THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate
Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Thursday, February 9, 2012

AT 2:07 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Sergio R. Osmeña III. Senator Osmeña. Our Father in heaven, we acknowledge You are the source of all wisdom and knowledge. We beseech You to continue to bestow upon us much wisdom and discernment in this Impeachment proceeding, that we might render a righteous and just decision that will strengthen our institutions, our democracy, and our nation. May You grant us the guidance and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. May we be blessed with courage, fortitude, and determination in arriving at a judgment that will be fair and just. We thank You for the assurance that if we ask anything in accordance with Your will, You will listen to and grant our petitions. We pray all these in the Name of Your Son Jesus, Your Mother Mary, Amen.

2
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will please call the roll. The Secretary, reading:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Edgardo J. Angara .............................................................. Senator Joker P. Arroyo .................................................................. Senator Alan Peter Compañero S. Cayetano .................................. Senator Pia S. Cayetano .................................................................. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ................................................... Senator Franklin M. Drilon ............................................................... Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ...................................................... Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero ................................................ Senator Teofisto “TG” L. Guingona III ............................................ Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ........................................................... Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ............................................................... Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid ...................................................... Senator Loren Legarda ..................................................................... Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ..................................................... Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III .......................................................... Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ....................................................... Senator Ralph G. Recto ................................................................... Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr ..................................................... Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................ Senator Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV .......................................... Senator Manny Villar ........................................................................ The President ....................................................................................

Present Present* Present Present Absent** Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present* Present Present Present* Present Present Present Present* Present* Present

The Presiding Officer. With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call **On sick leave

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

3

The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renator C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before we call on the Prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence, I would like to make of record that in compliance with the directive of the Court, Mr. Pascual M. Garcia, president of the Philippine Savings Bank, with the assistance of counsel, submitted at noon today his compliance and explanation as to why he did not and cannot disclose any information that pertains to the foreign currency deposits. So, Mr. President, I move that we take this up in caucus on Monday at 11:00 a.m. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the motion is approved. Senator Sotto. May we now call on the Prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, may we be allowed to make a short manifestation. The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel is recognized. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. In yesterday’s proceedings, it will be noted that there was a statement coming from one of the Member-Judges of this honorable Impeachment Court that, allegedly, in the hierarchy of governmental authorities, Your Honor, this Impeachment Court is higher than the Supreme Court, because allegedly, it is a constitutional body. Now, I did not rise in protest of that manifestation because I know my limitations as Counsel for the respondent here. But we can hardly agree, much less concur, with the said pronouncement because it is not based on any jurisprudence, nor any provision in the Constitution, nor any law on the matter, Your Honor. So much so that it runs counter with the dictum laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in the case of Francisco et al. v. House of Representatives, Your Honor. May I be allowed to quote the particular portion, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel urges this Court to exercise judicial restraint on the ground that the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Again, this Court reiterates that the power of judicial review includes the power of review over justiciable issues in Impeachment proceedings. I fully agree with this, Your Honor. This pronouncement had never been the subject of any modification, much less reversal nor any withdraw.... The Presiding Officer. Let us allow the Counsel to finish.

4

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Drilon. For brevity, may we ask Counsel to submit a memorandum on this so that we can also read it and study it carefully, because we have our order of business for today, the presentation of the evidence. So, with the permission of the Senate President, may we request Counsel to submit a memorandum. Mr. Cuevas. We will do that but kindly allow us to utilize the three (3) minutes accorded to us, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel may proceed. Mr. Cuevas. When the Supreme Court took cognizance of Francisco et al. v. The House of Representatives, what is involved is also an impeachment proceeding similar to this, Your Honor. And one of the issues raised is whether our honorable Supreme Court can take cognizance of any issue involved in that impeachment case. The issue then was whether this Supreme Court, with a grant of powers solely on the House of Representatives, will be subject to any discussion of the exercise of that power. The Supreme Court said: “Insofar as the propriety, the wisdom, or the exercise of that power is concerned, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with that.” But in the exercise of the power to initiate, Your Honor, there is where the Supreme Court’s judicial power come into play has there been no abuse of discretion. If there is, then there is nothing that will prevent the Supreme Court from nullifying any and all acts committed in violation of the Constitution, Your Honor. It is not because the Supreme Court is paramount or more superior than the Senate or the House of Representatives, but it is because it is duty-bound, has the solemn duty to adjudicate matters especially in cases where abuse of discretion had been exercised by any public officer or anybody for that matter, Your Honor. Now, I have been asked by fellow professors, how about the announcement made by the honorable Justice-Member of this Court, Your Honor? I said, with due respect, and my apologies, that is his personal opinion. But the way it looks to me, that is totally (stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) of any support, legal or jurisprudential, Your Honor. We are not proclaiming at this instance, Your Honor, that the honorable Supreme Court is more paramount than this Body. They are coequal. That is beyond dispute, Your Honor. But if in the exercise of a power, solely granted to a particular body like the Impeachment Court, then it does not prevent the Supreme Court, pursuant to the exercise of its power for review, to take cognizance of the case. The Presiding Officer. May I now request Counsel to bear with us and finish his manifestation. Mr. Cuevas. I will do so, Your Honor. Since there is no jurisprudence cited, Your Honor, there is nothing that will support that opinion. We believe that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in this particular case holds water and should be enforced. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Before I recognize the gentleman from Misamis Oriental, I would like to make it clear that as far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, the Court, sitting in this trial to hear the evidence and to make the decision, is the full court, the whole collective body known as the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, composed of members who are all, in their individual capacities, judges. But the final decision will be rendered by the collectivity, the collective judgment of the

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

5

Members of the Court according to the rules of this Court which is based on the majority. That is dictated by the Constitution and nothing else. So ordered. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I was not able to follow the beginning of Justice Cuevas’ statement because I just sat down on my chair. So, did I hear you correctly? Did you quote me, Mr. Justice? Mr. Cuevas. No, no, no. I did not quote. I was referring to the pronouncement made by the honorable Supreme.... Senator Pimentel. Who did you quote, Mr. Justice? Mr. Cuevas. I did not quote anybody. I was telling that, in accordance with the records, there was a statement, Your Honor....What I quoted is the dictum or the jurisprudence laid down in the Francisco....I was just reading from the decision. Senator Pimentel. Ah, okay. Mr. Cuevas. Senator Pimentel urges the Court in that proceedings, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. What case is that, Mr. Justice, so that I can also double check? What case is that? Mr. Cuevas. This is Franciso Jr. vs.... Senator Pimentel. So, it is a quotation. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I heard Counsel using the word “bankrupt” to describe the position of a Senator-Judge, did I hear correctly? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. We move that it be stricken off the record. That is being improper and disrespectful of a Senator-Judge. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the remark of the distinguished Counsel for the Defense is stricken off the record. Mr. Cuevas. I would, therefore, state lacking legal support, jurisprudential or bereft of any legal support, Your Honor. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The gentleman from Bukidnon.

6

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Guingona. Well, Mr. President, the views expressed are mine and mine alone. And I did not say that we were above. I just said that we are not coequal. And I said that we are not exercising a legislative function, obviously. We are exercising a judicial function, a very specific special judicial function, whose purpose is to try high public officials so that we can find out whether these public officials should be removed to protect the interest of the State and the people. And in this sphere, this trial court, we are supreme. Therefore, in that context, that is my view. If the distinguished Counsel believes otherwise, then that is his sole opinion also. Therefore, Mr. President, I know that this view is not mine and mine alone. It is shared by many of my colleagues. But the time will come when these opposing views will come to test, and we will await that time. I submit. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, if I may be allowed just to place on the record, because, again, in future impeachment cases, what we say here will be quoted. What we say here will be considered as precedent. Our rulings will be part of jurisprudence being, as I agree with the good Senator from Bukidnon, we are acting as a judicial body as an Impeachment Court. There have been several citing of cases by the Supreme Court in terms of guidance, Mr. President, as we proceed with our business. It is humbly submitted that whenever we resort to judicial precedents and decisions, we will have to recognize that given the unique character of the impeachment proceeding, being sui generis, the natural and inevitable consequence of this uniqueness is that no Supreme Court ruling will ever be solidly foursquare applicable. We cannot strictly adhere to judicial precedents, because to do so would tie our hands as an Impeachment Court, and limit the scope of our jurisdiction and authority. We are supreme in our jurisdiction as a Court. We are, I must admit, treading on unfamiliar virgin terrain—and if I may borrow the term—where no entity has ventured this far before. Hence, while we tread carefully and cautiously, we should not allow ourselves to tread erroneously, and be shackled by Supreme Court ruling if the same is not foursquare solidly grounded. I reiterate that to strictly adhere to Supreme Court rulings will limit the scope of both our jurisdiction and authority. We must draw from Supreme Court rulings, yes. But we will also draw from other sources and precedents, whether executive, legislative or judicial. And, yes, we will also have to draw from various laws and rulings, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, both here and in the United States, where the impeachment provisions have been borrowed. And ultimately, if I may borrow from the words of the Supreme Court Justice of the United States, John Marshall, when he said, in so many words that, “The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.” In this jurisdiction, “the impeachment proceeding is what the Impeachment Court says it is.” For the record, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Are you quoting from a book? Senator Pangilinan. This is the product of my own mind, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, I notice that the gentleman is reading from a book and so I just wanted to know the book so that we can refer to it. Senator Pangilinan. It is my journal, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. I accept—

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

7

Representative Fariñas. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. —the brilliancy of the mind of the gentleman. Representative Fariñas. Mr. President, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Fariñas. Rodolfo Fariñas po. The Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from Ilocandia. Representative Fariñas. Yes, Sir. Kung puwede pong papayagan po kami na magbigay din po kami ng kaunting manipestasyon. The Presiding Officer. Limang (5) minuto. Representative Fariñas. Maraming salamat po. May I invite your attention to Article IV of the present complaint. Ang sabi po sa Article IV, “Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the Constitution when he blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.” Iyan po ang isang habla namin kay Chief Justice Corona. Kaya ngayon po, kasi ang paniwala po namin dito, iyong usapin po ng impeachment ay talagang inalis po sa korte iyan. Ang ini-invoke po palagi ng Supreme Court is the expanded power of review na iyan po ay ipinanganak lamang dito sa 1987 Constitution. Dahil po diyan sa power na iyan ang Supreme Court ay nanghihimasok po masyado maski po doon sa mga bagay-bagay na maliwanag ay nakalagak po sa atin, sa Kongreso po. Marami po iyan. Ipagpahintulot po ninyo, Ginoong Pangulo, magsabi lamang po ako ng tatlong bagay. Iyong mga electoral tribunals natin napakaliwanag po iyan sa Konstitusyon na ang electoral tribunal ang tanging puwede lamang, the sole judge of all elections, qualifications and disqualifications of members. Kaya nga po iyong electoral tribunal, anim po ang Senador, tatlo po ang Justices of the Supreme Court. Iyan po ang design niyan. Maski sa House of Representatives, ganoon din po. Pero ano ang nangyayari? Maski po iyong desisyon ng Senate Electoral Tribunal dinadala po sa Korte Suprema at pumapayag po tayo. Kaya po sila, natural po, hindi na nasusunod ang Kongreso, hindi na po nasusunod ang taumbayan dahil ang taumbayan lamang ang makakapag-decide kung sino ang uupo sa Senado o sa House of Representatives. Maliwanag po sa Konstitusyon iyan. Pero ang Supreme Court nanghihimasok at pinapayagan po natin. Ganyan din po ngayon dito sa usapin ng impeachment, Ginoong Pangulo. Ang Supreme Court, common sense po, hindi po sila puwedeng mag-decide sa impeachment dahil sila po ay impeachable officers. Kaya pinapanakip nila, pinapasikip po iyong karapatan natin na i-impeach sila dahil sila po mismo impeachable officers. Ngayon nangyayari na po dito. Si Chief Justice Corona nakahabla po dito pero pupunta sa Supreme Court ngayon at pipigilin po tayo dito. Saan po naman tayo nakakita ng ganoon? Ang Senado po napakaresonable po. Maski po iyong paragraph 2.4 na ipinaglalaban po namin na dapat po puwede dahil nandiyan po sa katawan, sumasaludo po kami, bow po kami sabi po ninyo hindi puwede, we are bound by your rules. Pero sila hindi po. They are trying this in two courts. Hindi naman po maganda iyon. Pagka nakakuha sila ng pabor dito, “thank you, Senador.” Pagka natalo sila, punta kami sa Supreme Court. Hindi naman po pu-puwede iyon dahil ngayon pa lamang po, Ginoong Pangulo, hinihingi ko po, let us get an understanding....

8

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lamang mag-react doon sa isang sinabi mo “Thank you, Senador.” Wala pa naman akong natatanggap na “Thank you, Senador.” Representative Fariñas. Hindi po. Ang ibig ko lamang sabihin, Sir, symbolic lamang po. Thank you sa Korte po ang ibig ko, sorry po. Kasi po kapag nagtata-Tagalog po ako, tayong mga Ilokano from English dinadaan ko sa Ilokano tapos sa Tagalog, kaya minsan lost in words.... The Presiding Officer. Agsao ka iti Ilokanon tapno sigurado ka. Representative Fariñas. Apo nagpintasen. Dayta nga talaga a, Sir, a ket talaga nga sumsumyagen a Sir, a ngem.... The Presiding Officer. Walang biro, mag-Tagalog tayo. Representative Fariñas. Yes, sir. The Presiding Officer. Iyan ang ating wika, wikang Pilipino. Representative Fariñas. Yes, Sir. Kaya humihingi po ako ng tawad dahil lost in translation kung minsan. The Presiding Officer. Pareho tayong Ilokano kaya medyo pilipit ang ating Tagalog. Representative Fariñas. Nawawala po iyon sa translation minsan. Well, anyway, Sir, ang point ho namin dito is we should get already an undertaking from the respondent or defendant that they will abide by the ruling of this Senate body sitting as an Impeachment Court. Dahil, Sir, hahaba po ito, ancillary order lang po dinadala na sa Supreme Court. Papaano po, ganoon na lang ba ang Supreme Court, ii-invoke nila? Subpoena lang po dadalhin nila sa Supreme Court. At iyong Supreme Court naman po, I will be very surprised if the 188 complainants here in the event that the Supreme Court restrains this Honorable Senate na hindi po nila ii-impeach iyong mga mag-i-issue po noon dahil maliwanag na panghihimasok na po iyon. Dahil doon sa Article IV lamang, nasa Komite lang po ng House of Representatives, nakialam ang Supreme Court. Iyon po ang isang dahilan na nag-impeach sila dito. Kaya dito po, iyon po ang ibig kong sabihin, Sir, nuong we are one here. Because if we look back at the 1973 Constitution po, iyong Batasang Pambansa, dahil unicameral po noon, siya mismo ang nag-i-impeach, siya ang nagdidinig, siya rin po ang nagdi-desisyon, pare-pareho pong body iyan, iisa po iyan. Kaya nga po dito ngayon, iyon ang point ko, Sir, that this is the Congress of the Philippines, because no impeachment proceedings will ever be undertaken without these two Houses of Congress cooperating: first, the one accusing; the other, trying and hearing the case all on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. So, our position po, dahil sabi nga po ni Senator Pangilinan, ito pong mga sinasabi natin dito will govern future impeachment cases. So, ipinapaliwanag po lamang namin na kung puwede po, hinihingi po namin sa House of Representatives, with full authority of the House of Representatives, that we maintain that when it comes to impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court cannot meddle because that has been excluded from their power, Mr. President. Thank you po, kagalang-galang… The Presiding Officer. Darating po ang panahon na itong inyong Senado, binubuo ng ngayon na kaisipan, ay papasyahan iyan at kung ano ang pasya na iyan ay bunga nakakarami sa amin. Kaya iyan po ang batayan ng lahat ng desisyon nitong Senado ninyo ngayon ay nakaupo bilang hukom upang dinggin ang kaso ng Kataas-taasang Mahistrado Pilipinas at magbibigay ng pasya sa mga ebidensya na ihaharap dito sa hukuman na ito. 23 ng na ng

