Santiago votes to heed SC ruling on Corona dollar accounts
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago voted on Monday to obey the Supreme Court decision against the opening of dollar accounts allegedly owned by Chief Justice Renato Corona, saying the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, was not “almighty, absolute, illimitable and more supreme” than the high tribunal.
In a letter she sent to Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III dated February 13, Santiago cited at least six “grounds” why she favored the high court ruling.
“These six grounds are based on the ideology that the impeachment court is not almighty, not absolute, not illimitable, and not more supreme than the Supreme Court,” she said.
Santiago’s first argument was that obedience to the temporary restraining order issued by the high tribunal would preserve government stability “while disobedience precipitates a constitutional crisis.”
“If we have a choice between stability and crisis, the wise choice is always national stability,” she said.
The second ground, Santiago said, was that judicial power belongs to the Supreme Court as provided for in the Constitution.
She said judicial power has two components; “justiciable questions” which the court defines as “actual controversies” involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and “political questions” which the Constitution defines as “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
“Under this discarded doctrine, a court should refuse to decide an issue involving the exercise of discretionary power by the executive or legislative branch of government,” she said.
“Assuming that the power to issue subpoena concerning foreign currency deposits is discretionary with the impeachment court, still the Supreme Court has power over this political question,”Santiago added.
Her third argument was that the impeachment court was not authorized to violate the law.
Santiago then pointed to the law on secrecy of foreign currency deposits which described this secrecy to be “absolute” except only and only when the depositor gives his or her consent.
The senator said the fourth ground was the “theory of checks and balances,” which prohibits the impeachment court from claiming an exception for itself.
“When the impeachment court obeys the Supreme Court’s TRO, this does not mean that one is superior over the other. It merely means that the Constitution is supreme over all branches and agencies of government,” she explained.
Her fifth argument was that “disobedience to the TRO violates the defendant’s human rights.”
And the sixth and last argument was based on two previous cases where the Supreme Court ruled that it has the power of judicial review over impeachment cases.
