Featured Post

MABUHAY PRRD!

Saturday, February 11, 2012

SC, Senate on collision course

By JAIME C. PILAPIL AND SAMMY MARTIN REPORTERS

THE Supreme Court and the Senate, which now sits as an impeachment court, are on a legally-inevitable collision course, which could spark a constitutional crisis once senator-judges decided to set aside a temporary restraining order on the opening of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar accounts.

No less than President Benigno Aquino 3rd on Friday said that the country is on the brink of constitutional crisis, pointing to Monday as the day of reckoning when senators, sitting as judges in the impeachment trial of Corona, shall have acted on the restraining order issued by the High Court on Thursday.

“Tingnan natin kung umabot na doon ‘no. Kasi ‘yung…kailangan nating makita reaction ng Senate [We’ll see if it comes to that . . . we need to see how the Senate would react],” President Aquino added.

“The Senate will not be meeting today. Monday siguro [maybe], they will come to a head. Walang may gusto ng [Nobody wants a] constitutional crisis,” the President said during a chance interview at the launching of the Specialista Technopreneurship Program of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority at the agency’s headquarters in Taguig City (Metro Manila).

He added that the Supreme Court was mandated by law to promote a sound system of justice in the country.

Disgusted
Mr. Aquino expressed his disgust with the issuance of the temporary restraining order, saying that it effectively shut the door in finding out the truth.

“Kanino ba ang interes na dapat mamayagpag? Sa demokasraya po ,‘yung nakakarami ang nagdedesisyon para sa lahat. So pagka ganoon, merong mabigat na aligasyon, may pagdududa tapos isasara mo ang paraan para malaman ‘yung katotohanan [Whose interest should it be but democracy’s. The majority decides for all. So, whenever there’s a serious allegation or suspicion, you cannot hinder the way to the truth],” he said.

The President pointed out that it was the court’s primary duty to ensure swift delivery of justice as he expressed fear that crooked people, whether in private or government service, might use the Foreign Currency Deposit Act to hide their loot.

The Supreme Court en banc voted 8-5, stopping the Senate impeachment court from scrutinizing Corona’s foreign currency deposit accounts.

The prosecution panel has accused Corona of maintaining dollar accounts in Philippine Savings Bank, claiming a balance of at least $700,000, or roughly P28 million.

“Those who committed an injustice should not find refuge in this particular law,” Mr. Aquino said.

Without mentioning Corona’s name, the President added, “Maganda sana magboluntaryo na ‘yung nasasakdal kung walang tinatago.Bakit, buksan niyo para makita niyo wala akong tinatago [It is better for him to voluntarily open his account if he is not hiding anything].”

He also feared that the international community might sanction the Philippines if it continued to allow such practice.

Mr. Aquino explained that syndicates involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and other high crimes might be drawn into depositing their foreign currencies here.

He likened the restraining order against a subpoena for Corona’s dollar accounts to that issued against a watch list order on former President and now Rep. Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga province.

The President described both orders as “hasty.”

“Parang ang hirap paniwalaan na parang pareho ng pag-iisip doon sa pag-apply ng TRO [It is hard to believe such meeting of the minds in the issuance of the temporary restraining order],” he said, adding that the process and the timing were suspect in both cases.

Misunderstanding
Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez also on Friday asked the Senate to respect the decision handed down by the High Tribunal to avoid further misunderstanding between the two branches of government.

“The Supreme Court is just exercising its mandate and has no intention to contradict the position of the Senate,” Marquez told reporters during the weekly forum Balitaan sa Hotel Rembrandt in Quezon City.

He said that the eight associate justices who voted for the restraining order share the belief that the impeachment court should be stopped from opening the dollar accounts because it was very clear under Republic Act 6426 that foreign currency deposits could only be opened with the permission of the depositor and no one else.

“The law is the law, no matter what. The Supreme Court only interprets the law and has no intention to outsmart the Senate,” Marquez stressed.

He argued that the only remedy was to amend the law by adding more exemptions similar to those that concern peso deposits, which could be accessed if the depositor was the subject of an impeachment proceeding.

“Unless the depositor waives his right under the law, we cannot open questionable foreign accounts. It is very clear in the law and that needs no interpretation,” Marquez said.

Lawyer Karen Jimeno of the defense panel who was among the guests in the same forum said that the restraining order gave them hope that the rule of law still prevailed.

“It is obvious that it [order] favors our client simply because the SC [Supreme Court] ruled based on what is being written in the law,” she added.

Disappointed
Meanwhile, several judges and lawyers also on Friday criticized House lead prosecutor and Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas of Ilocos Norte province for airing threats to press impeachment charges against the eight justices who voted in favor of the restraining order.

“We’re very disappointed how such threat came from a lawyer of high caliber,” Judge Antonio Eugenio of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 24 said.

Eugenio was a former president of the Philippine Judges’ Association and the incumbent president of the Manila Judges’ Association.

Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Mendoza, Jose Perez and Bienvenido Reyes were the justices who voted for the issuance of the temporary restraining order.

“The framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to be an instrument of justice, not of vengeance,” Eugenio pointed out.

“Most of our members [in the Manila Judges’ Association] believe that the threat was another obvious attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary,” he said.

“This could be an attempt to unduly influence the decision of the justices in the case,” the judge added.

Veteran lawyer Romulo Macalintal also dismissed the threat from Fariñas as something that has no legal or factual basis.

“While [Fariñas] is entitled to his own opinion and appraisal of the circumstances behind the issuance of such [restraining order],” Macalintal said, “it is obvious that the justices who voted to issue the [order] relied on Republic Act 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines).”

The same could not be considered as betrayal of public trust or culpable violation of the Constitution, he explained.

Macalintal said that the order was issued not because of Corona’s petition but because of Philippine Savings Bank’s.

Fariñas had accused the High Tribunal of meddling in the affairs of a co-equal branch to protect Corona.

Earlier, a notable author of the 1987 Constitution—Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ SJ—said the Supreme Court was right when it issued the restraining order.

No comments: