Feb 9 Senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Feb 9 Senate impeachment court record

1/70

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012 1

AT 2:07 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer . The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Sergio R. Osmea III.

Senator Osmea.

Our Father in heaven, we acknowledge You are the source of all wisdom and knowledge.

We beseech You to continue to bestow upon us much wisdom and discernment in thisImpeachment proceeding, that we might render a righteous and just decision that will

strengthen our institutions, our democracy, and our nation.May You grant us the guidance and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

May we be blessed with courage, fortitude, and determination in arriving at a judgment thatwill be fair and just.

We thank You for the assurance that if we ask anything in accordance with Your will, Youwill listen to and grant our petitions.

We pray all these in the Name of Your Son Jesus, Your Mother Mary,

Amen.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Pasay City


2/70

2 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

______________ *Arrived after the roll call

**On sick leave

The Presiding Officer . The Secretary will please call the roll.

The Secretary, reading:

Senator Edgardo J. Angara .............................................................. PresentSenator Joker P. Arroyo .................................................................. Present*

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano .................................. PresentSenator Pia S. Cayetano .................................................................. PresentSenator Miriam Defensor Santiago ................................................... Absent**Senator Franklin M. Drilon ............................................................... PresentSenator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ...................................................... PresentSenator Francis Joseph G. Escudero ................................................ PresentSenator Teofisto TG L. Guingona III ............................................ PresentSenator Gregorio B. Honasan ........................................................... PresentSenator Panfilo M. Lacson ............................................................... PresentSenator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ...................................................... PresentSenator Loren Legarda ..................................................................... Present

Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ..................................................... Present*Senator Sergio R. Osmea III .......................................................... PresentSenator Francis N. Pangilinan ........................................................... PresentSenator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ....................................................... Present*Senator Ralph G. Recto ................................................................... PresentSenator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr ..................................................... PresentSenator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................ PresentSenator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV .......................................... Present*Senator Manny Villar ........................................................................ Present*The President .................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer . With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares thepresence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty whilethe Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.

The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.


3/70


The Secretary . Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renator C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer . Appearances.

Representative Tupas . Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President. For the House of

Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances.The Presiding Officer . Noted. The Defense.

Mr. Cuevas . For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.

The Presiding Officer . Noted.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

Senator Sotto . Mr. President, before we call on the Prosecution for the continuation of theirpresentation of evidence, I would like to make of record that in compliance with the directive of theCourt, Mr. Pascual M. Garcia, president of the Philippine Savings Bank, with the assistance of counsel,submitted at noon today his compliance and explanation as to why he did not and cannot disclose anyinformation that pertains to the foreign currency deposits. So, Mr. President, I move that we take thisup in caucus on Monday at 11:00 a.m.

The Presiding Officer . Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the motion isapproved.

Senator Sotto . May we now call on the Prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence.

Mr. Cuevas . If Your Honor, please, may we be allowed to make a short manifestation.

The Presiding Officer . The Defense Counsel is recognized.

Mr. Cuevas . Thank you, Your Honor. In yesterdays proceedings, it will be noted that there wasa statement coming from one of the Member-Judges of this honorable Impeachment Court that,allegedly, in the hierarchy of governmental authorities, Your Honor, this Impeachment Court is higherthan the Supreme Court, because allegedly, it is a constitutional body.

Now, I did not rise in protest of that manifestation because I know my limitations as Counsel forthe respondent here. But we can hardly agree, much less concur, with the said pronouncement becauseit is not based on any jurisprudence, nor any provision in the Constitution, nor any law on the matter,Your Honor. So much so that it runs counter with the dictum laid down by the honorable Supreme

Court in the case of Francisco et al. v. House of Representatives , Your Honor. May I be allowedto quote the particular portion, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel urges this Court to exercise judicial restraint on the ground that theSenate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Again, this Court reiterates that the power of judicial review includes the powerof review over justiciable issues in Impeachment proceedings.

I fully agree with this, Your Honor. This pronouncement had never been the subject of anymodification, much less reversal nor any withdraw....

The Presiding Officer. Let us allow the Counsel to finish.


4/70


Senator Drilon . For brevity, may we ask Counsel to submit a memorandum on this so that wecan also read it and study it carefully, because we have our order of business for today, the presentationof the evidence. So, with the permission of the Senate President, may we request Counsel to submita memorandum.

Mr. Cuevas . We will do that but kindly allow us to utilize the three (3) minutes accorded to us,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . The Counsel may proceed.

Mr. Cuevas . When the Supreme Court took cognizance of Francisco et al. v. The House of Representatives , what is involved is also an impeachment proceeding similar to this, Your Honor. Andone of the issues raised is whether our honorable Supreme Court can take cognizance of anyissue involved in that impeachment case. The issue then was whether this Supreme Court, with a grantof powers solely on the House of Representatives, will be subject to any discussion of the exerciseof that power.

The Supreme Court said: Insofar as the propriety, the wisdom, or the exercise of that power isconcerned, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with that. But in the exercise of the power to initiate,Your Honor, there is where the Supreme Courts judicial power come into play has there been noabuse of discretion. If there is, then there is nothing that will prevent the Supreme Court from nullifyingany and all acts committed in violation of the Constitution, Your Honor.

It is not because the Supreme Court is paramount or more superior than the Senate or the Houseof Representatives, but it is because it is duty-bound, has the solemn duty to adjudicate mattersespecially in cases where abuse of discretion had been exercised by any public officer or anybody forthat matter, Your Honor.

Now, I have been asked by fellow professors, how about the announcement made by the

honorable Justice-Member of this Court, Your Honor? I said, with due respect, and my apologies,that is his personal opinion. But the way it looks to me, that is totally ( stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) of any support, legal or jurisprudential, Your Honor. We are not proclaimingat this instance, Your Honor, that the honorable Supreme Court is more paramount than this Body.They are coequal. That is beyond dispute, Your Honor. But if in the exercise of a power, solely grantedto a particular body like the Impeachment Court, then it does not prevent the Supreme Court, pursuantto the exercise of its power for review, to take cognizance of the case.

The Presiding Officer . May I now request Counsel to bear with us and finish his manifestation.

Mr. Cuevas . I will do so, Your Honor.

Since there is no jurisprudence cited, Your Honor, there is nothing that will support that opinion.We believe that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in this particular case holds water andshould be enforced. Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel . Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer . Before I recognize the gentleman from Misamis Oriental, I would like tomake it clear that as far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, the Court, sitting in this trial to hear theevidence and to make the decision, is the full court, the whole collective body known as the Senateof the Republic of the Philippines, composed of members who are all, in their individual capacities,

judges. But the final decision will be rendered by the collectivity, the collective judgment of the


5/70


Members of the Court according to the rules of this Court which is based on the majority. That isdictated by the Constitution and nothing else.

So ordered.

Senator Pimentel . Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer . The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized.

Senator Pimentel . Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I was not able to follow the beginning of Justice Cuevas statement because I just sat downon my chair.

So, did I hear you correctly? Did you quote me, Mr. Justice?

Mr. Cuevas . No, no, no. I did not quote. I was referring to the pronouncement made bythe honorable Supreme....

Senator Pimentel. Who did you quote, Mr. Justice?Mr. Cuevas . I did not quote anybody. I was telling that, in accordance with the records, there

was a statement, Your Honor....What I quoted is the dictum or the jurisprudence laid down in theFrancisco ....I was just reading from the decision.

Senator Pimentel . Ah, okay.

Mr. Cuevas . Senator Pimentel urges the Court in that proceedings, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel. What case is that, Mr. Justice, so that I can also double check? What caseis that?

Mr. Cuevas. This is Franciso Jr. vs....

Senator Pimentel . So, it is a quotation.

Mr. Cuevas . Right, Your Honor.

Senator Pimentel . Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I heard Counsel using the word bankrupt to describe theposition of a Senator-Judge, did I hear correctly?

Mr. Cuevas . That is correct, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. We move that it be stricken off the record. That is being improper anddisrespectful of a Senator-Judge.

The Presiding Officer . Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the remark of the distinguished Counsel for the Defense is stricken off the record.

Mr. Cuevas. I would, therefore, state lacking legal support, jurisprudential or bereft of any legalsupport, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The gentleman from Bukidnon.


