comment opposition feb8 p1200

8/3/2019 Comment Opposition Feb8 P1200

1/12

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SENATESITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES,

'12 FEB -8 P12 :00

CASE NO. 002-2011REPRESENTATIVES NIH C. TUPAS,JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA, III,REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.BAG-AO (other complainantscomprising one third (1/3) of thetotal Members of the House ofRepresentatives as are indicatedbelow.)x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION(To Respondent's Motion to Quash

Subpoena Ad Cautelam)

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS, and unto this HonorableImpeachment Court respectfully submits the instant Comment/Opposition to the Motion toQuash Subpoena Ad Cautelam and respectfully states:

1. In the Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Cautelam dated 07 February 2012, theRespondent alleged that the Subpoenae issued by this Honorable Tribunal to the Bank of thePhilippine Islands (BPI) and PSBank dated 07 February 2012 will allow the Prosecution tosupport its allegations under paragraph 2.4 of the "Verified Complaint". He cited the


2/12

2

Resolution dated 27 January 2012 rendered by this Honorable Tribunal prohibiting anyintroduction of evidence pertaining to Par. 2.4 of the complaint, which includes evidence toprove respondent's supposed bank accounts with huge deposits.1

2. At the outset, it must be stressed that the Motion to Quash does not raise anynew arguments and is clearly a mere pro-forma Motion. All the arguments raised therein werefully and adequately discussed in the Resolution dated 06 February 2012 which ruled that:

"After an examination of the documents sought to be produces in bothrequests, this Court is of the strong view that the production of documentspertaining to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona should be closely relatedto the filing of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth ("SALN")inasmuch as the funds in said bank accounts may be considered as his personalproperties which are required to be properly and truthfully declared in the SALN.xxx

xxx xx xxxThe court had to consider whether or not the issuance of the subpoenae

would violate existing laws on secrecy of bank deposits. Under Republic Act1405, as amended, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the disclosure ofinformation relating to bank accounts in local currency cannot be made except infive (5) instances, namely: (a) upon written permission of the depositor, (b) incases of impeachment, (c) upon order of a competent court in the case ofbribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or. (d) when the money depositedor invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and e) in cases of violation ofthe Anti-Money Laundering Act (AM LA). However, it appears that for foreigncurrency bank accounts, the disclosure may be made only upon writtenpermission of the depositor, pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426.

However, the court has taken due notice of the fact that the SupremeCourt, has in several decisions, relaxed the rule on the absolute confidentialnature of bank deposits, even foreign currency deposit accounts, in the cases ofSalvacion vs. The Central Bank of the Philippines, GR No. 94723 August 21, 1997and China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 140687, December18, 2006 and Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 157294-95, November 30,2006. The Majority is of the view that the present impeachment proceedingspresent a valid exception to the general rule on confidentiality of information onbank accounts, even for foreign currency bank accounts.

The court would like to emphasize that the non-disclosure of informationrelating to the bank accounts of individuals is still the general rule and it has nointention of going against the public policy on this matter. However, the court isonly issuing the subpoena relating to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Coronabecause of the pendency of the present impeachment proceedings and for noother reason."

1 Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Cautelam dated 07 February 2012, par. 3, p. 2.


3/12

The subpoenae to BPI and PSBankare being presented to prove theallegations in pars. 2.2 and 2.3 ofthe Verified Complaint and aretherefore, relevant and material tothe instant case.

3

3. As emphasized by the Prosecutors time and again, the BPI and PS Bank recordsare not intended to prove the allegations contained in paragraph 2.4 of the Verified Complaintbut are being presented to prove the allegations in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 thereof. Further, inthe same Resolution cited by the respondent, this Honorable Tribunal actually allowed theProsecution to introduce evidence in support of the said paragraphs.

4. Paragraph 2.2 of the Impeachment Complaint alleges that respondent failed todisclose his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as required by theConstitution. 2 Paragraph 2.3 of the Impeachment Complaint alleges that some of theproperties of respondent are not included in his SALN. 3 These allegations in the ImpeachmentComplaint (both of which were denied by respondent in his Answer) give rise to the issue ofwhether respondent declared all of his assets (including moneys, cash, and funds) in his SALNsand whether the SALNs he filed were truthful, accurate and complete (as required by theConstitution4 and the laws).

