Skip to content

Corona impeachment court resolution allowing subpoena of bank records

Senate Resolution on the Request for Subpoena of Corona’s Bank Accounts

Santiago’s motion for reconsideration of opening of bank accounts

FULL text of the Senate impeachment court’s Feb. 6 resolution granting the prosecution’s request to subpoena certain bank records of Chief Justice Renato Corona and summon bank officials.

Resolution

This resolves the twin Requests for Issuance of Subpoenae both dated January 31, 2012 filed by the House of Representatives.

On January 31, 2012, the House of Representatives, through its Prosecutors, filed a Request for Issuance of Subpoena seeking to require the President/Manager and/or other authorized officers of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) to testify and produce before the Court the original and certified true copies of the following documents:

a. Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card of the bank account, under the name RENATO CORONA which won P1 Million in the PSBank Monthly Millions Raffle Promo as listed in the Official List of Winners as of March 13, 2008;

b. Monthly Bank Statements from the time of opening to January 2012 of the bank account(s) under the name RENATO CORONA which won P1 Million in the PSBank Monthly Millions Raffle Promo as listed in the Official List of Winners as of March 13, 2008;
c. Other bank accounts including time deposits, money market placements, peso/dollar accounts and the like, that are in the name of RENATO CORONA and/or CRISTINA CORONA.

On the same date, the Prosecution filed another Request for Issuance of Subpoena seeking to require the Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) to testify and to produce before this Court:

the original and certified true copies of the Account Opening Form, Monthly Bank StatementS for January 2005 to December 2010, and December 2011 of Bank Account No. 1443-8030-61 in the name of RENATO CORONA which was referred to in Exhibits “VVV” and “VVV-1” and such other accounts appearing in the name of Renato Corona and/or Cristina Corona.

The Defense opposed both Requests through its Opposition to the Request for Issuance of Subpoena (PS Bank) and Opposition to the Request for Issuance of Subpoena both dated January 31, 2012, which it both filed on February 1, 2012. “The Prosecution filed a Reply dated 2 February to the two (2) Oppositions to the request of issuance of subpoenae. On February 3, 2012, the Prosecution filed its Supplemental Request for Subpoena/Reply, designating therein the particular bank accounts in PS Bank which the Chief Justice allegedly has. For its part, the Defense filed a Consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder.

The Court resolves to grant the issuance of the subpoena but sets specific limits to the same:

In determining whether the production of the documents described in a subpoena duces tecum should be enforced by the Court, it is proper to consider, first, whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific proof; and secondly, whether the proof is prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A general inquisitorial examination of all books, papers, and documents of an adversary, conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may show up, will not be enforced.

It is jurisprudentially accepted rule in this jurisdiction that in order to entitle a party to the issuance of a “subpoena duces tecum” it must appear, by a clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified.

After an examination of the documents sought to be produced in both requests, this Court is of the strong view that the production of documents pertaining to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona should be closely related to the filing of his Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) inasmuch as the funds in said bank accounts may be considered as his personal properties which are required to be properly and truthfully declared in the SALN. The Court takes due notice of the fact that the date of the SALN”s of the Chief Justice are all dated as of the 31st day of December of the years 2002 to 2010. Thus, it is reasonable to issue the subpoena for the production of bank records as of the 31st of December for the years requested.

The Court has had to consider whether or not the issuance of the subpoenae would violate existing laws on secrecy of bank deposits. Under Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the disclosure of information relating to bank accounts in local currency cannot be made except in five (5) instances, namely: a.) upon written permission of the depositor, b.) in cases of impeachment, c.) upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or d.) when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and e. in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). However, it appears that for foreign currency bank accounts, the disclosure may be made only upon written permission of the depositor pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426.

However, the Court has taken due notice of the fact that the Supreme Court has, in several decisions, relaxed the rule on the absolute confidential nature of bank deposits, even foreign currency deposit accounts, in the cases of Salvacion vs. the Central Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997 and China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006, and Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 157294-95, November 30, 2006. The majority is of the view that the present
impeachment proceedings present a valid exception to the general rule on confidentiality of information on bank accounts even for foreign currency bank accounts.