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

9

Bawat isa sa amin po ay hukom pero ang magpapasya po ay hindi isa lamang, o dalawa, o tatlo, kung hindi ang kabuuan po ng Senado sa ilalim ng botohan po iyan. At sang-ayon sa ating Saligang Batas, iyong nakasakdal sa impeachment case ay kailangan na husgahan ng 16, hindi kukulang sa 16 na senador. Kaya, iyan po ang hukom. Hindi sinuman sa amin na mga senador kundi iyong 16 po na senador ang maghuhusga dito sa kasong ito. Kaya, huwag kayong mababahala at alam po namin ang aming tungkulin sa bayan. Representative Fariñas. Wen, Sir. Sinabi ko lang po iyong aming panig dito naman po sa House of Representatives as the initiator of impeachment proceedings. Dios ti agngina, Apo Presidente. The Presiding Officer. Dios ti agngina kenka. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, I move that we terminate the privilege hour and proceed with the trial. The Presiding Officer. Privilege hour is terminated. Proceed with the trial. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, Mr. President, we are not yet done with our witness, Mr. Pascual Garcia, because we are awaiting the decision of this Honorable Tribunal on his explanation regarding the foreign currency accounts of Renato Corona. So, we want to suspend our direct examination until Monday and we want to present now, we want to call on our next witness. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, we have a few clarificatory questions on Mr. Garcia. If the witness is available, to save time, we would like to raise these questions. Representative Tupas. In that case, Mr. President, we will call our witness, Mr. Garcia. The Presiding Officer. Please bring the witness, Mr. Garcia, of the PSBank to go back to the witness chair and to answer questions. The trial is suspended for one minute to wait for the witness. The trial was suspended at 2:36 p.m. At 2:36 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Senator Drilon. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Garcia, when were you first informed of the subpoena which was addressed to your Katipunan branch manager? Mr. Garcia. Sir, I was informed of the subpoena the day before we came for the hearing yesterday. We received it, the resolution itself, late in the afternoon. Senator Drilon. All right. You, therefore, were informed of the documents requested by this Court through that subpoena.

10
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, we were.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Drilon. And you are personally familiar with the specifics of the accounts of Chief Justice Corona with your bank, both past and present. Mr. Garcia. Presently, as of now, yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. You are familiar because you examined it after you received the subpoena. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So that you reviewed the records and made consultations with your other officers insofar as the documents requested in the subpoena are concerned, considering that you are the president and would have no personal knowledge of all of these. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. By the way, who is the manager of your Katipunan branch? Mr. Garcia. The manager of our Katipunan branch, Your Honor, is Ms. Annabelle Tiongson. The Presiding Officer. Annabelle Tiongson. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And she talked to you? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And asked you to appear for her? Mr. Garcia. I talked to her, Your Honor, and I... The Presiding Officer. Because I noticed that under the subpoena, it was the branch manager who was requested to appear here, of course, and/or authorized representative competent to testify. Can you tell us why the branch manager was not able to come here personally to testify? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the branch manager, after examining all of the possibilities and the recriminations, the branch manager was made to understand all of these possible liabilities. She is a lady, Your Honor. She, of course, was very stressed about the circumstances. But I... The Presiding Officer. She was stressed. Why stressed? Mr. Garcia. Stressed because of the potential liabilities, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Because of the? Mr. Garcia. The potential liabilities. The Presiding Officer. What liabilities? Mr. Garcia. The liability of imprisonment if she would disclose, because the law, at least, as we understand it, is very clear. So, I recognize this and I told her that, I offered to her and she accepted.... The Presiding Officer. Are you trying to tell this Court that the manager of your Katipunan Branch saw you and expressed her reluctance to appear here to answer the subpoena issued by this Court because of her fear of a possible criminal liability?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

11

Mr. Garcia. No, Sir. She did not say that in any way. She just expressed the concern and I told her that.... The Presiding Officer. No, no, I just want to know the reason she was not personally the one that was allowed by the bank to come here rather than and instead sent the president of the bank. Was it because the manager of your Katipunan Branch was afraid to appear before this Court because of the possible criminal liability involved in whatever she may say in this Court? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No? So, what was the reason given by her to you for her not to answer the subpoena? Mr. Garcia. I told her I am prepared to answer the Court and I am prepared to assume any potential.... The Presiding Officer. No, no, I am asking about what the manager told you as a reason why she herself would not come before this Court to answer the subpoena. Mr. Garcia. She did not express that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. She did not say anything. Mr. Garcia. She did not say anything. I saw the fear and the concern on her and I told her I will take the.... The Presiding Officer. In other words, she went to you, told you about it, and you said, “No. Do not go, and I will take over the case and I will assume the responsibility of explaining the position of the bank.” Mr. Garcia. I told her I will assume the responsibility of explaining all of this. I asked specifically for an authorization from her and she did give me that authorization, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Okay. The President Pro Tempore. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. With the permission of Senator Drilon. Mr. Pascual, how do you describe Tiongson? Is she a little lady? Mr. Garcia. I cannot really say what the definition of a “little lady” is. But from my own perspective, she is not little, she is tall. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Thank you. Senator Drilon. Can I now proceed, Sir? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. Let us go to Account No. 089-121020122. In yesterday’s hearing, you mentioned that the account balance as of 2009 is zero. As of the previous year, however, you said that the account did not exist. That is in 2008. Therefore, is it correct to say that the account was opened in 2009? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. Is it our understanding that under your procedure, before you can open an account, there is a requirement of a minimum deposit?

12

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Garcia. For an initial account, as a matter of practice, yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Garcia. But we.... Senator Drilon. Just answer. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, and this would constitute the starting balance? Mr. Garcia. This will constitute the starting balance but this does not.... Senator Drilon. Just answer the question, please. This would constitute the starting balance. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. So, what was the starting balance in Account No. 089-121020122 which was opened in 2009? Mr. Garcia. I am very sorry, Your Honor. We have prepared the information and the documents as based on the subpoena that was required of us. And so, we presented the information as required. Senator Drilon. You have no information as of now on the amount of the opening account? Mr. Garcia. I have no information as of now, and I do believe that it is not covered by the subpoena. Senator Drilon. Can you please stop making your own opinions? The subpoena was issued by this Court. Mr. Garcia. Yes, I am sorry. Senator Drilon. Are you willing, can you bring the information as to the opening amount on Account No. 089-121020122 in the next hearing? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we will bring the documents that we are instructed formally by this Court by a subpoena. We cannot.... Senator Drilon. May I request....This witness, Your Honor, is a little smarter than what we think he is. The Presiding Officer. You answer the question. Senator Drilon. He is saying that he will not answer any question not included in the subpoena. So, we request that a subpoena be issued for this witness to bring these documents we requested. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, the Presiding Officer would like to inform you that please listen to the question and answer the question asked of you. And be sure that you are telling us the truth, nothing but the truth. Because if you do not, and you are found out to make any statement that is not true here in this Court, there are sanctions involved. So, I am just telling you that, so that you will know the procedure. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I explain the context of my replies? The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

13

Senator Osmeña. Mr. President, may I be recognized? Just a point of clarification with the indulgence of Senator-Judge Drilon. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Osmeña. I was not clear yesterday. Did you present the opening documents for the bank account, the master document that you said? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. And do we have a copy of it? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. So, therefore, would the initial deposits for the subsidiary accounts or the following accounts be also included in the master document? Mr. Garcia. It will not be, Your Honor, because as subsidiary documents.... Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Drilon. Mr. Witness, did you not mention, in answer to my previous question, that you examined all of these documents before you came here, the documents mentioned? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Did you not examine the document pertaining to the opening account of Account No. 089-121020122? Mr. Garcia. I did, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. You did. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So, how much is the amount as an initial deposit appearing in this account? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the subpoena does not stipulate and require me to present that. And my.... Senator Drilon. Well, this Judge is asking you the question. You said you are familiar with this account because you examined it, and therefore, you are presumed to know the opening amount. How much is the opening amount? May I ask the Senate President to compel this witness to answer. The Presiding Officer. Answer the question. Mr. Garcia. Right now, Your Honor, I cannot recall it exactly. Senator Drilon. Approximately, how much? The Presiding Officer. Would your manager know? Mr. Garcia. Our manager would know if she would refer to the records, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. She knows. Mr. Garcia. I beg your pardon.

14

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

The Presiding Officer. The manager of your Katipunan branch would know the answer to the question of the gentleman from Iloilo. Mr. Garcia. I would assume so, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. So, in the next hearing, can you produce this document? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, if it is required by the Court. Senator Drilon. My goodness. The Presiding Officer. No, better still produce the manager of the bank. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, with the permission of Senator Drilon, if I may be recognized? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I think the President of PSBank is incompetent to answer all the questions of Sen. Frank Drilon since he is not the manager of PSBank. Senator Drilon. He says he examined the documents. Senator Ejercito Estrada. May I move that we subpoena the bank manager of PSBank Katipunan, Mr. President? I reiterate the subpoena. Mr. Garcia. The branch manager, Sir, is Annabelle Tiongson. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, I know. Mr. Garcia. May I explain why...You know, the secrecy of bank deposits act as we... Senator Drilon. Please, again, do not lecture to this Court. You are a witness and you are supposed to answer questions. The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question. We know the law. 1405 is the Bank Secrecy Law. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And Republic Act No. 6426 is the Foreign Exchange Deposit Law. So, answer the question of the Senator-Judge from Iloilo. Mr. Garcia. If I answer the question, Your Honor, I believe I will be violating the law if it is not covered by a subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Are you invoking your right to not incriminate yourself? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, because I think it will be violating the secrecy bank deposits. Because the secrecy bank deposits specifies... Senator Drilon. Mr. President, the witness said he is going to incriminate himself because this document is not covered by the subpoena. That is most laughable, Mr. President. Anyway....

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

15

The Presiding Officer. But you said before that you came here to assume full responsibility for the bank. And that is why you took over from the person subpoenaed and that is the bank manager of your Katipunan branch. So, if you cannot answer the questions competently, then this Court will be compelled to require the presence of the person we subpoenaed and that is the manager of your Katipunan branch. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we only bring documents that are required as per the subpoena. So, that is what we prepare for and that is what is... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute one by one. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I still have the floor, if I may be allowed to finish just one more question or one more item. The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, this gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Senator Marcos. Thank you, Mr. President, and with your indulgence, Senator Drilon, I would just like to ask a simple question. Are we expanding the scope of the required documents from the bank? Because if I remember in our discussions and I do not think I am giving away any confidences here, we decided only to ask for the year-end balances specifically because the SALN is required to be based on the year-end balances and whatever the balances maybe between the Decembers of each year is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the year-end balance in the SALN matches the deposits that have been declared. So, just as a—I guess we were using the term housekeeping, are we now expanding the scope of the subpoena to include opening balances and other balances besides, over and above the December 31 of each year. Again, we came to that decision because as you can see, in the top of the SALN it says, “As of December 31” of whatever year it is. So, perhaps, we are changing the way that we are examining this but I just bring it up, Mr. President, because that is what we agreed upon and decided upon. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte is correct. Senator Drilon. All right. So, can I now ask as a Senator-Judge that a subpoena be issued for the witness, as he has agreed to bring the opening balance of Account No. 089-121020122, if only for this Senator’s knowledge, information in the process of his forming a judgment in this particular case. The Presiding Officer. Who is going to be subpoenaed, the bank manager or the bank President? Senator Drilon. The branch manager, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The bank manager, so ordered. The Clerk of Court can issue the subpoena. Senator Drilon. Can I continue on just one more point? The Presiding Officer. Only for this purpose. Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. Can I continue on another subject, Your Honor?

16
The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Drilon. Now, for Account No. 089-121017358, you earlier testified that the account balance as of December 31, 2009 is zero. When asked by the Presiding Officer whether you know when the account was opened, you initially said, “No.” However, later on, when the Presiding Officer asked you, why that account existed if it was not opened at all, you answered as follows: “It was opened, Your Honor, sometime in December 2009.” That was your answer. Now, how much was the initial deposit when it was opened in December 2009? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, we have not been instructed or required to present that information, so we are not prepared to present that information. Senator Drilon. Then, I move that the Court issue a subpoena to the branch manager of Katipunan Branch of the PSBank, in order to bring the opening account documents including the initial deposit for Account No. 089-121017358. The Presiding Officer. I will have to ask the Senate as an Impeachment Court to rule on this because the tendency of the question is to expand what was agreed upon in the caucus in a decision of the Impeachment Court and we want to know whether we are going to change the ruling that we issued beforehand. With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, magandang hapon. I will ask my questions later on, just a point of information and to clarify the matter. I have here a copy of the subpoena. May I ask the lawyer of the witness to also hand him a copy of the subpoena. Mr. President, can I read the last part of the first paragraph? The Presiding Officer. Please. Senator Cayetano (A). It says, “And to bring with you the original and certified copies of the opening documents for the following bank accounts.” Then, there is a list of bank accounts and then “in the name of Renato C. Corona, and bank statements showing year-end balances for said account as of December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.” Therefore, opening documents were included in our subpoena and I would think it is normal that opening documents would include initial deposit. So, it is included, in fact, in our subpoena. Senator Drilon. Dapat naman po huwag tayong magtago dito. Huwag nating gamitin iyung sinasabing hindi kasama sa subpoena iyan. Hindi namin sasabihin iyan. Ito po ang hinahanap nating katotohan. Kaya, Mr. Witness, kung pupuwede lang dalhin mo nang sarili mong kusa ito pong mga dokumentong ito, otherwise, we will be compelled to ask that the branch manager of Katipunan come around because she was the one subpoenaed. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, we did present the opening documents of the peso accounts yesterday, and there are other documents actually that pertain to dollar accounts which we— Senator Drilon. This is the peso account. Mr. Garcia. This is the peso account, Sir.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

17

Senator Drilon. Yes. So it is not covered by your exception? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. So, you can bring the documents? Mr. Garcia. I understand and I am made to understand that any disclosure actually has to be made on the basis of the decision of the the Impeachment Court for peso accounts and this comes from a subpoena. And if I will disclose anything beyond that, it is not covered by the order of the Impeachment Court… Senator Drilon. All right. Anyway— Mr. Garcia. … and we will be open to—we will be violating the law on confidentiality of deposits. Senator Drilon. Please stop lecturing on the Court, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. The subpoena addressed to the branch manager says, “Acting on the subpoena request for subpoena dated and filed on 3 February 2012 by the House of Representatives through its Prosecutors, you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the Philippines at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the 8th day of February 2012 and everyday thereafter until the purpose alleged in the said supplemental request for subpoena shall have been fulfilled at the Senate Session Hall, Senate Building, GSIS Headquarters, Financial Center, Pasay City, then and there to testify your knowledge in the case which is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives has impeached the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and to bring with you the original and certified true copy of opening documents for the following bank accounts:” And then, the bank accounts are mentioned, “in the name of Renato C. Corona and the bank statements showing the year-end balances for the said accounts as of December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010.” So the Chair rules that the question of the gentleman from Iloilo is correct in accordance with the subpoena. Senator Drilon. So if you do not have these documents, the subpoena orders you to bring these documents and if you do not have it now you bring it in the next hearing. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. I am sorry. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. Now, let us go to just one more topic and I am through. This is the matter of the “Know Your Client” procedure. I assume you are aware with this as president of the bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. The KYC? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And that, of course, being a big bank you adhere to this? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And you ensure that the client is properly identified?