6/70


Senator Guingona. Well, Mr. President, the views expressed are mine and mine alone. And Idid not say that we were above. I just said that we are not coequal. And I said that we are notexercising a legislative function, obviously. We are exercising a judicial function, a very specific special

judicial function, whose purpose is to try high public officials so that we can find out whether thesepublic officials should be removed to protect the interest of the State and the people. And in thissphere, this trial court, we are supreme. Therefore, in that context, that is my view. If the distinguishedCounsel believes otherwise, then that is his sole opinion also.

Therefore, Mr. President, I know that this view is not mine and mine alone. It is shared by manyof my colleagues. But the time will come when these opposing views will come to test, and we willawait that time. I submit.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, if I may be allowed just to place on the record, because,again, in future impeachment cases, what we say here will be quoted. What we say here will beconsidered as precedent. Our rulings will be part of jurisprudence being, as I agree with the good

Senator from Bukidnon, we are acting as a judicial body as an Impeachment Court.There have been several citing of cases by the Supreme Court in terms of guidance, Mr. President,

as we proceed with our business. It is humbly submitted that whenever we resort to judicial precedentsand decisions, we will have to recognize that given the unique character of the impeachment proceeding,being sui generis, the natural and inevitable consequence of this uniqueness is that no Supreme Courtruling will ever be solidly foursquare applicable. We cannot strictly adhere to judicial precedents,because to do so would tie our hands as an Impeachment Court, and limit the scope of our jurisdictionand authority.

We are supreme in our jurisdiction as a Court. We are, I must admit, treading on unfamiliar virginterrainand if I may borrow the termwhere no entity has ventured this far before. Hence, while wetread carefully and cautiously, we should not allow ourselves to tread erroneously, and be shackled bySupreme Court ruling if the same is not foursquare solidly grounded.

I reiterate that to strictly adhere to Supreme Court rulings will limit the scope of both our jurisdictionand authority. We must draw from Supreme Court rulings, yes. But we will also draw from othersources and precedents, whether executive, legislative or judicial. And, yes, we will also have to drawfrom various laws and rulings, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, both here and in the UnitedStates, where the impeachment provisions have been borrowed.

And ultimately, if I may borrow from the words of the Supreme Court Justice of the United States,John Marshall, when he said, in so many words that, The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says

it is. In this jurisdiction, the impeachment proceeding is what the Impeachment Court says it is.For the record, Mr. President. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Are you quoting from a book?

Senator Pangilinan. This is the product of my own mind, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, I notice that the gentleman is reading from a book and so I justwanted to know the book so that we can refer to it.

Senator Pangilinan. It is my journal, Mr. President. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. All right. I accept


7/70


Representative Farias. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. the brilliancy of the mind of the gentleman.

Representative Farias. Mr. President, Ginoong Pangulo.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Representative Farias. Rodolfo Farias po.

The Presiding Officer. The distinguished gentleman from Ilocandia.

Representative Farias. Yes, Sir. Kung puwede pong papayagan po kami na magbigay din po kami ng kaunting manipestasyon.

The Presiding Officer. Limang (5) minuto.

Representative Farias. Maraming salamat po.

May I invite your attention to Article IV of the present complaint. Ang sabi po sa Article IV,

Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the Constitution when heblatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order againstthe House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman MerceditasNavarro-Gutierrez. Iyan po ang isang habla namin kay Chief Justice Corona. Kaya ngayon po,kasi ang paniwala po namin dito, iyong usapin po ng impeachment ay talagang inalis po sa korteiyan. Ang ini -invoke po palagi ng Supreme Court is the expanded power of review na iyan po ayipinanganak lamang dito sa 1987 Constitution. Dahil po diyan sa power na iyan ang SupremeCourt ay nanghihimasok po masyado maski po doon sa mga bagay-bagay na maliwanag aynakalagak po sa atin, sa Kongreso po. Marami po iyan.

Ipagpahintulot po ninyo, Ginoong Pangulo, magsabi lamang po ako ng tatlong bagay. Iyongmga electoral tribunals natin napakaliwanag po iyan sa Konstitusyon na ang electoral tribunal angtanging puwede lamang, the sole judge of all elections, qualifications and disqualifications of members.Kaya nga po iyong electoral tribunal, anim po ang Senador, tatlo po ang Justices of the SupremeCourt. Iyan po ang design niyan. Maski sa House of Representatives, ganoon din po. Pero anoang nangyayari? Maski po iyong desisyon ng Senate Electoral Tribunal dinadala po sa KorteSuprema at pumapayag po tayo. Kaya po sila, natural po, hindi na nasusunod ang Kongreso,hindi na po nasusunod ang taumbayan dahil ang taumbayan lamang ang makakapag -decidekung sino ang uupo sa Senado o sa House of Representatives. Maliwanag po sa Konstitusyoniyan. Pero ang Supreme Court nanghihimasok at pinapayagan po natin.

Ganyan din po ngayon dito sa usapin ng impeachment, Ginoong Pangulo. Ang SupremeCourt , common sense po, hindi po sila puwedeng mag- decide sa impeachment dahil sila po ayimpeachable officers. Kaya pinapanakip nila, pinapasikip po iyong karapatan natin na i- impeachsila dahil sila po mismo impeachable officers. Ngayon nangyayari na po dito. Si Chief JusticeCorona nakahabla po dito pero pupunta sa Supreme Court ngayon at pipigilin po tayo dito.

Saan po naman tayo nakakita ng ganoon? Ang Senado po napakaresonable po. Maski poiyong paragraph 2.4 na ipinaglalaban po namin na dapat po puwede dahil nandiyan po sakatawan, sumasaludo po kami, bow po kami sabi po ninyo hindi puwede, we are bound by yourrules. Pero sila hindi po. They are trying this in two courts. Hindi naman po maganda iyon. Pagkanakakuha sila ng pabor dito, thank you, Senador . Pagka natalo sila, punta kami sa SupremeCourt. Hindi naman po pu-puwede iyon dahil ngayon pa lamang po, Ginoong Pangulo, hinihingiko po, let us get an understanding....


8/70


The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lamang mag -react doon sa isang sinabi mo Thank you,Senador. Wala pa naman akong natatanggap na Thank you, Senador.

Representative Farias. Hindi po. Ang ibig ko lamang sabihin, Sir, symbolic lamang po.Thank you sa Korte po ang ibig ko, sorry po. Kasi po kapag nagtata-Tagalog po ako, tayongmga Ilokano from English dinadaan ko sa Ilokano tapos sa Tagalog, kaya minsan lost in words....

The Presiding Officer. Agsao ka iti Ilokanon tapno sigurado ka.

Representative Farias. Apo nagpintasen. Dayta nga talaga a, Sir, a ket talaga ngasumsumyagen a Sir, a ngem....

The Presiding Officer. Walang biro, mag-Tagalog tayo.

Representative Farias. Yes, sir.

The Presiding Officer. Iyan ang ating wika, wikang Pilipino.

Representative Farias. Yes, Sir. Kaya humihingi po ako ng tawad dahil lost in translation

kung minsan.The Presiding Officer. Pareho tayong Ilokano kaya medyo pilipit ang ating Tagalog.

Representative Farias. Nawawala po iyon sa translation minsan. Well, anyway, Sir, angpoint ho namin dito is we should get already an undertaking from the respondent or defendant thatthey will abide by the ruling of this Senate body sitting as an Impeachment Court. Dahil , Sir, hahaba

po ito , ancillary order lang po dinadala na sa Supreme Court. Papaano po, ganoon na lang ba angSupreme Court, ii- invoke nila ? Subpoena lang po dadalhin nila sa Supreme Court. At iyongSupreme Court naman po , I will be very surprised if the 188 complainants here in the event that theSupreme Court restrains this Honorable Senate na hindi po nila ii- impeach iyong mga mag-i- issue

po noon dahil maliwanag na panghihimasok na po iyon . Dahil doon sa Article IV lamang, nasaKomite lang po ng House of Representatives, nakialam ang Supreme Court.

