TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBPOENA
MANILA, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
(MANILA TIMES) Written by : JOMAR CANLAS REPORTER - IN another
apparent victory for the defense in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice
Renato Corona, the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday put its foot down on requests
by the prosecution to subpoena members of the court and the High Tribunal's
records past and present.
It said that "pending cases" shall not be subject of subpoenas and that its
justices cannot be compelled to testify on matters that could be considered sub
judice, Latin for "under judgment," and a term synonymous with "the present
case" or "the case at bar," as used by some lawyers.
According to an unimpeachable source of The Manila Times, the Supreme Court
en banc ruled to issue a resolution that would contain guidelines on subpoena ad
testificandum to be issued to magistrates and court personnel.
A subpoena ad testificandum is a writ issued by court authority to compel the
attendance of a witness at a judicial proceeding , disobedience to which may be
punishable as a contempt of court.
The resolution would also contain guidelines on subpoena duces tecum.
A subpoena duces tecum (subpoena for production of evidence) is a court
summons ordering a named party to appear before the court and produce documents
or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.
The resolution shall be signed by the 14 magistrates of the High Tribunal,
excluding Corona, who had inhibited from the request for a subpoena for the
court documents in view of his pending impeachment trial.
"For as long as the subpoena involves matters that are considered pending
before the court, [they] cannot be disclosed," the court said.
The guidelines shall not be limited to the current impeachment trial in the
Senate but also to future subpoenas that would be issued by the legislative
branch of government.
On Monday,
the Senate impeachment court voted to respect a temporary restraining order
issued by the High Tribunal that stopped the impeachment court from opening
dollar accounts of the Chief Justice.
The source of The Times said that justices of the Supreme Court could heed a
subpoena if they wanted to.
According to the source, only documents that are considered "public record"
can be subject of a subpoena, including decisions, resolutions, circulars and
court pleadings.
Biased judges
Menawhile, the High Tribunal has ordered the Senate impeachment court
to comment within 10 days on Corona's supplemental petition asking to stop the
impeachment trial in view of the alleged bias of some senator-judges,
particularly Franklin Drilon.
In his 48-page supplemental petition, the Chief Justice accused some
senator-judges of aiding the House prosecutors in their "witchhunt and fishing
expedition" for evidence to push the impeachment case against him.
Corona also described senator-judges were Sergio Osmena 3rd, Francis
Pangilinan, Alan Peter Cayetano and Teofisto Guingona 3rd as biased against him.
He said that the allegedly partial senator-judges violated his right to due
process by helping and confederating with the prosecutors in squeezing documents
and eliciting testimonial admissions favoring the prosecution.
"What is obvious is that the senator-judges allied with President Aquino have
allowed, instead of prevented, the prosecution to use these impeachment
proceedings as "a fishing expedition" for evidence and to destroy petitioner's
character, integrity and reputation," Corona pointed out.
"Their actions violate the very nature of due process and the character of an
impartial judge. Such abuse of constitutional rights cannot be allowed," he
said.
Aside from the supplemental petition, Corona filed his main petition crying
injustice as he sought refuge with the High Tribunal.
He said that the allegations against him are based on pure speculations and
conclusions that cannot be considered as ultimate facts sufficient to support a
complaint, hence, the Senate impeachment trial should be halted.
In his petition for certiorari, Corona's lawyers said that the Senate
impeachment court is being forced to rule on a defective complaint.
FROM ABS-CBN
Enrile takes responsibility for dollar accounts subpoena
by Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 02/14/2012 3:32 PM |
Updated as of 02/14/2012 6:41 PM
Miriam warns prosecution liable for disbarment
MANILA, Philippines (1st UPDATE) - Senate President and Presiding
Judge Juan Ponce Enrile has taken full responsibility for issuing a subpoena for
a bank document related to one of Chief Justice Renato Corona's alleged dollar
accounts, which a Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) branch manager believes is
fake.
"I assume full responsibility for issuing that subpoena and is ready to
defend his position if there is a need for that. I will not pass the buck to the
Senate sitting as an impeachment court," he said on Tuesday. "I am personally
bound to assume the consequences of my action as presiding officer."
Enrile said he is ready in case the defense takes him to any court of law.
Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson
testified on Monday that the document provided by the prosecution is fake.
The prosecution had claimed the account had an initial deposit of "$700K",
which it interpreted to be $700,000 (around P38 million in October 2008). The
prosecution alleged this was not declared in Corona's Statements of Assets,
Liabilities and Net worth (SALN).
A subpoena was issued in connection with this. However, it became a subject
of a dispute among senator-judges since the accounts contain information on
foreign currency deposits which are absolutely confidential unless the depositor
agrees to disclose the information.
On Monday, the Senate decided to obey the temporary restraining order (TRO)
issued by the Supreme Court with a caveat that they will "vigorously" explain
before the high court their right to open the bank accounts.
Corona has promised to reveal information about his dollar accounts. His
defense lawyers have said it is not a crime to own a dollar account, and that
the cash in these accounts are allegedly savings of the Chief Justice before he
was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2002.
'SC has authority'
Enrile said he does not want to delve further into the matter, since
it is already a subject of a case before the SC.
"It is my duty as presiding officer of this impeachment court to respect the
authority and power of the SC to review acts of this impeachment court in
interlocutory matters, meaning matters bearing on the manner on which this court
will conduct the trial of this particular impeachment case," he said.
He agreed that an accused has a right to due process. "The Senate as an
impeachment court must at all times observe the rule of law. It cannot
transgress any of the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights. It must be
guided by the presumption of innocence before the pronouncement of guilt. It
must at all times observe the principle of procedural and substantial due
process."
He noted, however, that even if the SC has the power of judicial review, it
can't step on the impeachment court's role to try impeachment cases.
"It is in my humble view that the SC, in spite of the fact that it has the
power of judicial review, cannot assume jurisdiction over the sole power of the
Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to try and decide this impeachment
case," he said.
Miriam twits prosecution
The senator-judges had asked the defense and prosecution teams to
explain if there is a thin line between a warrant of arrest and a subpoena and
their effects on the right of a person to due process.
Senator-judge Miriam Defensor Santiago said, however, that the issue was
started by the prosecution by attaching a supposed fake document in their
request for a subpoena.
"It's just a scrap of paper, ano'ng pinagsasabi nyo? Why go to court?" she
asked, fuming.
She said a lawyer is liable, up to the extent of disbarment, if he brings to
court a false document that he did not know of or if he willfully brings to
court a fake document.
"It came from an anonymous source, pwede na ba yun…My goodness, if you bring
this to trial, you will be cited for contempt," she said.
She called the document "strange and bizarre."
She also took note of the prosecution's statement that the media has also
such kind of information. "Kailangan nyo bang hikayatin ang court on the basis
of a media account? Is this a government by the media?"
Santiago also lambasted the prosecution's claim that it was their duty to
bring to court such kind of information. "Duty my foot! It's not your duty, but
your liability!"
Santiago later went out of the session hall. She said she was
"hyperventilating."
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/
