DEFY IT / CBCP: RESPECT THE SC TRO
MANILA,
FEBRUARY 12, 2012 (INQUIRER) By
Jerome Aning, Michael Lim Ubac, TJ Burgonio - The Senate impeachment court is
poised to question the Supreme Court's order temporarily barring it from
examining the dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona, according to
Senator Franklin Drilon.
But Senators Miriam Santiago and Joker Arroyo said the impeachment court
should comply with the temporary restraining order lest it risk a confrontation
with a coequal branch that could "end in the streets."
The Senate has asked Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza to defend it before
the high court, and the latter has agreed, Drilon said Friday in a phone
interview.
"We have the right to question it. We can't just lie down and [sing]
Alleluia," said Drilon, who was authorized by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile
to request Jardeleza to defend the Senate.
Drilon said the Office of the Solicitor General had been furnished all the
records so it could prepare "to respond on behalf of the Senate."
"We can't be interfered with by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, we lose our
independence," he said, reiterating that the impeachment court was "supreme" on
matters pertaining to impeachment, "to the exclusion" of the high court.
He said it was up to the Solicitor General to file the "appropriate pleading"
but this should be accompanied by a clear statement that "we do not recognize
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."
SC has no jurisdiction
Drilon said "a good number" of the senators shared the sentiment of
questioning the TRO, specifically the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the
impeachment court.
"I don't think Enrile will put that to a vote, but if it comes to that, the
majority of senators will vote for it," he said.
Drilon also said questioning the TRO was not inconsistent with complying with
it. "We can question the jurisdiction of the high court while we are complying
with the TRO," he said.
The high court voted 8-5 on Thursday to temporarily restrain the Senate
impeachment court from compelling Philippine Savings Bank officials to disclose
information on Corona's foreign currency deposits.
"We are questioning it, definitely. Our subpoena is a lawful order of the
impeachment court," Sen. Francis Pangilinan said in a text message.
Pangilinan said that while the high court could exercise judicial review over
a "justiciable" controversy, it could not do so over an impeachment case, which
is political in nature.
"In other words, the Supreme Court abused its authority by interfering in the
impeachment case when it is the sole prerogative of the Senate to try and decide
impeachment cases," he said.
Majority to prevail
The senators are holding a caucus on Monday morning to discuss the TRO.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said he and his colleagues were facing a dilemma because
complying with the TRO might be construed as a tacit admission that they
committed grave abuse of discretion in voting for the issuance of the subpoena
for the bank records on Corona's dollar accounts.
"On the other hand, defying the TRO might result in an irreparable
constitutional crisis," Lacson said in a text message.
He said he expected "a heated discussion" on the matter in Monday's caucus.
"At the end of the day, the majority among us will prevail," he said.
Prudence
But Santiago and Arroyo said it would be prudent for the Senate to heed the
order.
"It's a nonissue. The court has spoken. I don't think the Senate would be so
brazen as to say we will not obey the Supreme Court," Arroyo said by phone.
"We don't want a confrontation between the Supreme Court and the Senate. It's
not good for the country, especially at this time," he said.
Santiago warned that the Senate's defiance of the TRO would lead to a
"collision" between the two bodies.
"If the impeachment court resolves not to follow the TRO, there will be a
collision. There's no way of avoiding that anymore," she told reporters in a
phone-patch interview, adding:
"If none of them yields, that will result in a stalemate. It will have to be
decided on the streets because there's nobody else that will make the decision."
'People Power nausea'
Santiago said there were "7,000 to 10,000 people in [front of] the Supreme
Court [on Thursday] in favor of [its] decision."
"What if it were multiplied 10 times and there were a million people on
EDSA?" she said. "We don't want it to happen all over again. People are
suffering from People Power nausea."
According to Santiago, the three branches of government operate under a
system of checks and balances, and the high court's TRO is part of this.
"Clearly under the Constitution, what the Supreme Court is doing is
constitutional," she said, pointing out that if the Senate defied the TRO, it
was indicating it was immune from checks "and that it becomes an absolute
impeachment court."
"That is not allowed by our system of checks and balances. No one branch is
allowed to be absolute in its power," she said.
Matter between SC, Senate
Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the Senate impeachment court
as well as the House prosecutors might raise the issue of jurisdiction before
the Supreme Court.
But the TRO did "not necessarily" mean that the high court was interfering
with the jurisdiction of the Senate over impeachment proceedings, he said.
"We will only know the issue of jurisdiction if it would be raised by the
respondents; they should raise it if they think it is a proper issue," he said.
Asked to comment on Malacañang's warning of a constitutional crisis brought
about by the TRO, Marquez said: "I don't see where the executive [branch] is
coming from. This is a matter between the Senate acting as the impeachment court
and the Supreme Court.
"Let's see how the Senate will act on it. We are of course hoping that the
two equal branches of government will be maintaining interbranch comity and
courtesy, and respect for each other's issuances."
As for the threat of House prosecutor and Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo
Fariñas to initiate an impeachment complaint against the eight justices who
voted for the issuance of the TRO, Marquez said: "Let's wait if he's going to
file. We've heard that before. It's a constant threat but of course, the
justices will not be threatened by [that] canard."
He also said the eight justices were of the belief that there was an urgency
in PSBank's petition, and that the issuance of a TRO was the "more prudent"
thing to do.
'Desperate move'
Critics of Corona said the TRO issued by the high court was "a mockery of
justice."
"The TRO on [the inquiry into] Corona's dollar deposits is a brazen attempt
to obstruct the impeachment court's efforts to uncover the truth behind [his]
undeclared … bank deposits. It is a desperate move to mask the full extent of
Corona's hidden and illegitimate wealth from the public," former lawmaker Risa
Hontiveros, spokesperson of the Bantay Gloria Network said in a statement.
