,

3Republtc of tue tlUilippine53 !

I
,r,:: ,
(' tl tl f F'
Q.Congrtss of tbe llbilippint%
{t)(fHC of I!!J:';:','rtl"brl:!

12 FE8 -6 A10 :19
SITTING AS THE
I
,
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF
RENATO C. CORONA AS
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL
C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et a!.
CasdNo. 002-2011
1
I
I
I
I
I
x ................... .. --..... ---................. ---.. --............. -......................... ---........ _ .... _ .. ___ ....... _ .. _ .. __ __ .... _ .. __ ; ...... ____ .... ....... v._ .... _ ...... __ ........................... x
CONSOLIDATED opPOSr:hON
AND REJOINDER I
I
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by cbunsel, presents additional
grounds and arguments to oppose the requests for sUbPolnae in relation to certain
bank accounts, without waiving his right to file the aplroPriate legal remedy to
i
question, among others, the legality of these proceedings, respectfully states:
I
1. Complainants filed, on 31 January 2012, 1eparate requests for the
issuance of subpoenac of records and statements for bank abcounts in the Bank of the
I
Opposition and Rejoinder
I Page 1 rif12
I
Philippine Islands and PS Bank (Requests). CJ Corona dIed Oppositions
,
to both
Requests on 1 February 2012. Complainants filed a Reply to the Oppositions, citing
I
ommissions in their Requests arising out of "inadvertencd." Before the Honorable
,
I
Impeachment Court could rule on the matter, however, Complainants withdrew their
I
I
requests. On 2 February 2012, Complainants filed their Request for
!
Subpoenae/Reply.
!
2. In their Consolidated Reply, Complainant$ argue that, "as chief
,
magistrate, his bank accounts, including his accounts in BPI! and PS Bank * * must be
,
shown to have been correctly reflected in his SALN, and he therefore relevant and
!
material to A1iicle II."!
I
3. Again, Article II deals with non-disclosure of SALNs of CJ Corona.
I
I
To even proceed to consider omissions in the of the SALNs is already
I
I
I beyond the allegation in Article II.
,
4. Once again, the Impeachment Court is !being hoodwinked into
sanctioning a fishing expedition. Indeed, this has grown dresome to the point that
complainants have been publicly warned ''You can fool sole of tlle people all of the
time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't all of the people all of
the time.,,2
THE STANDARD REQUIRED
I
i
I
1 Par. 8 of Reply, 2 February 2012. I
2 This quotation is equally attributed to Abraham Lincoln and P. T. Barnum;isee also, Solita Collas-Monsod in
her Article Get Real, Philippine Daify Itlquim; 3 February 2012. i
D10Jidated Opposition and fujoinder
I Page 2 of 12
5. At the hearing of 2 February 2012, the H+orable Presiding Officer
flatly stated the standard required for the issuance of subpodnae sought, vii;:
I
The Presiding Officer. I was about to issue the subpoena but, you know,
may I request you to canalize things that you will require. BecJuse under Section 2 of
the Bill of Rights, the inviolability of persons and things, andl papers, and effects of
citizens of this country is provided and we cannot conduct any subpoena that might
turn out to be an unreasonable seatch. So, please, when fou ask us to issue a
subpoena, specify the account number and the patticular tr'/nsaction involved and
the documents that you want to be subpoenaed.' I
!
I
6. Plainly, the Impeachment Court will not allot an unreasonable search.
i
The rule established by jurisprudence is that a search is if there are facts and
,
circumstances that would lead a reasonable, discreet and man to believe that
there has been a crime committed and the things and objedts connected to the crime
I
are in the place to be searched.
4
It is insufficient, that the Requests for a
!
!
subpoena identify a particular account; they must also idenify a particular transaction
and the relevant documents. Regrettably, the Requests fot subpoenae do not state
I
more than the account names and numbers of C] Corona his children. There is,
I
thus, no basis offered to even suspect that these transfctions were lt1 any way
anomalous or illegal.
COMPLAINANTS' REQUESTS
SEEK TO CIRCUMVENT THIS
HONORABLE
RESOLUTION
JANUARY 2012.
31SN of 2 February 2012, p. 67
COURT'S
DATED 27
4 Pea. v. Mamaril, C.R. No. 171980, October 6, 2010; Belay, Sr. v. Calif Jares, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1608, 28
February 2006, 483 SCRA 435, 444.
i
Consolidated Opposition and Rtjoinder
. Pagc3 '!I12
I
!
I
7. Their "Supplemental Request for Subpoenae1Reply" dated 3 February
I
2012 (the "Supplemental Request"), is a ploy. A plain of the Supplemental
!