5. In this case, the subpoenaed documents would prove and establish thatRespondent Corona did no t make true disclosures of his assets. It will likewise prove that hedid not declare all his assets in his SALNs because the bank accounts contain funds which aregreatly in excess of the amount declared in his SALNs.

6. To be more specific, in respondent's SALNs fo r 2002 to 2010 (adopted ascommon exhibits by both parties). he declared "cash & investments" in the following amounts:

2002 = P2,700,0002003 = P3,300,0002004 = P3,300,0002005 = P3,300,0002006 = P2,500,0002 "2.2. Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required bythe Constitution."3 "2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of hisassets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act."4 The Constitution requires the SALN to be under oath (Art. XI, Section 17).sSection 7 of RA 3019 legally requires the statements to be a "true detailed and sworn statement of assets andliabilities".


4/12

2007 =2008 =2009 =2010 =

P2,500,000P2,500,000P2,500,000P3,500,000

4

7. However, the documentary evidence presented thus far indicate thatrespondent has bank accounts with funds which are greatly in excess ofthe amount declared inhis SALNs. For instance, respondent has drawn checks, in the following amounts:

P5,000,000.00

P5,000,000.00

P4,510,225.00

P4,858,114.80

BPI Check No. 0000404870Based on Megaworld Official Receipt No. 600312dated April 20, 2009 (Exhibit CCCe)BPI Check No. 0000404774Based on Megaworld Official Receipt No. 529859dated October 17, 2008 (Exhibit CCCC-l)BPI Check No. 0000404955Based on Megaworld Official Receipt No. 677400dated October 16, 2009 (Exhibit CCCC-2)BPI Check No. 0000404753Based on Megaworld Official Receipt No. 499170dated August 29, 2008 (Exhibit FFFF)

8. As may be seen above, there is a great disparity between the amounts indicatedin respondent's SALNs and the amounts in respondent's checks (based on official receiptsissued to him). This disparity is very apparent from the records. Thus, there is sufficient basisand reason to look into the bank accounts of respondent. It will be highly relevant to theallegation that some of respondent's assets (including moneys, cash, and funds) were notincluded by respondent in his SALNs.

9. Moreover, the PSBank bank account shows that it was opened with an initialdeposit of $700,000 or around PhP 30,000,000 in 2008. However, his 2008 SALN only listed PhP2,500,000 as Cash and Investments which clearly did not include the PhP30,000,000 in hisPSBank account. From this alone, it can be derived that respondent failed to include in his SALNthe difference of around Php27,500,000 as Cash and Investments. Therefore, the documentssubpoenaed are relevant and material to the case.

10. It bears emphasis that a false or untrue disclosure is no disclosure at all. Section7 of RA 3019 legally requires the statements to be a "true detailed and sworn statement ofassets and liabilities". In turn, Section 8 of RA 6713 obligates public officials to accomplish andsubmit their declarations under oath which the public has the right to know:


5/12

5

"Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employeeshave an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, andthe public has th e right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financialand business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarriedchildren under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households."

11. Being under oath, every declaration in th e SALN must be true. Else, it is as if nodeclaration is made since it will only give a false information to, and mislead, th e public. Indeed,as an obligation of every public official, RA 6713 requires that public officials should remain trueto th e people at all times:

"Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A)Every public official and employee shall observe th e following asstandards of personal conduct in th e discharge and execution of officialduties:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remaintrue to the people at all times. They must act with jus tness and sincerityand shall not discriminate against anyone, especially th e poor and theunderprivileged. They shall at all times respect th e rights of others, andshall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, goodcustoms, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.They shall not d ispense or extend undue favors on account of their officeto their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respectto appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictlyconfidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms arecoterminous with theirs." (Emphasis supplied)

12. Further, even th e Supreme Court held that SALNs should contain true details. Inth e case of Pleyto vs. PNP (G.R. No. 169982, November 23, 2007), the Court stated that "BothSection 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 8 of the Code of Conduct andEthical Standards for Public Officials and Employees require th e accomplishment andsubmission of a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities." (Emphasissupplied)

13. In th e recent consolidated cases of Galeos v. People and Ong v. People (G.R. No.174730-37,174845-52, February 9,2011), th e Supreme Court convicted petitioner Paulino Ong(On g) with eight counts and petitioner Rosalio Galeos (Galeos) of four counts of falsification ofpublic documents under Article 171, par. 4 of th e Revised Penal Code. The conviction wasrooted on th e fact that both petitioners, who were first cousins, failed to declare in their SALNsthat they have a relative "within th e fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to anyone


6/12

6working in th e government" and that they did not declare each other in th e space for th e list ofnames of relatives related to said query. The decision affirming th e conviction was evencertified by none other than respondent himself.

