Stand firm, Senate told
The Senate impeachment court should “hold its ground” vis-à-vis the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on the examination of the foreign currency deposits of Chief Justice Renato Corona, according to former Solicitor General Frank Chavez.
The TRO stopping the Senate from compelling Philippine Savings Bank to disclose information on Corona’s dollar accounts is an “incursion into forbidden territory,” Chavez said in an interview. He proposed that the Senate file a manifestation telling the tribunal that it had no jurisdiction over the impeachment court.
But Chavez said the high court’s duty to exercise judicial review was allowed by the Constitution as far as other branches of government were concerned. But he pointed out that the Senate sitting as an impeachment court was not a branch of the government.
He said this was apparent in the fact that the impeachment court was created under Article 11 of the Constitution (the accountability of public officers), and not under Article 6 (the legislative department). This indicates, he added, that the intent of the framers was to separate its functions to legislate and try impeachment cases.
“If I were the Senate, I will hold my ground, stand firm, [and] man the ramparts of the parameters of its jurisdiction that it will not be subject to unlawful incursions from any other institution of government,” Chavez said.
“Supposing the Senate convicts Corona, and Corona claims that there’s grave abuse of discretion in convicting him, and goes to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court acquits him. What … anarchical result do we have? There will be pure chaos because we don’t follow the rules that should confine the [actions] of the Supreme Court,” he said.
Compelling circumstance
Chavez said the “legal fortress” around the Foreign Currency Deposit Act was not “absolutely impregnable” in the past. He cited cases, including Salvacion vs Central Bank, in which the high court granted exceptions to the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.
“There are compelling circumstances that would provide exceptions to the rule. The issue of accountability of public officers is a compelling circumstance. The solution to this, of course, is if the Chief Justice is not hiding anything, he can say, ‘I’m opening all my accounts for the scrutiny of everybody,’” he said.
The Senate is preparing to question the TRO before the high court, specifically its jurisdiction over the impeachment court, Sen. Franklin Drilon said on Friday.
Drilon said that “a good number” of the senators agreed with the move, and that Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza had agreed to defend the impeachment court.
He also said the senators could comply with the TRO and still question the high court’s jurisdiction over the impeachment court.
Not infallible
But constitutionalist Christian Monsod on Saturday said the Senate impeachment court was not infallible and should heed the TRO.
Monsod, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, said the impeachment court was bound by certain principles.
“The Senate makes the mistake of thinking that [it’s] infallible. In a system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers, there is no agency that is infallible and absolute,” he said in a phone interview.
Monsod said that under the system of checks and balances and the principle of separation of powers, the high court was “the interpreter of the law” and was performing this role when it issued the TRO, mindful of the law prohibiting the disclosure of records on foreign currency deposits without the depositor’s consent.
“When the impeachment court wants to look into the records, that doesn’t mean they can ignore the law. The issuance of a subpoena for the records is not among the exceptions provided in the law,” he said. “If they want to subpoena the records, they should change the law.”
This is why the senators will do well to heed the call of their colleagues, Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Joker Arroyo, to obey the TRO, Monsod said.
What they say
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III and Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada said it was a given that the impeachment court would comply with the TRO, as earlier indicated by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.
After all, it’s the high court that interprets the law, they said. But as to whether the impeachment court would question the TRO, specifically the high court’s jurisdiction over it, is a matter to be decided on in Monday’s caucus, they said.
Said Sen. Gregorio Honasan III: “We have no choice but to comply with it, and we can question it later.” He said he would make his stand on the matter during the caucus.
Sen. Loren Legarda said the Senate had “the sole jurisdiction over the impeachment court.”
“We will proceed with the trial. It is our duty,” she said.
Honasan said both the impeachment court and the high court should be sober on the issue so that “the wounds would not fester after the trial.”
“I’m more concerned with the aftermath. I don’t think the Supreme Court or the Senate is inclined to set in motion a collision course whose impact will be felt after the impeachment trial. Now is not the time to claim one is superior to the other,” he said, adding:
“We need to do this, not only right, but well.”
Ball with Senate
The president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, called on the Senate to respect the Supreme Court’s decision.
“There is a law [on the] secrecy of dollar accounts. I’m sure the Senate President will not give in, anyway,” Palma said in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas. “It is more academic for the Senate to respect the TRO.”
Nevertheless, Palma said the CBCP was leaving it up to the Senate impeachment court to determine the best step to take with respect to Corona’s dollar accounts.
“We leave this matter in the hands of the senators. 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.
Two other CBCP members—Bishops Deogracias Iñiguez of Caloocan and Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon—called for Corona’s impeachment trial to proceed, saying it would help the country get at the truth behind the allegations against the Chief Justice.
But for Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles, the impeachment trial should be wrapped up “to save the country from institutional disaster.”
“Many leaders should be saved from this embarrassing situation. The charges of corruption must be [resolved] in another forum,” Arguelles said.
But he said that if Corona were proven guilty, “he should be barred from government positions for good.”
“All the others similarly guilty must also be prosecuted, jailed and kept from further corrupt practices. The nation will then be saved from unscrupulous politicians,” Arguelles said.
In a radio interview, President Aquino’s spokesperson Edwin Lacierda warned that the Senate impeachment court might become “a puppetry of the Supreme Court” if it allowed the tribunal to interfere with its decisions.
“What would become of the constitutional provision that the Senate [is] the sole trier of all impeachment cases? It would be rendered useless if that happens,” Lacierda said.
Still, he said, it was “up to the Senate as a body and the Supreme Court as a body to rule on … the issue of the TRO.”
Lacierda, a constitutional law professor, aired the opinion that the high court could not overrule the impeachment court.
“The Supreme Court has the power. It’s in their appellate or original jurisdiction to clear the constitutionality of any law, treaty, executive agreement. That is in the Constitution,” Lacierda said.
“But … [if] all the decisions of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court would be acted on by the Supreme Court, it would render useless the authority given by the Constitution to the Senate … impeachment court,” he added. With reports from Philip C. Tubeza and Norman Bordadora
First posted 11:52 pm | Saturday, February 11th, 2012