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 subpoenae relating to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona because of the pendency of the present impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the majority votes to grant the Prosecution’s Request for Subpoenae to the responsible officers of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for them to testify and bring and/or produce before the Court documents on the alleged bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona only for
the purpose of the instant impeachment proceedings, as follows:

a) The Branch Manager of the Bank of Philippine Islands, Ayala Avenue Branch, 6th Floor, SGV Building, 6758 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, is commanded to bring before the Senate, at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the original and certified true copies of the account opening forms/documents for Bank Account No. 1445-8030-61 in the name of Renato C. Corona, and the bank’s statements showing the balances of the said account as of December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008,
December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010;
b) The Branch manager (and/or authorized representative) of Philippine Savings Bank, Katipunan Branch, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, is commanded to bring before the Senate at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the original and certified true
copies of the account opening forms/documents for the following bank accounts allegedly in the name of Renato C. Corona, and the documents showing the balances of said accounts as of December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and
December 31, 2010:

089-19100037-3
089-13100282-6
089-121017358
089-121019593
089-121020122
089-121021681
089141-00712-9
089141-00746-9
08914100814-5
089-121-01195-7.

SO ORDERED.
06 February 2012.
(SGD) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

For the whole transcript of the Feb. 6, 20112 proceedings, please click here (VERA Files).

Published inJusticeSupreme Court

102 Comments

  1. Phil Cruz Phil Cruz

    In today’s trial, delays delays na naman.

    It wasn’t the prosecution delaying it. It was the absent Miriam and the Presiding Senator Enrile who was hair splitting again and gradually losing his balls. Parang takot sa SC.

    And Enrile was arguing again with the prosecutors like he was a member of the defense. I know he is trying to speed up things but in so doing he is turning out to be the biggest delaying factor. And the requested subpoenas of the prosecution still hasn’t been issued by the impeachment court.

    Cong. Farinas did it again. Stood up to Enrile in a manner and style he alone could do.

  2. MPRivera MPRivera

    ang pagkukutsabahan nitong mga iginagalang nating opisyales ng gobyerno na walang iniisip kundi baluktutin ang batas ang sumisira sa ating demokrasya. silang mga masalaping pulitiko at mga hinalal ng bayan gayundin ang mga inaakalang sila’y mga henyo and dahilan ng pagguho ng simpleng pangarap ng sinumang karaniwang pinoy na hindi man magtamasa ng masaganang buhay ay nagsisikap sa marangal na paraan upang makaahon sa pagdarahop at kagutuman.

    habang nagkalat ang mga nakikipag-agawan sa mga aso at pusang gala sa pagbubungkal ng makakain sa basurahan ay walang patumangga ang mga katulad ni corona upang itago ang tunay nilang yamang galing sa hindi nila pinagpaguran.

    kung ang nililitis ay isang ordinaryong pinagbibintangang kriminal, WALANG abogadong magkusa upang ipagtanggol at malinis ang abang pangalan. subalit, kapag katulad ng ating kagalang galang na punong mahistrado o sino mang nahihiga sa salapi ay NAGKUKUMAHOG ang mga de kampanilya sa larangan ng batas upang i-depensa SUKDULANG ang batas ng katotohanan na kanilang sinumpaang paiiralin at pangingibabawin (noong sila ay mga estudyante pa lamang) ay SILA mismo ang sasalaula at bumaluktot sa tama at pinagiging tuwid ang mga katiwaliang sapul mula ay bumabalot sa katauhan at pagkatao ng kanilang ipinagtatanggol.

    nakapagtataka ba kung hindi pa man nagsisimula ang paglilitis ay marami na kaagad ang nagkikibit balikat sa paniniwalang ang lahat ng ito ay kahalintulad ng isang teleseryeng hindi pa man sinusulat ang kuwento ay alam na natin ang wakas?

  3. parasabayan parasabayan

    Farinas is right, he did not sign the impeachment of Corona but he realizes that now is the time to seize the opportunity to impeach Corona, if indeed he erred. There will not be another chance until after a year again.

  4. chi chi

    “…the Court has taken due notice of the fact that the Supreme Court has, in several decisions, relaxed the rule on the absolute confidential nature of bank deposits, even foreign currency deposit accounts,…”

    Yun naman pala e, why should Corona be exempted from the sometimes SC’s own ‘relaxed’ rule?