Iyon po ang isang dahilan na nag -impeach sila dito . Kaya dito po, iyon po ang ibig kongsabihin , Sir, nuong we are one here. Because if we look back at the 1973 Constitution po, iyongBatasang Pambansa, dahil unicameral po noon, siya mismo ang nag-i -impeach, siya ang nagdidinig,siya rin po ang nagdi-desisyon, pare-pareho pong body iyan, iisa po iyan. Kaya nga po ditongayon, iyon ang point ko, Sir, that this is the Congress of the Philippines, because no impeachmentproceedings will ever be undertaken without these two Houses of Congress cooperating: first, the oneaccusing; the other, trying and hearing the case all on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

So, our position po, dahil sabi nga po ni Senator Pangilinan, ito pong mga sinasabi natin dito

will govern future impeachment cases. So, ipinapaliwanag po lamang namin na kung puwede po,hinihingi po namin sa House of Representatives, with full authority of the House of Representatives,that we maintain that when it comes to impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court cannot meddlebecause that has been excluded from their power, Mr. President.

Thank you po, kagalang-galang

The Presiding Officer. Darating po ang panahon na itong inyong Senado, binubuo ng 23ngayon na kaisipan, ay papasyahan iyan at kung ano ang pasya na iyan ay bunga ngnakakarami sa amin. Kaya iyan po ang batayan ng lahat ng desisyon nitong Senado ninyo nangayon ay nakaupo bilang hukom upang dinggin ang kaso ng Kataas-taasang Mahistrado ng

Pilipinas at magbibigay ng pasya sa mga ebidensya na ihaharap dito sa hukuman na ito .


9/70


Bawat isa sa amin po ay hukom pero ang magpapasya po ay hindi isa lamang, o dalawa,o tatlo, kung hindi ang kabuuan po ng Senado sa ilalim ng botohan po iyan. At sang-ayon saating Saligang Batas, iyong nakasakdal sa impeachment case ay kailangan na husgahan ng 16,hindi kukulang sa 16 na senador. Kaya, iyan po ang hukom. Hindi sinuman sa amin na mgasenador kundi iyong 16 po na senador ang maghuhusga dito sa kasong ito. Kaya, huwagkayong mababahala at alam po namin ang aming tungkulin sa bayan .

Representative Farias. Wen , Sir. Sinabi ko lang po iyong aming panig dito naman po saHouse of Representatives as the initiator of impeachment proceedings. Dios ti agngina, ApoPresidente .

The Presiding Officer. Dios ti agngina kenka .

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, I move that we terminate the privilege hour and proceed with

the trial.

The Presiding Officer. Privilege hour is terminated. Proceed with the trial.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, Mr. President, we are not yet done with our witness,Mr. Pascual Garcia, because we are awaiting the decision of this Honorable Tribunal on his explanationregarding the foreign currency accounts of Renato Corona. So, we want to suspend our directexamination until Monday and we want to present now, we want to call on our next witness.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. Mr. President, we have a few clarificatory questions on Mr. Garcia. If the

witness is available, to save time, we would like to raise these questions.

Representative Tupas. In that case, Mr. President, we will call our witness, Mr. Garcia.

The Presiding Officer. Please bring the witness, Mr. Garcia, of the PSBank to go back to thewitness chair and to answer questions.

The trial is suspended for one minute to wait for the witness.

The trial was suspended at 2:36 p.m.

At 2:36 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed.

Senator Drilon. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

Mr. Garcia, when were you first informed of the subpoena which was addressed to your Katipunanbranch manager?

Mr. Garcia. Sir, I was informed of the subpoena the day before we came for the hearingyesterday. We received it, the resolution itself, late in the afternoon.

Senator Drilon. All right. You, therefore, were informed of the documents requested by this Courtthrough that subpoena.


10/70


Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, we were.

Senator Drilon. And you are personally familiar with the specifics of the accounts of Chief JusticeCorona with your bank, both past and present.

Mr. Garcia. Presently, as of now, yes, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. You are familiar because you examined it after you received the subpoena.

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. So that you reviewed the records and made consultations with your otherofficers insofar as the documents requested in the subpoena are concerned, considering that you arethe president and would have no personal knowledge of all of these.


The Presiding Officer. By the way, who is the manager of your Katipunan branch?

Mr. Garcia. The manager of our Katipunan branch, Your Honor, is Ms. Annabelle Tiongson.The Presiding Officer. Annabelle Tiongson.


The Presiding Officer. And she talked to you?


The Presiding Officer. And asked you to appear for her?

Mr. Garcia. I talked to her, Your Honor, and I...

The Presiding Officer. Because I noticed that under the subpoena, it was the branch managerwho was requested to appear here, of course, and/or authorized representative competent to testify.Can you tell us why the branch manager was not able to come here personally to testify?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the branch manager, after examining all of the possibilities and therecriminations, the branch manager was made to understand all of these possible liabilities. She is alady, Your Honor. She, of course, was very stressed about the circumstances. But I...

The Presiding Officer. She was stressed. Why stressed?

Mr. Garcia. Stressed because of the potential liabilities, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Because of the?

Mr. Garcia. The potential liabilities.

The Presiding Officer. What liabilities?

Mr. Garcia. The liability of imprisonment if she would disclose, because the law, at least, as weunderstand it, is very clear. So, I recognize this and I told her that, I offered to her and she accepted....

The Presiding Officer. Are you trying to tell this Court that the manager of your KatipunanBranch saw you and expressed her reluctance to appear here to answer the subpoena issued by this

Court because of her fear of a possible criminal liability?


11/70


Mr. Garcia. No, Sir. She did not say that in any way. She just expressed the concern andI told her that....

The Presiding Officer. No, no, I just want to know the reason she was not personally the onethat was allowed by the bank to come here rather than and instead sent the president of the bank. Wasit because the manager of your Katipunan Branch was afraid to appear before this Court because of

the possible criminal liability involved in whatever she may say in this Court?Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No? So, what was the reason given by her to you for her not to answerthe subpoena?

Mr. Garcia. I told her I am prepared to answer the Court and I am prepared to assume anypotential....

The Presiding Officer. No, no, I am asking about what the manager told you as a reason whyshe herself would not come before this Court to answer the subpoena.

Mr. Garcia. She did not express that, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. She did not say anything.

Mr. Garcia. She did not say anything. I saw the fear and the concern on her and I told her I willtake the....

The Presiding Officer. In other words, she went to you, told you about it, and you said, No.Do not go, and I will take over the case and I will assume the responsibility of explaining the positionof the bank.

Mr. Garcia. I told her I will assume the responsibility of explaining all of this. I asked specifically

for an authorization from her and she did give me that authorization, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. The President Pro Tempore.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. With the permission of Senator Drilon.

Mr. Pascual, how do you describe Tiongson? Is she a little lady?

Mr. Garcia. I cannot really say what the definition of a little lady is. But from my ownperspective, she is not little, she is tall.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Thank you.

Senator Drilon. Can I now proceed, Sir?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Senator Drilon. Let us go to Account No. 089-121020122. In yesterdays hearing, youmentioned that the account balance as of 2009 is zero. As of the previous year, however, you said thatthe account did not exist. That is in 2008. Therefore, is it correct to say that the account was openedin 2009?


Senator Drilon. All right. Is it our understanding that under your procedure, before you can open

an account, there is a requirement of a minimum deposit?


12/70


Mr. Garcia. For an initial account, as a matter of practice, yes, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. Yes.

Mr. Garcia. But we....

Senator Drilon. Just answer.


Senator Drilon. Now, and this would constitute the starting balance?

Mr. Garcia. This will constitute the starting balance but this does not....

Senator Drilon. Just answer the question, please. This would constitute the starting balance.


Senator Drilon. All right. So, what was the starting balance in Account No. 089-121020122which was opened in 2009?

Mr. Garcia . I am very sorry, Your Honor. We have prepared the information and the documentsas based on the subpoena that was required of us. And so, we presented the information as required.

Senator Drilon . You have no information as of now on the amount of the opening account?

Mr. Garcia . I have no information as of now, and I do believe that it is not covered bythe subpoena.

Senator Drilon . Can you please stop making your own opinions? The subpoena was issuedby this Court.

Mr. Garcia . Yes, I am sorry.

Senator Drilon . Are you willing, can you bring the information as to the opening amount onAccount No. 089-121020122 in the next hearing?

