al. is GRANTED. The Resolution dated August 24, 2010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Cityhood Laws—Republic Acts Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, and 9491—are declared CONSTITUTIONAL.

de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010

The Members of the Court vote on the sole basis of their conscience and the merits of the issues. Any claim to the contrary proceeds from malice and condescension. Neither the outgoing President nor the present Members of the Court had arranged the current situation to happen and to evolve as it has. None of the Members of the Court could have prevented the Members composing the Court when she assumed the Presidency about a decade ago from retiring during her prolonged term and tenure, for their retirements were mandatory. Yet, she is now left with an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies created by such inexorable retirements within 90 days from their occurrence. Her official duty she must comply with. So must we ours who are tasked by the Constitution to settle the controversy. ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration are denied with finality.