Defense to seek Supreme Court relief over Corona bank documents

Serafin Cuevas

The lead defense counsel of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Tuesday said he might resort to a court order, possibly from the Supreme Court, barring the Senate as an impeachment tribunal from receiving bank documents as evidence unless it entertained a motion for reconsideration he would file.

Serafin Cuevas, a former justice secretary and former associate justice of the Supreme Court, was about to file on Monday night a motion for reconsideration right after the Senate issued subpoenas to officials of two Philippine banks to produce documents showing that Corona has deposits he allegedly failed to declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

However, Senator Francis Escudero immediately pointed out that only senator-judges were allowed to file such motions for reconsideration on rulings of the Senate President as presiding officer.

Escudero said the prosecution and defense panels were prohibited from doing so under Rule 6 of the impeachment court.

Santiago motion

While Cuevas did not challenge Escudero’s statement at the time, Senator Miriam Santiago, who was absent on Monday, submitted a letter to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Tuesday which constituted a motion for reconsideration against the subpoenas.

Santiago cited three reasons the Senate should reconsider the orders issued to representatives of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands branches in Makati City where Corona purportedly keeps deposits.

First, Santiago reminded the impeachment court it had already ruled against accepting evidence related to paragraph 2.4 of Article 2 referring to ill-gotten wealth.

“Since 2.4 is the only paragraph that specifically mentions ‘bank deposits,’ any requests for subpoena concerning any bank deposits should be rejected,” she said.

RA 6426

Second, the impeachment court’s resolution allowing the subpoena of “even foreign currency deposits appears to be a direct violation of RA 6426.” (Republic Act No. 6426 is known as An Act Instituting a Foreign Currency Deposit System in the Philippines.)

Santiago said the Supreme Court already ruled in Intengan v. Court of Appeals in 2002 that “this law is violated if a foreign currency deposit is examined, except only when the depositor gives written permission.”

The senator said a written consent by the depositor “is the only exception, and it is not present in this case.”

In fact, Corona’s lawyers filed Tuesday afternoon a motion to quash opposing the subpoenas issued to the representatives of the two banks.

Off tangent

Third, Santiago described as “off tangent” the cases cited by the prosecution in supporting its request for subpoenas to the bank officials, including Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan regarding the nonbailable plunder charge filed against former President Joseph Estrada.

At the start of the trial, Santiago’s motion was discussed lengthily with Enrile, presiding officer of the trial, calling for a caucus of senator-judges at 11 a.m. Wednesday to thresh out the issue.

Another venue

At one point, Cuevas raised his hand and volunteered that if the impeachment court would not accept his motion for reconsideration opposing the appearance of the bank officials and their presentation of bank documents, “then we’ll have no other alternative but to seek another venue.”

“If the policy of the impeachment court is that no motion for reconsideration may be made by counsel, then where else are we going to go to question the validity or legality of decision of this court, your honor?” Cuevas asked, addressing Enrile.

Cuevas said the situation forced the defense panel to consider filing a petition for certiorari that would compel a court, in this case the Senate as an impeachment court, to rethink the subpoenas issued to bank representatives.

Supreme Court

“Even before, the Supreme Court or any judicial body, a motion for reconsideration had always been available. The Supreme Court cannot say no MR (motion for reconsideration) will be entertained, your honor,” said Cuevas.

He added that while the Supreme Court would reject motions for reconsideration if several had been filed in a specific case, “a first motion for reconsideration is decided and cannot be precluded by any judiciary branch of the government, whether the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”

“If it is clear that we cannot raise the legality of this ruling before this court, then we’ll have no other alternative but to seek another venue, your honor,” Cuevas said.

Class by itself

Enrile agreed that Cuevas had the right to seek such redress.

The Senate President cautioned, however, that “this chair will take exception (of) anyone (who tries) to stop the trial in this chamber because the Constitution says once the articles of impeachment reach this (chamber), the trial in this Senate shall forthwith begin. It is given the sole power to try and decide this case.”

Senator Franklin Drilon also stood up and indicated that Cuevas may have no recourse but yield to the impeachment court.

“The accepted principle that this impeachment court is a class by itself … We (senator-judges) have the sole power to decide on this case, therefore no institution of this government can tell us what to do. This is the sole authority insofar as impeachment is concerned,” he said.

“Counsel for defense raised the question, ‘what is the relief available to us?’ There has to be an end to litigation, just as there is no remedy to errors of the Supreme Court. They (justices) can commit errors, we can disagree with them but we cannot do anything. This impeachment court is supreme in its power to try and decide impeachment cases,” Drilon added.

In their motion,  Corona’s lawyers asked the Senate to recall the subpoenas to PSBank and BPI representatives.

‘Illegal act’

Invoking a law prohibiting the scrutiny of foreign currency deposits, the defense panel argued that allowing the prosecution to submit as evidence Corona’s bank records from the BPI and PSBank was tantamount to turning a blind eye to “an illegal act.”

“(I)t should be emphasized that any information or documents pertaining (to Corona’s supposed dollar bank accounts) are absolutely confidential under Section 8 of RA 6426,” the defense said in a seven-page motion to quash.

“It is clear therefore that no (foreign currency deposit) shall be examined—even in case of impeachment—except upon written permission of the depositor,” it added.

The defense noted that the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Intengan et al. v.  Court of Appeals that the disclosure of such bank accounts may be permitted “only upon the written permission of the depositor.”