On Feb. 6, 2012, the Senate impeachment court ruled to subpoena Chief Justice Renato Corona’s bank records, including his foreign currency deposits, a move that the prosecution team of the House of Representatives said would be “crucial” in proving that the Chief Justice misdeclared his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
The prosecution pointed to an anonymous source which allegedly provided the House panel with photocopies of what appeared to be bank documents from Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank), which included a customer identification and specimen signature card in the account name of Corona, Renato Coronado with Renato C. Corona as the authorized signatory with an initial deposit of $700,000 (about P38 million in October 2008)—an amount not declared in Corona’s SALN.
On Feb. 8, Corona filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking his colleagues in the high court to temporarily stop the impeachment proceedings against him and the presentation of evidence pertaining to his bank deposits.
PSBank likewise asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Senate from compelling its representative to testify and to bring documents pertaining to Corona’s foreign currency accounts.
On Feb. 9, the Supreme Court voted to stop the Senate impeachment court from compelling PSBank officials to disclose information on Corona’s foreign currency deposits.
However, the justices did not grant Corona’s petition to halt his impeachment trial and the presentation of evidence related to his bank accounts and alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The prosecution rested its case on Feb. 28, after arguing three of eight articles of impeachment
Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chief prosecutor, also announced that the House prosecution panel was scrapping Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the impeachment complaint.
Tupas said panel members believed it had presented convincing evidence to support Article 2 (Corona’s nondisclosure of statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, or SALN), Article 3 (lack of probity, integrity and independence resulting in flip-flopping decisions), and Article 7 (irregular issuance of a temporary restraining order, or TRO, on the hold-departure order on former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo).
The prosecution presented 17 witnesses and 166 documents for Article 2; one witness and 16 documents for Article 3; and seven witnesses and 65 documents for Article 7.
The articles that prosecutors would no longer present evidence for include:
Article 1 accusing Corona of “partiality” in cases involving the Arroyo administration; Article 4 charging the Chief Justice with disregarding the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in connection with the impeachment case of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who later resigned; Article 5 alleging Corona showed “arbitrariness and partiality” in the creation of 16 new cities; and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province;
Article 6 where Corona allegedly arrogated unto himself the authority to investigate Supreme Court associate justice Mariano del Castillo to exculpate him of plagiarism charges; and Article 8 accusing the Chief Justice of failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary collections.
Source: Inquirer Archives