Senate, SC on collision course

The impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona stood precariously yesterday (Thursday) on the knife’s edge of an impasse over petitions by Corona’s defense team asking the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment proceedings and the presentation of evidence on his bank deposits.

This turn of events sent the Supreme Court and the Senate tribunal trying Corona on a collision course, raising fears that the impeachment trial was dangerously escalating into a constitutional crisis involving the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary from the political organs of Philippine democracy.

As things stood yesterday, in the third week of the trial, three key issues threatened to abort the trial and raised the specter that the abortion might send the controversy to the streets for resolution by the mob in a new people power demonstration.

In a surprise but unprecedented move, Corona asked the Court to stop the trial on grounds that it violates his constitutional rights. In an urgent petition, Corona asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the Senate impeachment trial and declare the complaint filed by the House of Representatives in December as void from the start. He also asked the Court to void the subpoenas issued by the tribunal for bank officials to produce records of his accounts, and to stop the Senate from further receiving evidence in relation to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint. Paragraph 2.3 is about properties allegedly not included in Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft law. Paragraph 2.4 is about the alleged accumulated ill-gotten wealth of Corona.

The petition said the impeachment court should not have proceeded with the trial on the basis of the complaint which was “riddled with constitutional defects too numerous to withstand even cursory legal scrutiny. “The petition noted that: Undoubtedly, public admissions by members of the House of Representatives declared that there was no opportunity to read the complaint. They also declared that the majority of signatories signed without reading the complaint reputably in exchange for material considerations.” It added that 2.3 and 2.4 were based on mere speculation, which is insufficient to support a complaint. It pointed out that allegations in paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 were based only on reports and suspicions. “Time and again, (the Supreme Court) has held that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence and it would be absurd if mere suspicion and speculation would be treated as a valid basis to oust an incumbent Chief Justice,” the petition said.

The Court was scheduled to discuss the petition yesterday, and prosecutors said Corona was seeking acquittal not through the impeachment trial but through a TRO from his colleagues in the Court. A prosecution spokesperson, Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, said the Court would be “at the brink of throwing itself in a deep constitutional violation should it issue the TRO.”

Senator-judge Teofisto Guingona III said the petition to stop the trial and the issuance of a subpoena related to bank deposits of Corona raised three important points only the Senate could resolve. Quimbo said the high court has no jurisdiction over the impeachment court under Article 11, Section 6 of the  Constitution, which states that the Senate has the “sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

Earlier last Feb. 8, in a move seen to avert a clash between the Court and the Senate tribunal, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding judge, denied the prosecution’s motion to subpoena four associate justices of the Supreme Court to testify on Chief Justice Corona’s participation in an October 2011 en banc session that led to a resolution favoring Philippine Airlines. The decision was seen in legal circles as a move to avoid any head-on collision with the high court and to define further the role of the Senate tribunal on impeachment cases vis-à-vis the high court. In explaining his ruling, Enrile cited, among other reasons, the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, the confidentiality of the high court’s sessions and respect for its internal rules.

The trial ran into legal complications on Feb. 8 when Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to issue a TRO to stop the Senate from compelling the bank’s representative to testify and bring documents pertaining to Corona’s foreign currency accounts.

PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified on Tuesday only to warn that the bank would be breaking the laws protecting the confidentiality of bank accounts if it revealed them. Bank lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to issue a TRO on the disclosure of the accounts. The bank’s lawyers  said the TRO was necessary to prevent a possible bank run by the public and investors who may be alarmed  by the impeachment court’s “arbitrary and whimsical” examination of a foreign currency deposit.

Bank officials said the dollar deposits were absolutely protected by Republic Act No. 6426, or Foreign Currency Deposit Act. The bank’s petition to the high court said it should stop the  impeachment court from “forcing them to commit a crime.”

The Supreme Court’s decision on this issue is a fuse that could ignite a confrontation between the Court and the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.