14. Clearly, a public official's act of disclosing his assets , liabilities, and net worth isnot a pointless exercise. The declarations in his SALN must reflect the true, honest andaccurate details of th e public officer's financial status. Thus, evidence which will show that th epublic officer failed to declare his assets, (including personal assets such as the bank accountsof respondent in BPI and PSBank in this case) is relevant and material to the determination ofwhether there was a true, honest and accurate declaration of SALNs.

15. Furthermore, in th e impeachment trial of District Court Judge Charles Swayne,th e Presiding Officer admitted evidence on the expenditures of the judge, because the pleadingraise the issue. Whether or not the expenses were less than the sum charged was material toproving the charge that Judge Swayne made false certificates of expenses. (3 Hinds' Precedentsof the House of Representatives 2225, 551 (1907; citing 39 Congo Rec. 2240, 2241 (1905))

16. In th e same vein, th e Verified Complaint charges respondent with failure todisclose his SALN, th e contents of which must be truthful, honest, and accurate. Whether ornot the personal assets of th e respondent, which include bank deposits, were less than thatwhich respondent declared in his SALN is material to proving that he failed to truthfully,honestly and accurately disclose his SALN to the public as required by th e Constitution.

17. Undoubtedly, th e bank accounts under th e custody of BPI and PSBank arerelevant and material to the allegations contained in th e Complaint, specifically Pars. 2.2 and2.3.

The subpoenae issued to BPI andPSBonk do not violate any law onthe secrecy of bank accounts.

18. With regard to his bank account in BPI, respondent has not proffered anyargument as to why disclosure should not be allowed. Being a local currency bank deposit,there is no question as to the power of the impeachment court to issue subpoenae to BPI.


7/12

7Republic Act No. 1405,6 which applies to local currency bank deposits, expressly excludesimpeachment from th e general rule of secrecy or confidentiality of bank deposits.

19. By providing for this exception, th e law makes it clear that there is a veryimportant public interest involved in impeachment cases, which interest trumps or overridesthe privacy rights of account holders. Thus, any local currency bank deposit which is th esubject of an impeachment trial, such as respondent's account in BPI, may be validly inquiredupon by the impeachment court.

20. Respondent, in his attempt to repress the disclosure of his bank records, furtheralleges that his dollar bank account in PS Bank should remain confidential relying on Section 8of Republic Act No. 6426 otherwise known as "The Foreign Currency Deposit Act of thePhilippines" .

21. Although R.A. No. 6426 does not specifically mention impeachment cases, thereis nothing therein to indicate a legislative intent to diminish the pUblic interest in impeachmentcases, or to subordinate th e same to privacy rights. R.A. No. 6426 was no t enacted to shieldwrongdoings by high public officials, or to immunize them from accountability, or to hobbleimpeachment trials, or to diminish the Senate's power to try impeachment cases.

22. An impeachment proceeding, serves a higher public interest, i.e., to hold highpublic officers accountable, under th e Constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.The overriding public interest in impeachment cases is evident from th e fact that the Law onSecrecy of Deposits expressly carves out impeachment cases as an exception to th e general ruleof confidentiality of bank deposits. Because of the higher public interest involved, the searchfor truth in impeachment proceedings should be given preference over mere investmentpromotion and other related economic policies of the government.

23. Further, the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits provided for under R.A.6426 is intended for foreign lenders and investors. This can be gleaned from th e Whereasclause of Presidential Decree No. 1246, amending R.A. No. 6426, which states:

"WHEREAS, in order to assure th e development and speedy growth of theForeign Currency Deposit System and offshore Banking System in the Philippines,certain incentives were provided for under th e two systems such as confidentialityof deposits subject to certain exceptions and tax exemptions on the interest of the

6 An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry Into, Deposits With Any Banking Institution and Providing PenaltyTherefor


8/12

8income of depositors who are nonresidents and are not engaged in trade orbusiness in the Philippines."