18
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And the client here is Renato C. Corona? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Drilon. You established on record in these accounts that you have presented here that the true identity of the client based on official documents is Renato Corona? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Did you determine his trade or economic justification? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And what was it? Mr. Garcia. The justification for the account opening— Senator Drilon. First, what was his trade? Mr. Garcia. His trade, Your Honor? Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Garcia. He is a justice of the Supreme Court. Senator Drilon. And economic justification? What was his justification for opening the account? Mr. Garcia. I believe it was income and investments. Senator Drilon. Sorry? Mr. Garcia. Income and investments. Senator Drilon. Income and investments. Mr. Garcia. That was the source of the— Senator Drilon. All right. Now, you mentioned that there were dollar accounts. Did you ask him where the dollars came from? Mr. Garcia. I did not mention anything with respect to dollar accounts. The only thing that I have declared to the body, Your Honor, is that I cannot present anything on five accounts because they are dollar deposit accounts. Senator Drilon. That is correct. They are dollar deposit accounts. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, when these dollar accounts were opened, did you ask him where the dollars were coming from as part of your due diligence? Mr. Garcia. I cannot disclose, Your Honor. With due respect, anything with respect to dollar accounts because they are covered by FCDU Law. Senator Drilon. Again, you are saying that this is covered by the—

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

19

Mr. Garcia.

The FCDU Law which we explained yesterday.

Senator Drilon. But is this not part of the “Know Your Client” rules? Mr. Garcia. For all accounts, we have “Know Your Client” rule. Senator Drilon. That is correct. And apart of the “Know Your Client” rule is that you ask what is his trade, his occupation, the source of the amount being deposited. And in this particular case, did you ask him where the dollars were coming from? Mr. Garcia. We did not present anything on the dollar accounts. Senator Drilon. No, you mentioned—I am not saying that you presented. You did mention the dollar accounts were existing. Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. No. You said that. These numbers correspond to dollar accounts. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So, I am asking you now: When you opened these dollar accounts, did you ask him where the dollars were coming from? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, any— The Presiding Officer. What do you want to do? Mr. Garcia. May I ask—Your Honor, can I consult my counsel, please? The Presiding Officer. You want to consult your counsel? Senator Drilon. Okay, go ahead. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Garcia. Please, Your Honor, I respectfully—I am sorry that we cannot disclose anything with respect to dollar accounts of anyone. Senator Drilon. All right. I will not tarry further because you have refused. We can resolve that later. Just going back to the peso account, did you determine if the amounts deposited were commensurate to the financial capacity or income of the depositor as part of Knowing Your Client rule? Mr. Garcia. At the time of the account opening, that determination was made of the peso accounts. Senator Drilon. Of the peso accounts. Mr. Garcia. Of the peso accounts. Senator Drilon. Who asked the questions? Mr. Garcia. Those that—I am sorry, Your Honor. The questions were asked by the officers of the branch, whoever attended to the party.

20

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Drilon. All right. So, we will ask that of the branch manager because you yourself did not ask these questions. Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Well, we reserve our questions on the branch manager when she appears. The Presiding Officer. Are you requiring the appearance of the branch manager? Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. The branch manager is required to appear before this Court on Monday, February 13, 2012 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. What is the name of your branch manager? Mr. Garcia. Annabelle Tiongson, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Annabelle Tiongson. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Kindly notify her since you are the boss of Annabelle Tiongson. You bring her to this Court at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 13, 2012 to testify in this Court regarding the accounts involved. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, pag binasa ho ninyo ang subpoena, ang nakasulat po ad testificandum at saka duces tecum. So, you are not allowed to limit, provide the Court with an answer that says you are limited merely to the information on the documents that you are asked to bring because you are also asked to testify as to your personal knowledge. Is that clear? Mr. Garcia. That is clear, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. All right. Ngayon, iyong practice sa bangko magdedeposito po ang isang tao ng pera pagkatapos, medyo malaki, mababa naman iyong binabayaran na interest so nagsishift iyan. You have other financial instruments, certificates of deposit, UITF or Unit Investment Trust Funds, et cetera. So, iyong original subpoena po na ni-request ng mga prosecutors sa Senate, kasama po iyan. However, the Senate simplified it, merely to mention bank accounts. Ngayon po, will you confirm that there are other instruments that are available in your bank which can give higher yields than a simple savings account or current account? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Ano po iyon? Mr. Garcia. It could be peso time deposits, you know, prime time deposits, five-year time deposits.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

21

Senator Osmeña. All right. So, ang ibig ninyong sabihin, if I open an account at your bank and, let us say, I deposited five million on December 1, siguro ko po on December 10 nanganak na ho iyon at iyong five million sasabihin ho ninyo sa akin, “Alam mo, sayang naman, why do you not shift four million of your current account balance to a UITF or Unit Investment Trust Fund or to a certificate of deposit yielding four or five percent higher than what you would normally earn under a savings deposit?” Is that more or less an accurate story? Mr. Garcia. Yes, in terms of concept, Your Honor. But just to be clear about it, we do not offer UITF funds. Senator Osmeña. What do you offer? You are a thrift bank so you are not allowed to offer UITF funds? Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Senator Osmeña. You offer CDs? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Time deposits? Mr. Garcia. Time deposit, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. All right. So, kaya ho kulang ho iyong information na sinulat po sa subpoena sapagkat the shifting of funds could have been done before December 31st and yet under the law, that would be assets owned by the depositor, di ba? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. All right. So, Mr. Senate President, I hereby move that any and all accounts—time deposits, certificate of deposits and any such financial instruments offered by the Philippine Savings Bank be hereby subpoenaed because it belongs to that category of deposits in the bank that this Court was trying to find information on. I so move, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. In connection with what accounts? Senator Osmeña. If you want to be more limited, in connection with the 10 accounts, monies that were taken out of the 10 accounts and merely shifted to another type of deposit also with Philippine Savings Bank or PSBank. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Please issue the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, may we ask even for one or two minutes, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Now, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, we want, at least, to be educated and be informed more accurately, Your Honor, in connection with the scope of Paragraph 17 of the Rules of the Senate Impeachment Court, Your Honor, which says, “If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he/she shall do so within two minutes. A senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or to counsel...He/she may also offer a motion of order, in writing which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer.”

22

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

My question, Your Honor is, does this allow cross-examination by a member of this Court, or merely clarificatory questions so that we will be guided accordingly, Your Honor? Because we have noticed that practically the question borders on cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. The practice in this Court that I can remember whether it was the impeachment of a president or in this case, the Chair could not control the manner by which any member of this Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court how they will frame their questions. Mr. Cuevas. So, the question, Your Honor, is that it may be in any form, it may be for clarification or it may be cross-examination, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Correct. It could test the credibility of the sitting witness. Mr. Cuevas. I see. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, first I would like to address the Defense Counsel. Justice Cuevas, do not worry, when it is your turn, you will appreciate the questions of the Senator-Judges. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. I will never be a senator because I cannot even be a barangay captain. Senator Cayetano (A). You will never know po. But you will appreciate our questions at the right time ho because we will get to the bottom of all of these and we will find the truth. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. Witness, after two days po kayo dito, I still believe you are in good faith and I am trying to understand completely where you are coming from—protecting the banking industry, protecting your employees and protecting your depositors. And I hope through these questions you would also come to understand the position of this Court. Unang-una po nuong nakuha ninyo yung subpoena, pinaliwanag din ho ba sa inyo yung basis o yung Resolution na nilabas namin na pinapayagan yung subpoena na ito? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Pinaliwanag ho ba sa inyo yung interpretasyon namin nung mga batas, kasama po yung sa Salvacion case? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Ano po ang pagkapaliwanag sa inyo? Mr. Garcia. With respect to the Salvacion case, Sir? Senator Cayetano (A). Di ba ho sa 1405 we are all very clear na pag impeachment cases, pwede kayong mag-testify on peso accounts. So wala sinuman sa depositors ninyo ang aangal duon dahil alam nila yun ang batas. Mr. Garcia. Alam ho nila iyon ang batas if it is so ordered by an Impeachment Court. And that is why we have to be very, very careful that we only provide information that is ordered by the Court and nothing else. And the order of the Court in our particular case was the subpoena, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

23

Senator Cayetano (A). Okay po, we will go to that later. But sa 6426, sa dollar accounts, ang interpretasyon po ninyo, there are no exceptions except pag may pirma po yung depositor, tama po ba? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). But in our Resolution, we said that there is the Salvacion case. Was this explained to you? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Paano po ang pagkaintindi o pagkapaliwanag sa inyo? Mr. Garcia. The Salvacion case, Your Honor, is a case of garnishment. The account holder was a foreigner, whose name I could not recall. He was accused of rape and he had raped a young girl and there were damages and a garnishment order was issued by a court on a dollar deposit account to cover…. Senator Cayetano (A). Opening the account and then garnishment also? Kasi you cannot look into the account—you cannot garnish it without looking kung magkano ba yung laman, di ba? Mr. Garcia. I am not familiar with the circumstances of that. Senator Cayetano (A). Napaliwanag ho sa inyo yung basis ng Salvacion case? Yung basis nung decision. Mr. Garcia. The basis of the Salvacion case was to execute the judgment of a court and the garnishment was to provide the family or the child actually with the…. Senator Cayetano (A). That was the objective and that was the decision. But what was the basis, the legal basis to allow that? Samantalang yung batas napakaklaro, hindi pwede. Mr. Garcia. I am very sorry, Your Honor, but the exact legal basis, I cannot recall. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes, it is okay. That is precisely the point. Ang sinabi sa case na iyon, “in the interest of justice.” At sinabi nila in-interpret ng Supreme Court yung batas na the makers of the law could not have intended injustice. So in this case na isang foreigner ni-rape ang isang Pilipina, hindi ba napaka-injustice na hindi mo pwedeng—would not give so much injustice na hindi mo pwedeng buksan yung account at hindi pwedeng pambayad sa kanya yung dollars na iyon even if the Dollar Account Law, na that law said hindi pwede. So in this case na parang ang mga—if you say, yung mga corrupt sa ating bansa ay ginagahasa ang Pilipinas, hindi ba injustice na ang Impeachment Court ay hindi pwedeng buksan ang accounts nila using the same logic the Supreme Court used? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor, but I cannot relate that to that particular case. Because in the Salvacion case, Your Honor, there was a judgment made by the Court that he is liable for damages because of this. And, therefore, a court order was issued to garnish, not to look at the accounts or anything else but to get the deposits on the account to compensate the victim who had been given and adjudged compensation by the court. And this particular foreigner was hiding behind, you know, the FCDU Law. There was already a conviction, Your Honor. He had been convicted of rape. He had been assessed to be liable for financial damages and so the court made the ruling that in that particular case justice had to be served, and his garnishment, his deposit accounts were garnished.

24

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Cayetano (A). I appreciate your appreciation of the case. What I am saying is that, iyan ay dinebate na namin, at nakita namin na iyong dahilan ng Supreme Court magbigay ng exemption at hindi sinunod iyong batas na iyon o gumawa sila ng exemption, iyon din ang dahilan namin. So the next question I would like to ask you, iyong bangko ba na iyon na pinayagan niya magarnish at binuksan niya iyong account, nakasuhan ba iyong mga empleyado nila? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I cannot— Senator Cayetano (A). Sasagutin ko po para sa inyo, hindi Mr. Garcia. I do not recall. I do not know. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Hindi sila nakasuhan dahil korte ang nag-order sa kanila na ibigay iyong detalye na iyon at payagan na ma-garnish iyong amount na iyon because the Supreme Court made that ruling. In the same manner, do you honestly think if the Impeachment Court orders you to come out with the details of this dollar account, do you honestly think that any case will fall upon any of your employees, upon yourself or your board of directors? Mr. Garcia. Do I honestly—I am sorry, Your Honor. Call upon? Senator Cayetano (A). In-orderan po kayo ng Impeachment Court through a subpoena na dalhin ang dokumento at pag-usapan natin iyong laman ng Dollar Account. So, sabi ninyo po ayaw ninyong ibigay dahil may batas at baka kasuhan kayo. Do you honestly think na kakasuhan kayo? Do you honestly think na hindi magandang depensa iyong sasabihin ninyong in-orderan kayo ng Impeachment Court? Mr. Garcia. I honestly think I will be breaking that law. Senator Cayetano (A). No, that is not the question, Your Honor. Your Honor, may I just finish? One minute to finish? Sinabi po ni Senator “Kiko” Pangilinan dito “justifying circumstances.” Sinabi ninyo kaya kayo pumunta dahil nalalagay sa alanganin iyong mga empleyado ninyo dahil kapag na-break iyong batas na iyon, makakasuhan sila. We are saying we interpreted that law with our decision. And we are saying that you can reveal it to the Impeachment Court. So, are you now telling me that you do not believe us? That if you reveal it to us there will be no criminal case against you? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, it is not that I do not believe or I do not have any faith in this Court. This faith actually conflicts with my honest belief that the law is very clear. The only exception indicated is by approval of the depositor. So in that particular case, it is my honest belief I will be breaking the law. Senator Cayetano (A). Who interprets the law, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. I think the— Senator Cayetano (A). Is it not the courts? Mr. Garcia. The Supreme Court, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). In the case of the Supreme Court, did they not interpret the Salvacion to be another exception to the law? Is not the law very clear, bawal i-garnish ang dollar accounts? po. You do not know.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

