VOTING 13-10, the Senate, sitting as impeachment court, yesterday opted to obey the Supreme Court order issue last week barring the senator-judges from scrutinizing the dollar deposits of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The senators in favor of respecting the High Tribunal’s order were Joker Arroyo, Francis Escudero, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Gregorio Honasan II, Loren Legarda, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr., Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Vicente Sotto III, Manuel Villar Jr., and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the impeachment court’s presiding officer.

Those who voted to reject the Supreme Court TRO were Senator-Judges Edgardo Angara, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Franklin Drilon, Teofisto Guingona III, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Sergio Osmeña, Francis Pangilinan, and Antonio Trillanes IV.

The voting was held in a caucus earlier in the day.

The Supreme Court welcomed the decision of the Senate to disallow the opening of Corona’s foreign bank accounts.

In a press briefing, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the SC expects the Senate to comply with the temporary restraining order stopping the impeachment court from compelling the opening of Corona’s dollar bank accounts.

“The judiciary is a co-equal branch of the Senate. Decisions of any tribunal or government instrumentalities (can be reviewed by the SC) especially if there is grave abuse of discretion,” Marquez said.    

Enrile announced the impeachment court’s decision at the start of the resumption of the Corona  trial, which has entered Day 16. He noted that the senator-judges came up with the ruling to resolve the issue whether to honor the issuance of the TRO by the Supreme Court upon the petition of the PS Bank with respect to the disclosure of alleged dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona in their bank.

The Senate chief said he already appealed last Thursday to fellow senator-judges to “take heed of the alleged ruling or order of the highest court of the land.” However, Enrile said that some of his colleagues “suggested or advanced the opinion that the Supreme Court cannot exercise judicial review over this court’s proceedings.” Because of that Enrile opted to submit the matter for consideration by the impeachment court in a caucus.

“The chair opted to divide the court, meaning ask for the vote. The result was that 13 members of the court opted to respect the TRO issued by the Supreme Court on this particular issue regarding the matter raised by the PSBank with respect to the alleged  foreign currency deposit of the respondent (Corona) in that bank,” Enrile said.

He maintained that the Senate asserts its sole and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide all impeachment cases. This is very clear under paragraph 6 section 3 of Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution.

“We will respect the TRO of the court s as far as foreign deposits falling under Republic Act 6426 but not under RA 1405 which refers to local currency deposit because of the exemptions,” Enrile said.

However, Enrile said that the impeachment court “reserves the right to defend before the Supreme Court the issuance of subpoenae to PS Bank with regard to Corona’s alleged  dollar deposits. “The Senate, acting as impeachment court in the trial of Chief Justice is prepared to argue its case on the merits and to defend the legal public policy basis underlying its ruling in the said subpoenae,” he said.  

“This matter was thoroughly discussed and members of the court present either in person or through their representations explained  his or her position and a vote was taken on this matter,” he said.

Guingona deplored the majority vote. “Eto na naman tayo. Ayaw na naman ipakita sa atin ang buong larawan. Ayaw na naman tayong bigyan ng access sa katotohanan. Bigo. Nangangamba. Yumuko tayo sa unang TRO na ibinato sa Impeachment Court na ito.

“Ang tanong ng mga kababayan natin: may dahilan pa po ba para hindi  yumuko ang impeachment court sa susunod na TRO na ibabato sa atin? At sa pangatlo? At sa pang-apat?  Isa pa pong tanong: hindi daw po kaya ang TRO na ito ay isa na namang paggamit ng teknikalidad ng batas para pahirapin ang paghahanap nila ng katotohanan,” he said.

He added:”Hindi daw po ba ito magreresulta sa ‘bankruptcy’? Bankruptcy of transparency? At bankruptcy of accountability? Pero mas mahirap tanggapin ang maging bankrupt ang buong prosesong ito sa transparency at accountability sa mga kababayan natin.”