THE CORONA IMPEACHMENT
Day 13 - Tuesday, 07 February 2012
On the Third Article of Impeachment
Event / Witness
On the subpoena for Chief Justice
Renato Corona’s bank documents
Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III
Majority Floor Leader
Highlights / Remarks
Sotto read a motion for reconsideration submitted by
Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago on the Court’s
decision to subpoena Corona’s bank records from the
Bank of the Philippine Islands and his alleged accounts at
Philippine Savings Bank.
Santiago cited three points in her motion:
1) The subpoena violated the Court’s own ruling that
evidence on Article 2.4 on Corona’s alleged ill-gotten
wealth would not be allowed to be presented.
2) Subpoena would violate RA 6426, the Foreign Currency
Deposit Act, which prohibits examination of documents
containing foreign currency deposits, except upon
permission by the account holder.
3) The three cases cited in the Court Resolution—
Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, China
Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, and Ejercito vs.
Sandiganbayan—were “off-tangent.”
Senator-Judges Panfilo Lacson
and Franklin Drilon
Lacson and Drilon, pointed out that Santiago was not
present during the voting for the resolution, and thus
questioned the validity of the motion for reconsideration.
Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile
Presiding Officer
Enrile, however, said that he could not yet rule on the
motion. Santiago would first be given an opportunity to
personally explain her position. Sotto suggested that a
caucus should be held instead of a plenary session to
discuss the issue, which Enrile approved.
Page 1 of 5
Senator-Judge Joker Arroyo
Arroyo, in reference to a previous question he raised,
asked the prosecution on the pending impeachment case
against Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo at the House
Committee on Justice. Arroyo once again relayed his
concern that the Senate would be burdened by a second
impeachment trial. The House Committee, through a vote
of 27 to 4, with 1 abstention, found the complaint
sufficient.
Rep. Niel Tupas Jr.
Lead Prosecutor
Tupas explained the process that an impeachment
complaint goes through in the committee. He referred to
the Constitutional mandate that pending matters must be
decided within 60 session days, hence the Committee had
to decide on the case. Tupas mentioned that he could not
say whether the complaint would be transmitted to the
Senate for trial as it would still have to go through plenary
debates in the House.
Clarifications on the filing of
motions for reconsideration
Serafin Cuevas
Lead Defense Counsel
Cuevas wanted clarification on the raising of motions for
reconsideration, particularly, if only Senator-Judges were
the ones allowed to make such motions.
Senator-Judges Cayetano (Peter), and Arroyo agreed that
the matter should be further discussed as it was an issue
on an interpretation of the law. Senator-Judge Pimentel,
for his part, clarified that the rules did not prohibit the
parties from seeking motions for reconsideration, but
rather identified ways by which the Court decide on
motions for reconsideration.
Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon
Drilon manifested, however, that the Impeachment Court
is a class of its own and has the sole power to decide on
impeachment. He emphasized the principle that there
should be an end to litigation, as what occurs on regular
judiciary proceedings. Enrile admitted that there was
vagueness in the rules, and reiterated that judgment
would be reserved until Senator-Judge Santiago has
personally given her side on the matter.
Serafin Cuevas
Lead Defense Counsel
Cuevas explained that he raised the point because he was
concerned that if the Court would not entertain motions
for reconsideration except those coming from SenatorJudges, then they would be left with no recourse but to
challenge the validity of Court ruling. Enrile mentioned
that discussions on the issue would be tackled during the
Page 2 of 5
next day’s caucus.
Presentation of Article III
Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao
House Prosecutor
Aggabao enumerated the breakdown of Article III and the
prosecutors who would handle the sub-articles.
With regards to the sub-point of Article III—on Corona
allegedly “allowing” the Supreme Court to flip-flop on its
decision on the case of Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the
Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the
Philippines (FASAP)—Enrile asked the prosecution what
the powers of the Chief Justice were as indicated in the
Constitution. Aggabao replied that the Chief Justice had
administrative supervision over the affairs of the Supreme
Court. Among others, the Chief Justice chairs the en banc
sessions, directs raffles for cases, and orders the release of
en banc resolutions to the public. Nevertheless, Enrile
required the prosecution to submit their position on the
matter via legal memoranda.
On the pending subpoena requests
from the prosecution
Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile
Presiding Officer
Aggabao asked the Court on the status of their pending
request for subpoena of PAL officials and certain Supreme
Court officials and employees. Enrile clarified that such
matters would still have to be discussed thoroughly by the
Senator-Judges. Requests to subpoena members of the
judiciary seemingly impinge on the principles of coequalness and the separation of powers of the branches of
government. He further stated that Justices could testify
voluntarily, but reiterated that the Senate would exercise
great caution in issuing subpoena to the Justices.
Rep. Neri Colmenares
House Prosecutor
Colmenares stressed that the subpoena of Supreme Court
Justices were not in conflict with the separation of
powers, and that the testimonies and records from the
Supreme Court were crucial in the case. Colmenares
stated that the Senate was acting as an Impeachment
Court, and has already subpoenaed members of the
Executive and the Supreme Court Clerk of Court. He
emphasized that the matter at hand was an issue of
accountability and not on the separation of powers.
Fourteenth witness:
Roberto Anduiza
FASAP President
Anduiza stated that the purpose of his testimony would be
to prove that the Chief Justice allowed the Supreme Court
to entertain letters from PAL Counsel Estelito Mendoza,
despite multiple rulings in favor of FASAP, which
eventually led to the reversal of the initial decision.
Page 3 of 5
Rep. Arlene Bag-ao
House Prosecutor
The witness narrated the chronology of the FASAP case,
wherein FASAP won thrice in the Supreme Court. He said
that Philippine Airlines filed motions for reconsideration
after each decision rendered by the Supreme Court. Bagao also placed on record that the ponente for two
decisions was former Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago.
The third decision had no ponente as it was only a
resolution.
Anduiza further said that the Supreme Court came out
with a decision on 4 October 2011, which recalled the
ruling made by the High Court in favor of FASAP.
Senator-Judge Jinggoy Estrada
Estrada asked if FASAP had any pending cases in the
Supreme Court, to which Cuevas replied that there were
existing cases yet to be decided on. Bag-ao rebutted that
the merits of the pending FASAP cases would not be
discussed in the testimony of the witness, but rather only
the alleged involvement of Corona in the decision-making.
Roberto Anduiza
FASAP President
Anduiza continued his testimony, saying that when they
received the copy of the Supreme Court resolution, there
was no reason why there was a reversal. The resolution
also made mention of four letters to the Clerk of Court
coming from PAL Counsel Mendoza.
It was revealed that Corona was copy-furnished in three of
the four letters of Mendoza. The last letter was sent to the
Clerk, with Justices Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, and Mendoza
copy-furnished. Anduiza also stated that while Corona had
claimed that he inhibited from the FASAP case since 2008,
he took part in the en banc that came out with the
resolution recalling the decision.
Prosecution ended their direct examination, while the
Defense asked to defer their cross-examination to the next
day so that they may be able to study the presented
documents. The Prosecution also mentioned that the
appearances of other witnesses were pending as the Court
has yet to approve the requests for subpoena.
Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas
House Prosecutor
Enrile asked the prosecution on the relevance of the
Supreme Court’s financial records to Article III as a whole.
Fariñas responded that such records would show that
Page 4 of 5
Corona used the judiciary funds for personal use. Enrile
and Fariñas discussed the framing of the impeachment
complaint—on whether the Court would consider the
headings, or the subpoints. Later on, Fariñas, in response
to a question by Senator-Judge Estrada, admitted that the
complaint was faulty.
Page 5 of 5