Republic of the Philippines"

Congress of the Philippines

Senate
'; 2 FEB -7 P 2 :42
1;:;','.',
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF
RENATO C. CORONA AS
CHIEF JUSTICE 0.1" THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL
C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI,
ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.
Case No. 002-2011
x--.. ----------... ---., .. -------------------------------... - _ .. __ .. ___ ..... M .. _______ ... _ .. _ .. _ .. ________ ........... __ ________ ___ ...
MOTION TO QUASH
SUBI>OENA AD CAUTELAM
ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona ("C] Corona"), by counsel, and as a measure of
extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waiving
his right to ftle the appropriate legal remedy to question, 'lIDong others, the legality of
these proceedings, respectfully states:
Consolidated Opposition and RejOInder
Prln!' f nf'7
L This Hono(;lble Court's JZlbpoena Dttces Tecum Ad TestijicaJzdulJJ dated 6
February 2012 to (a) the Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (<<BPI"), Ayala
Avenue Branch, and (b) the Manager, tile President or authorized representatives of
Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank), directs them to produce and testify on CJ
Corona's local currency bank accounts (for BPI) and foreign currency bank accounts
(for PSBank),
2, CJ Corona respectfully submits that the S'ttbpoenae issued by this
Honorable Courl wiH allow complainants to support their allegations under paragraph
2.4 of the "Verified" Complaint wherein CJ Corona was "suspected and accused of
having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank
accounts with huge deposits,"
3, The record of this case will show that this Honorable Court, u ~ r o u g h its
Resolution dated 27 January 2012, prohibited any introduction of evidence pertaining
to Par, 2.4 of the "Verified" Complaint, which includes evidence to prove CJ
Corona's suppm(-d bank accOlmts with huge deposits, fOJ: being violative of CJ
Corona's fundamental constitutional right to due process,
4, In fact, this Honorable Court filled that paragraph 2.4 shoLlld be
considered unw!itten, Hence, any evidence relating thereto should be deemed
inadmissible and irrelevant to these proceedings, The introductjon of the subpoenaed
documents relating to C) Corona's bank deposits should therefore not be allowed, lest
his constitutional right to due process be trampled upon,
Consolidated Opposition and &joinder
PafJP ') Ilf 7
5. As regards the alleged dollar bank accounts in 1'S Bank, it should be
emphasized that any infoffi1ation or documents pertaining thereto are absolutely
conGdentiallmder Section 8 ofRA. No. 6426, as amended, which states:
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. - All foreign currency
deposits amhorized under this Act, as amended by I'D No. 1035, as well as foreIgn
currency d"posits authorized under I'D No. 1034, are hereby declared as and
considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written
permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, goyernment official, bureau or
office whether judicial or admmistrative or legislative. or any other entity whether
public or pr;vate; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be
exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court,
legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As
amended by I'D No. 1035, and further amended by I'D l'Jo. 1246, I'mm. Nov. 21,
1977.)
6. It is dear therefore that that no FeD shall be examined upon - even in
cases of impeachment - except upon permission of the depositor. The
Supreme Coun emphasized this rule in [ntcr.gan et ai. P. Court et al.:'
\ctually, this case should have been studied more carefully by all concerned.
The finest legal minds in the country from the parties' respective counsel, the
Provinual Prosecutor, the Department of Justice, the Solicitor General, and the
Court of Appeals - all appear to h7l'Je overlooked a Bil1gle factwhich dictates the
outcome of entire controversy. A circumspect review of the record shows us the
reason. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar depmits; consequently, the
applicable law is nOl Republic AI1 No. 1405 but Ri:j)ublic Act (RAJ No. 6426, known as
the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines," section 8 of wluch provides:
Sec. 8. S ecre0' q/ Foreign CurreJlfj' J)e,tJoJz'/s. All fore(gn currC;llcy deposits
authOrized under thIS Act, as amended by Presic1.ential Decree No.1 035, a.o:; well
foreign .. :urrency depOSit') authonzcd lmder PrcsKlential T)ccree No. 10.14, are
hereby rledar:cd as and considered of absolutely confidential nature and, {'xcept
upon the wntten jfJermlflion qf the depOJltor, in 110 illJtance ,fhul! fuel-foreign curren'!Jl dcpositJ be
eXflminE'd, inquired or /of)k,td into (J1!..y.perJoll, g01
1
emment ifficial hureau or f!ffitC whether
judirial 01' administrative or legidative or /J'!)' other entz'ty )J)hethfJr publtc or p'rivate: PrOVided,
however" that said foreign currcncr deposits shall be exempt from attachment,
or any otJ.1cr order or process of any court, legislative body,
govenunellt agency or any adm111istrat1Vc body whatsOtVcf.[ (ttalics
Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a bingle exception to the
secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon
the written permission of the depositor. InCldentally, the acts of private
respondents complained of happened before the enactment on Septemher 29.
2001 of RA. No. 9160 01herwise known as IheAnti-J\[oucy Laundering Act of 2001.