,
Request shows it directly circumvents the Honorable Cofu:t's Resolution dated 27
I
January 2012, which categorically disallows the introduction I of evidence in support of
I
Par. 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment. No doubt, this Re$olution is a declaration of
I
the law of the case and there can be no deviation therefJom. This crude ruse by
i
complainants should not be condoned. i
I
I
8. Complainants Supplemental Request reiteratJd their two (2) separate
I
Requests for the Issuance of Subpoenae Ad Testiftcandtim et IJuces Tecum, both dated 31
January 2012, against (a) Manager of the Bank of the PhilipJine Islands ("BPI"), Ayala
!
Avenue Branch, and (b) the Manager, the President or au+orized representatives of
I
PS Bank, respectively (the "Requests").
i
9. It is obvious that the testimonies and documebts stated in the Requests
I
are intended to prove Complainants' improper allegations in Par. 2.4 of the Verified
!
i
Complaint stating that CJ Corona was "suspected and acchsed of * * keeping bank
I
accounts with huge deposits."
I
Siupposed "bank accounts
10. Any introduclion of evidence pertaining to I
with huge deposits" is barred because Par. 2.4 is deemed This Honorable
Court was clear when it pronounced that such violates CJ Corona's
fundamental constitutional right to due process, vii::
The introduclion of evidence in Paragraph 2.4 likewise, violate the
right of the respondent Chief Justice to due process, specifically his tight to be
infonned of the natu1'e and cause of the accusation agaihst him. Atticle III,
!
Coksolidated Opposition and Rejoinder
; Page4rf12
I
Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no shall be held
liable for a criminal offense without due process of law.1 It fmther provides
that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the natute
and cause of accusation against him. Similarly, the Rev:isbd Rules of Criminal
Procedme, as amended, which took effect on December 2000, provides that
in all criminal prosecutions, it is. the of tp be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation agatnst him. 10 con"fct an accused for an
offense not alleged in d1e complaint or information violatfs such right. ... 5
I
11. Moreover, as consistently stressed by CJ cirona, Article II of the
Verified Complaint, merely charges him as follows, viz,:
I
I
RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE TRUST WHEN
HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC STATEMENT OF
ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS Rlj:QUIRED UNDER
SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. .
12. Under Article II of the Grounds for Impeachplent, CJ Corona is being
I
I
accused with ONLY ONE culpable act - his alleged failure to disclose to the public
"" SALN, noiliing more, nolliing b,. Artkk II not +"'" him of ,=uiftring
ill-gotten wealth and! or graft and corruption. I
I
I
13. It is clear iliat par. 2.4 of the Verified Complaint relating to CJ Corona's
I
supposed "ill-gotten wealth, assets of high values and accounts with huge
I
deposits" was stricken-off by ilie Impeachment Court. 4.ccordingly, any evidence
I
rebring """to mil '" _t, llnmaterud """ im
p
-1
14. To be sure, the testimonies of ilie bank reprdsentatives of BPI and PS
Bank on alleged bank account! s of CJ Corona and hiJ relatives as well as ilie
I
5 Resolution dated 27 January 2012, p. 3. I
Opposition and Rejoinder
Page 5 of 12
presentation thereof, are clearly irrelevant and immaterial tp the issue of whether or
I
not CJ Corona failed to his disclose his SALN to the public. i
i
,
15. Therefore, said Requests are nothing but brazrn attempts to circumvent
this Honorable Court's Resolution dated 27 January 2012! and introduce irrelevant
and immaterial evidence in these proceedings, in viLation of CJ Corona's
constitutional right to due pwcess.
FOREIGN CURRENCY
DEPOSITS (FCDS) ARE
ABSOLUTELY
CONFIDENTIAL UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT (R.A.) NO.
6426/ AS AMENDED.
I
16. Complainants also failed to take into account tp.at the alleged dollar bank
i
accounts in PS Bank requested to be subpoenaed are confidential Section
8 of R.A. No. 6426, as amended, states:
I
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. - All foreii,'l1 currency
deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD N o. as well as foreign
currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, ate hereby declared as and
considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, upon the written
permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign deposits be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, gover.o,ment official, bureau
or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity
whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foteign currency deposits
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any
court, legislative body, government agency or any body whatsoever.
,
(As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD fNo. 1246, prom. Nov.
21, 1977.)(Emphasis supplied) i
I
6 Otherwise known as the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines':'
I
Cor' solidated Opposition and
: Page 6 of 12
It is clear that no foreign currency deposit can be examined,
I
17.
I
inquired or looked into except upon written permissioni of the depositor. The
I
proscription is absolute and covers all cases of nature, including
impeachment.