  5. chi chi

    #1. Phil, I always look forward to your observations of the happenings inside the trial court, better than reading online news. Keep it going…. 🙂

  6. vic vic

    This Court should have been Presided by a Judge or Justice of the Higher court or any superior court that is Neutral and has the expertize in conducting the trial..That is why it is required to have a CJ of the SC presiding when he is not the one being tried…In any Trial not decided by the Trial Judge, the Presiding Judge is not part of the deciding Judges as he will be perceived to be bias to whichever side…meaning before it started, the Senate could have invited any higher court Justice to Preside the trial…

    And this Secrecy Law is nothing more than a cover up for the would be Crooks…it is an overlaped to the Privacy Law which already sufficient to guarantee the confidentiality of innocent clients of the banks, and comes this Secrecy Law to be used as protection and now being used by the CJ and the Senators and other Politicians and Public Official, including Senator Miriam are scared that challenging the Law by issuing a Subpoena to disclose the CJ records will open many can of Worms, including those of the members of the Congress…

  7. saxnviolins saxnviolins

    There seems to be merit in the motion of Miriam.

    The cases cited by Enrile are not applicable.

    1. Salvacion vs. the Central Bank of the
    Philippines, G.R. No. 94723 held that RA 6426 was inapplicable to that case only, because of the peculiar circumstances of that case.

    1. Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan was about RA 1405, which is about bank deposits in general.

    2. China Bank v. Court of Appeals (penned by Chico-Nazario, stated that their ruling, allowing examination of the deposits was pro hac vice (only for this instance). It applies only to that case, not to all cases.

    The more recently ruling is that of GSIS v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 189206 June 8, 2011, where the Supreme Court held:

    On the one hand, Republic Act No. 1405 provides for four (4) exceptions when records of deposits may be disclosed. These are under any of the following instances: a) upon written permission of the depositor, (b) in cases of impeachment, (c) upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or, (d) when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and e) in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court. On the other hand, the lone exception to the non-disclosure of foreign currency deposits, under Republic Act No. 6426, is disclosure upon the written permission of the depositor.

    These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.

  8. Phil Cruz Phil Cruz

    Chi, thank you. It’s my wholehearted pro bono service to Ellenville.

  9. humus humus

    From MALAYA’s Ducky Paredes column

    “The prosecution now wants to prove that he has acquired ill-gotten wealth by taking a close look at his bank deposits. To do this, they have asked that the Bank Secrecy Law be waived to allow the prosecution to do its job.
    But what do you know? Even before the Senate could deliberate on the matter, certain quarters have raised fears of bank runs.

    These fears are unfounded. The prosecution wants to subpoena Corona’s bank records to determine whether he has, as they suspect, amassed ill-gotten wealth. How else could he have so much wealth seemingly beyond his lawful income? This is the next logical step after discrepancies were noted in his SALNs.

    I am convinced that the specter of possible bank runs is deliberately being spread by Corona’s camp simply because they do not want his bank deposits to see the light of day.
    These doomsayers, in other words, are spreading the rumors as part of their hidden agenda.

    If he has no huge bank deposits that can only indicate ill-gotten wealth, Corona has nothing to be afraid of. In fact, if it turns out that there is nothing unusual in his bank accounts, doesn’t that practically clear him? The bank run bogey must have been raised only because they do not want the public to know that he may be keeping a huge bank stash out of proportion to his legitimate income as a jurist.”

    Click to see whole article:

    http://www.malaya.com.ph/02082012/edducky.html

  10. chi chi

    #8. That’s the real pro bono service, Phil. 🙂

  11. Phil Cruz Phil Cruz

    All Corona has to do is say ” Yes, show my bank records. I have nothing to hide.” Tapos.

    But that is extremely difficult to do if someone has a lot of unexplainable wealth to explain.

    This is akin to the second envelop during the Erap impeachment. And Miriam is again leading the charge to prevent this thick bank deposit envelop from being opened.

    Didn’t she say during her opening speech of this trial that she wants liberality this time around so as not to have another EDSA 2. ?