24. As discussed by the Office of the Solicitor General in Salvacion v. Central Bank,supra, which view was adopted by the Supreme Court, the offshore banking system and theforeign currency deposit system where designed "to draw deposits from foreign lenders andinvestors. It is these deposits that are induced by the two laws and are given protection andincentives by them." (Emphasis supplied)

25. This view is further strengthened by Estrada vs. Desierto (G.R. No. 156160,December 9, 2004) where the Supreme Court stated-

"Finally, with respect to the complaint for violation of Section 8 of Rep. Act No.6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines), public respondentsratiocinated --

At this point, it is worth stressing, that this office in its previous Orderdated 20 February 2001, ruled that the absolute confidentiality offoreign currency deposit account provided for under RA 6426 doesnot apply to the foreign currency deposit accounts of hereincomplainant, since the protection under the said law is intended onlyfor depositors who are non residents and are not engaged in tradeand business in th e Philippines. In coming out with such ruling, thisoffice has as its basis one of the Whereas clauses of P.D. 1246 whichamended Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426. For emphasis, the pertinent provision ofthe said law is hereby quoted:

WHEREAS, in order to assure the development and speedygrowth of the Foreign Currency Deposit System and offshoreBanking System in the Philippines, certain incentives wereprovided for under the two systems such as confidentialityof deposits subject to certain exceptions and tax exemptionson the interest of the income of depOSitors who arenonresidents and are not engaged in trade or business in thePhilippines.

Considering the previous Order of this Office, it necessarily follows thatthe accusation for violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426 against hereinrespondents has no leg to stand on, thus, th e dismissal of the chargefor violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426 is therefore in order.'And:

In Sa/vae/on v. Central Bank and China Bank, 278 SCRA 27(1997), th e Highest Tribunal adopted the opinion of the Office ofthe Solicitor General (OSG) that only foreign currency deposit offoreign lenders and investors are given protection and incentivesby the law, and further ruled that the Foreign Currency Deposits


9/12

9

Act cannot be utilized to perpetuate injustice. Following suchpronouncements, i t is respectfully submitted that foreigncurrency deposits of Filipino depositors, including hereincomplainant, are not covered by the Foreign Currency DepositsAct, and are thus not exempt from the processes duly-issued bythe BIR." (Emphasis supplied)

26. It then follows that the foreign currency deposits of respondent, an impeachedpublic official who is not a "foreign lender or investor", is not the kind of deposit encouraged byR.A. No. 6426 and given incentives and protection by the same.

27. Moreover, the framers of R.A. No. 6426 never meant to perpetrate injustice orshield wrongdoers and law offenders from accountability. Thus, in a catena of cases, theSupreme Court itself refused to apply Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 in cases where strictapplication of the law will result in outright injustice and inequity.

28. In So/vacion v. Central Bank (G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997), the SupremeCourt allowed garnishment of the foreign currency deposits of an American tourist whocommitted a heinous crime against a Filipino minor, since to hold otherwise would result ininjustice to a citizen perpetrated by a foreigner. The Supreme Court allowed thisnotwithstanding the provisions of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 against garnishment of foreigncurrency deposits, thus:

"I t is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at atime when the country's economy was in a sham bles; when foreigninvestments were minimal and presumably, this was the reason why saidstatute was enacted. But the realities of the present times show that thecountry has recovered economically; and even i f not, the questioned lawstill denies those entitled to due process of law fo r being unreasonable andoppressive. The intention of the questioned law may be good whenenacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producingoutright injustice and inequality such as the case before us."

'In his comment, the Solicitor General correctly opined, thus:xxx xxx xxx

"On the other hand, the Foreign Currency Deposit system wascreated by PD No. 1035. Its purpose are as follows:'WHEREAS, the establishment of an offshore banking system inthe Philippines has been authorized under a separate decree;

'WHEREAS, a number of local commercial banks, as depositorybank under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (RA No. 6426),have the resources and managerial competence to moreactively engage in foreign exchange transactions and participate


10/12

10in the grant of foreign currency loans to resident corporationsand firms;'WHEREAS, it is timely to expand the foreign currency lendingauthority of the said depository banks under RA 6426 and applyto their transactions the same taxes as would be applicable totransaction of the proposed offshore banking units;'"It is evident from the above [Whereas clauses] that the

Offshore Banking System and the Foreign Currency DepositSystem were designed to draw deposits fromforeign lenders and investors {Vide second Whereas of PD No.1034; third Whereas of PD No. 1035}. It is these depositors thatare induced by the tw o laws and given protection and incentivesby them."