25

Mr. Garcia. My personal appreciation of that case is the Supreme Court interpreted the exception to the law only insofar as that particular case is concerned and no other case. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Mr. Garcia. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Supreme Court even in that ruling declared that it upholds the confidentiality of the law and the FCDU Law and said, only in this particular case— Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Agree 100 percent. But then you agree with me, the law was clear. Yet, the Supreme Court said there is another exception. So in this case, we are saying, the law is clear but the Impeachment Court feels that it is— The Presiding Officer. May I— Senator Cayetano (A). I will end the sentence, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Ang pinapaabot ko lang po sa inyo, Mr. Witness, is that naiintindihan namin kayo—may depositors kayo, iyong banking industry—we are not unmindful of that. Hindi impeachment lang ang tinitingnan ng mga Senador, iyong ekonomiya ng ating bansa. Pero binalanse din namin ito. Imagine the public policy kung hindi bubuksan ng Impeachment Court iyong dollar account. Imagine if Filipinos start—iyong mga corrupt start putting it in dollar account dahil ito ay hindi pwedeng buksan. Of course, we can amend the law, but— Anyway, Mr. President, I am sure that their lawyers are studying all of these. I will just throw my last question, I will not have any more follow-up questions. Kung sa Monday wala pang TRO ang Supreme Court dahil in-apply ninyo is an injunction, right, with TRO—kung wala pang TRO sa Monday—and all lawyers will tell you kapag wala kang TRO, you are forced to comply with the Court—kung wala kayong TRO by Monday, will you comply and bring the documents and testify on it? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, it is my belief that the FCDU law will be violated and I will be— Senator Cayetano (A). So, therefore, will you—if you do not have a TRO on Monday— The Presiding Officer. May I now request the gentleman to please finish his questions? Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, can I just get the answer from him then I am finished. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Senator Cayetano (A). So, if you do not have a TRO on Monday—that is your interpretation that it will be violated, therefore, you went to the Supreme Court, asked for an injunction and a TRO. If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you comply with the order of this Court or not? Mr. Garcia. My answer, Your Honor, is this: This is the law, my appreciation actually is, if there are any exceptions to it, the Supreme Court actually will rule. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, can I ask for a “yes” or “no” answer, please? The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question, “yes” or “no.” Mr. Garcia. Your question actually is that—

26

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Cayetano (A). If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you bring the documents and testify on it? Yes or no? Mr. Garcia. If the Supreme Court decides, Your Honor— Senator Cayetano (A). No, if there is no TRO. Of course if there is a TRO that is a different matter. If the Supreme Court does not grant a temporary restraining order, will you testify on it and will you bring the documents? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect to this Court, I will not testify because I believe I will be breaking the law. The Presiding Officer. So, already answered. Okay. Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Well, just a quick response that I would like to place on record that as far as the Impeachment Court is concerned, we do not issue illegal orders, for the record, Mr. President. And having said that, Mr. Witness, the only exception to the Foreign Currency Deposit Act is if the depositor consents. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. And therefore, if a written authorization from the Chief Justice is given to you, then you will willingly submit these documents of the dollar accounts to this Court? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, I will not comment on and respond to any inquiry on any dollar account. Senator Pangilinan. Okay. On a hypothetical question, if a depositor sends you a letter authorizing you to reveal a dollar deposit account, therefore, you will no longer be in violation of the law? Mr. Garcia. If a depositor gives us... Senator Pangilinan. Consent. Mr. Garcia. ...authorization or his consent, we will disclose. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Okay. Well, having said that, may we request—may we get a response from the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. Is that addressed to me? Senator Pangilinan. No, no. Just— Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, yes, yes, to the Defense because you filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the proceedings.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

27

Do we take this to mean that if this Impeachment Court requests the Chief Justice, through counsel, to give his consent that the Chief Justice, through counsel, will refuse? Because you already filed a petition before the— Mr. Cuevas. I will have to consult him and discuss this matter very legally, Your Honor please. Senator Pangilinan. Well, in that case, hopefully—well, perhaps, the Chair may persuade counsel— Mr. Cuevas. Because your referral to the petition and the petition itself, if Your Honor please, is not merely centered on these bank deposits and so on. We have alleged various grounds, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, that is right. Mr. Cuevas. For instance, the violation of the right of the petitioner to due process since the Impeachment Complaint was immediately directed to this Court without any notice nor hearing. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. We read the— Mr. Cuevas. There are other grounds, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. With respect to our Justice, we went through the pleadings... Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. ...but I just wanted to focus on this particular issue. Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Senator Pangilinan. Because ultimately, if a depositor consents that the records of his dollar deposits be accessed, then, there will not be any legal confrontation. Mr. Cuevas. That is— Senator Pangilinan. That is why I am asking the question. Will the Chief Justice refuse if this Impeachment Court requests for a consent or to secure his consent? Mr. Cuevas. First, I do not think that this Impeachment Court will go that far. But, even assuming it does, Your Honor, I am inclined to believe that the Chief Justice may not give his consent because he is questioning the validity of all these proceedings, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Precisely. And that is why I say, that is why I premise my question that considering there is now a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the proceedings, then a request by this Impeachment Court for the dollar accounts and him, consenting to allowing these accounts to be turned over, or the documents, will be refused. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, also. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Estrada and then Sen. Pia Cayetano. The Presiding Officer. Senator Estrada is recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Just for the record.

28

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Isa po ako sa mga Senador na sumuporta sa desisyon ng ating Pangulo ng Senado para buksan ang bank accounts ni Chief Justice Corona. Ngunit ako po ay nababahala sapagkat ang tanging basehan lamang ng Prosecution panel ay isang dokumento na in-attach nila sa motion for subpoena na nanggaling po sa PSBank bago po mag-issue ang Korteng ito ng subpoena. Ngayon, I would like to invite the attention of the president of the PSBank. In Republic Act No. 1405, Section 3, if you are aware, “It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person, other than those mentioned in Section 2 hereof, any information concerning said deposits.” Noon pong kayo ay pumunta rito, alam ba ninyo na mayroon pong naka-attach na papel na allegedly galing daw sa PSBank o sa isang maliit na babae, sabi nga ni Congressman Umali? Aware ba kayo na naka-attach itong papel doon sa subpoena? The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Counsel. Let the witness address the Chair and ask permission to consult you, if he wishes to consult. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I consult because I cannot recall. The Presiding Officer. You may. Mr. Garcia. This was not included, Your Honor. But I just want to clarify. Senator Ejercito Estrada. But this was included in the request for subpoena by the Prosecution. Mr. Garcia. We do not know that, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Mr. Witness. Do you accept that that material referred to comes from your bank? Mr. Garcia. We have not seen it, Your Honor, and we do believe that does not come from our bank, if ever there was anything. The Presiding Officer. Are you suggesting to this Court that that is a fake document or is it a genuine document? Mr. Garcia. We cannot say, Your Honor, because we have not seen it. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, can I show him this particular document? The Presiding Officer. Yes, you may. Mr. Garcia. May I respond, Sir? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Please tell us whether that document that was shown to you by the gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, is a document from your bank. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, this is a photocopy. The Presiding Officer. A photocopy. Mr. Garcia. A photocopy. It is not an original document. The Presiding Officer. Are your bank records open to the public for photocopying?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

29

Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And so, it could be that that document comes from your bank? Mr. Garcia. I would have to compare it with the original document. I have seen the original document here and I note at least, just offhand, there seems to be some differences. The Presiding Officer. Are you competent to testify regarding the forms that are used by your bank, by your branches? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I consult our Counsel? The Presiding Officer. You may. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I cannot comment on this right now because there are entries here that show dollar. The Presiding Officer. No, the only question is, whether that is a document from your bank or a copy of a document in your bank? Mr. Garcia. I cannot make that determination right now, Your Honor, because I would have to compare it with the original. The Presiding Officer. Who has the competence to answer that question? Mr. Garcia. I would have the competence, Your Honor, once I compare it versus the original. The Presiding Officer. Would your manager be competent to answer this question? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you better ask your manager of your Katipunan branch to be prepared to answer this question. Who has custody of these records? Mr. Garcia. We do have right now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. Who specifically in a branch of your bank would be in custody of records like this? Mr. Garcia. Because this is the subject matter of this impeachment process, we have controlled the documents with our head office and it is controlled by some officers, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who would be the employees of a branch of your bank that would have access to records like this? Mr. Garcia. With respect to the branch, Your Honor, access to signature cards are.... The Presiding Officer. No, this kind of document. Mr. Garcia. I cannot say, Your Honor, because it is a photocopy. The Presiding Officer. No. Do not miss the tenor of my question. I am asking, who can access the record of your bank for a document like the one presented to you? Mr. Garcia. For a document such as specimen signature card, the tellers would be able to access our offices.

30
The Presiding Officer. The manager of the bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Yes, full power of access to any records of your bank? Mr. Garcia. Within that particular branch, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely, within that particular branch, of which she is the manager. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And she is responsible for the security of these documents? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, together with another officer. The Presiding Officer. Who is the custodian of records of this kind of records? Mr. Garcia. The custodian would normally be the Customer Service Officer who is the Operations Officer of the branch. The Presiding Officer. The Customer Operations Officer, not necessarily the Customer Operations Officer of a particular client? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But he is generally an officer in charge of the records of customers of a particular branch? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Please identify all of those to us in the case of your Katipunan branch. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Because I must tell you that this Court is in possession of an information regarding this leakage. In fact, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is now conducting an investigation regarding this leakage. And not that— Mr. Garcia. As we are, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. —we do not want the secrets to come out involving anybody, but the fact is that this has a greater meaning to the nation and that is the integrity of its banking system. So, bring the manager here to answer questions. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, if I may, we also do conduct reviews, et cetera, and in our determination, because this matter was being brought about earlier, we actually determined that as far as we believe, documents that were floating around did not come from the bank. The Presiding Officer. Where will it come from then? Mr. Garcia. I have no idea. The Presiding Officer. From heaven? Mr. Garcia. I have no idea, Your Honor, because if we will compare them with the original documents, there are differences.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

31

The Presiding Officer. Are you saying that your security procedure in your bank is loose? Mr. Garcia. No, it is not, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Such that it can be accessed by just anybody photographing sensitive documents like these? Mr. Garcia. These documents we cannot comment on because we have not seen them. The Presiding Officer. As I said, this Court is in possession of information regarding the manner of this leak, the release of this document. Then so, you better be candid with us. Because if you do not, then we will be forced to apply the rules of this Court. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, in all candidness, we have gone through a process of auditing this and we have determined that based on what we have as original documents, those documents floating around do not come from PSBank. The Presiding Officer. In other words, they are fake documents? Mr. Garcia. They are not facsimiles of the original documents that we have. The Presiding Officer. Were they invented? Mr. Garcia. We do not know, Your Honor, because they are just facsimiles. It is very easy to prepare documents.... The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by “facsimile”? Mr. Garcia. Facsimiles are photocopies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Photocopies? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But there must be an original to be photocopied? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that original is in your bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, the question is, would a fly, or a rat, or an ipis go to your bank to photocopy those documents? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. But if we will compare the original versus the photocopied document, it does not appear to be a photocopy of the original. The Presiding Officer. Then, you produce the original— Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. —so that we can compare this and then the Prosecution will have a lot of things to answer for this if, indeed, they do not jibe with your original documents. How they came into possession of these documents, they say it was anonymously given to them. Mr. Garcia. Well, Your Honor, if I may point out, the subpoena stipulates 10 accounts. And it stipulates that they are based on documents presented for those particular years. And we have

32

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

certified, Your Honor, that in some of the years, no such account was actually in existence. So on that basis, Sir.... The Presiding Officer. Correct. Mr. Garcia. So, no basis, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Yes, yes, yes. Correct, but the request to this Court for a subpoena was based on alleged documents anonymously given to the Prosecution. In fact, we do not know these numbered accounts.— Mr. Garcia. Your honor, I cannot comment.... The Presiding Officer. —before it was supplied to us by the requesting Prosecution panel, and they claim that this came from an anonymous source but they reflect accounts in your bank. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we cannot comment on documents presented to this Court by any other party except us because we do not know who presented. This particular subpoena stipulates.... The Presiding Officer. But you are not denying that these accounts exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, by our certification based on the subpoenas that were provided here on certain accounts on the years that we are required to present, they were not in existence. So they must be fake. The Presiding Officer. The question is: You are not denying that these account numbers are account numbers existing in your record? Mr. Garcia. For the years that we stipulated, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by that? Mr. Garcia. Because in our certification, Your Honor, for certain years, we were required to present information on accounts allegedly opened for certain years. Those accounts have not yet even been opened. The Presiding Officer. All right, I will ask you, and listen carefully. Account No. 089-121011957, does this account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. It existed in our records, Your Honor,.... The Presiding Officer. Does it exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. For the year 2007, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Tell me, yes or no if it exists or not exist. Does it exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-141008145, does that account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor.... The Presiding Officer. Does it exist in your record?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

33

Mr. Garcia. This pertains to a dollar account. The Presiding Officer. I am only asking whether it exists in your record. Mr. Garcia. Yes, it exists, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-141007469, does this account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-141007129, does this account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-121021681, does this account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor, which particular account? The Presiding Officer. Account No. 089-121021681, does this exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-121020122, does this exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-121019593, does this exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then next, Account No. 089-121017358, does that account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Account No. 089-131002826, does that exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Lastly, Account No. 089-191000373, does that account exist in your record? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Explain how would these accounts come to the possession of the Prosecutors to enable them to ask this Court to issue a subpoena if these were not drawn from your account, from your records? Mr. Garcia. The information on these accounts were not drawn from us. The Presiding Judge. Would this account number exist in other banks? Mr. Garcia. Other banks, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes.

34

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Garcia. We cannot comment on other banks, because we do not really know what their account numbers.... The Presiding Officer. Would these records be found in your central office, in Metrobank, for instance, which is your mother company? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Would they exist only in your bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Would they exist only in your branch in Katipunan? Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment on that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why not? Mr. Garcia. Some of these accounts are dollar accounts and.... The Presiding Officer. No, but I am only asking whether these would exist only in—these accounts would only be recorded in your Katipunan branch? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So, it can only be—the conclusion could only be that this leak came from your Katipunan branch? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I honestly believe it did not. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of your belief? Mr. Garcia. For the peso accounts? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Garcia. For the peso accounts, our original documents actually had differences. The Presiding Officer. But you agree that these accounts are only recorded in the Katipunan branch of your bank? Mr. Garcia. For the peso accounts, Your Honor, yes. The Presiding Officer. All right. It will not appear in the record of other branches of your bank? Mr. Garcia. For the peso accounts, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. For the peso accounts? Mr. Garcia. For peso accounts. The Presiding Officer. How about the dollar accounts? Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment, Your Honor, because dollar accounts are.... The Presiding Officer. My God, what is that? I am just asking whether they would exist in the other branches of your bank. I am not delving into the details of the account. I do not even know who is the owner of these accounts.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

35

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I consult my counsel. The Presiding Officer. You can consult your counsel. [Pause] The witness is consulting his counsel. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may we request that the question be repeated again. The Presiding Officer. May I ask the stenographer to repeat the question in order to maintain its accuracy. The last question. Stenographer [Mr. Bajar]. I am just asking whether they would exist in the other branches of your bank. I am not delving into the details of the account. I do not even know who is the owner of these accounts. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, when an account is opened in one branch, it is domiciled in that branch and will not exist in other branches. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, thank you. I am done. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. Ginoong Pangulo, maraming, maraming salamat po sapagkat lahat po ng itatanong ko sana ay naitanong ninyo na po. Maraming salamat po. The Presiding Officer. No, I am sorry. Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, okey lang po. Only one point, Mr. Witness. Isa na lang po, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Having showed you the document that I showed you earlier, if you have noticed, in the right hand corner, it says here, “P.E.P.” or PEP. What does “P.E.P.” mean? Mr. Garcia. Within the bank and as required by the, I mean, as required by the Anti-Money Laundering Law, there are certain accounts that have to be classified as “Politically Exposed Persons.” Senator Ejercito Estrada. Politically— Mr. Garcia. Exposed Persons. Senator Ejercito Estrada. —Exposed Persons. So, can you please give me a background or a real definition what does “politically exposed person” mean? Si Mr. Corona, hindi naman po pulitiko ito. Mr. Garcia. Politically Exposed Persons would refer, Your Honor, to those who are elected public officials, those that hold positions of significant levels in various government agencies and instrumentalities. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, all politicians or government officials who are depositors in your bank, PS Bank, mayroon pong naka-stipulate doon na P.E.P. Ganoon po ba iyon? Mr. Garcia. Within our system, yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Before you became or you were promoted as president, what positions did you hold?