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, we will bring the documents that we are instructed formally by thisCourt by a subpoena. We cannot....

Senator Drilon . May I request....This witness, Your Honor, is a little smarter than what wethink he is.

The Presiding Officer . You answer the question.

Senator Drilon . He is saying that he will not answer any question not included in the subpoena.So, we request that a subpoena be issued for this witness to bring these documents we requested.

The Presiding Officer . Mr. Witness, the Presiding Officer would like to inform you that pleaselisten to the question and answer the question asked of you. And be sure that you are telling us thetruth, nothing but the truth. Because if you do not, and you are found out to make any statement thatis not true here in this Court, there are sanctions involved. So, I am just telling you that, so that youwill know the procedure.

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I explain the context of my replies?

The Presiding Officer . Proceed.


13/70


Senator Osmea . Mr. President, may I be recognized? Just a point of clarification with theindulgence of Senator-Judge Drilon.

The Presiding Officer . Proceed.

Senator Osmea . I was not clear yesterday. Did you present the opening documents for the

bank account, the master document that you said?Mr. Garcia . Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Osmea . And do we have a copy of it?

Mr. Garcia . Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Osmea . So, therefore, would the initial deposits for the subsidiary accounts or thefollowing accounts be also included in the master document?

Mr. Garcia . It will not be, Your Honor, because as subsidiary documents....

Senator Osmea . Thank you, Mr. President.Senator Drilon . Mr. Witness, did you not mention, in answer to my previous question, that you

examined all of these documents before you came here, the documents mentioned?


Senator Drilon . Did you not examine the document pertaining to the opening account of AccountNo. 089-121020122?

Mr. Garcia . I did, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon . You did.


Senator Drilon . So, how much is the amount as an initial deposit appearing in this account?

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, the subpoena does not stipulate and require me to present that. Andmy....

Senator Drilon . Well, this Judge is asking you the question. You said you are familiar with thisaccount because you examined it, and therefore, you are presumed to know the opening amount. Howmuch is the opening amount? May I ask the Senate President to compel this witness to answer.

The Presiding Officer . Answer the question.

Mr. Garcia . Right now, Your Honor, I cannot recall it exactly.

Senator Drilon . Approximately, how much?

The Presiding Officer . Would your manager know?

Mr. Garcia . Our manager would know if she would refer to the records, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . She knows.

Mr. Garcia . I beg your pardon.


14/70


The Presiding Officer . The manager of your Katipunan branch would know the answer to thequestion of the gentleman from Iloilo.

Mr. Garcia . I would assume so, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . All right.

Senator Drilon . So, in the next hearing, can you produce this document?

Mr. Garcia . Yes, Your Honor, if it is required by the Court.

Senator Drilon . My goodness.

The Presiding Officer . No, better still produce the manager of the bank.

Senator Ejercito Estrada . Mr. President, with the permission of Senator Drilon, if I may berecognized?

The Presiding Officer . Yes.

Senator Ejercito Estrada . I think the President of PSBank is incompetent to answer all thequestions of Sen. Frank Drilon since he is not the manager of PSBank.

Senator Drilon . He says he examined the documents.

Senator Ejercito Estrada . May I move that we subpoena the bank manager of PSBank Katipunan, Mr. President? I reiterate the subpoena.

Mr. Garcia . The branch manager, Sir, is Annabelle Tiongson.

Senator Ejercito Estrada . Yes, I know.

Mr. Garcia . May I explain why...You know, the secrecy of bank deposits act as we...

Senator Drilon . Please, again, do not lecture to this Court. You are a witness and you aresupposed to answer questions.

The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question. We know the law. 1405 is the Bank Secrecy Law.


The Presiding Officer . And Republic Act No. 6426 is the Foreign Exchange Deposit Law. So,answer the question of the Senator-Judge from Iloilo.

Mr. Garcia . If I answer the question, Your Honor, I believe I will be violating the law if it is notcovered by a subpoena.

The Presiding Officer . Are you invoking your right to not incriminate yourself?

Mr. Garcia . Yes, Your Honor, because I think it will be violating the secrecy bank deposits.Because the secrecy bank deposits specifies...

Senator Drilon . Mr. President, the witness said he is going to incriminate himself because thisdocument is not covered by the subpoena. That is most laughable, Mr. President.

Anyway....


15/70


The Presiding Officer . But you said before that you came here to assume full responsibility forthe bank. And that is why you took over from the person subpoenaed and that is the bank managerof your Katipunan branch. So, if you cannot answer the questions competently, then this Court willbe compelled to require the presence of the person we subpoenaed and that is the manager of yourKatipunan branch.

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, we only bring documents that are required as per the subpoena. So,that is what we prepare for and that is what is...

The Presiding Officer . Just a minute one by one.

Senator Drilon . Mr. President, I still have the floor, if I may be allowed to finish just one morequestion or one more item.

The Presiding Officer . With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, this gentleman fromIlocos Norte.

Senator Marcos . Thank you, Mr. President, and with your indulgence, Senator Drilon, I would

just like to ask a simple question. Are we expanding the scope of the required documents from thebank? Because if I remember in our discussions and I do not think I am giving away any confidenceshere, we decided only to ask for the year-end balances specifically because the SALN is required tobe based on the year-end balances and whatever the balances maybe between the Decembers of eachyear is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the year-end balance in the SALN matches thedeposits that have been declared. So, just as aI guess we were using the term housekeeping, arewe now expanding the scope of the subpoena to include opening balances and other balances besides,over and above the December 31 of each year.

Again, we came to that decision because as you can see, in the top of the SALN it says, As of December 31 of whatever year it is. So, perhaps, we are changing the way that we are examining

this but I just bring it up, Mr. President, because that is what we agreed upon and decided upon.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer . The gentleman from Ilocos Norte is correct.

Senator Drilon . All right. So, can I now ask as a Senator-Judge that a subpoena be issued forthe witness, as he has agreed to bring the opening balance of Account No. 089-121020122, if onlyfor this Senators knowledge, information in the process of his forming a judgment in this particular case.

The Presiding Officer. Who is going to be subpoenaed, the bank manager or the bank President?

Senator Drilon. The branch manager, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The bank manager, so ordered. The Clerk of Court can issue thesubpoena.

Senator Drilon. Can I continue on just one more point?

The Presiding Officer. Only for this purpose.

Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor.

Can I continue on another subject, Your Honor?


16/70


The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Senator Drilon. Now, for Account No. 089-121017358, you earlier testified that the accountbalance as of December 31, 2009 is zero. When asked by the Presiding Officer whether you knowwhen the account was opened, you initially said, No.

However, later on, when the Presiding Officer asked you, why that account existed if it was notopened at all, you answered as follows: It was opened, Your Honor, sometime in December 2009.That was your answer.

Now, how much was the initial deposit when it was opened in December 2009?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, we have not been instructed or required to presentthat information, so we are not prepared to present that information.

Senator Drilon. Then, I move that the Court issue a subpoena to the branch manager of Katipunan Branch of the PSBank, in order to bring the opening account documents including the initialdeposit for Account No. 089-121017358.

The Presiding Officer. I will have to ask the Senate as an Impeachment Court to rule on thisbecause the tendency of the question is to expand what was agreed upon in the caucus in a decisionof the Impeachment Court and we want to know whether we are going to change the ruling that weissued beforehand.

With the permission of the gentleman from Iloilo, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, magandang hapon .

I will ask my questions later on, just a point of information and to clarify the matter. I have herea copy of the subpoena. May I ask the lawyer of the witness to also hand him a copy of the subpoena.

Mr. President, can I read the last part of the first paragraph?

The Presiding Officer. Please.

Senator Cayetano (A). It says, And to bring with you the original and certified copies of theopening documents for the following bank accounts. Then, there is a list of bank accounts and thenin the name of Renato C. Corona, and bank statements showing year-end balances for said accountas of December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Therefore, opening documents were included inour subpoena and I would think it is normal that opening documents would include initial deposit. So,it is included, in fact, in our subpoena.

