Senate urged to void subpoenas on Corona bank, travel records

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

MANILA -- Lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona asked the Senate impeachment court Tuesday to void subpoenas it issued at two commercial banks and an airline, saying they are irrelevant and immaterial.

Lawyer Jose Roy III, in his Motion to Quash Subpoena, said the impeachment court should withdraw its summons to Enrique Javier, vice president for sales of Philippine Airlines (PAL), and Ria Carrion Domingo, the airline's vice president for product loyalty marketing.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Javier and Domingo had initially been summoned to bring and testify on PAL Platinum loyalty cards and the travel records of Corona and his wife Cristina.

The prosecution said the documents were related to Article 3 of the impeachment complaint, or that Corona committed culpable violations of the Constitution on flip-flopping on cases including the Flight Attendants' and Stewards' Association of the Philippines (Fasap) vesus PAL.

But Roy said "nowhere in the language of the above-cited Article 3 does it make any mention of a PAL platinum card in the name of CJ Corona or his wife (or) their patronage of Philippine Airlines."

He said the only connection is the Fasap case.

"Evidently, there is no allegation in the complaint regarding any benefits that CJ Corona obtained from PAL in connection with the Fasap case," Roy added.

Citing the Rules of Court, he said evidence is only admissible when it is relevant to the issue being tried.

Allowing testimony from PAL based on the Platinum Cards and the Coronas' travel records would be "unfair and illogical," the defense said, adding the subpoena would only help the prosecution in its "fishing expedition" against their client.

Corona’s camp also asked the Senate impeachment court to void the subpoenas it issued for records of his accounts at the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Philippine Savings Banks (PSBank).

This was brought about by a subpoena issued on February 13 for "any and all financial instruments offered by the BPI Ayala Avenue branch and PS Bank Katipunan branch" that were under Corona's name. The defense viewed this as an "arbitrary expansion and blatant circumvention of this Honorable Court's own resolution and the strict parameters enunciated therein."

The Senate originally asked for records of specific bank accounts when it issued its February 6 decision to subpoena Corona’s bank records. It said then that it would prohibit "a general inquisitorial examination of all books, papers, and documents...with a view to ascertain whether something of value may show up."

The defense had objected three times to the prosecution's request.

Clearly, the defense said, compelling "the production of any and all documents or accounts in the name of Renato Corona in PSBank and BPI...constitutes a grand inquisitorial examination."

The defense panel also said the subpoena would bring in evidence related to Article 2.4 of the impeachment complaint against Corona.

The Senate already ruled that Article 2.4 "does not contain statements of ultimate fact and must be deemed excluded from the impeachment trial," the defense lawyers said.

The Senate on Monday voted to heed a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court and have stayed away from Corona's dollar deposits at PSBank.

The bank had asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying it may be forced to violate the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, which holds foreign currency deposits "absolutely confidential" without written consent from the depositor.

Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada also filed on Monday a bill amending the law governing foreign currency deposit units in the country.

Under Senate Bill 3120, Estrada introduced amendment to the four-decade-old Republic Act 6426 to include the “order of an impeachment court, or any competent court on cases involving public officials charged with the violation of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” as exception to the confidentiality clause of the law.

The amendment further provides that probable cause be established that the foreign currency deposit involved is directly related to the cause of action in the complaint. (With PNA/Sunnex)