36
Mr. Garcia. As president of PS Bank, Your Honor.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Before you became president.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Garcia. Before I became president, I was the president of another bank. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Did you become a bank manager? Naging bank manager po kayo? Mr. Garcia. For a bank, Your Honor, no. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. As president of a bank, usually when a depositor fills out a deposit slip and iyong teller siguro tinutulungan niya iyong depositor para i-fill-out iyong kanyang deposit slip. Tama ba iyong, in filling up deposit forms, you state the actual amount in words and figures, am I correct? Mr. Garcia. In words and figures, Sir? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, up to the last centavo. Mr. Garcia. Normally, yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Because here, there is an entry here like “700K,” is that allowed in banking practice? Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment on the practices of other banks, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, this is from PSBank. It comes from your bank. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, by our determination, you know, that document does not come from the original that we hold. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay, in your own opinion, is 700K, is it allowed in banking practice, the letter “K.” What does the letter “K” stand for based on the documents coming, allegedly coming from your bank? Mr. Garcia. I will not comment on the so-called documents because I have not determined that they have really come, and I do believe that they do not come from the bank. But as to the matter of 700.... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can you say the last line again? You deny that this came from your bank? Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment on that, Sir, because it appears that based on the originals, there are material differences. This is a facsimile supposedly of an original. And on that particular basis we hold the originals and there are some material differences there. Senator Ejercito Estrada. The Senate President has already required you to bring the original documents of the opening of deposit accounts, the deposit slips of CJ Corona. Am I correct? Mr. Garcia. I beg your pardon, Sir? Deposit slips? No. Senator Ejercito Estrada. The opening of deposit accounts. Mr. Garcia. It was not indicated, Sir, in the subpoena and so we just complied with the subpoena. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Going back to my previous question, and, I think, you have not answered my question yet.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

37

Is it a normal banking practice, and you answer me “yes” or “no.” Is it a normal banking practice, in your bank most especially, to put “K” after the numbers or after the figures? Yes or no? Mr. Garcia. A practice can be done...I would not classify it as normal. There are some people who might use the terminology “K.” I have seen it, some people used it, but it is not standard. Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not? Mr. Garcia. It is not standard. Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is not standard. So, what do you mean by “K” in your own opinion? Mr. Garcia. In my own opinion, as far as the letter “K”, and if it is used in—how will it be used, Your Honor? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Again, I will show you the documents. Mr. President, Senator Estrada showing the Witness a document… Ito, tingnan mo—700K. Mr. Garcia. In all honesty, Your Honor, it is hard to say. It is not clear to me that it is a “K.” That particular... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Anong letter kung hindi “K” ito? Mr. Garcia. I have no idea, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, it is not clear to you if this is a letter “K.” Maliwanag na maliwanag “K.” Mr. Garcia. Well, it is not clear to me. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Anyway, you better bring the original copies of these particular documents. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, what particular document? The documents that we have... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Pinakita ko na nga sa iyo.

Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. The Senate President already instructed you to bring the original documents. Am I right? This is not a dollar account. This is a peso account. Okay. Iyong Account No. 089-19100...malabo nga. Mr. Garcia. It is not clear, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the question? Senator Ejercito Estrada. I wanted him to compel to bring the original documents which I showed him, Mr. President. If it is possible. The Presiding Officer. What is this account? Is this a peso account or a dollar account? Senator Ejercito Estrada. These are the documents that were attached by the Prosecution to the request for subpoena, Mr. President. So, I wanted to determine if this was leaked out before the Court

38

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

issued the subpoena, Mr. President. Because this is in violation of Republic Act 1405, Section 3 of RA 1405, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I will address this question: After seeing that documents shown to you, are you aware of the existence of a document like that in your branch records at Katipunan? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I consult with my counsel? The Presiding Officer. Yes, consult. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have presented the documents of all peso accounts to this Court. The Presiding Officer. You were presented.... Mr. Garcia. We have presented all of the documents for peso accounts to this Court. And we cannot.... The Presiding Officer. No. The question I am asking: After you saw the document presented to you by the gentleman from San Juan, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, are you aware whether or not the original of that document would be in the records of your Katipunan Branch? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I can only comment actually on original documents. The Presiding Officer. You cannot comment. Mr. Garcia. I can only comment on original documents. What was presented to me was a photocopy. The Presiding Officer. And so, you cannot.... Mr. Garcia. For me, it is not the document. The Presiding Officer. You do not know whether you have that kind of a document in your records. Mr. Garcia. I do not know whether we have any document that is not our document. Original documents, that we have. If there are photocopies around, we cannot comment on them, because what we have is our original documents. The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we have two more Senator-Judges who wish to ask questions to the witness. So, before we continue, may I move for a suspension of the trial for 15- Senate minutes. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the trial is suspended. It was 4:07 p.m. At 4:46 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. The Floor Leader.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

39

Senator Sotto. Sen. “Ping” Lacson.

Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Pia Cayetano and then

The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Taguig is recognized. Senator Cayetano (P). Good afternoon. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that as President of a very large savings bank, you have a solemn duty to uphold the interest of your clients? Mr. Garcia. I do confirm, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And I imagine that as such, you take into consideration existing laws? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And the intention is, of course, to uphold the law? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, at all times. Senator Cayetano (P). Now, you are aware of RA 6426, the Law on the Foreign Currency Deposit that has the general rule which requires that we respect the secrecy of foreign currency deposits? Mr. Garcia. I am aware of that, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And you are also aware of the written exception under the law? Mr. Garcia. I am aware also, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Which is? Mr. Garcia. Only by the consent and authorization of the depositor. Senator Cayetano (P). Now, have you read the Resolution of this Impeachment Court on the request for the issuances of subpoenas on the bank records? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). You read it yourself in toto? Mr. Garcia. The Resolution, Your Honor? Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. Mr. Garcia. I have read, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. So, you are very much aware, and I will quote the second paragraph on page 5 that states: “The Court would like to emphasize that the non-disclosure of information relating to the bank accounts of individuals is still the general rule and it has no intention of going against the public policy on this matter. However, the Court is only issuing the subpoena relating to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona because of the pendency of the present impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.” Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). You are familiar with that? Mr. Garcia. I am familiar with that.

40

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Cayetano (P). Okay. Now, I would like to put on record, Mr. Witness, that I, personally—and I am quite certain the rest of my colleagues in the Impeachment Court, are one in upholding—because the majority did sign this Resolution—are one in upholding this law and it is very clear as written in the Resolution that this exception is being made because of the pendency of the present impeachment proceeding. So we want to give you that assurance that as your solemn duty to protect the interest of your client, this is not being made now as a blank exception that will open the floodgates to all kinds of exceptions to the rules. I want to be sure that that is understood by this witness. Mr. Garcia. Yes, I understand that, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Now, going back to the exception provided by Republic Act 6426, you also mentioned earlier that you are familiar with the case of Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And you have also read the case yourself, the entire case? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. I just read the synopsis of the case. Senator Cayetano (P). May I request that you read the entire case because you understand that this case provided another exception? Mr. Garcia. In that particular case, Your Honor, yes, Your Honor, and this exception was provided by the Supreme Court. Senator Cayetano (P). And I was listening to your testimony earlier. You stated it quite accurately that the exception was made because it involved a foreign national, and the Supreme Court ruled that his foreign account could be opened in the interest of justice. In a nutshell, that was your understanding of the case. Mr. Garcia. In a nutshell, yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. The reason I would like to request that this witness—I am not commanding you, I am simply requesting that you read the entire case. Because the explanation of what the interest of justice is being served is in this case. And you cannot read it by a mere synopsis. May I— Mr. Garcia. I will take your— Senator Cayetano (P). You will take my advice seriously? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I will take your advice seriously. Senator Cayetano (P). Because if you like, I can give you my personal copy with my highlighted—would you like my copy? Mr. Garcia. Well, if you would offer it, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). I will give it to you. I will give it to you. And my bell has rung so let me just very quickly read the emphasis that I had already put here. It states here that, “The application of the law depends on the extent of justice.”

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

41

I will skip the other parts. And it says further that, “This would negate Article X of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.” So, I ask that you read this case because we are also asking that justice prevail. But that is for you, that is a decision that you are to make. The Impeachment Court has made their decision in the issuance of the Resolution. So, I will now ask the Page to just hand you my personal copy. I hope you trust... Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). ...that—this is not certified but it is a faithful reproduction of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. But as best as I can recall, the Supreme Court also indicated that the exception is only made in this particular case. And no other case, as a matter of fact, as I have read it, the Supreme Court actually reinforced very strongly that all FCDU deposit accounts are covered by the FCDU Law. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. And I actually thank you for mentioning that because I had wanted to end on another point. In the same way that the Supreme Court has very clearly indicated that this was a specific exception to the law, this Impeachment Court also makes an exception to the law. And I have also confirmed with you when I asked you some questions yesterday that you acknowledge that this Impeachment Court has the sole power to try impeachment cases. You also acknowledge that? Mr. Garcia. For impeachment cases, Your Honor, yes. But as I believe and as I understand, any exception to any law must be approved by the Supreme Court. Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I trust that over the weekend and with the personal copy I will hand you, you will at least think—you know, give it serious thought given the gravity of this matter and in the interest of justice. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Lacson, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. My manifestation would have involved the subpoena issued by this Court in relation to the FCDUs. And since we are in receipt of an information that the Supreme Court has just issued a TRO in that regard, then I would like to defer to the caucus which is scheduled on Monday so we can discuss this thoroughly or extensively. That is all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Anyone else?

42
Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

May we ask from the Prosecution if they are suspending their direct examination? The Presiding Officer. From hereon, in deference to the Supreme Court, the interpreter of the Constitution and the guardian of our basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, this Chair would suggest and recommend to this Impeachment Court and the two sides of the case, the Prosecutor and the Defense, to take heed and let us discuss other issues other than foreign currency deposits because of the presence of a TRO by the Supreme Court, then we will discuss that in due time. Please proceed. Senator Sotto. Yes, Prosecution? Representative Tupas. We move to discharge, temporarily excuse.... Senator Sotto. May we ask from the Defense panel if they are ready to cross-examine the witness. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we are not yet.... Your Honor, please. We are not yet through with our direct examination. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Cross-examination is deferred until they have finished their direct. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Any other.... The Presiding Officer. Do you have another witness? Representative Tupas. We have, Mr. President, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged temporarily, but you come back on Monday at two o’clock in the afternoon for the continuation of this trial. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we have a one-minute suspension of the Impeachment Trial. I will just confer with some of the other Members of the Court. They are giving a message to discharge the witness. The witness is discharged. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. May we have a one-minute suspension, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the Impeachment Trial is suspended for one long minute. The trial was suspended at 4:56 p.m. At 4:58 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The Impeachment Trial is resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. May we recognize the Prosecution now, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we call now our second witness for the day. The Presiding Officer. Yes.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

43

Representative Tupas. The branch manager of BPI Ayala Branch in Makati. The name is Ms. Leonora Dizon. May we now call on Ms. Dizon, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Dizon is requested to enter the plenary session of the Impeachment Court and take the witness stand to be sworn in and to testify in this Trial. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we also request that Atty. Arthur Lim be recognized to conduct direct examination for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. My brod, Arthur Lim, is recognized to make the direct examination. Representative Tupas. Thank you. The Secretary. Madam Witness, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Ms. Dizon. Yes, I do. The Secretary. So help you, God. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. May I, please, the Honorable Court. I am Atty. Arthur D. Lim, respectfully appearing as Private Prosecutor under the control and direction of the Public Prosecutors. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Lim. Your Honors please, may I, before proceeding with the direct, respectfully manifest that the Prosecution did not have the chance to pre-mark the documents or any document for that matter brought by the witness today because of the stand of the witness and her bank, I suppose, that she will disclose the documents only to the Impeachment Court. So, we will be seeing the documents for the first time in open court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. We note the manifestation of Counsel. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor, please. One last manifestation which is also in the nature of a request. May I respectfully request the Honorable Presiding Officer that since the witness appears to be heavy with a child, that she be allowed by the Chair to interrupt this representation at any time by raising her hand if she should experience any discomfort or should need anything in the course of the examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Request granted. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. What is the pleasure of the gentleman from Pampanga? Senator Pangilinan. Yes. May we just know how many months pregnant is the witness, if she may wish to divulge the information. The Presiding Officer. That is immaterial, I think. Ms. Dizon. Nine (9) months, Your Honor, and....

