Supreme Court issues TRO on Corona dollars

CORONA BALCONY Impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona (center) waves to supporters (at right) who gathered on Thursday outside the Supreme Court building in Manila to call for a stop to the impeachment trial. At left, protesters call for the opening of Corona’s bank foreign currency account records during Thursday’s rally near the old Film Center at the CCP complex in Pasay City.

Voting 8-5, the Supreme Court on Thursday stopped the Senate impeachment court from compelling Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) officials to disclose information on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s foreign currency deposits.

Although the impeachment court has yet to officially take cognizance of the TRO issued by the high court, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile “in deference to the Supreme Court” cautioned the contending camps against touching on issues related to Corona’s foreign currency deposits.

“The court took into consideration the law on foreign currency deposits. The dissenters are of the opinion that a temporary restraining order should not be issued. The TRO is indefinite until lifted,” Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said in a press conference after the tribunal’s special en banc session.

However, Marquez said, the justices did not yet act on Corona’s petition to halt his impeachment trial and the presentation of evidence related to his bank accounts and alleged ill-gotten wealth.

The justices merely directed the respondents—the Senate impeachment court and the House prosecution panel—to file their comments within 10 days.

“From hereon, in deference to the Supreme Court, the interpreter of the Constitution and the guardian of basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, this chair would suggest and recommend to this impeachment court and the two sides of the case—the prosecutor and the [defense] panel—to take heed and to discuss other issues other than foreign currency deposits because of the presence of the TRO with the Supreme Court,” said Enrile, the presiding officer.

Disagreement

He said the legal issue would be discussed “in due time.”

The senator-judges expressed disagreement with the high court’s TRO but said the Senate as a body would have to decide what action to take.

“We believe that we have the sole power to try and decide the case,” Senator Francis Pangilinan said in an interview Thursday night.

“This ties our hands. Constitutionally, our hands should not be tied. How can we try this case if the Supreme Court ties our hands, and renders some of our interlocutory orders void?” Pangilinan said.

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV wondered: “If they can stop us in small matters, how much more in bigger decisions?”

Balancing act

But Senator Aquilino Pimentel III said the TRO did not stop the impeachment trial altogether.

“We have to modify or limit our inquiry so as not to touch on FCDU (foreign currency deposit units). We will read [the ruling] on Monday, and we will act accordingly,” Pimentel said.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said the TRO was not “a big blow” to the impeachment trial. But he conceded that the impeachment court would have to make a tough balancing act whether to question it or not.

Should the Senate question the TRO, it would in effect recognize the Supreme Court, Cayetano said.

“There are two major possibilities. One is that the Senate would see this as in fact a case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No. 2 is that it interferes with the sole authority of the impeachment court to try and decide cases,” he told reporters.

In any case, the senators would meet in a caucus an hour earlier at 11 a.m Monday to tackle how the body would respond to this, the senators said.

How they voted

Those who voted in favor of the TRO were Justices Teresita de Castro, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama, Bienvenido Reyes and Jose Mendoza.

The dissenters were Justices Antonio Carpio, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Mariano del Castillo, Diosdado Peralta and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Corona and Justice Presbitero Velasco took no part in the deliberations, which began at around 2 p.m. and ended about three hours later.

The TRO was issued as the PSBank president, Pascual Garcia III, was testifying at the Senate impeachment court and resisting efforts for him to talk about Corona’s foreign bank deposits.

“The court has already issued a TRO,” Marquez told reporters.

“I myself was following the Senate hearing and it appears they have not really touched on the issue [of foreign deposits] yet, and they have not really required the disclosure of the accounts, so the TRO is quite timely,” he said.

Regarding the prosecution’s motion that a number of justices be subpoenaed by the impeachment court to testify, Marquez said the high court was drafting a set of guidelines “which will be immediately available.” He refused to elaborate.

But the impeachment court already denied the prosecution’s motion on Wednesday night. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, cited the separation of powers of the three branches of government among other reasons.

‘Positive note’

In a posttrial news conference, the defense welcomed the Supreme Court’s move.

“I think we just have to respect the decision. This is a positive note although … we are not the petitioner in the case,” said Tranquil Salvador III, a defense spokesperson.

“If there’s one thing [which should be protected] by this, more than the rights of the depositor, is our banking system. I’m sure the depositors who have dollar deposits are concerned because they want to maintain the confidentiality of their accounts,” he said.

Salvador said the fact that Justice Reyes, one of President Benigno Aquino III’s appointees to the high court, voted to grant PSBank’s petition was “a good indication that a government institution like the Supreme Court continues to function.”

“This despite the difficulties, the challenges, being faced by its Chief Justice. Our system of government will not stop just because of this trial. We have to continue and respect the impeachment trial, but at the same time … to continue to work and address the needs of the public,” Salvador said.

He expressed confidence that the Senate impeachment court would respect the high court “as the interpreter of the law under the Constitution.”

Velasco’s inhibition

Marquez surmised that the justices “did not see the urgency” in granting Corona’s petition.

He said the case was raffled on Wednesday to Justice Velasco, who was supposed to write all orders related to it as well as the final decision.

But at around 2 p.m. Velasco informed his colleagues that he was inhibiting from the case because his son, Marinduque Representative Lord Allan Jay Velasco, had signed the impeachment complaint against Corona.

“Therefore, there is no justice in charge yet of this particular case filed by the Chief Justice. Just the same, the justices decided to require the respondents to file comments within 10 days. The prayer for TRO will be resolved later,” Marquez said.

He said Corona’s motion for Carpio and Sereno’s inhibition was likewise not acted on but would also be among the issues to be commented on by respondents.

According to Marquez, Corona opened the en banc session and then left the conference room. It was Carpio who presided over the deliberations.

Throwing the gauntlet

In Malacañang, President Aquino’s spokesperson, Edwin Lacierda, said the Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO was “a brazen effort to derail the proceedings.”

Lacierda said that the high court had now “thrown the gauntlet” and that it was now “a defining moment for the Senate.”

In a statement he issued shortly after Marquez announced the high court’s decision, Lacierda said the Constitution clearly provided that the Senate would be “the sole authority in all matters related to an impeachment trial.”

“We maintain that a sober reading of the Constitution clearly shows the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the Senate in impeachment trials,” Lacierda said.

“But from the very start, the Chief Justice, his lawyers, defenders, have threatened to provoke a constitutional crisis; now, they have thrown the gauntlet,” Lacierda said.

Brazen effort

“While the Chief Justice clearly lacked the numbers to go even further and try to stop the proceedings, the TRO handed down by the court is a brazen effort to derail the proceedings.”

Lacierda noted that the Senate had previously said it would “assert its prerogatives” and “uphold its right to do its duty.”

“The burden of history must be weighing heavily on the shoulders of the Senate. But it can look back to its history as the defender of the people’s liberty, and the enemy of autocracy to know where its duty lies,” he said. With reports from Michael Lim Ubac, Marlon Ramos and Christine O. Avendaño of PDI and Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net

Originally posted at 05:19 pm | Thursday, February 09,  2012