Press Release
February 10, 2012

SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER CAYETANO
2nd Manifestation on the 15th day of the impeachment trial of CJ Corona
Re: On the release of Foreign accounts

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Hindi dapat mangamba ang mga opisyal ng bangko na baka sila ay makasuhan kung susunod sila sa subpoena ng Impeachment Court na ilabas ang mga dollar accounts ng Chief Justice dahil: 1. Una, malinaw sa Resolution na inilabas ng Impeachment Court (Korte) at ipinaliwanang nila doon na bagamat ipinagbabawal ang pag ungkat sa foreign account ng isang depositor maliban na lamang kung may "written permission" ito, sinabi rin nila sa isang kaso, (Salvacion vs Central Bank) na "in the interest of justice", maaaring buksan ang foreign account ng isang foreigner na hinatulang guilty sa panggagahasa sa isang batang Pilipina. - Sinabi ng Korte sa kasong ito, na hindi maaaring magtago o gawing panangggalang ng isang tao ang "secrecy of bank deposits" dahil ito ay isang "injustice.

2. Pangalawa, malinaw din sa Resolution ng Impeachment Court na "in the interest of justice" ay dapat din buksan ang foreign currency deposits ng Chief Justice, dahil kung hindi (otherwise) magandang policia ( "public policy") na ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno ay magtatago ng laundered money sa batas na nasasaklaw ng foreign currency deposits.

3. Pangatlo, dapat irespeto ng Banko ang desisyon ng Impeachment Court sapagkat bilang Korte ay may kapangayarihan itong magdesisyon base sa kanyang interpretasyon ng Batas. - At sa pagkakataong ito, ang opinion ng Korte ay dapat tingnan ang pagbubukas ng foreign deposits ni CJ Corona bilang exception sa batas dahil saklaw ito ng " in the interest of justice".

ACTUAL MANIFESTATION

Sen. Alan Peter S. Cayetano (ASC): First, I'd like to address the defense counsel. Don't worry when it's your turn, you'll appreciate the questions of the senator-judges

Atty. Serafin Cuevas (SC): But I will never be a senator because I cannot even be a barangay captain.

ASC: You will appreciate our questions at the right time because we will get to the bottom of this and find the truth.

SC: Yes, thank you, your Honor. ASC: Mr. Witness, after two days po kayo dito I still believe that you're in good faith and I'm trying to understand where you're coming from - protecting the banking industry, protecting your employees and protecting your depositors. I hope through these questions, you will also come to understand the decisions of this court.

Unang una po, nung nakuha niyo yung subpoena pinaliwanag din po ba sa inyo yung basis or resolution na nilabas namin na pinapayagan yung subpoena na ito?

Pascual Garcia III (PG): Yes your honor.

ASC: Pinaliwanag ho ba sa inyo yung interpretasyon namin nung mga batas kasama yung sa Salvacion case?

PG: Yes your honor.

ASC: So noong pinaliwanag po sa inyo, Ano pong pagkapaliwanag sa inyo?

PG: With respect to the Salvacion case...

ASC: Sa 1405 we're all very clear na pagka-impeachment case, pwede kayong magtestify sa peso accounts. So wala sino man sa depositors niyo ang aangal doon kasi alam nilang iyon ang batas.

PG: Alam ho nilang yun ang batas...

ASC: Okay po. We'll go to that later. But sa 6426, sa dollar accounts, ang interpretasyon po ninyo is that there are no exceptions unless may pirma ang depositor.

PG: Yes your honor.

ASC: But in our resolution we said that there is the Salvacion case. Was it explained to you?

PG: Yes your honor.

ASC: Paano po ang pagkaintindi niyo o pagkapaliwanag sa inyo?

PG: The Salvacion case, your honor, is a case of...

ASC: Opening the account and then garnishment also. You cannot look into the account, you cannot garnish it without knowing kung magkano ba yung laman.

PG: I am not familiar...

ASC: Napaliwanag po sa inyo yung case? Yung basis nung decision?

PG: The basis of the Salvacion case was...

ASC: That was the objective and that was the decision. What was the legal basis to allow that? Samantalang yung batas napaka-klaro na hindi pwede.

PG: I'm very sorry your Honor...

ASC: It's okay. That's precisely the point. Ang sinabi sa case ngayon ay 'in the interest of justice'. At sinabi nila, in interpret hung Supreme Court yung batas na the makers of the law could not have intended injustice.