7
The Supreme Court emphasized this rule L Intengan et al. v. Court of
I
Appeals, of al.:
8
I
Actually, this case should have been studied inore carifully by all concerned.
The [mest legal minds in the country - from the parties' respective cotmsel, the
Provincial Prosecutor, the Department of Justice, the SOli4tor General, and the
Court of Appeals - all appear to have overlooked "single fact which dictates the
outcome of the entire controversy. A circumspect review of record shows us the
reason. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the
applicable law is not RepJtblic Act No. 1405 but Republic Act No. 6426, known as
the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines," section 8 of which provides:
Sec. 8. SeC11ifj of };'oreign Cumnfj Deposits.- AU foreiJ currency deposits
authorized under this ACI; as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as
foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential No. 1034, are
hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidendal nature and, except
upon the written perlnission of the depositor, in no instance shall sllch fo1ign ctimJllfj deposits be
exalni1lCd, inquired or looked into i?Y a'!Y person, goveroment ofl;'ial Bl'reau or office whether
judicial or administrative or legislative or a'!Y other entiry whether pllblif or private: Provided,
however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, or any oUler order or process of any coutt. legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.! (itafcs supplied)
i
Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the
secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon
the written permission of the depositor. Incidentally,1 the acts of private
respondents complained of happened before the enactrntlnt on September 29,
2001 ofR.A. No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-Money Ltunderillg Act of 2001.
A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 s40uld have been the
proper case brought against private respondents. respondents Lim
and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details <If petitioners' dollar
without the latters It does 1lpt matter if that such
disclosure was necessary to establish Clt1bank's case agamst Dante L. Santos
and Mamou Genuino. Lim's act of disclosing details lof petitioners' bank
records regarding their foreign curtency deposits, with authority of Reyes,
would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts flunishable by special
laws, called malum prohibitum. In this regard, it has been hfld that:
While it is true tbat, as a rule and on principles of abJract justice, men are
not and should not be held criminally responsible for acts bOmnlltted by them
without guilty knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent lax, the courts have
always recognized the power of the legislature, on grounds public policy and
compelled by necessity, "the great master of things," to forbiq in a limited class of
cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their cOmnllssipn criminal without
regard to the intent of the doer. xxx In such cases no judiclal authDtity has the
I
7 This view is supported by the principle "Ubi lex non distinguire nee nos debemos", or "where the
law does not distinguish, neither do we distinguish". I
8 G.R. No. 128996, 15 February 2002. 1
Co I solidatcd Opposition and &joinder
. Page 7 of12
I
I
power to require, in the enforcement of the law, such know11dge or motive to be
shown. As was said in the case of State vs. McBrayer xxx: !
'It is a mistaken notion that positive, willful intent, as IdiStinguished from a
mere intent, to violate the criminal law, is an essential ingredient in every criminal
offense, and that where there is the absence of such intent th+e is no offense; this
is especially so as to statutory offenses. When the statute plaihly forbids an act to
be done, and it is done by some person, the law implies the guilty
intent, although the offender was honestly mistaken as to meaning of the law
he violates. When the language is plain and positive, and the o!fense is not made to
depend upon the positive, willful intent and purpose, i nothing is left to
interpretation." I
i
i
I
18. Thus, Complainants' Requests in this regard clnnot be entertained. The
intended disclosure by the Manager, the President or autholzed representatives of PS
I
Bank of CJ Corona's dollar bank account is prohibited and punished under R.A. No.
6426.
19. It bears to stress that even under Republic Act 1405 (or the Bank
Secrecy Act) it is unlawful for an official or bank employeel to disclope to any person
information relating to a bank account of any depositoJ. It goes without saying,
I
therefore, that Complainants and counsel, as well as the petson who disclosed copies
!
of the alleged documents pertaining to the FCD accouJt of CJ Corona and his
children, violated R.A. 1405. Section 3 ofR.A. 1405 states -\
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of J banking institution to
disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Sec. two hereof any
information concerning said deposits. (Emphasis supplied)
15. Given the absolute confidentiality of an FCD, !complainants' possession
unauthenticated signature cards and Application and Agreerrent for Deposit Account
i
of the purported bank aCCoul1t/S which were attached to tIteir Supplemental Request
I
i
,
9 Emphasis supplied.
I
Consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder
! Page 8 of 12
as Annexes "A" to "A-4," is apparently illegal. As ruled ly the Supreme Court in
Intmgan, this disclosure is a violation ofR.A. No. 6426, as ajlended, and is punishable,
I
under Section 10 thereof, thus: I
I
I
Penal provisions. -- Any wilfu1 violation of this Act any regulation duly
promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall sU!Jfiect the offender upon
conviction to an imprisonment of not less than one year nor lore than five years or
a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion 01 the court.
