By Christian Mendez
MANILA, Philippines - Chief Justice Renato Corona and his lawyers turned to the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday, asking the tribunal that he heads to nullify the impeachment proceedings against him.
In a 39-page motion, Corona asked the SC to void the impeachment proceedings at the Senate.
The head of Corona’s defense team, retired SC associate justice Serafin Cuevas, explained at the trial yesterday that their camp was merely taking the advice of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court, in exhausting all possible legal remedies. Enrile had given the advice the other day in connection with the Senate’s subpoena of Corona’s bank records.
In his motion filed with the SC, Corona also moved to stop the presentation of evidence pertaining to his foreign and peso bank deposits, which the prosecution is keen on
presenting in relation to Article 2 on his non-disclosure of statements of assets, liabilities and liability (SALN) from 2002 to 2010.
In the absence of a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the SC yesterday, however, the trial continued, and the president of PSBank presented to the impeachment court documents on the five peso accounts of Corona. The bank executive declined to bare documents on five dollar accounts, saying the law prohibits him from doing this.
Several senators have noted that the secrecy rule involving dollar accounts is a gray area.
Corona’s camp sought to render a decision in declaring the impeachment complaint null and void as well as to make a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction permanent on the Senate’s subpoena for Corona’s bank records from Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
Corona’s lawyer called on the SC “to immediately take cognizance of their petition.”
The defense has cited the statement of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile in the earlier part of the trial on the need to conduct the trial with impartiality and fairness.
“While it has often been said that by and large, the trial in an impeachment case is political in nature, nonetheless, such is neither an excuse nor a license for us to ignore and abandon our solemn and higher obligation and responsibility as body of jurors to see to it that the bill of rights are observed and that justice is served,” the defense said, quoting Enrile in their motion.
Defense counsel Jose Roy III explained that Corona and his legal team took the entire issue to the SC because Corona was denied due process in the filing of the verified complaint against him.
Roy added that the presentation of his alleged bank records before the body is a violation of certain laws, particularly Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
Roy explained that the petition was filed due to a question on the legality of the proceedings of the impeachment court.
He said the defense camp is also questioning the decision of the impeachment body regarding the retention of paragraph 2.3 of Article 2 and the decision of the impeachment court to allow the reception of evidence, which appears to be in violation of the secrecy of banks.
“The entire proceedings are void because there is a due process issue which the impeachment court did not allow us to present when we filed a motion for a preliminary hearing,” Roy added.
Defense counsel Ramon Esguerra doused the prosecution’s claims that the defense’s action is an affront to the separation of powers of the three branches of government, since the SC is vested the power of judicial review, Esguerra added.
“They can look at it that way, but my take on this is they have to look at the expanded power of the power of judicial review under the 1987 Constitution of the Supreme Court,” Esguerra said in an interview.
Tranquil Salvador III, another Corona counsel, noted said that the defense is like a mouse pushed to a corner and no recourse is left but to bring the issue outside of the impeachment body. Salvador was quick to say the move was not an act of desperation on the defense’s part.
Salvador said the defense do not intend to show disrespect to the Senate as an impeachment court, but to only enable their client to protect his constitutional rights.
In their motion, the defense outlined the arguments that the impeachment complaint is null and void because it was transmitted without notice and hearing to Corona; and that the court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in retaining paragraph 2.3 of Article 2; and in issuing subpoena for all the bank accounts.
“Being a result of an illegal act, it is a fruit of the poisonous tree… As already averted to, no written consent for the disclosure of the bank accounts has been issued by the depositor,” the defense said.
The defense lawyers also quoted the case of Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives, which upheld that the Constitution “allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known as the Articles of Impeachment.”
Enrile, as presiding officer of the impeachment court, had also cited the same ruling of Gutierrez when the body decided that paragraph 2.4 pertaining evidence on illegal wealth was struck out of the complaint.
The defense reiterated what they have been stressing all along that the tenor of paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 is premised on suspicion and/or hearsay.
At the opening statement of their motion, the defense raised the question of the impeachment trial being beyond the reach of judicial review. They added that defense counsels of Corona are “unfairly criticized for using technicalities of law” to prevent the unfair introduction of evidence.