Senator Drilon. Dapat naman po huwag tayong magtago dito. Huwag nating gamitin iyungsinasabing hindi kasama sa subpoena iyan. Hindi namin sasabihin iyan. Ito po ang hinahanapnating katotohan. Kaya, Mr. Witness, kung pupuwede lang dalhin mo nang sarili mong kusa ito

pong mga dokumentong ito, otherwise, we will be compelled to ask that the branch manager of Katipunan come around because she was the one subpoenaed.

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, we did present the opening documents of the pesoaccounts yesterday, and there are other documents actually that pertain to dollar accounts which we

Senator Drilon. This is the peso account.

Mr. Garcia. This is the peso account, Sir.


17/70


Senator Drilon. Yes. So it is not covered by your exception?


Senator Drilon. So, you can bring the documents?

Mr. Garcia. I understand and I am made to understand that any disclosure actually has to bemade on the basis of the decision of the the Impeachment Court for peso accounts and this comes froma subpoena. And if I will disclose anything beyond that, it is not covered by the order of theImpeachment Court

Senator Drilon. All right. Anyway

Mr. Garcia. and we will be open towe will be violating the law on confidentiality of deposits.

Senator Drilon. Please stop lecturing on the Court, Mr. Witness.

The Presiding Officer. The subpoena addressed to the branch manager says, Acting on thesubpoena request for subpoena dated and filed on 3 February 2012 by the House of Representativesthrough its Prosecutors, you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the Philippines at2:00 oclock in the afternoon of the 8 th day of February 2012 and everyday thereafter until the purposealleged in the said supplemental request for subpoena shall have been fulfilled at the Senate SessionHall, Senate Building, GSIS Headquarters, Financial Center, Pasay City, then and there to testify yourknowledge in the case which is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives has impeachedthe Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and to bring with you the original and certified true copyof opening documents for the following bank accounts: And then, the bank accounts are mentioned,in the name of Renato C. Corona and the bank statements showing the year-end balances for the saidaccounts as of December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31,2010. So the Chair rules that the question of the gentleman from Iloilo is correct in accordance with

the subpoena.Senator Drilon. So if you do not have these documents, the subpoena orders you to bring these

documents and if you do not have it now you bring it in the next hearing.


Senator Drilon. I am sorry.


Senator Drilon. All right. Now, let us go to just one more topic and I am through. This isthe matter of the Know Your Client procedure. I assume you are aware with this as president of the bank?


Senator Drilon. The KYC?


Senator Drilon. And that, of course, being a big bank you adhere to this?


Senator Drilon. And you ensure that the client is properly identified?


18/70



Senator Drilon. And the client here is Renato C. Corona?


Senator Drilon. You established on record in these accounts that you have presented here thatthe true identity of the client based on official documents is Renato Corona?


Senator Drilon. Did you determine his trade or economic justification?


Senator Drilon. And what was it?

Mr. Garcia. The justification for the account opening

Senator Drilon. First, what was his trade?

Mr. Garcia. His trade, Your Honor?

Senator Drilon. Yes.

Mr. Garcia. He is a justice of the Supreme Court.

Senator Drilon. And economic justification? What was his justification for opening the account?

Mr. Garcia. I believe it was income and investments.

Senator Drilon. Sorry?

Mr. Garcia. Income and investments.

Senator Drilon. Income and investments.

Mr. Garcia. That was the source of the

Senator Drilon. All right. Now, you mentioned that there were dollar accounts. Did you ask him where the dollars came from?

Mr. Garcia. I did not mention anything with respect to dollar accounts. The only thing that I havedeclared to the body, Your Honor, is that I cannot present anything on five accounts because they aredollar deposit accounts.

Senator Drilon. That is correct. They are dollar deposit accounts.


Senator Drilon. Now, when these dollar accounts were opened, did you ask him where thedollars were coming from as part of your due diligence?

Mr. Garcia. I cannot disclose, Your Honor. With due respect, anything with respect to dollaraccounts because they are covered by FCDU Law.

Senator Drilon. Again, you are saying that this is covered by the


19/70


Mr. Garcia. The FCDU Law which we explained yesterday.

Senator Drilon. But is this not part of the Know Your Client rules?

Mr. Garcia. For all accounts, we have Know Your Client rule.

Senator Drilon. That is correct. And apart of the Know Your Client rule is that you ask whatis his trade, his occupation, the source of the amount being deposited. And in this particular case, didyou ask him where the dollars were coming from?

Mr. Garcia. We did not present anything on the dollar accounts.

Senator Drilon. No, you mentionedI am not saying that you presented. You did mention thedollar accounts were existing.

Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.

Senator Drilon. No. You said that. These numbers correspond to dollar accounts.

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.Senator Drilon. So, I am asking you now: When you opened these dollar accounts, did you ask

him where the dollars were coming from?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, any

The Presiding Officer . What do you want to do?

Mr. Garcia. May I askYour Honor, can I consult my counsel, please?

The Presiding Officer . You want to consult your counsel?

Senator Drilon. Okay, go ahead.

The Presiding Officer . Go ahead.

Mr. Garcia. Please, Your Honor, I respectfullyI am sorry that we cannot disclose anythingwith respect to dollar accounts of anyone.

Senator Drilon. All right. I will not tarry further because you have refused. We can resolvethat later.

Just going back to the peso account, did you determine if the amounts deposited were commensurateto the financial capacity or income of the depositor as part of Knowing Your Client rule?

Mr. Garcia. At the time of the account opening, that determination was made of the pesoaccounts.

Senator Drilon. Of the peso accounts.

Mr. Garcia. Of the peso accounts.

Senator Drilon. Who asked the questions?

Mr. Garcia. Those thatI am sorry, Your Honor. The questions were asked by the officers of the branch, whoever attended to the party.


20/70


Senator Drilon. All right. So, we will ask that of the branch manager because you yourself didnot ask these questions.


Senator Drilon. Well, we reserve our questions on the branch manager when she appears.

The Presiding Officer . Are you requiring the appearance of the branch manager?

Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . All right. The branch manager is required to appear before this Courton Monday, February 13, 2012 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. What is the name of your branchmanager?

Mr. Garcia. Annabelle Tiongson, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . Annabelle Tiongson.


The Presiding Officer . All right. Kindly notify her since you are the boss of Annabelle Tiongson.You bring her to this Court at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of February 13, 2012 to testify in this Courtregarding the accounts involved.


The Presiding Officer . All right. So ordered.

Mr. Cuevas . Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer . The gentleman from Cebu.

Senator Osmea . Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Garcia, pag binasa ho ninyo ang subpoena, ang nakasulat po ad testificandum at sakaduces tecum. So, you are not allowed to limit, provide the Court with an answer that says you arelimited merely to the information on the documents that you are asked to bring because you are alsoasked to testify as to your personal knowledge. Is that clear?

Mr. Garcia. That is clear, Your Honor.

Senator Osmea . All right. Ngayon, iyong practice sa bangko magdedeposito po ang isangtao ng pera pagkatapos, medyo malaki, mababa naman iyong binabayaran na interest so nagsi-

shift iyan. You have other financial instruments, certificates of deposit, UITF or Unit Investment TrustFunds, et cetera. So , iyong original subpoena po na ni- request ng mga prosecutors sa Senate ,kasama po iyan . However, the Senate simplified it, merely to mention bank accounts.

Ngayon po, will you confirm that there are other instruments that are available in your bank whichcan give higher yields than a simple savings account or current account?


Senator Osmea. Ano po iyon?

Mr. Garcia. It could be peso time deposits, you know, prime time deposits, five-yeartime deposits.


21/70


Senator Osmea. All right. So, ang ibig ninyong sabihin , if I open an account at your bank and,let us say, I deposited five million on December 1, siguro ko po on December 10 nanganak na hoiyon at iyong five million sasabihin ho ninyo sa akin , Alam mo, sayang naman , why do you notshift four million of your current account balance to a UITF or Unit Investment Trust Fund or to acertificate of deposit yielding four or five percent higher than what you would normally earn under asavings deposit? Is that more or less an accurate story?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, in terms of concept, Your Honor. But just to be clear about it, we do notoffer UITF funds.

Senator Osmea. What do you offer? You are a thrift bank so you are not allowed to offerUITF funds?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.

Senator Osmea. You offer CDs?


Senator Osmea. Time deposits?