44

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Pangilinan. It is material, Your Honor. She may give birth anytime. Ms. Dizon. —due anytime po. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Order! The lady Senator from Taguig is recognized. Senator Cayetano (P). Just a small matter. May we request the Prosecutor to lower his voice a little bit because it might be the one that aggravates the witness. And honestly, it aggravates us a little bit. Mr. Lim. That is a very timely and good reminder. I will comply, Ma’am. And please accept my apologies. I am used to speaking that way. I will tone it down before the Court. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. A pleasant good afternoon to you, Ma’am. Ms. Dizon. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Lim. Please state your name, your address and your occupation. Ms. Dizon. I am Leonora De Vera Dizon, a resident of 8003 Hoover Street, Makati City. I am the branch manager of Bank of the Philippine Islands, Ayala Avenue, SGV Branch. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Ma’am. Your Honor, please, the testimony of the witness is hereby respectfully offered for the following purposes: 1) to prove unreported assets in the form of bank deposits not included in the Respondent’s SALNs; 2) to show that Respondent Chief Justice has assets in the form of bank deposits manifestly disproportionate to his income as Member of the Supreme Court, which income was already testified to by BIR Commissioner Kim Henares; 3) to show that Respondent Chief Justice committed culpable violation of the Constitution, particularly Section 17 of Article XI under Accountability of Public Officers, as well as betrayal of public trust and should not stay a minute longer as Chief Justice. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. You are the branch manager, Ma’am, of BPI Ayala Branch? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. First of all, kindly tell us what type or kind of bank is BPI, a thrift bank or a universal bank? Ms. Dizon. It is a commercial bank, Sir. Mr. Lim. As a commercial bank, kindly state, for the record, as a preliminary point, what products or services your bank offers to clients or depositors? Ms. Dizon. Our bank offers deposit products, like savings, current account, and time deposits. We also offer investment accounts, loans and other products, Sir.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

45

Mr. Lim. Since when have you been the branch manager of BPI Ayala? Ms. Dizon. I have been assigned at Ayala Avenue, SGV Branch, since May 2009. Mr. Lim. Kindly state, Ma’am, your important duties and responsibilities. Ms. Dizon. As a branch manager, among my duties and responsibilities are: overall in-charge of the management and operation of the branch; directly supervise my service staff or personnel; periodic review of the bank reports. I also have the authority to sign documents that are within my approved authority limit; and other responsibilities that may be assigned from time to time. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Ma’am. Why are you appearing here before this Honorable Impeachment Court? Ms. Dizon. I am appearing before this Honorable Court because I am the addressee of the subpoena. Mr. Lim. Did you bring the subpoenaed documents which, as stated in the subpoena, are the following: “The original and certified true copies of the opening documents for Bank Account No. 1445-8030-61 in the name of Renato C. Corona and the bank statements showing the bank balances for the said account as of December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010”? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. First of all, or by the way, what is this Account No. 1445-8030-61? Is this a savings account, a checking account, a trust agreement, or the like? Ms. Dizon. It is a checking account, Sir. Mr. Lim. On what date did Renato C. Corona open this checking account? Ms. Dizon. Based on the document, Sir, it was opened in 1989 which then was Far East Bank pa po, 1989. Mr. Lim. Can you tell this Honorable Court how much was the opening or initial deposit? Ms. Dizon. Sir, based on the info that were indicated in the subpoena, only the ending balances as of the given year po ang required. So, right now po, I did not have the opening balance and since I was just assigned po in Ayala Avenue branch in 2009, I do not know po what was the opening balance that time. Mr. Lim. Mawalang-galang na po sa inyo, Ma’am. Gusto ko pong ipaliwanag sa inyo na iyong subpoena ay nagsasaad ng opening documents. Tama po ba ang pagkakaintindi ko na ang opening document, kung iisa lamang ang account, walang master account, walang subsidiary account, iisang account lamang po ito, tama ba kung sabihin ko po na ang opening document ay mayroong initial deposit na makikita doon? Ms. Dizon. Based po doon sa mga dokumentong nakuha ko sa branch, wala pong nakaindicate na opening balance. Mr. Lim. Pinapadala po sa inyo ng kagalang-galang na Hukumang ito iyong opening documents for this bank account. Nandiyan po ba sa inyo iyong signature card o kaya iyong application form?

46
Ms. Dizon. What I have with me, Sir, is the signature card po. Mr. Lim. Iyong application form or opening of the account?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Ms. Dizon. Unfortunately, Sir, ito lamang po iyong naabutan ko sa branch po, iyong signature card. Mr. Lim. Are you telling this Honorable Court that the only opening document that is available right now is the signature card? Ms. Dizon. Opo. Mr. Lim. Do you have or did you bring with you rather the bank statement, because that is the phraseology used in the subpoena, the bank statement showing the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005? Iyon po ang unang binanggit sa subpoena na taon. Nagdala po kayo? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. How much is the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005? Mr. Cuevas. I think the best evidence, Your Honor, will be the document itself. Mr. Lim. Leeway must be given to the.... The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Lim. Please produce the bank statement showing the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005, as directed and required by the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that Attorney Bodegon, a member of the Defense panel, be authorized to examine the document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Request granted. Mr. Lim. May I request, Your Honor, that this certified true copy of the outstanding balance of Account No. 1445-8030-61, for the period December 31, 2005, be marked as Exhibit.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, counsel. Is that a peso account? Mr. Lim. Peso sum, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It is a peso, local currency account. Mr. Lim. This is a peso account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, precisely, local currency account. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not a foreign currency account. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Your Honor. May we mark this for purposes of identification as Exhibit “CCCCCCC”,

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

47

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. Exhibit “7”? Mr. Lim. Exhibit “CCCCCCC”. The Presiding Officer. What is the correct exhibit number? Will you use the microphone, please? Mr. Lim. Septuple “C”, Your Honor, 7 letter C. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 700. Mr. Lim. May I propound the questions near the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, there is a figure in Exhibit “CCCCCCC,” below the Account No. 1445-8030-61. Right below it is the number or figure 149,767.36. What is that, Ma’am? Ms. Dizon. This is the ending balance as of December 31, 2005, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Will you read the ending balance? Ms. Dizon. The ending balance as of December 31, 2005 is P149,767.36. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. We would like to also request the witness to read into the record the name of the account holder, and the address. Ms. Dizon. The name of the account holder is Renato Corona C.; address is 95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. The Presiding Officer. That is for the year 2000....? Ms. Dizon. 2005, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2005. Mr. Lim. I noted that this certification does not bear any date, can you explain—I mean, the date of the certification....Your certification is undated, do you confirm that? Ms. Dizon. Sir, this is not a certification po, it is a bank statement po, as of a given date. Mr. Lim. When was this bank statement now marked Exhibit “CCCCCCC”, prepared? Ms. Dizon. It was prepared when we received the subpoena which was February 7. The Presiding Officer. And the date of that, what is the ending period covered by that statement? Ms. Dizon. December 31, 2005, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So, as of that date, the ending balance was what you read as of that date? As of December 31, 2007, the ending balance was what you read?

48
Ms. Dizon. As of December 31, 2005, The Presiding Officer. 2005?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor, the ending balance is P149,767.36. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you. Did you bring the bank statement showing the outstanding balance of this particular account as of December 31, 2006? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Will you kindly produce it, Ma’am? Witness, Your Honor, handing to counsel a one-page undated document under the printed stationery of Bank of Philippine Islands which we would like the witness to further identify by way of reading, and I am requesting her to read the period and the outstanding balance. The Presiding Officer. Witness, proceed. Ms. Dizon. The outstanding balance of Account No. 1445-8030-61 as of December 31, 2006, outstanding balance is P153,395.12. Mr. Lim. Ma’am, I noted or noticed from Exhibit “CCCCCCC” for the December 31, 2005 outstanding balance as well as for this document that you have just presented for December 31, 2006, the typewritten words “Express Teller Checking” after period (.), colon(:) December 31, 2006. Can you kindly elaborate to the Honorable Court what is meant by “Express Teller Checking”? Ms. Dizon. We call the account “Express Teller Checking” when the checking account comes with an express teller or ATM card, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. You are, therefore, telling the Honorable Court, Ma’am....Are you telling the Honorable Court,—and I ask this by way of preliminary, not a leading question, that this checking account is linked to a savings account that is funding the issuance of checks? Mr. Cuevas. Still it is leading, Your Honor. Very leading. The Presiding Officer. Lay the basis. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. May I first request, Your Honor, that this document for December 31, 2006 be marked as Exhibit “DDDDDDD”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lim. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Kindly read into the record the account holder, just for the record. The Presiding Officer. You do not have to ask the permission of the Court to proceed. You are doing a direct examination. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Dizon. Account holder of 1445-803061 is Renato Corona C. with address at 95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

49

Mr. Lim. You were mentioning just a few minutes ago, ATM account. Can you kindly elaborate, Ma’am? Ms. Dizon. Type of account is Express Teller Checking account. Mr. Lim. You mentioned ATM, what did you mean by that? Ms. Dizon. Express Teller of what we call iyong ATM card, po. Mr. Lim. Do I understand it that this checking account is also an ATM at the same time? Mr. Cuevas. Is that preliminary? Mr. Lim. No more. For confirmation, it is a question that is merely a consequence of a previous question already answered. Mr. Cuevas. If it is not preliminary, I will object. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Ms. Dizon. Our checking account comes with an ATM card, po. Mr. Lim. And what does that mean? Ms. Dizon. It means that when you opened a checking account, you are also issued an ATM card. Mr. Lim. So, aside from withdrawing by way of a check, you may also use your ATM card to withdraw? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Ma’am. Did you also bring with you the bank statement for the period ending December 31, 2007? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Can you kindly produce, Ma’am? Witness handing to Counsel, Your Honor, a similar one-page document which is also undated, and I would like to ask the witness to read the period and the Express Teller....I withdraw that, Your Honor. I just would like to request the witness to read the period covered, the period only, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We will admit that whatever is stated there, whatever appears there was stated. Mr. Lim. I am on direct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Ms. Dizon. This particular document shows December 31, 2007. Mr. Lim. 2007. Kindly explain to the Honorable Court, Madam Witness....Kindly explain, Ma’am, to this Honorable Impeachment Court, the figure or number appearing right below Account No. 1445-8030-61 reading “5,069,711.18”, what is this, Ma’am?

50

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Ms. Dizon. The figure 5,069,711.18 is the ending balance or outstanding balance as of December 31, 2007. Mr. Lim. If I may read it correctly, Ma’am, is it correct to read it as 5,069,.... The Presiding Officer. Already answered. Go ahead, go ahead. Mr. Lim. P5,069,711.18. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. May I request that this document be marked as Exhibit “EEEEEEE”, Your Honor. I respectfully manifest that Exhibit “EEEEEEE” mentions the same account holder or depositor, Your Honor, or client Renato C. Corona. Please produce, Ma’am, the bank statement for the ending balance December 31, 2008. Witness, as requested, has handed to Counsel a one-page similar document with the letterhead “Bank of Philippine Islands.” And I would request the witness to read into the record the period covered outstanding balance for ending period. Ms. Dizon. Ending period December 31, 2008. Mr. Lim. And, Ma’am, please read the figure below the account number. Ms. Dizon. Outstanding balance as of the given period is P1,525,872.87. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Ma’am. I manifest, Your Honor, that it refers to the same account holder Renato Corona C. May I request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit “FFFFFFF”, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, may I be recognized? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mrs. Witness, are these all checking accounts? Ms. Dizon. It only pertains, Your Honor, to one account which is a checking account. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Wala siyang savings account diyan sa bangko ninyo? Ms. Dizon. What I know...I was only required, Sir, Your Honor, to produce this particular account po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you have any knowledge if the Chief Justice has any savings account? Ms. Dizon. Your Honor, if I ano po, I only concentrated on the account numbers stated in the supboena. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

51

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (A). Just one question to follow up the question of Senator Estrada. The Presiding Officer. You have two (2) minutes. Senator Cayetano (A). Just one question, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). Pero iyong current account na iyan, because you are only allowed to testify on that account, right? That checking account. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Is that linked to another account? Kasi di ba pag tseke usually, pupunduhan mo iyon. Dahil mas maliit iyong interest usually ng checking account, usually may iba ka pang account na iyon ang mas malaking interest, tapos ililipat mo iyong pera doon. Iyan bang account na iyan naka-link sa isa pang account? Ms. Dizon. Not necessarily, Your Honor. Sa BPI po, hindi lahat ng checking accounts are linked with ano. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Not necessarily, but this specific account. Is it linked to another account? Ms. Dizon. As mentioned po, I did not look into the other accounts not subject of ano po. Senator Cayetano (A). So it is possible. You did not look into it. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir.

Senator Cayetano (A). So, you do not know. Ms. Dizon. I do not know, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). But is it possible? Of course, anything is possible. What I meant is that, nakikita mo sa documents nuong account na ito kung may naka-link na account diyan? Ms. Dizon. Wala pong naka-indicate. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Dizon. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Madam Witness, where is the bank statement showing the outstanding balance for the ending period December 31, 2009? The Presiding Officer. Tapos na ang 2008 ano? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor, 2009 na po. The Presiding Officer. 2009, okay. Tapusin na natin ang 2009 hanggang 2010.

52

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. As requested, Witness has handed to Counsel a similar one-page document which I would like the Witness to identify and read into the record the ending period, Your Honor. Ms. Dizon. As of December 31, 2009, the outstanding balance of 1445-8030-61 is P678,501.83. Mr. Lim. It refers to the same account holder. May I request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit “GGGGGGG”. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, last but not least, where is the bank statement showing the.... The Presiding Officer. What is the last but not least? Is there an additional na.... Mr. Lim. In this subpoena, Your Honor, it is up to year 2010. The Presiding Officer. Okay. So, it is the last one. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. As per subpoena, Madam Witness, where is the bank statement for the year ending December 31, 2010? Witness has handed to Counsel a similar one-page document which I would like the Witness to read into the record the period only. The Presiding Officer. Just state the period and the bank balance. It is the same account. I do not think the Defense will dispute that. Ms. Dizon. As of December 31, 2010, outstanding balance of the subject account is P12,024,067.70. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Lim. There is a name below the details stated at the top, reading: “Renato Corona C.; 95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.” What is this name? What does it represent? Ms. Dizon. Renato Corona C. is the account holder of 1445-8030-61. Mr. Lim. I notice, Ma’am—and I am doing this for the clarification of the honorable Court—that aside from the account number which is indicated consistently in the first line, reading: “No. 1445-803061.” In the portion relating to the identification of the account holder, right on top of his name are the numbers 10 144R-0109-803061, which I also notice in the other documents. What is this number? Ms. Dizon. That refers to the reference number of the bank statement, Sir. Mr. Lim. Your Honor, may I request that this last certification for ending balance December 31, 2010, certifying an outstanding amount of P12,024,067.70, be marked as Exhibit “HHHHHHH” as in “hotel.” The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lim. Ma’am, is this Account No. 1445-8030-61 still an active account, as we speak? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. That will be all for the witness, Your Honor. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

53

The Presiding Officer. Any cross on the part of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. May we be permitted, Your Honor, to conduct our cross? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Witness. Ms. Dizon. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. A while ago, I heard Attorney Lim state that this is the first time he saw these statements. Do you confirm that? Ms. Dizon. Yes, I confirm, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And the first time is today only. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Prior to this date, he never had the opportunity to have seen these banking documents. Ms. Dizon. Sir, Mr. Lim? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. How about any of the lawyers for the Prosecution, whether private or public? Ms. Dizon. None of them, Sir, have seen these documents. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, the complaint here was filed way back in December 13, 2011, I would like to understand that they never did have any information regarding these accounts prior to that date? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Now, this account of Chief Justice Corona as you have testified is a checking account or a current account. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And the deposits made in here, together with the withdrawals, are certainly borne out by the statement of account for every month. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Do you have those statements of account with you? Ms. Dizon. As mentioned a while ago, I only have with me what was required in the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. No, I am not asking you whether you have them with you, whether your bank keeps records of these statements of account? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir.