---_._._--_. -------_.-
1 G.R. No. 128996, 15 F"omary 2002.
Como/idated 0ppoJition and Rejoinder
Pant> " flf7
A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 should have been the
proper case brought against private respondents. Private respondents Urn
and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners' dollar
deposits without the latter's written permission. It does not matter if that such
disclosure was necessary to establish Citibank's case against Dante L. Santos
and Marilou Genuino. Lim's act of disclosing details of petitioners' bank
records regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes,
would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by special
laws, called malum prohibitum. In this regard, it has been held that:
\Xtbtle if IS true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are
not and should not be held ctirnmally rfsponsibk for acts committed by them
wtthout guilty knowledge and crimit1al Or at least evil intent th( courl':; have
always recogi1lzed the power of the ICf,'1slaOlre, all grounds of public pohey and
compel1ed by thf' great of things," to forbid in a hmtted class of
cases the doing of ctrti1in acts, and to rnake theIr COlnrnlSSlon crirP..inal without
rC&lfd to the mtent ()f the doer. xxx [n such cases no judietal authority has the
power to ff:quirf:, in the enforcement of the such knm.'fltdge or motive to be
shown. As \vas said in the case of Sutt I)J. iVkBrayer xxx:
'It is a fmstaken notion that pOSItive, willful intent, as rlisbngulshcd from a
fllcre to violate the cnrninallaw, is an esselJriai1ngredicllt in every criminal
offense. and that where thert' is the absence of such mtent there 15 110 offense; tllis
is especially so as to statutory offenses. \x/hen the statute plainly f()rbids an act to
be done, and it {s done by SOfi1e ti1f lavl lxnplies conclusively the guilty
intent, the offender was hO!lCSr1V tnisu.h::en 2S to the !neaning of the law
he viola tes. When the language is plaul and POSltlVC, and the oftensc is not made to
depend upon the positive. \"IlltiII mtent "nd purpose, norhing is kft to
interpretation.)
1
7. h is worthy to note that the Sa/l'tltilJfi 1). Centml Bank of the Philipp/lie! and
China Banking Cmpof'ation Court of Appea/.l case:; cannot be made to apply to the
instant proceedings.
8. The Salvation case involved a rape case wherein the garnishment of
[()fcign accounts of a foreign transient was sought to satisfy an award of damages. Tt
did not involve an inquiry into the foreign accounts. The Supreme Court found did
not apply the Ct:nfidential nature of foreign currency deposits becausc it believed that
justice would better served if Salvacion's suffering was given compensation especially
since the Am.erican tourist, who is not even a citizen of the Philippines, absconded to
escape criminal prosecution.
2 ErnphaSIS supplied.
3 G.R. No. 94723, 21 August 1997.
4 G.R. No. 14.D687, IB DI'cembe,' 2006.
Con.rolidatfd Opposition and Rrjoinder
Prlfll' 4 nf7
9. In the present case, there is stilI no [mal judgment against petitioner and
he has not been fOlU1d guilty of any crune, much less is he considered a foreign
transient who has been fClUnd to have aggrieved and damaged a Filipino citizen.
10. As regards the case of Chinabank, the Supreme Court found that Jose
Gotianuy, who accused his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee, of stealing, among others,
US dollar deposits, was a CI)payee of the checks subject of said case, and thus a co-
depositor of the account where the subjeci checks were deposited. The Supreme
Court ruled that Jose Gotianuy's request was tantamount to the express pennission of
a depositor under R.A No. 6426.
11. To be sure, the peculiar and special circumstances surrounding the
Salvation and China/Jank cases are not present tn the present llnpeachment proceedings.
Hence, disclosure by the l'v1anager, fhe President or authorized representatives of PS
Bank of CJ Corona's bank aCColUlt/s is thus disallowed and prohibited lmder RA.
No. 6426.
12. J iurthermore, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Intengan, as cited
above, the mere attachment of bank records petiaining to foreign currency deposits to
a complaint -affida vit, without the depositors cunsent, is already considered a criminal
offense punishable by R A. 6426. This is the same illegal act committed by
complainants when they attached the unauthenticated signature cards and Application
and Agreement for Deposit Account of CJ Corona's purported bank aeCOlJ11t/s to
Con.rolidated Ofpo.rition and Rejoinder
PIIOP ., lit 7
their Supplemental Request as Annexes "Ji" to "A-4." Section 10 of R.A. No. 6426,
as amended, reads:
Penal prwisiom. - Any wllfui violation of this Act or any regulation duly
promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon
conviction to an imprisonrnent of not less than one year nor more tban five years or
a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand
pesos, or both such line and imprisonment at the chscretion of the court.
13. Any infonnation or subpoena issued pursuant to such an illegal act
cannot be condoned.
14. From the foregoing
0
it is cleat that the presentation of CJ Corona's bank
accounts should rlGt be allowed. Hence, this Honorable Court's Subpoenae dated __ _
February 2012 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Philippine Savings Bank
should be quashed.
PIUYER
\VHEREFORE, in VlCW of the fOf<:going, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
respectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment Court quash the Subpoenae Duces
'FeC-Jim Ad TeJtijacndum dated 6 February 2U12 a.ddressed to (a) the Manager of the
Bank of l"he Philippine Islands, Ayala l\v':Hue Branch, and (b) the Manager, the
President or authorized representativc;s of the Philippine Savings Bank.
Other reliefs, just or equitable under the Ci1"Cl.1mstanccs, are likewise pnyed for.
Makari fot Pasay City, 7 February 201.2.
Consolidated OjJjJosition ti1lrl Rejoinder
Pnm'r:, IJf7
Copies furnished:
Respectfully Submitted by
Counsel for Chief Justice Renata C. Corona.
JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET.)
PTR No. 2643828, January 4, 2011, Makati
IBP No. 846915 issued January 6, 2011, Manila I
Roll no . .3814 MCLE-exempt
RAMON S. ESGUERRA
IBP No. 09520-Life/Cavite Chapter
PTR No. 264.3942/1-04-11/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 30183
MCLE Compliance: III-0010576-3/25/1O
House of Representatives
Batasan Complex
g,' U
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
Consolidated OppositIOn and Rejoinder
Pant' 7 (){ 7