I disagree.

It is settled jurisprudence in the US -- from where we borrow much of ours -- that the SC cannot and should not intervene or take part in impeachment.

In the landmark case involving Federal court Judge Walter Nixon (who was impeached and convicted by the US Senate in 1989, and who appealed his case to the US appelate court and SC), the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled:

1. Impeachment is a "nonjusticiable political question."
2. Only the Senate has the "sole" power to try and decide ALL cases of impeachment and the Courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot intervenr or take part in it.
3. Interfering in impeachment will jeopardize any subsequent criminal trial that an impeached official could face and violates the principle of checks and balances.

The decision (506 US 224)was written by no less than then US Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It said in part, referring to the SOLE power of the Senate to try and decide impeachment cases:

1. “We think that the word ‘sole’ is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word ‘sole’ appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word ‘sole’ is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. ‘Sole’ is defined as ‘having no companion,’ ‘solitary,’ ‘being the only one,’ and ‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body ‘tried’ an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference."

The wording of the section on impeachment in the Philippine and US constitutions are almost exactly the same.

2. “... the Framers [of the constitution] recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. ... The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments.”

3. ... judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial accountability, Hamilton wrote: ‘The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.’"

THEY ARE EXPERTS BUT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE RIGHT
PROVE IT FIRST, THAT THE ELEMENT OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EXISTS.
NOW SINCE IT IS DEBATABLE, YOU TWO PRIESTS SHUT UP YOU MOUTH!!!

Has the impeachment court exercised grave abuse of discretion of its powers?

NO! In fact is has been very fair to Thief Corona for dropping article 2.4 of the impeachment proceedings.

Has the Thief Corona exercised grave abuse of discretion of his powers?

YES! By asking the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment proceedings against him. This alone is enough ground to impeach this Thief Justice. He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt by this act itself. He stupidity regarding this matter is beyond me. He has betrayed public trust by doing so. How can Corona have become of Chief Justice when such "common sense" is not within his reach. He is indeed a THIEF JUSTICE. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO CORONA!