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).
They’re given to diners (with butter!) before the start of the meal. It’s a nice touch, but then again, Casa Marcos has always been known for their soft yet crunchy pan de sal.