'In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of itsjustice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central BankCircular No. 9607 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any otherorder or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or anyadministrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injusticewould result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused GregBartelli. This would negate Article 10 of th e New Civil Code which provides that"in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws. it is presumedthat the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. "Ninguno nondeue enriquecerse tortizerzmente con damo de otro." Simply stated, when th estatute is silent or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions thatwould respond to th e vehement urge of conscience. (Padilla vs. Padilla, 74 Phil.377)" {Emphasis supplied}

29. Anent thereto, th e pronouncement of th e Supreme Court in China BankingCorporation v. Court of Appeals {G.R. No. 140687, December 16, 2006} merits mentioning.While th e ruling was rendered pro hac vice, the Court noted that it was no t the intent of thelegislature when it enacted the law on secrecy on foreign currency deposits to perpetuateinjustice and ruled against th e strict application of th e confidentiality rule provided under R.A.No. 6426 in th e interest of substantial justice and fairplay, thus:

'All things considered and in view of th e distinctive circumstances attendantto the present case, we are constrained to render a limited pro hac viceruling. Clearly it was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the lawon secrecy on foreign currency depOSits to perpetuate injustice. This Court is ofthe view that the allowance of the inquiry would be in accord with therudiments of fair play, the upholding of fairness in ou r judicial system andwould be an avoidance of delay and time-wasteful and circuitous way ofadministering justice.' [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

7 Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 copied verbatim a portion of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426, as amended.


11/12

11

30. Clearly then, the privilege granted by R.A. No. 6426 to foreign currency accountscannot be used as a tool to perpetrate injustice. In the instant impeachment case, respondentcannot hide behind the cloak of RA No. 6426 to evade and frustrate investigation as to thetruth and veracity of his declarations in his SALN.

31. The impeachment trial against respondent involves the primordial interest of thepublic. The inquiry upon the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice is an importantfactor in deciding whether respondent was truthful in his declarations appearing in his SALNwhich will support the allegations that he betrayed the public trust.

32. The untruthfulness of the declarations in his SALN is an impeachable offense.Applicable to the case is the impeachment of District Court Judge Harry Claiborne. The Senateconvicted Claiborne of "willfully falsifying his income on his Federal tax returns for 1979 and1980, has betrayed the trust of the people of the United States and reduced confidence in theintegrity and impartiality of the judiciary, thereby bringing disrepute on the Federal courts andthe administration of justice by the courts." (132 Congo Rec. 29870-873 (1986))

33. In the same vein, the willful non-declaration of his bank accounts, including the$700,000 account in PSBank, in his SALN amounts to a betrayal of trust of the Filipino peopleand reduced the confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Furthermore, bymaking false declarations in his SALN under oath, respondent likewise committed perjury whichis an act that amounts to a betrayal of public trust. (see Impeachment of District Court JudgeWalter Nixon, 135 Congo Rec. 27101-104 (1989)).

34. In consideration of the foregoing, we are reminded of the basic rule in statutoryconstruction which states that when the interpretation of a statute according to the exact andliteral import of its words would lead to absurd or mischievous consequences, it should beconstrued according to its spirit and reason, disregarding or modifying, so far as may benecessary, the strict letter of the law.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED.Pasay City, Metro Manila, February 08, 2012.


12/12

By:

Copy Furnished:

12THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Republic of the PhilippinesAmbrosio Padilla Hall

2nd Floor, GSIS Bldg., Financial Center,Roxas Blvd., Pasay City

Lead Prosecutor

Justice Serafin R. Cuevas (Ret.) et al.Counsel fo r Respondent Chief Justice Renato CoronaSuite 1902 Security Bank Centre6776 Ayala AvenueMakati City, Philippines 1226

comment opposition feb8 p1200

Documents