Mr. Garcia. Time deposit, Your Honor.

Senator Osmea. All right. So, kaya ho kulang ho iyong information na sinulat po sa subpoenasapagkat the shifting of funds could have been done before December 31st and yet under the law, thatwould be assets owned by the depositor, di ba?


Senator Osmea. All right.

So, Mr. Senate President, I hereby move that any and all accountstime deposits, certificate of deposits and any such financial instruments offered by the Philippine Savings Bank be herebysubpoenaed because it belongs to that category of deposits in the bank that this Court was trying tofind information on.

I so move, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. In connection with what accounts?

Senator Osmea. If you want to be more limited, in connection with the 10 accounts, monies thatwere taken out of the 10 accounts and merely shifted to another type of deposit also with PhilippineSavings Bank or PSBank.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Please issue the subpoena.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, may we ask even for one or two minutes, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, we want, at least, to beeducated and be informed more accurately, Your Honor, in connection with the scope of Paragraph17 of the Rules of the Senate Impeachment Court, Your Honor, which says, If a Senator wishes toput a question to a witness, he/she shall do so within two minutes. A senator may likewise put a questionto a prosecutor or to counsel...He/she may also offer a motion of order, in writing which shall be

submitted to the Presiding Officer.


22/70


My question, Your Honor is, does this allow cross-examination by a member of this Court, ormerely clarificatory questions so that we will be guided accordingly, Your Honor? Because we havenoticed that practically the question borders on cross-examination.

The Presiding Officer. The practice in this Court that I can remember whether it was theimpeachment of a president or in this case, the Chair could not control the manner by which any

member of this Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court how they will frame their questions.Mr. Cuevas. So, the question, Your Honor, is that it may be in any form, it may be for clarification

or it may be cross-examination, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Correct. It could test the credibility of the sitting witness.

Mr. Cuevas. I see. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, first I would like to address the Defense Counsel.

Justice Cuevas, do not worry, when it is your turn, you will appreciate the questions of theSenator-Judges.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. I will never be a senator because I cannot even be a barangay captain.

Senator Cayetano (A). You will never know po . But you will appreciate our questions at theright time ho because we will get to the bottom of all of these and we will find the truth.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. Witness, after two days po kayo dito , I still believe you are in goodfaith and I am trying to understand completely where you are coming fromprotecting the banking

industry, protecting your employees and protecting your depositors. And I hope through thesequestions you would also come to understand the position of this Court.

Unang-una po nuong nakuha ninyo yung subpoena, pinaliwanag din ho ba sa inyo yung basiso yung Resolution na nilabas namin na pinapayagan yung subpoena na ito ?


Senator Cayetano (A). Pinaliwanag ho ba sa inyo yung interpretasyon namin nung mgabatas, kasama po yung sa Salvacion case?


Senator Cayetano (A). Ano po ang pagkapaliwanag sa inyo ?

Mr. Garcia. With respect to the Salvacion case, Sir?

Senator Cayetano (A). Di ba ho sa 1405 we are all very clear na pag impeachment cases, pwede kayong mag -testify on peso accounts. So wala sinuman sa depositors ninyo ang aangalduon dahil alam nila yun ang batas.

Mr. Garcia. Alam ho nila iyon ang batas if it is so ordered by an Impeachment Court.And that is why we have to be very, very careful that we only provide information that is orderedby the Court and nothing else. And the order of the Court in our particular case was the subpoena,Your Honor.


23/70


Senator Cayetano (A). Okay po, we will go to that later. But sa 6426, sa dollar accounts,ang interpretasyon po ninyo , there are no exceptions except pag may pirma po yung depositor,tama po ba?


Senator Cayetano (A). But in our Resolution, we said that there is the Salvacion case. Was thisexplained to you?


Senator Cayetano (A). Paano po ang pagkaintindi o pagkapaliwanag sa inyo?

Mr. Garcia. The Salvacion case, Your Honor, is a case of garnishment. The account holder wasa foreigner, whose name I could not recall. He was accused of rape and he had raped a young girland there were damages and a garnishment order was issued by a court on a dollar deposit accountto cover.

Senator Cayetano (A). Opening the account and then garnishment also? Kasi you cannot look into the accountyou cannot garnish it without looking kung magkano ba yung laman, di ba ?

Mr. Garcia. I am not familiar with the circumstances of that.

Senator Cayetano (A). Napaliwanag ho sa inyo yung basis ng Salvacion case? Yung basisnung decision.

Mr. Garcia. The basis of the Salvacion case was to execute the judgment of a court and thegarnishment was to provide the family or the child actually with the.

Senator Cayetano (A). That was the objective and that was the decision. But what was thebasis, the legal basis to allow that? S amantalang yung batas napakaklaro, hindi pwede .

Mr. Garcia. I am very sorry, Your Honor, but the exact legal basis, I cannot recall.

Senator Cayetano (A). Yes, it is okay. That is precisely the point. Ang sinabi sa case na iyon,in the interest of justice. At sinabi nila in -interpret ng Supreme Court yung batas na the makersof the law could not have intended injustice.

So in this case na isang foreigner ni-rape ang isang Pilipina , hindi ba napaka- injustice na hindimo pwedeng would not give so much injustice na hindi mo pwedeng buksan yung account at hindi

pwedeng pambayad sa kanya yung dollars na iyon even if the Dollar Account Law, na that law saidhindi pwede.

So in this case na parang ang mga if you say, yung mga corrupt sa ating bansa ayginagahasa ang Pilipinas, hindi ba injustice na ang Impeachment Court ay hindi pwedeng buksanang accounts nila using the same logic the Supreme Court used?

Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor, but I cannot relate that to that particular case. Becausein the Salvacion case, Your Honor, there was a judgment made by the Court that he is liable fordamages because of this. And, therefore, a court order was issued to garnish, not to look at theaccounts or anything else but to get the deposits on the account to compensate the victim who had beengiven and adjudged compensation by the court. And this particular foreigner was hiding behind, youknow, the FCDU Law. There was already a conviction, Your Honor. He had been convicted of rape.He had been assessed to be liable for financial damages and so the court made the ruling that in that

particular case justice had to be served, and his garnishment, his deposit accounts were garnished.


24/70


Senator Cayetano (A). I appreciate your appreciation of the case. What I am saying is that,iyan ay dinebate na namin, at nakita namin na iyong dahilan ng Supreme Court magbigay ngexemption at hindi sinunod iyong batas na iyon o gumawa sila ng exemption , iyon din ang dahilannamin.

So the next question I would like to ask you, iyong bangko ba na iyon na pinayagan niya ma-

garnish at binuksan niya iyong account, nakasuhan ba iyong mga empleyado nila?Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I cannot

Senator Cayetano (A). Sasagutin ko po para sa inyo, hindi po. You do not know.

Mr. Garcia. I do not recall. I do not know.

Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Hindi sila nakasuhan dahil korte ang nag- order sa kanila naibigay iyong detalye na iyon at payagan na ma-garnish iyong amount na iyon because the SupremeCourt made that ruling. In the same manner, do you honestly think if the Impeachment Court ordersyou to come out with the details of this dollar account, do you honestly think that any case will fall upon

any of your employees, upon yourself or your board of directors?Mr. Garcia. Do I honestlyI am sorry, Your Honor. Call upon?

Senator Cayetano (A). In-orderan po kayo ng Impeachment Court through a subpoena nadalhin ang dokumento at pag-usapan natin iyong laman ng Dollar Account . So, sabi ninyo poayaw ninyong ibigay dahil may batas at baka kasuhan kayo . Do you honestly think na kakasuhankayo? Do you honestly think na hindi magandang depensa iyong sasabihin ninyong in-orderankayo ng Impeachment Court?

Mr. Garcia. I honestly think I will be breaking that law.

Senator Cayetano (A). No, that is not the question, Your Honor.

Your Honor, may I just finish? One minute to finish?