Hontiveros reiterated the group's earlier call for Corona to resign or, at
the very least, take a leave of absence while the impeachment trial was ongoing.
She recalled that the "Corona-led Supreme Court" issued a TRO in November
2011 that would have allowed former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo "to leave
for abroad and therefore escape prosecution for plunder and electoral sabotage
had she not been prevented from doing so by the Department of Justice."
Now, she said, Arroyo's appointees in the tribunal "have banded together once
again to make a mockery of justice."
Leah Navarro, co-convener of the Black and White Movement, said the TRO
"demonstrated very clearly" that the Arroyo appointees in the high court were
"working hand-in-glove with Corona's defenders to hinder the impeachment trial
and prevent Corona's inevitable removal from office for his massive amounts of
undeclared and unexplained wealth."
Navarro called on the senator-judges to "disregard the TRO and continue to
work at uncovering the complete truth regarding Corona's bank deposits and
various expensive real estate properties as required under their constitutional
mandate."
Suppression of evidence
Corona's foreign currency deposits at PSBank could have been the
prosecution's "coup de grace" to seal his fate before the end of the fourth week
of the impeachment trial, according to Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo.
"By coming to the aid of the Chief Justice when all the damaging evidence was
about to unravel, and despite the risk of getting the country into a
constitutional crisis," the Supreme Court showed its readiness to rescue the
Chief Justice from a judgment of conviction by the Senate," Quimbo, the
prosecution spokesperson, told the Inquirer.
He said that despite earlier setbacks, the prosecution had built a case with
"clear and convincing evidence" in a span of four weeks.
"But the dollar account, in our minds, based on the way [the justices] are
acting, is a 'coup de grace.' They are hiding substantial evidence," he said.
"It's an attempt to hijack the process and effectively allow the suppression of
evidence."
Asked to comment, defense spokesman Tranquil Salvador III disagreed with
Quimbo's claim.
"No. The Supreme Court only exercised its power to interpret the laws under
the Constitution, and we have to understand that the branches of government will
not stop operating by reason of the pendency of the impeachment trial. If you
will look closely at the petition, you would note that they elevated to the
Supreme Court a pure question of law," Salvador said.
He said what the TRO meant was that "our democracy is effectively functioning
even if the Chief Justice is going through an impeachment trial."
Transparency
But Quimbo said the fact that the eight justices were "willing to risk
getting us to the brink of a clear constitutional crisis … only means that there
is something substantial there that they are trying to hide."
"If there's nothing there, why go through all this process and practically
throw away the Constitution?" he said. "That's the message. What the Supreme
Court is now effectively saying is that transparency is limited only to
Philippine currency."
Salvador, however, pointed out that the high court had acted on the petition
filed by PSBank, not by the defense.
FROM MANILA BULLETIN
Respect Supreme Court TRO, CBCP Urges By LESLIE
ANN G. AQUINO February 11, 2012, 8:04pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP) Saturday called on everyone – particularly Malacañang, the
Senate, and the prosecution panel – to respect the Supreme Court's temporary
restraining order (TRO) stopping the impeachment court from compelling the
Philippine Savings Bank to disclose the foreign currency accounts of Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona.
"It is more academic for the Senate to respect the TRO," Cebu Archbishop Jose
Palma, CBCP president said over Church-run Radyo Veritas.
"There is a law of secrecy for dollar accounts," Palma said.
Palma, however, stressed that the CBCP is not siding with anyone on the issue
and it is leaving the decision to the Senate impeachment court.
"We leave this matter in the hands of the senator-judges. We are not siding
with anyone. The ball is now in the hands of the Senate. Let's just trust and
respect the process," he said.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court, in an 8-5 vote, stopped the Senate from
compelling the PSBank from revealing the details of Corona's dollar bank
accounts.
Impeachment Splits Church Leaders
But church leaders are split on whether the impeachment trial of the Chief
Justice should continue.
Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez and Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes said the
trial in the Senate should continue.
"The impeachment must be finished to get the truth," Iñiguez said. "It must
go on to find more truth about Corona," Bastes said.
Even the national director of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches
(PCEC) favors going ahead with the trial.
"We should proceed with the trial to uphold the rule of law and instill
accountability to everyone," Bishop Efraim Tendero said in a text message.
"Stopping the trial will allow the accused to present his defense and let the
senator-judges discharge their duty with probity," he added.
Lipa City (Batangas) Archbishop Ramon Arguelles has taken the opposite view,
and wants the trial stopped "to save the country from institutional disaster."
"Many leaders should be saved from this embarrassing situation," Arguelles
said. "The charges of corruption must be done in another forum and when proven
guilty, then CJ (Chief Justice) should be convicted and barred from government
position for good."
All others similarly guilty, Arguelles said, must be prosecuted, jailed, and
kept from further corrupt practices.
He said a person who has sufficient proof should bring anyone guilty to
court.
"No one is above the law. This is not only for CJ. This is for any corrupt
official. If such is done against CJ as an individual, there's no way the whole
judicial body will be dragged in the issue," said Arguelles.
Last Thursday, Corona's camp asked the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment
trial as it accused the Senate, sitting as the impeachment court, of grave abuse
of discretion.
According to the petitioners, the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion
when it granted the prosecution's motion to subpoena Corona's bank records to
the trial.
They said the Supreme Court should stop the trial, pending the resolution of
its request to strike down Section 2.3 of Article II of the Articles of
Impeachment, which accuses Corona of not properly declaring all his assets in
his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
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/