Corona believes that the Senate abused its discretion in issuing the subpoena for all bank accounts requested by the prosecution. He cited cases of Marquez v. Desierto and Ombudsman v. Ibay where the SC held that bank accounts must be correctly identified before they could be examined.
“In this case, there was hardly any independently obtained evidence that would point to the bank accounts object of the subpoena sought – the pertinent information here was gathered by means of the fishing expedition permitted by the impeachment court,” he explained.
“The prohibited possession by the prosecution of the submitted documents cannot be the basis for the issuance of any subpoena. On the contrary, the mere possession of these documents is enough to invite inquiry into possible criminal wrongdoing by these conspiring congressmen. Regrettably, the impeachment court was content to elicit any explanation the prosecution had to offer. This is travesty of law and justice,” Corona added.
On these grounds, Corona asked the SC to also nullify orders and subpoena issued by the impeachment court on his accounts in PSBank and BPI.
The petition, which named as respondents the Senate, BPI, PSBank and the House prosecutors, was raffled by the SC clerk of court and is expected to be tackled by the justices in their special full-court session this afternoon.
The defense also decried what they called as trial by publicity against the Chief Justice.
“Televiewers are being treated to a broadside intrusion of CJ Corona’s private life, the humiliation of his family and a carnival atmosphere where a high ranking magistrate is being shamed and insulted for all to see,” the defense said.
Corona’s lawyers cited Rep. Niel Tupas’ attempt to try Corona by publicity as early as Jan. 3 or barely 13 days before the actual impeachment trial, wherein he disclosed evidence on a condominium unit located in Taguig City.
The defense also cited a news article in another broadsheet about Corona’s penthouse unit that was published on Jan. 4.
They reiterated that Corona “will not resign” and that his counsels would adhere to their solemn oath “to present every defense the law permits.”
PSBank also seeks TRO
PSBank questioned before the SC yesterday the legality of the subpoena issued by the Senate sitting as impeachment court to summon records of Corona’s supposed dollar accounts in the bank containing $700,000.
In a 31-page petition, PSBank and its president Pascual Garcia III asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Senate from implementing its subpoena that compelled the bank to send a representative and submit documents on Corona’s five foreign currency accounts.
“It is respectfully submitted that the provision on absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under Republic Act. No. 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, bars any inquiry or examination as to the details of such foreign currency accounts,” petitioners argued through lawyer Regis Puno.
They argued that the impeachment court erred in applying the cases of deposed former President Joseph Estrada, Salvacion and China Bank as jurisprudence.
“Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the respondent impeachment court exercised its power to issue the assailed subpoena in a capricious, whimsical and arbitrary manner. The abuse of discretion demonstrated by the respondent impeachment court is both patent and gross as it clearly violated the law,” the petition read.
Petitioner Garcia also argued that the implementation of the subpoena issued by the impeachment court for him to testify and bring documents pertaining to Corona’s foreign currency accounts would likewise expose him to criminal liability and possible imprisonment for violation of Section 8 of this law.
The provision states that all foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential in nature, and except upon the written permission of the depositor, such deposits cannot be examined or looked into by any person, including government official or any other entity whether public or private.
He likewise stressed that the disclosure of the details of Corona’s foreign currency accounts might result in the revocation or suspension of the bank’s authority to accept new foreign currency deposits by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
PSBank argued that the disclosure of the bank accounts could lead to a possible bank run by the public and investors who may be alarmed by the impeachment court’s “arbitrary and whimsical” examination of a foreign currency deposit protected by RA 6426.
But petitioners clarified that they would comply with the subpoena of the impeachment court with respect to the five peso accounts reportedly under Corona’s name.
The bank managers of PSBank and also those from BPI, where Corona reportedly also holds accounts, were required to appear during hearing before the impeachment court yesterday.
PSBank explained that they sought the TRO from the SC to clarify provisions under RA 6426.
The bank said its officials would still appear in the Senate impeachment court as directed. - With Edu Punay
No comments:
Post a Comment