• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
EN BANC
 
G.R. No. 200238 - PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK and PASCUAL M.GARCIA III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and in hispersonal capacity, Petitioners, - versus – SENATE IMPEACHMENTCOURT, consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines,acting as Senator Judges, namely: JuanPonce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan PeterS. Cayetano, Edgardo J. Angara, Joker P. Arroyo, Pia S. Cayetano,Franklin M. Drilon, Francis G. Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III,Gregorio B. Honasan II, Panfilo M. Lacson, Manuel M. Lapid, LorenB. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., SergioR. Osmena III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto,Ramon Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and theHonorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives, Respondents.
 
Promulgated:
 
February 9, 2012
 
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
 
DISSENTING OPINION
 
CARPIO,
J 
.:
 
I dissent because the majority ruling makes a mockery of all existing lawsdesigned to insure transparency and good governance in public service.
 
The majority ruling in effect advises all government officials and employeesthat they can legally evade reporting their actual assets in their Statement of 
 
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, which is required by theConstitution
1
and RA Nos. 3019
2
and 6713,
3
by simply opening foreigncurrency deposit accounts with local banks. The majority holds that under Section 8 of RA No. 6426,
4
foreign currency deposits of governmentofficials and employees are
absolutely confidential 
, even in impeachment or  bribery cases filed against them. The majority declares that foreign currencydeposit accounts can be opened in any judicial, administrative, legislative,or impeachment inquiry
only if 
the account owner himself consents inwriting to open his account to his prosecutors or investigators.
 
The world will now know that Philippine foreign currency deposit accounts provide a much better safe haven for ill-gotten wealth than Swiss bank accounts. Former President Ferdinand Marcos was wrong in depositinghundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in Swiss bank accounts.
5
Had hedeposited, even in his own name, the money in foreign currency accountswith local banks under RA No. 6426, as amended by his three PresidentialDecrees,
6
he would have gotten away with his loot under this ruling of themajority.
 
Is this the intention of Section 8 of RA No. 6426 when it mandates thesecrecy of foreign currency deposits?
The answer is clearly no
. Section 8was inserted by PD No. 1246, whose last two Whereas clauses provide:
 Whereas, in order to insure the development and speedy growth of the ForeignCurrency Deposit System and the Offshore Banking System in the Philippines,certain incentives were provided for under the two Systems suchas
confidentiality of deposits
subject to certain exceptions and taxexemptions on the interest income
of depositors who are non-residents andare not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines;
 Whereas,
making absolute the protective cloak of confidentiality over suchforeign currency deposits
, exempting such deposits from tax, andguaranteeing the vested rights of depositors
would better encourage theinflow of foreign currency deposits into the banking institutionsauthorized to accept such deposits in the Philippines
thereby placing suchinstitutions more in a position to properly channel the same to loans andinvestments in the Philippines, thus directly contributing to the economicdevelopment of the country. (Emphasis supplied)
 
 
Thus, PD No. 1246 expressly declares that the secrecy of foreign currencydeposits under Section 8 of RA No. 6426 is intended to protect “
depositorswho are non-residents
” because the purpose of the secrecy is to“
encourage the inflow of foreign currency deposits
” to Philippine banksfrom such “
depositors who are non-residents
.”
 
This express intent of PD No. 1246 was affirmed by the Supreme Court inseveral cases. In
Salvacion v. Central Bank 
,
7
decided in 1997, this Courtruled:
 In his Comment, the Solicitor General
correctly
opined, thus:x x xIt is evident from the above [Whereas clauses] that
the Offshore Bankingsystem and the Foreign Currency Deposit System were
 
designed to drawdeposits from foreign lenders and investors
(Vide second whereas of PD No. 1034; third whereas of PD No. 1035).
It is these deposits that areinduced by the two laws and given protection and incentives by them
.(Emphasis supplied)
In
Salvacion
, the Court emphatically stressed that the deposits protectedunder the Foreign Currency Deposit System are “
depositsfrom
 foreign
lenders and investors
.”
 
Likewise, in
China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals
,
8
decided in2006, the Court declared:
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...