I
20. Obviously, the attached unauthenticated signafure cards and Application
and Agreement for Deposit Account, are dOCUfi1ents obJed from an illegal source,
I
an act punishable under R.A. No. 6426, as amended. Theylare therefore inadmissible
as evidence in this case as they partake of the "fruit of t,e poisonous tree washed
!
clean the tree itself."lO Following this fundamental priiciPle, these attachments,
which are clearly the product of a criminal act, cannot the bases for which any
request for subpoena on the alleged bank account! s may be g{anted.
I
21. Tlili eo"'''=t;"o"re the PttdUt,,"" of by
Complainants and the Prosecution, the possession of which I raises the presumption of
:
criminal liability. It is imperative that the Prosecution be r1quired to disclose at once
from whom they obtained the alleged dOCUfi1ents pertaininr to tlle bank accounts of
CJ Corona. This Impeachment Court should likewise demrnd from colunmists Jake
Macasaet and Conrado R. Banal the same explanation regarding their declared
possession of the copies of said bank documents.
l1
It I is imperative to require
I
disclosure from the said persons to avoid the impresJion that the Honorable
I
Impeachment Court will tolerate the commission of crimes. I
I
10 Peo. v. MaIms/edt, G.R. No. 91107, 19 June 1991. I
11 See Annexes Band C of the Supplemental Request for SubpoenaelReply. These documents were
adverted to on 1 February 2012 by Jake Macasaet in Malaya and Conrado in Philippine Daily Inquirer.
!
Opposition and Rejoinder
Page 9 rif12
22. The issuance of subpoena against PS Bank in this case is clearly an affront
I
to C] Corona's constitutional right against illegal searches add seizures.
12
I
I
23. It should also be emphasized that Com
P
lail1jnts' piecemeal manner of
requesting for the issuance of J'tIbpocnac - not to mention fthe violation of RA. No.
I
6426, as amended, obtai.ning absolutely confidential inf0rfnation - exposes a clear
"fishing expedition" for evidence. This should never be !allowed. As held by the
I
,
Supreme Court in Salonga v. Cruz PanrP--
i
It is therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case
may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going thrbngh a trial once it is
ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain prima facie case or
that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief rs to the guilt of the
accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rul{1 for the dete:tmination
of probable cause since the same must be decided in the I\ght of the conditions
obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a degree upon the
finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, I such a finding should
not disregatd the facts before the judge nor run counter to the cleat dictates of
reasons (See La Chemise Lacoste, SA v. Fernandez, 129 SC* 391). The judge or
fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some
credible evidence might later tum up during trial for this would be in flagrant
violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. It bears
repeating that the judiciary lives up to its mission by vitalizing and not
denigrating constitutional rights. So it has been before. rt should continue to
be so. (Emphasis supplied) !
I
I
18. From the foregoing, it is clear that the of the requested
bank documents and the testinlony of the persons idcntifidd in the subject Requests
fo< me uf prohibited by law md th' + of 'hit Court
12 Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
13 255 SCRA 438 (1996).
Consolidated OppoJition and Rejoinder
j . Page 10 of12
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this IHonorable Impeachment
I
Court DENY the Complainants' separate Requests forfue Issuance of Subpoenae
i
,
Testificandum et Duces Tecum against the officers and repres,i entatives of BPI and PS
Bank, both dated 31 January 2012.
I
i
I
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the are likewise prayed for.
I
!
Makati for Pasay City, 6 February 2012.
Respectfully Submitted by J
Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. C lrona.
I
JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS ( T.)
PTR No. 2643828, January 4,2011, M kati
IBP No. 846915 issued January 6, 2011, :t-j1anila I
Roll no. 3814 MCLE-exempt I
I
CohsoJidated Opposition and Rejoinder
! Page 11 of12
JOSEM.R II II
PTR No, 2643183; 11 /11; Makati,City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001
Roll of Attorneys No: 37065 !
MCLE Exemption No, 1-00017
,
RAMON S. ESGUERRA I
IBP No, 09520-Life/Cavite ChaPFr
PTR No, 2643942/1-04-11/Makati tity
1\011 of Attorneys No. 30183 J
MCLE Compliance: III-00I0576-31 15/10
DENNl':'i--M,. MANALO
PTR No. 3175833; 2 J a uary 2012, Mall:ati City
IBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 19961
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 i pri12010
I
_-------t-------
Copies furnished:
HOUSf PROSECU ION PANEL
RECE& ED
House of Representatives
Batasan Pambansa
I
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
i
ConsoliJated Opposition and Rejoinder
I Page 12 Jj 1/if.
I