Corona, PSBank run to Supreme Court for permanent TRO
Chief Justice Renato Corona
In an unprecedented move, Chief Justice Renato Corona on Wednesday asked his own colleagues in the Supreme Court to temporarily stop the impeachment proceedings against him and the presentation of evidence pertaining to his bank deposits.
One of his banks, Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank), also asked the high court on Wednesday to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Senate from compelling its representative to testify and to bring documents pertaining to Corona’s foreign currency accounts.
In a petition, PSBank and its president, Pascual Garcia III, through lawyers Helena Rosales-Calo and Vincent Patrick Bayhon, said the TRO was necessary to prevent a possible bank run by the public and investors who may be alarmed by the impeachment court’s “arbitrary and whimsical” examination of a foreign currency deposit.
PSBank said the dollar deposits were absolutely protected by Republic Act No. 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. It said the Supreme Court should stop the impeachment court from “forcing them to commit crime.”
“It is settled jurisprudence that there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when a tribunal contravenes the Constitution, the laws and the existing jurisprudence,” PSBank said.
Carpio, Sereno inhibition
The Chief Justice, in a separate petition, also asked for the inhibition of Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Ma. Lourdes Sereno from participating in the deliberation of the case, saying both Carpio and Sereno have been openly critical of Corona and were even reported as being considered as his replacement.
Corona filed a third petition asking for a special raffle of the case so that a justice who would write the court’s orders and the final decision may be selected as soon as possible.
The petitions were filed at around 2 p.m. in the Supreme Court, which the tribunal may tackle in its special full court session Thursday.
Should his petitions be given due course, Corona asked the Supreme Court to render judgment declaring the impeachment complaint null and void from the start and making the TRO or writ of preliminary injunction permanent.
Claiming that his right to due process was violated and that the Senate, as an impeachment court, committed grave abuse of discretion, Corona filed an urgent petition for certiorari that sought from the high court a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction while his petitions were being heard.
He also asked the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the impeachment court’s resolution dated Feb. 6, 2012, that granted requests to subpoena officers of PSBank and Bank of the Philippine Islands for them to testify and bring documents on the bank accounts of the Chief Justice.
Corona also asked the Supreme Court to prevent officers of the two banks from testifying and submitting documents on his or his family’s bank accounts.
The Chief Justice also sought the stopping of the presentation, reception and admission of pieces of evidence relating to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the second impeachment article pertaining to his alleged ill-gotten wealth.
Corona said the impeachment complaint was “null and void because it was transmitted without due notice and hearing to [me].”
In his arguments, Corona said the impeachment court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in retaining paragraph 2.3 of Article 2.
“A simple reading of the articles of impeachment will show that probable cause to impeach Chief Justice Corona has not been established. Per force of circumstance, this impeachment is riddled with constitutional defects too numerous to withstand even cursory legal scrutiny,” he said.
Corona said the Senate should have refrained from holding the trial on the basis of the impeachment complaint “because it is constitutionally infirm and defective, for lack of probable cause,” adding that “while the complaint is verified, that alone would not justify the violation of Chief Justice Corona’s fundamental right to due process.”
Following public admission by a number of members of the House of Representatives that they had no opportunity to read the complaint and that the majority signed it without reading, Corona said “it stands to reason that the impeachment court gravely abused its discretion when it accepted the articles of impeachment even if they were patently without probable cause.”
Davide precedent
Corona recalled that in 2003, the Supreme Court stopped the House from filing an impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, saying the proceedings violated due process because Davide was not given notice and hearing.
However, while seeking to nullify the articles of impeachment and to stop the impeachment proceedings, Corona scored both the form and content of Article 2, which deals with his failure to disclose his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
Corona said paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of Article 2 should be deleted because these were “based on pure speculation and conclusions, which cannot be considered ultimate facts sufficient to support a complaint.”
Regarding the subpoenas to the banks, the Chief Justice said the impeachment court, as requested by the prosecution, “committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing [them].”
He added: “An information which alleges that defendant is accused of having committed an offense, but which does not directly charge that defendant committed the offense, is insufficient.”
‘Anonymous small woman’
Corona faulted the impeachment court for bowing to the House prosecution’s request for summonses for Corona’s bank accounts when its purpose was for a “fishing expedition” and were not obtained independently.
The Chief Justice also faulted the prosecution for basing its requests for subpoenas for Corona’s bank account on the information provided by an “anonymous small woman” who approached Representative Reynaldo Umali, a member of the prosecution panel.
Corona said the bases of subpoenas were illegal because they were based on confidential information protected by the bank secrecy law.
“The subpoena issued must be quashed for being the fruit of a poisoned tree—the illegality stems from the mere possession of the bank documents without any waiver from the depositor,” Corona said.
Named respondents in the PSBank petition were the impeachment court, all the senators and all the members of the prosecution panel of the House of Representatives.
The subpoena, according to bank president Garcia, was issued with grave abuse of discretion by the Senate impeachment court.
Garcia said the implementation of the subpoena issued by the impeachment court for him and other bank officials to testify and bring documents pertaining to Corona’s foreign currency accounts would also expose them and the bank to criminal liability and possible imprisonment for violation of Section 8 of RA 6426.
Section 8 states all foreign currency deposits are considered “absolutely confidential” in nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such deposits be examined or looked into by any person, including government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private.