54

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, for the year 2010, there is a statement of account. Ms. Dizon. For 2010, yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And this statement of account is monthly or annually? Ms. Dizon. Monthly, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. The same holds true with the December 2009 statement? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. There were several statements and so on with the other periods covered by your testimony. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. In other words, am I correct to state that for every year, there are 12 statements of account. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And the deposits, together with the withdrawals, are recorded therein. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, this P12,024,067 balance in this account, was this pursuant to several deposits and withdrawals or only one deposit, one withdrawal for that year? Ms. Dizon. I do not recall, Sir, because I concentrated really on what was required in the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. But as you stated, the statement of account pertaining to this year exists in your office. Ms. Dizon. As of the time I prepared this document, it is still existing, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Am I correct to presume that this P12,024,067 balance of the account must have been covered by several deposits and several withdrawals? Ms. Dizon. I may not confirm right now, Sir, because I have not prepared the statement for 2010. But it could be possible. Mr. Cuevas. But that is a kind of procedure pertaining to these current accounts that you have in your bank. Ms. Dizon. Can you please repeat, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. That is a standing practice in your bank, there are withdrawals, there are deposits. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, this is not one single transaction, P12,024,067. Ms. Dizon. Since this is an ending balance, it could come from ending balance of the previous months, and then the transactions for deposits and withdrawals, this is the net amount.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

55

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. So that you will agree with me that this must have covered several transactions involved in that year. Ms. Dizon. It could be, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. There were several deposits in various amounts, right? Ms. Dizon. It could be, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. There were several withdrawals covering various amounts. Ms. Dizon. It could be, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And your observation or your statement applies to all this account particularly for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Ms. Dizon. It could be, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Now, if ordered by the Court to produce the statement of account, will you be able to do that? I am not asking you whether you are willing, but will you be able? Because I know you will be willing, except when you are already somewhere else. Ms. Dizon. Yes, Sir. We will comply whatever is being required in the subpoena. Mr. Cuevas. In view of the answer of the witness, Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the statement of account covering these periods 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 be produced by the witness at the most convenient time considering her condition now, Your Honor. Our purpose, Your Honor, is to show that this figure is not made in one single deposit and one single withdrawal, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. May I just address before I make a ruling on your request. This is a checking account, Madam Witness? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. When was its first opening? Ms. Dizon. It was opened in 1989. The Presiding Officer. And this continued up to 2010? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So that this account carried a running balance, month by month, year by year, quarterly, semi-annually, annually over the years up to 2010. It is a running balance, is it not? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that the balance at the end of December in 2010 is the result of those running balances from the time it was opened in 1989 until the year 2010? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And it reflects the changes in that account over these years reflecting at the same time the transactions that went on in the deposit and withdrawal of monies in this special account over this long period from 1989 ending December 31, 2010?

56
Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

The Presiding Officer. All right. So, the witness is instructed by this Court or ordered by this Court to produce the documents that the Defense Counsel requested. Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please, notwithstanding the willingness of the witness to bring them, may we ask that we be permitted to go to their bank just to save, for convenience, Your Honor, because we can procure certified copies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If there is no objection from the Prosecution, I will authorize it. Mr. Lim. We respectfully and vigorously object. The Presiding Officer. Why not join him? So that we can expedite the hearing. Mr. Lim. We defer. The Presiding Officer. You join him. Anyway, there is nothing unusual. It is already established that this is a running balance over a long period of time that will entail 1989 to 2010. One hundred twenty months of balances. Mr. Lim. We withdraw our objection and accede to the good suggestion of Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Both Prosecution and Defense Counsel go to the bank, examine the monthly balances, the quarterly balances, the semi-annual balances and the annual balances over this period of time. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. So ordered. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, in view of this development, Your Honor, we have in the meanwhile no further crossexamination question to the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In the meantime? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, because our continuation of cross-examination... The Presiding Officer. Subject to further cross-examination? Mr. Cuevas. Because there are no statements yet that we have examined, Your Honor. We wanted to assume or to prove... The Presiding Officer. All right. So you are suspending your cross-examination first? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Granted. The gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmeña. Mr. President, may I just address some questions of Ms. Dizon. Ms. Dizon, are there any other accounts in the Bank of the Philippine Islands under the name of Renato C. Corona?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

57

Ms. Dizon. Your Honor, as I mentioned earlier, I only looked into the subject account number stated in the subpoena. Senator Osmeña. All right. Without objections from the Defense Counsel since they are already going to go to the bank, would the Court kindly subpoena other accounts under the name of Renato C. Corona in the Bank of the Philippine Islands including savings account, certificates of deposit, time deposits, unit investment trust funds and other such deposits in the Bank of the Philippine Islands? The Presiding Officer. I respect the request of the distinguished member of this Court, under the Rules, a subpoena must specify the periods of the bank accounts involved and the specific documents required. But that is a fundamental requirement of subpoenas and so we have to observe that and, in fact, we have already made a ruling on that. Senator Osmeña. I understand. If I just recall about an hour ago, Mr. President, the Court accepted our request to subpoena attached accounts at the PSBank including, but not limited to, certificate of deposit, time deposits, saving deposits and unit investment trust funds. Now, the reason for this and if I may explain, Mr. President, these funds tend to come and go but then, normally, if the SALN asks the filer to list his assets, liabilities and net worth as of a given year and the Court sees fit to subpoena the bank accounts in a certain bank, the Court limits itself very severely by not looking into the other deposits in that bank. Now, I am only asking for peso deposits, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, this is a peso account and under— Senator Osmeña. This is a peso account. The Presiding Officer. —Republic Act 1405, in an impeachment case, we can look into and inquire into the bank accounts of the Respondent, the Court will grant it. Senator Osmeña. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the corresponding subpoena. Senator Osmeña. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, may the Court be provided with the documents that Counsel for the Defense has so kindly allowed to be examined in the bank premises? As Members of the Court, I believe that we are also entitled to see these documents because this is already with the consent of the— The Presiding Officer. Well, that is a reasonable request. So the bank concerned is ordered to submit a certified true copies of the bank statements over the period from the time the bank, this checking account was opened up to the year ending December 31, 2010. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, there are Members of the Court who wish to be clarified on the motion for subpoena of Senator Osmeña earlier. So, may we recognize Sen. Pia Cayetano? The Presiding Officer. Sen. Pia Cayetano has the floor.

58

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Marcos took the floor and put on record that what was resolved in caucus yesterday or two days ago was the ending balances and his Honor confirmed that and then later on, there was a request by Senator Drilon and then now Senator Osmeña for a subpoena for additional documents that was approved. So, I have to say, I am a little bit confused because my understanding in conference also with the Floor Leader was that, these were all going to be subject of a caucus because it is a changed in what was taken up in caucus. I am not taking a position simply clarifying that Senator Marcos, to my recollection, correctly stated what was taken up in caucus. The Presiding Officer. This is only with respect to— Senator Cayetano (P). With reference to peso accounts, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. No, no. Let me explain. The ruling of the Court as you stated correctly, we had made it a formal ruling that only ending balances would be required. But in the case of this particular account that we are now discussing, in effect, the depositor already gave permission… Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. The Presiding Officer. …for the examination of all the accounts month by month from the beginning of the opening of this account up to the year ending December 31, 2010. Then Senator Osmeña, in the face of this development, made a motion to include other bank accounts in this bank and there was no objection on the part of the depositor represented by Counsel and that is why the Chair has seen fit to issue a ruling, an order rather to subpoena the records of any bank accounts from this particular bank, only if there are any such bank deposits. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I am looking at the Defense and either they are not listening or it is okay with them because I am simply reiterating the understanding in caucus. So definitely, if the Defense has no problem, I am not speaking in behalf of the Defense, I am simply confirming that the Resolution in caucus was to limit it to the ending balances. The Presiding Officer. If the depositor will seasonably object then I would enforce our ruling. But it was in fact the depositor that started the request for the production or examination of the monthly bank balances of that current account that was mentioned involving the Bangko de las Islas Pilipinas. Senator Marcos. Mr. President, with the indulgence of Sen. Pia Cayetano, if I may. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Marcos. I would just like to remind everyone that the reason that the—I believe that we cannot read anything into the fact that the Defense did not object because according to our Rules they cannot object. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, I was about to mention that, Your Honor. Senator Marcos. I think maybe, perhaps, we should hear from them if they have any reservations about all of these suggestions and motions and— Mr. Cuevas. That is why I wanted to take the floor, if Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

59

Mr. Cuevas. That based on record even if we wanted to object in view of the clarification made by the Honorable Presiding Judge, we are constrained not to do so for fear that we may be violating the order of this Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You should have asked the permission of the Chair. Mr. Cuevas. We just went ahead with it even if there is an objection. The Presiding Officer. Are you objecting to the request for subpoena by the gentleman from Cebu? Mr. Cuevas. To us—if the question is addressed to us, Your Honor, it will appear to be a fishing expedition because as what the Court will notice, none of this account had been the subject of any examination prior to the filing of the complaint in this case. We have been stating all the while that all these amount to a fishing expedition because the evidence are not with them when they filed the case, Your Honor. That is not the ordinary procedure if this may be compared to a criminal case. The Presiding Officer. This is the request of a judge in this—a member of the Senate, not a request of the Prosecutors. So I will leave it to the pleasure of the Chamber if you want to object to the request of a fellow Member of this House, I will divide the House. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, yes, we did have a caucus and we had a ruling on the basis of that caucus as regards the subpoena and the items. However, Mr. President, after two days of trial, new information has surfaced. Yesterday and today, we have come to realize that there are certain figures here and amounts here that are surfacing which bring us to the next stage, ika nga. We want to know more about this information that we are receiving and I think any of the Senator-Judges should be given enough leeway to be able to secure more information based on the subsequent information that is now made available to us. For us to stick to what we decided on during the caucus and ignore all the information that we are now receiving, at least, up to this point, I think would also be, well, it is asking of us in the Senate to sort of close our eyes and not move towards getting more information that we deem necessary to get a clearer picture, Mr. President. So, I hope that this can be considered by those who are of the opinion that whatever it is that we decided in the caucus two days ago is what we should stick to, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. In the first place, the caucus referred to this request for subpoena by the Prosecution. It did not cover requests for documents by any Member of the Court, for his information. So, if there is any objection to the request of the gentleman from Cebu, then say so. You put it in the form of an objection and let us divide the Court. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I would just like to clarify that the reason I bring this matter up is because in the caucus, we had discussed that the reason why we are asking for the ending balance is because we are looking at Article II which is on the SALN which requires that the ending balance is what will be declared. And that is why as a Senator-Judge, I am guided by what is required by the SALN, and that is my understanding why those are the documents, the figures that we requested from the bank.

60

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Now, if we are changing that because of, you know, new circumstances, I am very open to discussing what this is. But precisely why there was a reason it was pegged on December 31. Otherwise, we will go into 2.4 which is on ill-gotten wealth. The Presiding Officer. The Chair is not changing any ruling that it has made. It stands. It applies to requests for subpoena on the part of the Prosecution. Now, in the case of this matter that triggered this discussion, it was a request not by the Prosecution but by the Defense which I took as an authority of the depositor himself to produce the monthly balances, monthly statements on that current account all the years up to December 31, 2010 to show that the P12 million ending balance on December 31, 2010 was not a one-time deposit reflecting an income deposited by the depositor at that time, and I knew the thrust of his request that he wants to show that that is the sum total of all the balances of that current account over the years. Am I correct, Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. I agree, very correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, that is not covered by our caucus. Now, neither did the caucus cover any request by a member of the Impeachment Court to request for documents from the parties. Senator Osmeña. May I interrupt, please, because I can clarify this. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmeña. Mr. President, with your permission, we are talking about two different issues here. What I requested was just the balance of any other deposits in the bank as of December 31st. So, it might be under a heading of CDs, time deposit, savings account, UITF from December 31st. I will be satisfied with that. Now, there is another request which I was about to make which I think the Senator from Iloilo was going to make, because the Defense Counsel himself requested a monthly balance. So, I was going to ask that this also be applied to the monthly balances in the PSB accounts. If we can ask for the monthly balances in the Bank of PI Account, then we can also ask for the monthly balances in the PSB account. So, those are two different issues. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Only if the depositor would consent. Senator Osmeña. Well, does that mean that the Defense Counsel would have to agree? The Presiding Officer. Because we authorized the opening of the monthly balances upon the request of the depositor. But if it is requested by a member of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, well, I am subject to the decision of the Body. Senator Osmeña. Well, my only point was that if the Defense or if one side can ask, why can it not be applied to the other accounts also if it will serve their purpose? Now, this is not covered really by bank secrecy because this is an Impeachment Court. We are not talking about the dollar accounts, we have not decided on that yet. But we are talking about the peso accounts, the December 31st balances of which we have obtained the other day. That is all I am saying, Mr. President. Thank you. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, may I just offer my help to clarify?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

61

Actually, both sides are correct. It is correct that in the caucus, we decided that we will not allow fishing expeditions. So, therefore, the subpoenaes that will be issued, we will ask that it will, at least, specify the bank account numbers. Now, there is a certain level of information that we need. If not, we simply write the Central Bank and say, “Give us all of these bank accounts.” And that is where we stopped in the caucus. However, yesterday and today, testimony tended to show that certain bank accounts are linked with one another. So, Senator Osmeña and myself—I asked a while ago—are also correct to say that if these are linked together, there is some sort of basis to ask for these other account. The question that the Presiding Officer has been asking, “Is there any objection and should we vote on it?” I do not think it is a matter of whether there is objection although that is the correct procedure. I think the question is, do we debate it here and now were the rules only limit us to one (1) minute each? Although we debate it in caucus where each of us will have our papers and staff to assist us and we can balance the interest of the banking industry, the economy, of the secrecy of bank accounts and our function to come to the truth because there is a very fine line between a fishing expedition and searching for the truth, Mr. President. So, I have not heard an objection. But I think the question really was, without giving away our positions and I did not think Senator Pia, if I may say, I did not hear her give a position whether or not she is objecting or not. It is just a matter of a clarification—would we want to discuss this in caucus where we would be able to balance the conflicting interest. The Presiding Officer. I am open to any suggestion, we can decide it here, we can decide it in caucus depending upon the pleasure of the House. Senator Drilon. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Are you through Senator Cayetano? Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I just clarify that as of the new accounts. But I was also one of them who asked a while ago, “Is this account linked?” Two more clarifications. Two witnesses already kept on answering here that they can only reveal information on bank accounts if they are subpoenaed. I have a different interpretation of 1405. In impeachment proceedings, for as long as the Court is inquring into it, you can give information here. And the order of the Court is not limited to a subpoena. When the Presiding Officer directs you to testify on it, that is also an order of the Court. Am I correct, Mr. Presiding Officer? The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Senator Cayetano (A). So, do not limit the order of the Court, Ma’am, to the subpoena. But since hindi po lawyers lahat, di ba, we are not taking that against you pero, pag inutos po ng korte kahit written or oral form here na sinabi sa inyo, order pa rin iyon, protected pa rin kayo sa 1405. Lastly, Mr. President, I heard the last statement of Senator Osmeña na kung puwedeng tingnan iyong balances, bakit hindi sa PSBank account without making a stand. Actually, the Defense took an extra trouble of asking the Court if they can go to the bank and if they can get that. But, actually, that is even unnecessary because their client is the owner of the account. All he has to do is write the bank, “Give me my statements,” and the bank will give them the statements. But it created confusion now that if you can ask for all of the accounts balances, why not for the other accounts? That is a legitimate question from a Senator-Judge.