So in this case, may isang foreigner ni-rape ang isang Pilipina, hindi ba napakalaking injustice na hindi mo pwedeng buksan ang account at hindi pwedeng pambayad sa kanya yung dollars na yun even if the dollar account law said hindi pwede.

In this case, if you say yung mga corrupt sa ating bansa ay ginagahasa ang Pilipinas, hindi ba injustice na ang impeachment court ay hindi pwedeng buksan ang accounts nila using the same logic that the Supreme Court used.

PG: I'm sorry you Honor...

ASC: I appreciate your appreciation of the case. What I'm saying is that 'yan ay dinibate na namin. At nakita namin na ang dahilan ng Supreme Court sa pagbibigay ng exception at hindi sinunod yung batas na yun at yun din dahilan namin.

The next question I'd like to ask you is that yung bangko ba na yun na pinayagan niyang mag-garnish at binuksan yung account, nakasuhan ba yung mga empleyado nila?

PG: Your honor, I cannot...

ASC: Sasagutin ko po kayo. Hindi sila nakasuhan dahil ang korte ang nagorder sa kanila na ibigay yung detalye na yon at payagan na magarnish yung account. Because the Supreme Court made that ruling.

In the same manner, do you honestly think if the impeachment court orders you to come out with the details of this dollar account that any case will fall upon you, your employees or board of directors?

PG: (Garcia asks ASC to clarify)

ASC: Inorderan po kayo ng impeachment court through a subpoena na dalhin ang dokumento at pagusapan natin yung laman ng dollar account. Sabi niyo po ayaw niyong ibigay dahil may batas at baka kasuhan kayo.

Do you honestly think that kakasuhan kayo? Do you honestly think na hindi magandang depensa na sabihing inorderan kayo ng impeachment court?

PG: I honestly think I will be breaking the law.

ASC: That's not the question your Honor. Sinabi po ni Sen. Kiko Pangilinan dito: 'justifying circumstances'. Sinabi niyo kaya kayo pumunta dahil nalalagay sa alanganin yung mga empleyado niyo dahil pag nag-break yung batas na yun makakasuhan sila.

We are saying that we interpreted the law in our decision and we are saying that you can reveal it to the impeachment court. You are now telling me that you do not believe us that if you reveal it to us there will be no criminal case against you.

PG: Your honor, with all due respect, it's not that I do not...

ASC: Who interprets the law? Isn't it the court?

PG: The Supreme Court your honor.

ASC: In the case of the Supreme Court, didn't they interpret the Salvacion case to be an exception to the law? Isn't the law very clear na bawl i-garnish ang dollar accounts?

PG: My personal appreciation of the case...

ASC: I agree 100% but can you agree with me that the law was clear yet the Supreme Court said that there was an exception? We are saying the law is clear but the impeachment court rules that this is an exception.

Ang pinapaabot ko lang po sa inyo, Mr. Witness, is that naiintindihan namin kayo. May depositors kayo and (a lot is at stake for) the banking industry, we are mindful of that. Hindi lang impeachment ang tinitingnan namin pati ang ekonomiya ng bansa.

Pero binalanse din namin ito. Imagine the public policy if hindi bubuksan ng impeachment court ang dollar account. Imagine if corrupt Filipinos start putting their money in dollar accounts dahil hindi ito pwedeng buksan.

Of course we can amend the law. But anyway Mr. President, I'm sure that the lawyers are studying all of these so I'll only have one more question.

Kung hindi ginrant ang TRO ng Supreme Court o wala pang TRO sa Monday, will you comply to bring the documents and testify? All lawyers will tell you if walang TRO, you are forced to comply with the court.

PG: Your honor, it is my belief...

ASC: Therefore if you do not have a TRO by Monday, there is no interpretation that the law will be violated. You went to the Supreme Court and asked for an injuction and a TRO. If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you comply with the order of this court?

PG: My answer your honor is...

ASC: Mr. President, can I ask for a yes or no answer?

If you do not have a TRO by Monday will you bring the documents and testify, yes or no?

PG: If the Supreme Court decides...

ASC: Of course if there's a TRO it doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court does not grant a temporary restraining order will you testify on it and will you bring the documents?

PG: Your honor, with all due respect to this court, I will not testify because I believe that I will be breaking the law.

News Latest News Feed