Sinabi po ni Senator Kiko Pangilinan dito justifying circumstances. Sinabi ninyo kaya kayo pumunta dahil nalalagay sa alanganin iyong mga empleyado ninyo dahil kapag na- break iyongbatas na iyon, makakasuhan sila . We are saying we interpreted that law with our decision. Andwe are saying that you can reveal it to the Impeachment Court. So, are you now telling me that youdo not believe us? That if you reveal it to us there will be no criminal case against you?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, it is not that I do not believe or I do not haveany faith in this Court. This faith actually conflicts with my honest belief that the law is very clear. The

only exception indicated is by approval of the depositor. So in that particular case, it is my honest belief I will be breaking the law.

Senator Cayetano (A). Who interprets the law, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Garcia. I think the

Senator Cayetano (A). Is it not the courts?

Mr. Garcia. The Supreme Court, Your Honor.

Senator Cayetano (A). In the case of the Supreme Court, did they not interpret the Salvacionto be another exception to the law? Is not the law very clear, bawal i -garnish ang dollar accounts?


25/70


Mr. Garcia. My personal appreciation of that case is the Supreme Court interpreted the exceptionto the law only insofar as that particular case is concerned and no other case.

Senator Cayetano (A). Yes.

Mr. Garcia. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Supreme Court even in that ruling declared that it upholdsthe confidentiality of the law and the FCDU Law and said, only in this particular case

Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Agree 100 percent. But then you agree with me, the law was clear.Yet, the Supreme Court said there is another exception. So in this case, we are saying, the law is clearbut the Impeachment Court feels that it is

The Presiding Officer. May I

Senator Cayetano (A). I will end the sentence, Mr. President.


Senator Cayetano (A). Ang pinapaabot ko lang po sa inyo , Mr. Witness, is that naiintindihan

namin kayomay depositors kayo, iyong banking industrywe are not unmindful of that. Hindiimpeachment lang ang tinitingnan ng mga Senador, iyong ekonomiya ng ating bansa . Perobinalanse din namin ito. Imagine the public policy kung hindi bubuksan ng Impeachment Courtiyong dollar account. Imagine if Filipinos start iyong mga corrupt start putting it in dollar accountdahil ito ay hindi pwedeng buksan. Of course, we can amend the law, but

Anyway, Mr. President, I am sure that their lawyers are studying all of these.

I will just throw my last question, I will not have any more follow-up questions. Kung sa Mondaywala pang TRO ang Supreme Court dahil in -apply ninyo is an injunction, right, with TRO kungwala pang TRO sa Mondayand all lawyers will tell you kapag wala kang TRO, you are forcedto comply with the Court kung wala kayong TRO by Monday, will you comply and bring thedocuments and testify on it?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, it is my belief that the FCDU law will be violated and I will be

Senator Cayetano (A). So, therefore, will youif you do not have a TRO on Monday

The Presiding Officer. May I now request the gentleman to please finish his questions?

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, can I just get the answer from him then I am finished.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please.

Senator Cayetano (A). So, if you do not have a TRO on Mondaythat is your interpretationthat it will be violated, therefore, you went to the Supreme Court, asked for an injunction and a TRO.

If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you comply with the order of this Court or not?

Mr. Garcia. My answer, Your Honor, is this: This is the law, my appreciation actually is, if thereare any exceptions to it, the Supreme Court actually will rule.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, can I ask for a yes or no answer, please?

The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question, yes or no.

Mr. Garcia. Your question actually is that


26/70


Senator Cayetano (A). If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you bring the documentsand testify on it? Yes or no?

Mr. Garcia. If the Supreme Court decides, Your Honor

Senator Cayetano (A). No, if there is no TRO. Of course if there is a TRO that is a different

matter. If the Supreme Court does not grant a temporary restraining order, will you testify on it andwill you bring the documents?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect to this Court, I will not testify because I believeI will be breaking the law.

The Presiding Officer. So, already answered. Okay.

Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Well, just a quick response that I would like to place on record thatas far as the Impeachment Court is concerned, we do not issue illegal orders, for the record, Mr.President.

And having said that, Mr. Witness, the only exception to the Foreign Currency Deposit Act is if the depositor consents.


Senator Pangilinan. And therefore, if a written authorization from the Chief Justice is given toyou, then you will willingly submit these documents of the dollar accounts to this Court?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, with all due respect, I will not comment on and respond to any inquiryon any dollar account.

Senator Pangilinan. Okay. On a hypothetical question, if a depositor sends you a letterauthorizing you to reveal a dollar deposit account, therefore, you will no longer be in violation of thelaw?

Mr. Garcia. If a depositor gives us...

Senator Pangilinan. Consent.

Mr. Garcia. ...authorization or his consent, we will disclose.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Okay.

Well, having said that, may we requestmay we get a response from the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. Is that addressed to me?

Senator Pangilinan. No, no. Just

Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, yes, yes, to the Defense because you filed a petition before theSupreme Court questioning the proceedings.


27/70


Do we take this to mean that if this Impeachment Court requests the Chief Justice, through counsel,to give his consent that the Chief Justice, through counsel, will refuse? Because you already filed apetition before the

Mr. Cuevas. I will have to consult him and discuss this matter very legally, Your Honor please.

Senator Pangilinan. Well, in that case, hopefullywell, perhaps, the Chair may persuadecounsel

Mr. Cuevas. Because your referral to the petition and the petition itself, if Your Honor please,is not merely centered on these bank deposits and so on. We have alleged various grounds, YourHonor.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, that is right.

Mr. Cuevas. For instance, the violation of the right of the petitioner to due process since theImpeachment Complaint was immediately directed to this Court without any notice nor hearing.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes. We read theMr. Cuevas. There are other grounds, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. With respect to our Justice, we went through the pleadings...

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. ...but I just wanted to focus on this particular issue.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Senator Pangilinan. Because ultimately, if a depositor consents that the records of his dollar

deposits be accessed, then, there will not be any legal confrontation.Mr. Cuevas. That is

Senator Pangilinan. That is why I am asking the question. Will the Chief Justice refuse if thisImpeachment Court requests for a consent or to secure his consent?

Mr. Cuevas. First, I do not think that this Impeachment Court will go that far. But, evenassuming it does, Your Honor, I am inclined to believe that the Chief Justice may not give his consentbecause he is questioning the validity of all these proceedings, Your Honor.

Senator Pangilinan. Precisely. And that is why I say, that is why I premise my question that

considering there is now a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the proceedings, then arequest by this Impeachment Court for the dollar accounts and him, consenting to allowing theseaccounts to be turned over, or the documents, will be refused.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, also.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Estrada and then Sen. Pia Cayetano.

The Presiding Officer. Senator Estrada is recognized.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Just for the record.


28/70


Isa po ako sa mga Senador na sumuporta sa desisyon ng ating Pangulo ng Senado parabuksan ang bank accounts ni Chief Justice Corona. Ngunit ako po ay nababahala sapagkat angtanging basehan lamang ng Prosecution panel ay isang dokumento na in -attach nila sa motion forsubpoena na nanggaling po sa PSBank bago po mag -issue ang Korteng ito ng subpoena. Ngayon,I would like to invite the attention of the president of the PSBank.

In Republic Act No. 1405, Section 3, if you are aware, It shall be unlawful for any official oremployee of a banking institution to disclose to any person, other than those mentioned in Section 2hereof, any information concerning said deposits.

Noon pong kayo ay pumunta rito, alam ba ninyo na mayroon pong naka -attach na papel naallegedly galing daw sa PSBank o sa isang maliit na babae, sabi nga ni Congressman Umali?Aware ba kayo na naka- attach itong papel doon sa subpoena?

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Counsel. Let the witness address the Chair and ask permission to consult you, if he wishes to consult.

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, may I consult because I cannot recall.

The Presiding Officer. You may.

Mr. Garcia. This was not included, Your Honor. But I just want to clarify.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. But this was included in the request for subpoena by the Prosecution.

Mr. Garcia. We do not know that, Your Honor.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Mr. Witness. Do you accept that that material referredto comes from your bank?

Mr. Garcia. We have not seen it, Your Honor, and we do believe that does not come from ourbank, if ever there was anything.

The Presiding Officer. Are you suggesting to this Court that that is a fake document or is it agenuine document?

Mr. Garcia. We cannot say, Your Honor, because we have not seen it.

Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, can I show him this particular document?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, you may.

Mr. Garcia. May I respond, Sir?

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Please tell us whether that document that was shown to you bythe gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, is adocument from your bank.

