.jpg)
ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA: The advantage, questions, standard of a Corona testimony
Jessica Sanchez's rival in 'Idol' crown has severe kidney problems, needs immediate surgery - TMZ
Sensational Samal: More people flock to town of Jessica's mom after Sanchez makes it to Idol finale
NATO activates missile shield, reaches out to Russia
InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5
MANILA, Philippines -- Amid a heated debate in the impeachment court on the issue pertaining to questionable bank documents submitted by the prosecution on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s bank accounts, presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile said he is assuming “full responsibility” for issuing the subpoena on Corona’s bank accounts.
“This presiding officer assumes full responsibility for issuing that subpoena and is ready to defend his position in any court of law if there is a need for that. I will not pass the buck to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court…it was my decision as presidingofficer,” Enrile, who is also celebrating his 88th birthday Tuesday, said.
He noted that he issued the subpoena at the behest of the prosecution.
Enrile issued the statement amid the issue that the bank documents submitted by the prosecution and attached to the subpoena were questionable. The branch manager of the Philippine Savings Bank said Monday the documents seemed “fake.”
Senator-judges Francis Escudero and Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada also pointed out that the documents were illegally obtained.
At Tuesday's hearing, Senator-judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago raised the question as to whether a questionable document could be a basis for issuing a subpoena.
“Hindi mo pala alam kung ano yun bakit mo sisingilin kami na mag-issue kami ng subpoena? That’s only a scrap of paper. Why are you doing this to the court? Why don’t you hit your law books?” a furious Santiago said.
“Can you allege something in open court that you have information but based on anonymous source? If you bring this to any judge in any part of the country, particularly in Metro Manila, you’ll be cited in contempt,” she added.
Santiago called it a “very, very strange and bizarre document” and asked if it could be a basis for a subpoena. Reacting on the prosecution’s statement that it was done in good faith, she said, “Duty my foot! It is your liability and a disgrace to judicialsystem.”
In the end, Santiago had to leave the impeachment court as she said she was hyperventilating.
Retired associate justice Serafin Cuevas insisted that a subpoena is “akin to a general warrant” and that rights of the accused should also be guaranteed.
“A (subpoena is) akin or similar to a general warrant…why do we say so? Because the right of an accused, in this case an impeached public official, is not limited to freedom from arrest but also in cases that are akin to this kind of privilege or right,” he said.
“If right to due process is violated, then the entire proceeding is violated. If the right of an impeached public official is violated…entire proceedings relative thereto is a nullity.” Cuevas said.
Enrile acknowledges SC authority
Enrile said he does not want to issue a pronouncement regarding to or in relation to Republic Acts 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act) and 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Law) because the action taken by the impeachment court was necessary to the prosecution in pursuing their case before the Senate.
“On the exercise of the power to issue processes by this court, involving the Republic Acts 1405, 6426, I would not want to make a pronouncement on that, precisely this court exercise with discretion to heed with the request of the prosecution to issue subpoena duces tecum to help them pursue the prescription of the law,” Enrile argued.
With this, he also acknowledged the role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution which is the final arbiter and interpreter of the law. His position was also favorably recognized by the majority of the impeachment court.
“It is my duty as the presiding officer of the impeachment court to respect the power and the authority of the Supreme Court to review the acts of this impeachment court meaning manners for which this court conducts its trial. It is my humble representation to say that the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it has the power to review, cannot infringe on the power of this impeachment court to try and decide on the matters of all impeachment cases,” Enrile said.