    The lady speaks at cross purposes with her own self. This is a case of split brain disease. Jekyll and a Hyde, sirs, are you there inside?

  12. Phil Cruz Phil Cruz

    I doubt though if we would have something akin to an EDSA 2. Corona and fans is nothing akin to Erap and fans.

    But the impact will be felt later come elections. And the impact will be focused only on very specific senators ..who will have shown too much skill in technicalities and legalese.

  13. Phil Cruz Phil Cruz

    Fortunately for the feisty lady she will no longer be around by that time. She’ll be bellowing her lungs out in another court far beyond our shores. Good luck and bon voyage!

  14. Didn’t the joker lead the move to relax bank secrecy law during Erap’s time? I don’t like Erap that much but I think he never got the same treatment as Corona. Whats so special about Corona that these people are willing to treat a sitting president like trash but he gets so much protection?

  15. baycas2 baycas2

    again, a SPECIFIC provision of law trumps a GENERAL provision.

    RA 6426 (specifying foreign currency) trumps RA 1405 (all currencies in general).

    may mga di naniniwala dito subali’t ‘yan ang “tutut”, sabi nga ni Maria Teresa…

  16. [Before anything else, let me express that I am here in defiance of my doctor who has disallowed any and all forms of personal participation in this ongoing political calisthenics. For one, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. Due to the countless pills I have to pop in order for some systems in my body to function as normally as possible I may not be able to stick to cohesive, solid, tight and enligthening arguments. Here goes anyway.]

    The stringent bank secrecey laws in the Phis are the single, most compelling reason why we have the most backward of central banks in the region. Ask yourselves, since we have been under such a regime as early as the 70s, why are we still in this situation? Why haven’t we seen a single European bank of good standing grab the opportunity and say something like “We are expanding our operations in the Philippines and we will start building our branches from initially 30 in the major cities to a hundred within one year?” Nah.

    Our banking industry exists mostly to service financial requirements of the national government to a point that it elbows out private business from access to cheap credit.

    But before I stray further away from the topic at hand, the 2 RAs – 1405 and 6426 – were farthest from the intent of the lawmakers at the time both were crafted as both were products of the Marcos’ genius. Today, the appropriate RA is RA9160/9194. The Anti-money Laundering Act has made A LITTLE MORE transparent what RA1405 and RA6426 has granted those litttle plunderers. It’s about time we took that route.

    I can’t imagine myself cursing anew at Gloria Arroyo for denying us the right to check on her bank accounts just because it was opened in a Euro Account or a big block of Chinese RMB-denominated bonds listed in Shanghai or Bejing.

    As for those who predict a bank run, well, let them fool themselves. Those who plan to do harm to the economy do not do so when the “enemy” is alert and loaded.

    You cannot do a George Soros on Tetangco. Not anymore.

  17. chi chi

    #13. I should rather say good riddance to Miriam, the one with a split brain disease. 🙂

  18. chi chi

    #16. Tongue, I really miss your takes. Ayan sakto pa rin ang ruler mo kahit puro pills ang kinakain mo. 🙂

  19. chi chi

    #16. Anak ng tokwa, e RA 6426 nga ang alibi ni PSB president Garcia why he did not bring Corona’s dollar account deposit to the impeachment hearing.

    Entonces, like his patrona Gloria and Mike ay lulusot din ang thief of justice sa nakawan charges dahil sa mga RAs of bank secrecy law.

  20. Oblak Oblak

    1. More than 20M worth of prime real properties.
    2. Almost 20M bank deposits in Philippine currency in PSBank. Hindi pa kasama yung dollar account at wala pa yung sa BPI.
    3. Now Corona, himself, is asking the Supreme Court, his fellow justices to stop the impeachment proceedings and asking Justices Carpio and Sereno to inhibit. Desperate na yata si Chief.

  21. hawaiianguy hawaiianguy

    It is just right and proper for the Senate to allow the opening of Corona’s wealth in at least two banks. Isn’t it connected to his SALN? Those who argue against it, like Cuevas et al. are only preventing the truth. In the end, Corona’s can of worms will be open to the public. From the looks of it, there is a huge discrepancy between what he declared in his SALN and his bank deposits. Salamagan!

Leave a Reply