RECONSIDERATION
MANILA, FEBRUARY 9, 2012
(TRIBUNE) By Angie M. Rosales - The opening of the alleged
undisclosed bank accounts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona before
the Senate impeachment court was left hanging as senator-judges were prompted
yesterday to take a second look at Monday's ruling, approving the prosecution's
request for subpoena of certain bank executives, but on a conditional basis.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a motion for reconsideration, effectively
challenging the claims made by a fellow judge, Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero,
that lawyers of either the defense or prosecution panels are not allowed by the
rules governing their proceedings on the Corona trial to appeal the rulings of
the court or the presiding officer.
Santiago's assertions, while contradicted by a number of her colleagues, did
pave the way for the senator-judges to deal with what the presiding officer,
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and Sen. Joker Arroyo admitted is a "gray
area" in their own rules.
Santiago will have to defend before her peers her position on the matter,
reported to have been taken by 15 senator-judges and strongly opposed by five of
them, on why the defense panel should be allowed to appeal the ruling during a
closed-door caucus called at 11 a.m. today.
The woman senator has been advised by her physicians to go on leave since her
blood pressure has been erratic.
Enrile, after Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III read on the floor Santiago's
motion contained in a two-page letter, announced that he was not prepared to
make a ruling on the matter.
The presiding officer agreed that there is a gray area not covered by Senate
rules, on the situation now confronting them and they have to be cautious in
whatever decision made, as this will set a precedent case.
"The rules of the Senate deal with matters involving legislation where only a
senator who voted in favor of a measure may seek for a reconsideration. It is
the position of the chairman, subject to the final position of the house
(Senate) to hear the position of the movant, Senator Santiago, in person so that
we may be informed accordingly and make a decision," Enrile said.
"The role that we play here is that each one of us has individual jobs and
the decision of the majority, majority of 16 in this proceeding will render a
conviction by the respondent. Nevertheless, each one of the members of the
Senate is a judge and I think the proper thing to do without prejudging the case
is for us to hear the views of the judge who was absent during the caucus so
that she will be given a fair chance to express her views before us.
"Anyway, the witnesses expected to appear in this hearing based on the
summonses that were issued on the basis of the ruling of this impeachment court
yesterday afternoon would appear before us tomorrow afternoon in the trial. A
ruling will be made tomorrow before a witness will be called to the witness
stand. So ordered," said Enrile.
Sotto stated that Santiago is willing to attend the caucus despie ill health
if its necessary for her to do so.
Santiago took the view that both panels should be allowed to argue the motion
for reconsideration raised by defense counsel, former Justice Serafin Cuevas,
for not more than one hour for each side unless the Senate orders otherwise.
Escudero pointed out in Monday's proceedings that, under their rules, it's
only the senator-judges who can appeal any rulings made by the court or the
presiding officer.
"There is no such requirement in the Impeachment Rules. Perhaps what he
referred to was the Senate Rules, which can apply as a supplemental reference,
but only if it is relevant to the impeachment," Santiago pointed out, stressing
that the Senate Rules on a motion for reconsideration filed by a senator refers
only to the lawmaking function, and not to the impeachment function, of the
Senate.
The senator gave at least three reasons for allowing the motion for
reconsideration, which she said, should be debated verbally in open court, and
then by written memorandums by counsel for each panel.
She stressed that her motion for reconsideration will not prejudice her final
vote, because she is only giving the defense a second chance to argue against
the bank subpoenas.
"The three reasons for the motion for reconsideration are: 1. It appears that
the subpoena would violate this Court's own ruling that evidence shall NOT be
allowed on ill-gotten wealth. (Complaint, Art. 2, para. 2.4.) Since 2.4 is the
only paragraph that specifically mentions "bank deposits," any requests for
subpoena concerning any bank deposits should be rejected; 2. It appears that the
Court's resolution allowing subpoena even for foreign currency deposits appears
to be a direct violation of R.A.No. 6426. The Supreme Court ruled in Intengan v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128996 (2002), that this law is violated if a foreign
currency deposit is examined, except only when the depositor gives written
permission. This is the only exception, and it is not present in this case; 3.
Prosecution cited the 1997 case of Salvacion, 2000 case of China Banking Corp.,
and 2006 case of Ejercito. It appears that all three cases are off-tangent," she
said in her letter.
"My motion is superfluous, but might be necessary to avoid objections that
could cause further trial delay," she added.
Santiago said that she was filing the motion under the principle of ex
abundanti cautela, which means "from an abundance of care."
"My motion is merely precautionary, because in my view the motion can be
filed even only by defense counsel, and does not need to be filed by a
senator-judge," she said.
Senator-judges Panfilo Lacson, Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Pangilinan and
Franklin Drilon pointed out that Santiago was absent when they deliberated on
the issuance of subpoenas and thus, was not able to cast her vote.
