act'
MANILA, FEBRUARY 9, 2012
(INQUIRER) By Tetch Torres - Chief Justice Renato Corona has
asked the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment proceedings and nullify the
Articles of Impeachment.
"After giving due course to the Petition, render judgment declaring the
Impeachment Complaint null and void ab initio [void from the beginning],"
according to the petition that was filed by Corona's lawyers before the high
tribunal Wednesday.
At the same time, Corona asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate, acting
as impeachment court, from compelling banks to produce Corona's bank records and
to stop the Senate from further receiving evidence in relation to paragraphs 2.3
and 2.4 of the Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.
Paragraph 2.3 is about properties allegedly not included in the Statements of
Assets, Liabilities and Networth of Corona in violation of the anti-graft law.
Paragraph 2.4 is about alleged accumulated ill-gotten wealth of the Chief
Justice.
Corona's petition noted that the impeachment court should not have proceeded
with the trial on the basis of the complaint which was "riddled with
constitutional defects too numerous to withstand even cursory legal scrutiny."
"Undoubtedly, public admissions by members of the House of Representatives
declared that there was no opportunity to read the complaint. They also declared
that the majority of signatories signed without reading the Complaint but
reputably in exchange for material considerations," it said.
It added that the impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion in
retaining paragraph 2.3 of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
It added that 2.3 and 2.4 were based on mere speculation, which is
insufficient to support a complaint. Corona pointed out that the allegations in
paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 were based only on reports and suspicions.
"Time and again, this Honorable Court has held that charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence and it would be absurd if
mere suspicion and speculation would be treated as a valid basis to oust an
incumbent Chief Justice of this Honorable Court," they added.
Defense to seek Supreme Court relief over Corona bank
documents By Cathy C. Yamsuan, Marlon Ramos Philippine Daily Inquirer
1:25 am | Wednesday, February 8th, 2012
The lead defense counsel of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Tuesday said he
might resort to a court order, possibly from the Supreme Court, barring the
Senate as an impeachment tribunal from receiving bank documents as evidence
unless it entertained a motion for reconsideration he would file.
Serafin Cuevas, a former justice secretary and former associate justice of
the Supreme Court, was about to file on Monday night a motion for
reconsideration right after the Senate issued subpoenas to officials of two
Philippine banks to produce documents showing that Corona has deposits he
allegedly failed to declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net
worth (SALN).
However, Senator Francis Escudero immediately pointed out that only
senator-judges were allowed to file such motions for reconsideration on rulings
of the Senate President as presiding officer.
Escudero said the prosecution and defense panels were prohibited from doing
so under Rule 6 of the impeachment court.
Santiago motion
While Cuevas did not challenge Escudero's statement at the time, Senator
Miriam Santiago, who was absent on Monday, submitted a letter to Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile on Tuesday which constituted a motion for
reconsideration against the subpoenas.
Santiago cited three reasons the Senate should reconsider the orders issued
to representatives of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and Bank of the
Philippine Islands branches in Makati City where Corona purportedly keeps
deposits.
First, Santiago reminded the impeachment court it had already ruled against
accepting evidence related to paragraph 2.4 of Article 2 referring to ill-gotten
wealth.
"Since 2.4 is the only paragraph that specifically mentions 'bank deposits,'
any requests for subpoena concerning any bank deposits should be rejected," she
said.
RA 6426
Second, the impeachment court's resolution allowing the subpoena of "even
foreign currency deposits appears to be a direct violation of RA 6426."
(Republic Act No. 6426 is known as An Act Instituting a Foreign Currency Deposit
System in the Philippines.)
Santiago said the Supreme Court already ruled in Intengan v. Court of Appeals
in 2002 that "this law is violated if a foreign currency deposit is examined,
except only when the depositor gives written permission."
The senator said a written consent by the depositor "is the only exception,
and it is not present in this case."
In fact, Corona's lawyers filed Tuesday afternoon a motion to quash opposing
the subpoenas issued to the representatives of the two banks.
Off tangent
Third, Santiago described as "off tangent" the cases cited by the prosecution
in supporting its request for subpoenas to the bank officials, including
Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan regarding the nonbailable plunder charge filed against
former President Joseph Estrada.
At the start of the trial, Santiago's motion was discussed lengthily with
Enrile, presiding officer of the trial, calling for a caucus of senator-judges
at 11 a.m. Wednesday to thresh out the issue.
Another venue
At one point, Cuevas raised his hand and volunteered that if the impeachment
court would not accept his motion for reconsideration opposing the appearance of
the bank officials and their presentation of bank documents, "then we'll have no
other alternative but to seek another venue."
"If the policy of the impeachment court is that no motion for reconsideration
may be made by counsel, then where else are we going to go to question the
validity or legality of decision of this court, your honor?" Cuevas asked,
addressing Enrile.
Cuevas said the situation forced the defense panel to consider filing a
petition for certiorari that would compel a court, in this case the Senate as an
impeachment court, to rethink the subpoenas issued to bank representatives.
Supreme Court
"Even before, the Supreme Court or any judicial body, a motion for
reconsideration had always been available. The Supreme Court cannot say no MR
(motion for reconsideration) will be entertained, your honor," said Cuevas.
He added that while the Supreme Court would reject motions for
reconsideration if several had been filed in a specific case, "a first motion
for reconsideration is decided and cannot be precluded by any judiciary branch
of the government, whether the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court."
"If it is clear that we cannot raise the legality of this ruling before this
court, then we'll have no other alternative but to seek another venue, your
honor," Cuevas said.
Class by itself
Enrile agreed that Cuevas had the right to seek such redress.
The Senate President cautioned, however, that "this chair will take exception
(of) anyone (who tries) to stop the trial in this chamber because the
Constitution says once the articles of impeachment reach this (chamber), the
trial in this Senate shall forthwith begin. It is given the sole power to try
and decide this case."
Senator Franklin Drilon also stood up and indicated that Cuevas may have no
recourse but yield to the impeachment court.
"The accepted principle that this impeachment court is a class by itself … We
(senator-judges) have the sole power to decide on this case, therefore no
institution of this government can tell us what to do. This is the sole
authority insofar as impeachment is concerned," he said.
"Counsel for defense raised the question, 'what is the relief available to
us?' There has to be an end to litigation, just as there is no remedy to errors
of the Supreme Court. They (justices) can commit errors, we can disagree with
them but we cannot do anything. This impeachment court is supreme in its power
to try and decide impeachment cases," Drilon added.
In their motion, Corona's lawyers asked the Senate to recall the subpoenas to
PSBank and BPI representatives.
'Illegal act'
Invoking a law prohibiting the scrutiny of foreign currency deposits, the
defense panel argued that allowing the prosecution to submit as evidence
Corona's bank records from the BPI and PSBank was tantamount to turning a blind
eye to "an illegal act."
"(I)t should be emphasized that any information or documents pertaining (to
Corona's supposed dollar bank accounts) are absolutely confidential under
Section 8 of RA 6426," the defense said in a seven-page motion to quash.
"It is clear therefore that no (foreign currency deposit) shall be
examined—even in case of impeachment—except upon written permission of the
depositor," it added.
The defense noted that the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Intengan et
al. v. Court of Appeals that the disclosure of such bank accounts may be
permitted "only upon the written permission of the depositor."
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/
