Tranquil Salvador III, the defense panel’s spokesperson, assailed the prosecution for making a zombie out of their request to subpoena bank documents and officials of PSBank and BPI. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Senator-judges will decide before the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona resumes Monday afternoon whether to subpoena documents supposedly pertaining to his bank accounts in at least two Philippine banks.
The senators are also expected to discuss whether they would summon several associate justices of the Supreme Court to testify on the tribunal’s flip-flopping on certain cases.
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said restrictions on the bank secrecy law would normally prohibit investigators from issuing a subpoena that would require a witness to produce documents related to Corona’s bank accounts.
Prosecutors from the House of Representatives earlier listed five accounts, supposedly owned by Corona, with BPI Family Bank and Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank). But only one bank account on the list provided to Senate reporters had a specific number allegedly traced to Corona.
The prosecutors said Corona’s failure to disclose these in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) made him liable for nondisclosure of assets—an offense specified in Article 2 of the verified complaint against the Chief Justice.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile expressed hesitation when initially asked about the chances of the impeachment court getting the bank documents when the motion for a subpoena was filed.
Enrile, the presiding officer of the impeachment trial, wanted prosecutors to indicate the specific banks accounts they wanted bank authorities to produce in court.
“Do they want us to summon all bank accounts in the whole world?” an annoyed Enrile thought aloud in Filipino at the time. Otherwise, the confidentiality guaranteed by banks would be violated, he said.
A senator-judge, who refused to be identified, said it was possible that the caucus would include a discussion on whether the impeachment court would issue a subpoena for dollar and other foreign currency accounts that may be traced to Corona.
“As far as I know, that would be a sensitive area because that is not really allowed in the case of dollar accounts, while the peso accounts are likely to be subpoenaed,” the senator-judge told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Lawyers of Corona accused prosecutors of resorting to unlawful means by presenting to the Senate “confidential” bank documents in their attempt to subpoena two private banks.
Signature card
Ramon Esguerra, a defense lawyer, said the prosecutors attached an unauthenticated copy of Corona’s alleged signature card in PSBank with the pleading they filed in the Senate on February 2.
The pleading was a rejoinder to the prosecution’s earlier motion for the issuance of subpoena for the Chief Justice’s bank records.
“This is illegal under the law. Whoever attached that document to the (prosecution’s) rejoinder and their source have criminal liabilities,” Esguerra told the Inquirer over the phone.
“Since that document is considered confidential, obviously the prosecution used underhand tactics to get a copy of the signature card which supposedly belongs to the Chief Justice,” he said.
Deposit of $700,000
The account, which Corona reportedly opened four years ago, allegedly contained $700,000 as initial deposit.
Esguerra, a former justice undersecretary, called on the Senate impeachment court to take the prosecution’s “premature disclosure” with grave concern.
“This issue is very serious. The prosecutors were asking the Senate to subpoena a document which was actually in their possession already,” he pointed out.
The defense also claimed that Inquirer columnist Conrado Banal III and Malaya publisher Jake Macasaet had “declared possession” of the document.
In a motion that they would file Monday, Corona’s lawyers would ask the Senate to compel Banal and Macasaet to explain how they were able to get hold of Corona’s alleged bank record.
In their motion, a copy of which was obtained by the Inquirer, the defense said the Senate “cannot ignore the production by complainants and the prosecution of documents” and that “the possession of which raises the presumption of criminal liability.”
“It is imperative that the prosecution be required to disclose at once from whom they obtained the alleged documents pertaining to the bank accounts of Corona,” the defense lawyers said.
Esguerra said the defense was considering filing a criminal complaint against members of the House prosecution and the source of the document.
In opposing the prosecution’s request for a subpoena, the defense said the Senate should not use the attachments as basis for granting the motion because these were products of a criminal act.
‘Fruit of poisonous tree’
“Obviously, the attached unauthenticated signature cards… are documents obtained from an illegal source … They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence in this case as they partake of the fruit of the poisonous tree,” the defense said.
Citing Republic Act No. 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, the defense said Corona’s alleged dollar account was “declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature.”
“It is clear that no foreign currency deposit can be examined, inquired or looked into except upon written permission of the depositor. The proscription is absolute and covers all cases of whatever nature, including impeachment,” Corona’s lawyers said.
In addition, RA No. 1405, or the Bank Secrecy Act, declared it illegal for bank officials to divulge details of a depositor’s bank records, the defense said.
“It goes without saying, therefore, that complainants and counsel, as well as the person who disclosed copies of the alleged documents pertaining to the (foreign currency) account of Corona and his children, violated RA 1405,” it said.
‘Dead issue’
Tranquil Salvador III, the defense panel’s spokesperson, assailed the prosecution for making a zombie out of their request to subpoena bank documents and officials of PSBank and BPI.
“This is already a dead issue which the prosecution is trying to revive,” Salvador said in a separate phone interview.
“The Senate has already stricken out the allegation of ill-gotten wealth from the impeachment proceedings. And the matter involving the bank records is clearly included in that allegation in Paragraph 2.4 of Article 2,” he said.
Salvador said the second of eight articles of impeachment only alleged Corona’s failure to file and disclose his SALNs.
He denounced the prosecution for issuing “motherhood statements” in forcing Corona to make public his financial records, such as supposed huge accounts in various banks.
“They keep on saying that Corona must bare all if he’s not hiding anything. Is that (challenge) has legal basis? They should only present arguments backed by legal reasons,” he said.
Salvador said that no less than Enrile reminded the prosecutors during the proceedings last week that they must specify their allegations and provide details of the bank accounts they intend to subpoena.