Sen. Joker Arroyo echoed Enrile's position, even pointing out during the
proceedings that their own rules on the impeachment trial are kind of
ambigious."The section of our rules on impeachment, speaks of a continuing
trial, a trail going on then questions are asked, objections are raised. So the
question is shall it be admitted or not? The rule says that the chair will make
a ruling unless a member of the Senate asks for a formal voting. Meaning they
divide the house," he said, pointing out that presented before the Senate is a
very serious question of law and not evidence and that what is being taken up is
the interpretation of a law on whether foreign bank deposits can be opened and
disclosed before us, an impeachment court.
"The chair said that this is serious since we are treading on a gray area
which I share. Because of this and since we do not have any clear rules on this,
I think that the better solution will be for us to hear this because how can we
decide this?" Arroyo asked.
The senator said he has in fact studied and read all books dealing with the
issue at hand and there seems to be indeed a "vacuum" in their rules.
"No one can say he is an expert on this, on the interpretation of the bank
secrecy law- whether it could be opened or not and because of the policy
considerations – about whether it will affect, that there will be a capital
flight, bank run etc. And there is a vacuum, I submit, in our rules which I will
now read 'the president presiding on the trial may rule on all questions of
evidence, including but not limited to questions of materiality, relevancy,
competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling
shall stand as a judgment of the Senate unless a member of the Senate shall ask
that a formal vote shall be taken thereon. In which case, it will be submitted
to the Senate for decision after one contrary view is expressed.'
He stressed that on questions of law, this rule is silent and does not apply
and is a question that requires serious study.
Drilon, however, disagreed pointing out that Rule 6 of the Senate rules
allows a member of the chamber or the impeachment court to put the ruling on the
floor by an appeal to the floor which is a parliamentary process
"And that is voted upon by members of the court. That is the procedural
issue. Nowhere in the rules that a member of the prosecution or the defense
allowed to seek a reconsideration of a ruling of the court unless that is
favorably endorsed and in effect adopted by a member of the court. That is the
only instance where such motion for reconsideration filed by the parties would
be considered by the court.
Drilon insisted that there are no distinctions about questions of law not
being covered by Rule 6. "There is no such distinctions. All questions, rulings
of the chair can be appealed to the floor." Nonetheless, Drilon said Santiago
well within her rights to ask for reconsideration by putting on the floor, under
Rule 6, regardless of what the issue, whether its a question of law or question
of fact.
Escudero also pointed out that "We dont have to put to a vote all the matters
that Senate has to decide on. Once the presiding officer makes a ruling, it is
considered as the ruling of the Senate itself. Unless a member of the Senate
would seek a reconsideration from the same. Otherwise, we will be flooded with
motion for recons and we wld have to put it to a vote each time a motion is made
by the parties, hence the logic behind Article 6.
Despite the lengthy debates, Sotto said the senator-judges are amenable to
Enrile's proposition to resolve the matter among themselves in a closed-door
discussion before resuming the today's trial.
EARLIER REPORT
WHAT WENT BEFORE: Corona and Malacañang Philippine
Daily Inquirer 2:46 am | Saturday, October 15th, 2011
The impending retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17,
2010, became the proximate cause of the ongoing rift between President Benigno
Aquino III and Chief Justice Renato Corona.
On May 12, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, appointed Corona, one of
the senior associate justices, to succeed Puno. The appointment was immediately
assailed by Mr. Aquino, the then leading presidential candidate, as a violation
of the constitutional ban on "midnight appointments."
At his inauguration the following month, Mr. Aquino broke tradition by
choosing another magistrate, Conchita Carpio Morales, to administer his oath of
office because he said he disagreed with the court ruling that exempted the high
court from the ban on midnight appointments.
Judicial revolt
In August 2010, Mr. Aquino revoked all of Arroyo's midnight
appointments—except that of Corona's.
Talks between Malacañang and the Supreme Court about their judiciary's budget
started in September last year, with some judges threatening to go on "mass
leave" to protest Malacañang's decision to slash by half the budget for court
operations.
Mr. Aquino belied reports that the judiciary did not get an increase in its
budget and asked the judges to stop their plan to go on mass leave. He also said
that he was seeking a meeting with Corona to iron out differences in the
interpretation of the laws on the government's salary structure.
Seeking to break the "impasse" between Malacañang and the high court, members
of the House of Representatives and the Senate called for the convening of the
Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council to quickly
address the threat of a "judicial revolt."
In December 2010, President Aquino slammed the high court ruling declaring
the Philippine Truth Commission "unconstitutional."
"I ask those who are pretending to be blind and passing themselves off as
deaf, please don't stand in the way of my task," Mr. Aquino said.
In an interview marking his first year in office last May, Corona told the
Inquirer that he has since set aside that official snub at the inauguration, Mr.
Aquino's attacks on the court and the general aloofness of the Palace towards
the high tribunal. He said he supported President Aquino 100 percent.
However, he broke that reticence at a convention of judges last Wednesday,
where he blasted Malacañang and its congressional allies for their "disrespect
and lack of civility" with respect to the high court.
In his speech, Corona denounced the Palace plan (since aborted) to impound
P4.97 billion of the judiciary's budget and "the repeated threats of impeachment
based on a distorted and power-tripping interpretation of 'breach of public
trust.'" Source: Inquirer Archives
Chief News Editor: Sol
Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE
NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
