Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila EN BANC

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated February 9, 2012, which reads as follows: G.R. No. 200238 (Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal capacity vs. Senate Impeachment Court consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges, namely Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. 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, Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmea III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives.). - Acting on the Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Court resolves to: (a) REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on the petition NOT LATER THAN ten (10) days from receipt hereof; and (b) ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER in the petition, enjoining the respondents from implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, issued by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court against the Branch Manager (and/or An Authorized Representative competent to testify on the matter herein stated), PSBANK, Katipunan Branch.
Rule 57, Section 3 enumerates the ground for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: SECTION 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in

Notice of Resolution

-2-

G.R. No. 200238 February 9, 2012

requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (RA 6426). This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits:1 Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.) Under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed
1

Joy Stephanie C. Tajan, Emerging from Secrecy Space: From Bank Secrecy to Financial Transparency. 55 ATENEO L.J. 447,456 (2010).

Notice of Resolution

-3-

G.R. No. 200238 February 9, 2012

only upon the written permission of the depositor.2 In Intengan v. Court of Appeals,3 the Court ruled that where the accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent case of Government Service Insurance System v. 15th Division of the Court of Appeals,4 the Court also held that RA 6426 is the applicable law for foreign currency deposits and not Republic Act No. 1405. In ruling that Westmont Bank cannot be compelled to disclose the dollar deposits of Domsat Holdings, Inc, the Court ruled: These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.5 The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of the depositors right to privacy in relation to such deposit.6 In the present case, neither the prosecution nor the Impeachment Court has presented any such written waiver by the alleged depositor, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while impeachment may be an exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA 1405, it is not an exemption to the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426.

Other cited authorities shall follow in the separate concurring and dissenting opinions the Justices will file. Concurring JJ. De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Perez, Mendoza and Reyes the Separate Concurring Opinions to follow; Dissenting

2 3 4 5 6

G.R. No. 128996, February 15, 2002, 337 SCRA 63, 74. Ibid. G.R. No. 189206, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 661. Id. at 676. Supra note 1.

Notice of Resolution

-4-

G.R. No. 200238 February 9, 2012

JJ. Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Sereno and Bernabe the Separate Dissenting Opinions to follow; Inhibiting Chief Justice Corona and Justice Velasco.

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

EN BANC PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK and PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal capacity, Petitioners, versus G.R. No. 200238

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT, consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges, namely Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. 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, Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmea III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives. Respondents.

FOR: HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE (x) HON. JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA (x) HON. VICENTE C. SOTTO III (x) HON. ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO (x) HON. EDGARDO J. ANGARA (x)

HON. JOKER P. ARROYO (x) HON. PIA S. CAYETANO (x) HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON (x) HON. FRANCIS E. ESCUDERO (x) HON. TEOFISTO GUINGONA III (x) HON. GREGORIO B. HONASAN II (x) HON. PANFILO M. LACSON (x) HON. MANUEL M. LAPID (x) HON. LOREN B. LEGARDA (x) HON. FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. (x) HON. SERGIO R. OSMEA III (x) HON. KIKO PANGILINAN (x) HON. AQUILINO PIMENTEL III (x) HON. RALPH G. RECTO (x) HON. RAMON REVILLA, JR. (x) HON. ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV (x) HON. MANNY VILLAR (x) SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT Respondent Senate Building GSIS Headquarters Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City PROSECUTION PANEL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (x) Respondent Constitution Hills Quezon City

GREETINGS: WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, on February 9, 2012, adopted a resolution in the above-entitled case, to wit: G.R. No. 200238 (Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal capacity vs. Senate Impeachment Court consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges, namely Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. 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, Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmea III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny

Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives.). - Acting on the Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Court resolves to: (a) REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on the petition NOT LATER THAN ten (10) days from receipt hereof; and (b) ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER in the petition, enjoining the respondents from implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, issued by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court against the Branch Manager (and/or An Authorized Representative competent to testify on the matter herein stated), PSBANK, Katipunan Branch.
Rule 57, Section 3 enumerates the ground for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: SECTION 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (RA 6426). This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits:1

Joy Stephanie C. Tajan, Emerging from Secrecy Space: From Bank Secrecy to Financial Transparency. 55 ATENEO L.J. 447,456 (2010).

4 Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.) 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.2 In Intengan v. Court of Appeals,3 the Court ruled that where the accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent case of Government Service Insurance System v. 15th Division of the Court of Appeals,4 the Court also held that RA 6426 is the applicable law for foreign currency deposits and not Republic Act No. 1405. In ruling that Westmont Bank cannot be compelled to disclose the dollar deposits of Domsat Holdings, Inc, the Court ruled: These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.5 The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of the depositors right to privacy in relation to such deposit.6 In the present case, neither the prosecution nor the Impeachment Court has presented
2 3 4 5 6

G.R. No. 128996, February 15, 2002, 337 SCRA 63, 74. Ibid. G.R. No. 189206, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 661. Id. at 676. Supra note 1.

5 any such written waiver by the alleged depositor, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while impeachment may be an exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA 1405, it is not an exemption to the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426.

Other cited authorities shall follow in the separate concurring and dissenting opinions the Justices will file. NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further order from this COURT, the Respondents, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing or implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum dated February 6, 2012, issued by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. Given by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 9th day of February 2012. Concurring JJ. De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Perez, Mendoza and Reyes the Separate Concurring Opinions to follow; Dissenting JJ. Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Sereno and Bernabe the Separate Dissenting Opinions to follow; Inhibiting Chief Justice Corona and Justice Velasco.

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court