Constitutional crisis feared: Impeach court vs SC
Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile
Fears of a constitutional crisis were aired Wednesday when the lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the Senate impeachment court from summoning bank officials and producing records of his bank accounts.
The defense’s move to seek relief from the high court prompted Senator Teofisto Guingona III to take the floor at the start of Wednesday’s trial.
“Many of our fellow citizens are worried … that we will have a constitutional crisis,” Guingona said, citing the defense’s petition “to stop the issuance of a subpoena from the impeachment court related to bank deposits of the accused” and raising three “important points” in saying that only the Senate could resolve matters relative to impeachment cases.
The prosecution spokesperson, Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo, said the high court would be “at the brink of throwing itself into a deep constitutional violation should it issue the TRO.”
Quimbo said the high court had “no jurisdiction” over the Senate impeachment court under Article 11, Section 6 of the Constitution, which states that the Senate shall have “the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
“The Senate leadership must carry out its exclusive constitutional mandate of impeachment to its finality. It should not allow its power to be emasculated by another branch,” he said.
Just seeking relief
But defense spokespersons said talk of a constitutional crisis was the doing of “malicious minds.”
Rico Paolo Quicho said Corona’s decision to file a petition with the high court “does not mean that we are pitting the Supreme Court against the Senate.”
“What we are doing is actually a recognition of the Constitution and a respect [for] government instrumentalities. We are just seeking relief from the Supreme Court,” Quicho said in a pretrial media briefing.
Tranquil Salvador III said that while the defense team’s legal action could be a “challenge” to the Senate and the high court as coequal branches of government, it would eventually “strengthen government processes.”
“We believe that they are capable of working harmoniously under the rule of law and with respect to the other branches of government,” Salvador said, adding:
“We have been very consistent with our position that we want to strengthen the government processes by participating in this. This will prove that strength. This will show that our system is working.”
Salvador also said it was premature “to even think about” a constitutional crisis.
“How can there be a constitutional crisis when we don’t know yet how the Supreme Court would decide on the petition? We don’t even know if it would act on what we filed,” he said.
‘Potential problem’
In an ambush interview, Senator Panfilo Lacson said a constitutional crisis could ensue as a result of the defense’s move.
“[I]f the Supreme Court stops us from issuing a subpoena or compelling bank officials to appear, that’s a potential problem. That’s a constitutional crisis [in the making],” Lacson said before joining the 11 a.m. caucus called by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.
Lacson said he preferred not to prescribe a solution for now.
“I don’t know how to proceed from there. I just hope the Supreme Court will respect the authority of the impeachment court based on the Constitution, [which] is clear on this matter. The Senate sitting as an impeachment court cannot be considered a coequal (‘walang kasosyo, walang kahati’) branch of government. It has the sole power to try impeachment cases,” he said.
Lacson said the defense could provide a strong argument for its petition had the Constitution qualified the authority given to the impeachment court.
“But there is no such qualification,” he said.
Santiago motion denied
Enrile called for Wednesday’s caucus to discuss Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s motion asking the impeachment court to reconsider the subpoenas issued to representatives of two banks where Corona allegedly keeps local and foreign currency deposits.
Corona is charged with, among others, failure to disclose his alleged bank deposits in branches of Philippine Savings Bank and Bank of the Philippine Islands in Makati City.
Santiago said the presentation of evidence proving the existence of these deposits would violate an earlier ruling of the impeachment court not to accept evidence related to paragraph 2.4 of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint accusing Corona of ill-gotten wealth.
The senators eventually agreed to deny Santiago’s motion in the caucus, which also apparently included the defense’s petition.
In separate ambush interviews before the trial began, Senate President Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said no agreement or position was reached regarding the petitions during the meeting.
At the start of the trial, Sotto only read a resolution of the court denying Santiago’s motion. But Guingona gave the public a glimpse of what transpired during the caucus.
The sole power
In a brief speech, Guingona asserted the Senate’s independence as a legislative body tasked to handle impeachment cases.
But once the Senate sits as an impeachment court to try a public official, it ceases to become a coequal branch of the judiciary or act as a legislative body, he said.
Guingona stressed that the Senate sitting as an impeachment court had the sole power to try impeachment cases, which he described as “a specific special judicial function.”
“I hope the Supreme Court realizes that point,” he said in Filipino.
Guingona added that senator-judges sitting in an impeachment court “are here to hear a case and pass judgment on the accused. I trust that the Supreme Court would know what to do and that it would help us seek the truth.”
A senator who requested anonymity said Guingona’s speech was not included in the trial agenda.
“We were surprised when he suddenly stood up. The speech was not among [the matters] discussed earlier today,” the senator said in a text message.
Right to appeal
The trial entered a critical phase on Monday, when the Senate impeachment court ordered the issuance of subpoenas for Corona’s bank accounts.
Covered by the subpoenas are Corona’s accounts with the two banks, and “other bank accounts, including time deposits, money market placements, peso/dollar accounts and the like.”
The issuance of the subpoenas was a big blow to the defense, which quickly put on record its intent to seek relief in another venue, right after the subpoena on the two banks were issued on Monday.
Through Cuevas, the defense contended that the prosecution’s attempt to scrutinize Corona’s bank accounts was not related to Article 2 of the impeachment complaint, which deals with the Chief Justice’s purported failure to make public his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
“We are seeking a reconsideration of the aforesaid ruling in the light of jurisprudence on the point dealing with the issues discussed in this case,” Cuevas said.
He said that while he agreed “100 percent” that the privacy of bank deposits could not be invoked in impeachment proceedings, “it must be shown that the impeachment case has something to do with the alleged bank deposits.”
“Is it enough that the case is an impeachment case in order that the exemption may be claimed? Our answer is no, simply because … the subject matter is not in connection with this impeachment case,” Cuevas said.
He sought the indulgence of the Senate to be allowed to submit a motion for reconsideration.
Bank secrecy
In lifting the effectivity of the Bank Secrecy Law insofar as Corona was concerned, the impeachment court invoked the exemption granted to the Senate under Republic Act No. 1405, or the Bank Secrecy Law.
Section 2 of RA 1405 states: “All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines … are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation.” With a report from Marlon Ramos