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, this is a photocopy.

The Presiding Officer. A photocopy.

Mr. Garcia. A photocopy. It is not an original document.

The Presiding Officer. Are your bank records open to the public for photocopying?


29/70



The Presiding Officer . And so, it could be that that document comes from your bank?

Mr. Garcia . I would have to compare it with the original document. I have seen the originaldocument here and I note at least, just offhand, there seems to be some differences.

The Presiding Officer . Are you competent to testify regarding the forms that are used by yourbank, by your branches?

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, may I consult our Counsel?

The Presiding Officer . You may.

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, I cannot comment on this right now because there are entries here thatshow dollar.

The Presiding Officer . No, the only question is, whether that is a document from your bank ora copy of a document in your bank?

Mr. Garcia . I cannot make that determination right now, Your Honor, because I would have tocompare it with the original.

The Presiding Officer . Who has the competence to answer that question?

Mr. Garcia . I would have the competence, Your Honor, once I compare it versus the original.

The Presiding Officer . Would your manager be competent to answer this question?


The Presiding Officer . So, you better ask your manager of your Katipunan branch to beprepared to answer this question. Who has custody of these records?

Mr. Garcia . We do have right now, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . No. Who specifically in a branch of your bank would be in custodyof records like this?

Mr. Garcia . Because this is the subject matter of this impeachment process, we have controlledthe documents with our head office and it is controlled by some officers, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . Who would be the employees of a branch of your bank that wouldhave access to records like this?

Mr. Garcia . With respect to the branch, Your Honor, access to signature cards are....

The Presiding Officer . No, this kind of document.

Mr. Garcia . I cannot say, Your Honor, because it is a photocopy.

The Presiding Officer . No. Do not miss the tenor of my question. I am asking, who canaccess the record of your bank for a document like the one presented to you?

Mr. Garcia . For a document such as specimen signature card, the tellers would be able toaccess our offices.


30/70


The Presiding Officer . The manager of the bank?


The Presiding Officer . Yes, full power of access to any records of your bank?

Mr. Garcia . Within that particular branch, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . Yes, precisely, within that particular branch, of which she is the manager.


The Presiding Officer . And she is responsible for the security of these documents?

Mr. Garcia . Yes, Your Honor, together with another officer.

The Presiding Officer . Who is the custodian of records of this kind of records?

Mr. Garcia . The custodian would normally be the Customer Service Officer who is theOperations Officer of the branch.

The Presiding Officer . The Customer Operations Officer, not necessarily the CustomerOperations Officer of a particular client?

Mr. Garcia . No, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . But he is generally an officer in charge of the records of customers of a particular branch?


The Presiding Officer . All right. Please identify all of those to us in the case of your Katipunanbranch.


The Presiding Officer . Because I must tell you that this Court is in possession of an informationregarding this leakage. In fact, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is now conducting an investigationregarding this leakage. And not that

Mr. Garcia . As we are, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . we do not want the secrets to come out involving anybody, but thefact is that this has a greater meaning to the nation and that is the integrity of its banking system. So,bring the manager here to answer questions.

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, if I may, we also do conduct reviews, et cetera , and in ourdetermination, because this matter was being brought about earlier, we actually determined that as faras we believe, documents that were floating around did not come from the bank.

The Presiding Officer . Where will it come from then?

Mr. Garcia. I have no idea.

The Presiding Officer . From heaven?

Mr. Garcia . I have no idea, Your Honor, because if we will compare them with the original

documents, there are differences.


31/70


The Presiding Officer . Are you saying that your security procedure in your bank is loose?

Mr. Garcia. No, it is not, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . Such that it can be accessed by just anybody photographing sensitivedocuments like these?

Mr. Garcia . These documents we cannot comment on because we have not seen them.

The Presiding Officer . As I said, this Court is in possession of information regarding the mannerof this leak, the release of this document. Then so, you better be candid with us. Because if you donot, then we will be forced to apply the rules of this Court.

Mr. Garcia . Your Honor, in all candidness, we have gone through a process of auditing this andwe have determined that based on what we have as original documents, those documents floatingaround do not come from PSBank.

The Presiding Officer . In other words, they are fake documents?

Mr. Garcia . They are not facsimiles of the original documents that we have.The Presiding Officer . Were they invented?

Mr. Garcia. We do not know, Your Honor, because they are just facsimiles. It is very easy toprepare documents....

The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by facsimile?

Mr. Garcia. Facsimiles are photocopies, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer . Photocopies?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer . But there must be an original to be photocopied?


The Presiding Officer . And that original is in your bank?


The Presiding Officer. So, the question is, would a fly, or a rat, or an ipis go to your bank tophotocopy those documents?

Mr. Garcia . No, Your Honor. But if we will compare the original versus the photocopieddocument, it does not appear to be a photocopy of the original.

The Presiding Officer . Then, you produce the original


The Presiding Officer . so that we can compare this and then the Prosecution will have a lotof things to answer for this if, indeed, they do not jibe with your original documents. How they cameinto possession of these documents, they say it was anonymously given to them.

Mr. Garcia. Well, Your Honor, if I may point out, the subpoena stipulates 10 accounts. And

it stipulates that they are based on documents presented for those particular years. And we have


32/70


certified, Your Honor, that in some of the years, no such account was actually in existence. So on thatbasis, Sir....

The Presiding Officer . Correct.

Mr. Garcia . So, no basis, Sir.

The Presiding Officer . Yes, yes, yes. Correct, but the request to this Court for a subpoena wasbased on alleged documents anonymously given to the Prosecution. In fact, we do not know thesenumbered accounts.

Mr. Garcia. Your honor, I cannot comment....

The Presiding Officer. before it was supplied to us by the requesting Prosecution panel, andthey claim that this came from an anonymous source but they reflect accounts in your bank.

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we cannot comment on documents presented to this Court by any otherparty except us because we do not know who presented. This particular subpoena stipulates....

The Presiding Officer. But you are not denying that these accounts exist in your record?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, by our certification based on the subpoenas that were provided hereon certain accounts on the years that we are required to present, they were not in existence. So theymust be fake.

The Presiding Officer. The question is: You are not denying that these account numbers areaccount numbers existing in your record?

Mr. Garcia. For the years that we stipulated, yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Garcia. Because in our certification, Your Honor, for certain years, we were required topresent information on accounts allegedly opened for certain years. Those accounts have not yet evenbeen opened.

The Presiding Officer. All right, I will ask you, and listen carefully.

Account No. 089-121011957, does this account exist in your record?

Mr. Garcia. It existed in our records, Your Honor,....

The Presiding Officer. Does it exist in your record?

Mr. Garcia. For the year 2007, yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Tell me, yes or no if it exists or not exist. Does it exist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-141008145, does that account exist inyour record?

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor....

The Presiding Officer. Does it exist in your record?


33/70


Mr. Garcia. This pertains to a dollar account.

The Presiding Officer. I am only asking whether it exists in your record.

Mr. Garcia. Yes, it exists, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-141007469, does this account exist inyour record?





Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor, which particular account?

The Presiding Officer. Account No. 089-121021681, does this exist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-121020122, does this exist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right, Account No. 089-121019593, does this exist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Then next, Account No. 089-121017358, does that accountexist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. Account No. 089-131002826, does that exist in your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Lastly, Account No. 089-191000373, does that account existin your record?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Explain how would these accounts come to the possession of the Prosecutors to enable them to ask this Court to issue a subpoena if these were not drawn fromyour account, from your records?

Mr. Garcia. The information on these accounts were not drawn from us.

The Presiding Judge. Would this account number exist in other banks?

Mr. Garcia. Other banks, Your Honor?



34/70


Mr. Garcia. We cannot comment on other banks, because we do not really know what theiraccount numbers....

The Presiding Officer. Would these records be found in your central office, in Metrobank, forinstance, which is your mother company?


The Presiding Officer. Would they exist only in your bank?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Would they exist only in your branch in Katipunan?

Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment on that, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Why not?

Mr. Garcia. Some of these accounts are dollar accounts and....

The Presiding Officer. No, but I am only asking whether these would exist only intheseaccounts would only be recorded in your Katipunan bran

Documents

Feb 9 Senate impeachment court record