62

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

But just to clarify all those issues, Mr. President. So tatlong isyu yun—new accounts, accounts statement, at pangatlo, yung Order of the Court. Thank you, Mr. President, and my apologies to the gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I will not continue the discussion right now. But before we go on, may we just know from the witness if she needs to go to the restroom. I have been nine months pregnant at one time, and she has been sitting for an hour. So just a matter of courtesy. Ms. Dizon. Thank you, Your Honor, for the consideration. Okay lang po ako. The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness, do you want to be excused for a while? Ms. Dizon. No, Your Honor. Pwede lang pong makainom ng tubig. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, if there are no more questions to the witness, why do we not discharge her until the next session? Senator Lacson. Mayroon, mayroon. Senator Sotto. Mayroon pa? The Presiding Officer. The Gentleman from Iloilo first. Senator Sotto. Mayroon daw, Mr. President. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice and hopefully clarify the whole thing— just limiting it to the BPI. The first set of documents were those produced by the witness this afternoon, which shows the cash position of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2005, et cetera, up to December 31, 2010. The ending cash position as of December 31, 2010 is P12,024,067. Now, that is the first set of documents. The second set of documents, Mr. President, will be the monthly statements from 1989. Mr. Cuevas. No, no, no. Senator Drilon. Nineteen what? Mr. Cuevas. 2005, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. 2005. From 2005 up to 2010 which, in effect, the depositor has given his consent, through counsel, for the examination. I do not think there is any dispute there. Whether or not it is covered by the subpoena is immaterial because the depositor has given his consent, through his counsel. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. 2005 or 1989? Senator Drilon. I do not know, Sir. The Presiding Officer. The opening of the account was 1989, is it not, Witness? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. So all right.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

63

Mr. Cuevas. 2005 only, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Huh? Mr. Cuevas. 2005, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are asking only for 2005? Mr. Cuevas. No, no, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. He is consenting to 2005 up to 2010. Mr. Cuevas. If I may be permitted to talk. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead, go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. We went this far, Your Honor, because it is not very clear to us what the Prosecution wanted to prove by these documents, Your Honor. If they are merely proving that the accounts or the amount reflected in these accounts were not included in the SALN, then they have gone too far, Your Honor. To us, it appears as though they are now prosecuting a case of violation of the Anti-Graft Law or forfeiture proceedings, Your Honor, because apparently, there seems to be no need for this. Only one account may be sufficient, Your Honor. Now, we do not want to assume the correctness of their statement relative to the amount involved because apparently it prejudiced the public, Your Honor. Eh yun pala, 12 million and so on. But that 12 million covers a lot of figures, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Without arguing on what it is. I am just asking about the facts, and I am trying to set the records straight what documents are to be produced. And may I continue? All right. The Presiding Officer. So it is 2005? Senator Drilon. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Up to 2010? Senator Drilon. That is correct. All right. So the bank statements, the monthly bank statements from January 2005 up to December 31, 2010 will be examined by Counsel and will be produced before this Court for the individual Senator-Jurors. The third set of documents, which are now being debated upon, is the request of Senator Osmeña. The issue here is whether or not the SALN reflects the assets of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31 of the pertinent period. Now, Senator Osmeña is saying that apart from these accounts, there could be other monetary instruments which were existing as of December 31 of any particular year to show a difference between what is stated as assets in the SALN and what actually exists, whether in the form of a checking account, a savings account, time deposits, and other monetary instruments as of December 31 ending 2010. And this is for the information of Senator Osmeña and the Members of the Court who may be interested in that. It is not evidence for either side. This is, in effect, an evidence for the Court. That is certainly allowed and not covered and limited by our subpoena.

64

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

I repeat. This, in effect, is a document that a judge is asking for. It can be an exhibit for the Court. And the information being asked is whether or not as of December 31 of a year ending, the SALN correctly reflects the assets of the respondent. That same rule will apply to PSBank. So that is our submission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, the Chair has already ruled to allow the request of the Senator from Cebu. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Lacson. recognized. And then Senator Arroyo wishes to be

The Presiding Officer. Senator Lacson has the floor. Senator Lacson. I have maybe a couple of questions for the witness, Mr. President. Madam Witness, if I provide you with a sequence of check serial numbers—obviously, this was issued by BPI—if I provide you with a sequence of check serial numbers, will you be able to tell this Court if this check serial number was issued by your branch? For example, there is a Check Serial No. 0000404774. There is another one, 0000404870. So, sequential po ito na magkakasunod. Another one, 0000404955. Hindi po ngayon, pwede pong pagbalik ninyo sa Lunes, kung hindi pa kayo nanganganak, kung ibigay ko po sa inyo ito, maaidentify ninyo kung nanggaling po ito sa bangko ninyo? Ms. Dizon. Your Honor, I can only identify if the check is issued by the account holder from my branch through the account number po at saka iyong address nuong— Senator Lacson. Kung account name po? Hindi po account number kundi account name associated with the check serial number or numbers? Ms. Dizon. Kahit serial number po, hindi ko po maa-identify. Senator Lacson. Salamat po. Iyon lang po. Ms. Dizon. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Who else? Senator Lacson. Mr. President, para hindi ako pagbintangan na nagsasaliksik dito, iyon ding exhibit na nai-submit din dito sa Korte, Exhibit “CCCC”, Exhibit “CCCC-1” and Exhibit “CCCC2”. Kasi ito po iyong ginamit na pambayad. Itong mga check serial numbers na ito ang ginamit na pambayad doon sa Unit 38-B sa Bellagio: isang five million, isang five million, at isang P4.510225 million. Ms. Dizon. Again po, I can only identify through the account number and through the signature po noong kliyente namin, not by serial number or by account name. Senator Lacson. Salamat po. Iyon lang po. Ms. Dizon. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. All right, Senator Arroyo, the gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

65

I will not discuss the pro and con of the issue before us. But the way I understand it what is at issue is the effect of our decision in caucus. And the resolution, the agreement was embodied in a formal Resolution. Since that is an agreement in caucus, and we are going to amend it, and that is the issue, we should also take that up in caucus because we cannot be arguing here among us. A collegiate body like the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the judges and justices do not agree and not disagree in public. They go to their chambers and then they discuss it because—especially in a nationally-televised proceeding, there will be speculation as to the tendency or rather the leanings of each member. And I think it would not be fair. So, my respectful submission is that, we started that in caucus and if we change it, we have to decide it in caucus but not publicly. That is my respectful submission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. May I suggest, to avoid a discussion like this, that henceforth when we go into a caucus, those who have some special concerns, they should submit in writing to the Presiding Officer their requested suggestions or proposals so that when we discuss these things in caucus, then we take minutes of the caucus so that we will have a basis so that we will not be groping. And my recollection really is that we were deciding the request for subpoena filed by the Prosecution. We did not touch on the request of fellow Senators who are sitting as Judges in this proceeding. And we are confronted also with a development like a request from the Defense counsel motu proprio to ask for the bank records of his clients over a certain period of time so that we will not have any misunderstanding among ourselves. I am sure that—and to facilitate our proceedings, I would suggest that on Monday, I would respectfully request the members of the Court to submit in writing their proposals so that we will have a record of these things. Senator Pangilinan. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. Just a few questions sa ating witness. Magandang hapon. The Presiding Officer. If you have any question—may I just—with your permission—request the pleasure of the Senator from Taguig. Are you going to ask questions or— Senator Cayetano (P). Actually, no, Mr. President. With the indulgence of Senator Pangilinan. I was going to comment on his Honor’s statement. So, if I may... Senator Pangilinan. Please. Senator Cayetano (P). ... so that we can conclude this issue? Precisely, Mr. President, why I stood up was because the request of some of our colleagues, and I thank Senator Osmeña for the clarification, because his request for yearend in December 31 was consistent as discussed in caucus. I stood up because some of the requests were different from what I remember was decided on in caucus which is precisely why I just wanted to bring it to the attention of his Honor so that we can decide. If everybody is amenable that we move forward and expand what was decided in caucus, I had no problem. I did not take a position.

66
The Presiding Officer. Yes.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Senator Cayetano (P). That is exactly what I was trying to do. But I would also like to mention in his Honor’s suggestion that we put it in writing. The difficulty is that sometimes we cannot predict what issues would come about. So, in other words, when we decided that December 31 was the year ending, it would not have come to mind then that I indicate that this is a matter important to me because I just assumed that it was what was agreed upon. So sometimes, we will just have to raise our hands and point out that it is different... The Presiding Officer. No, no. Senator Cayetano (P). ...from what was agreed upon and can we go back to caucus and discuss it, if other people have the same view. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Cayetano (P). But that is my only desire, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. But I would urge everybody so that we can remember the subject matter of discussion to please submit to me your special request for consideration and I will make a file of this. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. I submit. I am looking at my colleagues. I think many will have a hard time putting everything in writing but, perhaps, we could just request His Honor, if he could accommodate our concerns if we take note that there may be something that is outside of the scope of the.... And if he could give, you know, indulge us and allow us to just raise the points so that perhaps it could be included in the agenda for the following caucus. The Presiding Officer. I assure you I am open to any discussion of anything coming from the Members of the Court. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Magandang hapon ulit, Madam Witness. Ms. Dizon. Good afternoon po. Senator Pangilinan. Okey naman po kayo? You are doing okay? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Magiging boy ba o girl iyong.... Ms. Dizon. Girl, po. Senator Pangilinan. Ah, girl. Baka magiging senador din o abogado one day. Maybe the Counsel for the Prosecution or the witness can answer. My understanding is that the subpoena was supposed to be documents from 2002 to 2010 when he was Associate Justice until now as Chief Justice, or is it only until 2005? Mr. Lim. Your Honor, to answer your question. As per subpoena signed by the honorable Senate President and Presiding Officer of this Honorable Court, the original and certified true copies

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

67

of the opening documents, the year is not indicated because we do not know when it was opened. But the bank statement or the bank balances for said account started with the year ending 31 December 2005, 2006, up to 2010. Senator Pangilinan. I see. So, despite the fact na 1989 pa iyong account na ito, ang hinihiling lamang ng Korte ay mula 2005? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Kaya iyon ang dinala ninyo? Ms. Dizon. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So, kung hiniling ng Korte iyong bago 2005, mula 2002, dadalhin din ninyo, pero hindi iyon ang hiningi. Tama po ba iyon? Ms. Dizon. Depending on the availability of the documents, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Now, my second question is, if we are going to the monthly statements, is this from 2005, just to be clarified or even before 2005? Mr. Lim. 2005. Senator Pangilinan. Okey. Sige po. I just wanted that clarified. Thank you, Madam Witness. Salamat. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, earlier, I.... The Presiding Officer. Anything else? Senator Sotto. Yes. There was a manifestation by the Defense that they will suspend the crossexamination. So, with that.... Mr. Lim. Your Honor, please. Just one or two housekeeping matters, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. First, I would like this representation and the Prosecution panel would very much appreciate if we can agree on the date and time now for the examination of those monthly statements. Mr. Cuevas. We cannot agree yet on the date, Your Honor, because we were communicating with the Chief Justice and he mentioned to us that there were several statement of accounts with him. So, as of this moment, I feel that if we have those statements, we need not go into the bank records, Your Honor, because he is the depositor, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President.... The Presiding Officer. My understanding is, when are you going to the bank to examine the records, is that correct? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we excuse the witness while they are discussing about housekeeping. The Presiding Officer. The witness is excused. Ms. Dizon. Thank you, Your Honor.

68

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, with your kind indulgence, Your Honor. Just one.... The Presiding Officer. What is your pleasure? What is.... Mr. Lim. Yes. Before the witness is discharged, Ma’am, the witness identified and referred to a signature card. May I just please request that that be marked as Exhibit “IIIIIII”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lim. That is all, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, Counsel for the Prosecution, you asked when you are supposed to go to the bank, is it not? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To examine the documents. Mr. Lim. As suggested by them, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. That is what the Prosecution requested? So, what is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. I was trying to tell the Honorable Court, Your Honor, that if the statement of accounts we wanted to examine had been kept intact by the depositor, then we will waive that particular request. We were of the assumption when we made that manifestation since we were not furnished with the— Senator Sotto. The witness is discharged. Mr. Cuevas. —statement of accounts, Your Honor, that the only alternative left will be to go into the bank records. The Presiding Officer. Well, the Court directs the Prosecution and the Defense Counsel to arrange the time— Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. —to go to the bank, to examine the documents before what date? Mr. Lim. Point of clarification, Your Honor. If I heard the good Counsel correctly, he seems to be withdrawing that earlier request of his. We are very eager to go to the bank and examine the monthly statements, as suggested by them. We will go with them. Can we suggest tomorrow morning, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. May we have it next week, Your Honor, say, Monday morning. Mr. Lim. No, next week we will be presenting another Article or no more. No, no, I mean, we will be presenting another Article. I withdraw that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us accommodate each other. They were very lenient with you and the Court was very lenient with you in changing the arrangements of your Articles of Impeachment, in effect, your order of proof.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

69

Mr. Lim. Our apologies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, why can you not accommodate their request? Mr. Lim. Our apologies. Next week, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then as Members of the Bar, you can work it out. Mr. Lim. Yes. We are good friends with the Justice, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, thank you. The Presiding Officer. I am sure, I am sure. It just happened that you are on the opposite side. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President, my point has been rendered… The Presiding Officer. I think he is your fraternity brother. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. I respect him so much. Just like I respect the honorable Presiding Officer so very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, thank you. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President, my point has been rendered moot. I was supposed to point out that it should be the head of the Prosecution panel who should be negotiating with the Defense panel. Anyway, it has been rendered moot and academic, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. But he is under the supervision of the private prosecutor. Mr. Lim. Public prosecutor. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, it should be that way. The public prosecutor having control and supervision over the members. But it is now the private prosecution having control of the public prosecution. Mr. Lim. He was issuing instructions from Congressman Tupas. [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. This is a simple problem. Let them decide who is going to confer with the very able Defense Counsel. So, you want to deal with the head of the panel? I think, since they have control over their panel and their Defense Counsel, they can designate whoever they want to go with the Defense Counsel to examine the records. Mr. Cuevas. This is my point, if Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. While the Court is debating among its Members the matter of inspection or production of the statement of accounts, Your Honor, my co-counsel in the Defense received a call from the Chief Justice that he has these documents, some of these documents I am referring to —the statement of accounts are with him. I would not know which will be material to us. If this is true, then, in effect, we will be withdrawing the motion because we have them already with us. That is my point, Your Honor. We will not unduly burden our colleagues. The Presiding Officer. Then why can you not talk to your client and then communicate with the....

70

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

M.r. Cuevas. Yes, we will do that, Your Honor. Precisely, that is why we are asking up to Monday, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Then let it be Monday. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we just inform our colleagues that there will be a caucus at eleven o’clock in the morning on Monday and if..... The Presiding Officer. Everybody is notified that the Members of the Impeachment Court will have a caucus on Monday at eleven o’clock in the morning. Senator Sotto. May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement before my motion. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senator have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. I move that we adjourn the trial until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, February 13, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, this trial is adjourned until two o’clock in the afternoon of next Monday, February 13, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:31 p.m.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful