IMPEACHMENT TRIAL : Thursday, February 9, 2012

At 2:06 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile Presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.  (Gavel)

We shall be led in prayer by Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III.

PRAYER BY SEN. OSMEÑA

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Clerk of Court, the Secretary of the Senate, will now call the roll.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  The honorable Senators Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter ‘Compañero’; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drilon, Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmeña, Pangilinan, Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President Enrile.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

Majority Floor Leader

SEN. 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 SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is seating in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 8, 2012 Journal of the Senate, seating 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, seating as an Impeachment Court, is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

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

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 002-2011 AM matter in the impeachment trial of honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask …

REP. TUPAS.  Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President.

For the House of Representatives prosecution panel, same appearances, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before we call on the prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence, I would like to make of record that in compliance with the directive of the court, Mr. Pacual M. Gacia, 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 any information that pertains to the foreign deposits.

So, Mr. President, I move that we take this up in caucus on Monday, at 11:00 a.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence).  The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we now call on the prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, may we be allowed to make a short manifestation, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense counsel is recognized.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, in yesterday’s proceedings, Your Honor, it will be noted that there was a statement coming from one of the member judge of this honorable impeachment court, that allegedly, in the hierarchy of governmental authorities, Your Honor, this impeachment court is higher than the Supreme Court, Your Honor, because allegedly, it is a constitutional body.

Now, I did not rise in protest of that manifestation, Your Honor, because I know my limitations as counsel for the respondent in here, but we can hardly agree, much less, concur with the said pronouncement because it is not based on any jurisprudence, not any provision of the Constitution or 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 vs. House of Representatives, Your Honor.

May I be allowed to quote the particular portion, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Senator Pimentel urges this court to exercise judicial restraint on the ground that the Senate, seating 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 power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us allow the counsel to finish.

SEN. DRILON.  I just want to—just to—for brevity, may we ask counsel to submit a memorandum on this, so that we can also read it and study it carefully, because we have our order of business for today, the presentation of the evidence.

So, with the permission of the Senate President, may we request that counsel will submit a memorandum.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will do that but kindly allow us to utilize the three minutes accorded to us, Your Honor.

THE PRESDING OFFICER.  The counsel may proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  When the Supreme Court take cognizance of the Francisco case vs. The House of Representatives et al, Your Honor, what is involved is also an impeachment proceeding similar to this, Your Honor.

And one of the issues raised, is whether our honorable Supreme Court can take cognizance of any issue involved in that impeachment case, Your Honor.  The issue then was whether this Supreme Court, with a grant of powers, solely on the House of Representatives, will be subject to any discussion of exercise of that power.

The Supreme Court said, insofar as the propriety, the wisdom of the exercise of that power is concerned, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with that.  But in the exercise of the power to initiate, Your Honor, that is where the Supreme Court’s judicial power come into play.  Has there been no abuse of discretion?  If there is, then there is nothing that will prevent the Supreme Court from nullifying any 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 House of Representatives, but it is because it is in duty bound, solemn duty to adjudicate matters, especially in cases where abuse of discretion had been exercised by any public officer or any body for that matter, Your Honor.

Now, I had 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 bankrupt of any support legal or jurisprudential, Your Honor.  We are not proclaiming at this instance, Your Honor, that the honorable Supreme Court is more paramount than this Body, Your Honor.  They are coequal.  That is beyond dispute, Your Honor.  But if in the exercise of a power solely granted to a particular body, like the impeachment court, Your Honor, then it does not prevent the Supreme Court pursuant to the exercise of its power for review to take cognizance of the case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I now request the counsel to bear with us and finish your manifestation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS  I will do so, Your Honor.  The cited case, 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 honorable Supreme Court in this particular case holds water and should be enforced.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Before I recognize the Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.  I would like to make it clear that as far as the Presiding Officer is concerned, the court sitting in this trial to hear the evidence and to make the decision is the full court, the full collective body known as the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines composed of members who are all in their individual capacities are judges.  But the final decision will be rendered by the collectivity, the collective judgment of the members of the court according to the rules of this court which is based on the majority that is dictated by the Constitution and nothing else.  So Ordered.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.  I was not able to follow the beginning of Justice Cuevas’ statement because I just sat down on my chair.  So, did I hear you correctly?  Did you quote me, Mr. Justice?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, no, no.  I did not quote.  I was referring to the pronouncement made by the honorable Supreme Court  …

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Who did you quote, Mr. Justice?

JUSTICE 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 laid down or jurisprudence laid down in the Francisco … I was just reading from the decision.  Senator Pimentel urges the court in that proceedings, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  What case, Mr. Justice, so I can also double check?  What case is that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This Francisco, Jr versus …

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So it is a quotation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Right, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, I heard counsel using the word bankrupt to describe the ;position of a Senator Judge.  Did I hear you correctly?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  I move that it be stricken off the record as being improper and disrespectful of a Senator Judge.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  The Chair hears none; the remark of the distinguished counsel for the defense is stricken off the record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I would , therefore, state lacking legal support, jurisprudential or bereft of any legal support, Your Honor.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  The Gentleman from Bukidnon.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Well, Mr. President, the view expressed are mine and mine alone.  And I did not say that we were above.  I just said that we are not coequal.  And I said that we are not exercising a legislative function.  Obviously.  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 these public officials should be removed to protect the interest of the State and the people.

And in this fear, this trial court, we are supreme.  Therefore, in that context , Mr. President, that is my view.  If the distinguished counsel 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 many of my colleagues.  But that will come when this opposing views will come to test and we will await that time, Mr. President.  I submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. 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 be considered as precedent.  Our rulings will be part of our jurisprudence being as I agree with the good Senator from Bukidnon that we are acting as a judicial body, as an impeachment court.  There has 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 precedents, Mr. President, and decisions, we will have to recognize that given the unique character of the impeachment proceeding being sui generis, the natural and inevitable consequence if this uniqueness  is that no Supreme Court ruling will ever be solidly four square 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 jurisdiction and authority.  We are supreme in our jurisdiction as a court.  We are, I must admit, treading on unfamiliar  virgin terrain and if I may borrow the term, where no entity has venture this far before.  Hence, while we tread carefully and cautiously, we should not allow ourselves to tread erroneously and be shackled by Supreme Court rulings if the same is not four square solidly grounded.  I reiterate to strictly adhere to Supreme Court rulings will limit the scope of both our jurisdiction and authority.  We must draw from Supreme Court rulings, yes, but we will also draw from other sources and precedents whether executive, legislative or judicial and, yes, we will also have to draw from various laws and rulings whether criminal, civil or administrative both here and in the United States 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?

SEN. PANGILINAN.  This is a product of my own mind, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  But I notice that the Gentleman is reading from a book and so I just wanted to know the book so that we can refer to it.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  It is my journal, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, I accept the brilliancy of the mind of the Gentleman.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Mr. President, Ginoong Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Rodolfo Fariñas po of Ilocos.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The distinguished Gentleman from ilocandia.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Yes, sir.  Kung pwede pong papayagan po na magbigay din po kami ng konting manipestasyon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Limang minute.

REP. FARIÑAS.  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 he blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Merceditas Navarro Gutierrrez.  Iyan po ang isang habla namin kay Chief Justice Corona.

Kaya ngayon po, kasi ang paniwala po namin dito, yung usapin po ng impeachment ay talagang inalis po sa korte yan.  Ang ini-invoke po palagi ng Supreme Court is the expanded power of review na yan po ay pinanganak lamang dito sa 1987 Constitution.  Dahil po diyan, sa power na yan, ang Supreme Court naghihimasok masyado maski po don sa mga bagay-bagay na maliwanag ay nakalagak po sa atin sa Kongreso po.  Marami po yan.

Ipagpahintulot po ninyo, Ginoong Pangulo, magsasabi lang po ako ng tatlong bagay.  Yung mga Electoral Tribunal po natin, napakaliwanag po yan sa Konstitusyon na ang Electoral Tribunal ang tanging pwede lang, the sole judge of all elections, qualifications and disqualifications of members.  Kaya nga po yung Electoral Tribunal, anim po ang Senador, tatlo ang justices of the Supreme Court.  Yan po ang design niyan.  Maski sa House of Representatives, ganon din po.

Pero ano po nangyayari, maski po yung desisyon ng Senate Electoral Tribunal, dinadala po sa Korte Suprema at pumapayag po tayo.  Kaya po sila, natural po, hindi na po nasusunod ang Kongreso.  Hindi na po nasusunod yung taong-bayan.  Dahil ang taong-bayan po lamang ang makakapag-decide kung sino iuupo sa Senado o sa House of Representatives.

Maliwanag po sa Konstitusyon yan e.  Pero yung Supreme Court nanghihimasok at pinapayagan po natin.  Ganyan din po ngayon dito sa usapin ng impeachment, Ginoong Pangulo.

Ang Supreme Court po, common sense po.  Hindi po sila pwedeng mag-decide sa impeachment dahil sila po impeachable officers.  Kaya po pinapasikip po yung karapatan natin na i-impeach sila dahil sila po mismo, impeachable officers.

Ngayon po, nangyayari na po dito.  Si Chief Justice Corona, nakahabla po dito, pero pupunta po sa Supreme Court ngayon at pipigilin po tayo rito.  O, saan po naman tayo nakakita ng ganon, e yung Senado po napakarisonable po.

Maski po yung paragraph 2.4 na ipaglalaban po namin na dapat pwede dahil nandiyan po sa katawan, sumasaludo po kami, bow po kami, sabi nyo hindi pwede.  We are bound by your oath.

Pero sila, hindi po e.  They’re trying this in two courts.  Hindi naman po maganda yun.  Pagkanakakuha sila ng pabor dito, thank you Senador.  Pagkanatalo siya, punta kami sa Supreme Court.  E hindi naman pupwede yon dahil ngayon pa lamang po, Ginoong Pangulo, hinihingi ko po, let us get a …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gusto ko lang na mag-react doon sa sinabo mo, “Thank you, Senador.”  Wala pa naman akong natatanggap na “Thank you, Senador.”

SEN. FARIÑAS.  Hindi po.  Ang ibig ko lang pong sabihin, Sir, ngayon po, katulad po nito, Sir, thank you sa korte po ang ibig kong—

Sorry po.   Kasi po pag nagta-Tagalog ako, tayong mga Ilokano, from English dinadaan ko sa ilokano, tapos sa Tagalog, kaya minsan lost in translation—

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ag sarita kala ti Ilocanon.

SEN. FARIÑAS.  Apo, nagpintasen, Sir.  No talaga nga ipalubos yo, Sir, talaga nga sumsumyagen, Sir, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Walang biro, mag-Tagalog tayo.

SEN. FARIÑAS.  Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yan ang ating wika, wikang Pilipino.

SEN. FARIÑAS.  Yes, Sir.  Kaya humihingi po ako ng tawad minsan dahil lost in translation po minsan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pareho tayong Ilokano kaya medyo pilipit ang ating Tagalog.

SEN. FARIÑAS.  Nawawala po yun sa translation minsan.

Well, anyway, Sir, ang point po namin dito is we should get already an undertaking from the respondent, or defendant, that they will abide by the ruling of this Senate body seating in impeachment, dahil, Sir, kung haba-haba po rito, ancillary order lang po, dinadala nap o sa Supreme Court.

E papano po, ganon na lang ba ang Supreme Court, i-invoke nila?  Subpoena lang po, dadalhin nila sa Supreme Court.  At yung Supreme Court naman po—I will be very surprised if the 188 complainants here in the event that the Supreme Court restrains this honourable Senate na hindi po nila ii-impeach yung mga mag-i-issue pa non dahil maliwanag na panghihimasok na po yan dahil doon po sa Article IV nga lamang po e, nasa Committee lang po ng House of Representatives, nakialam ang Supreme Court, yun po ang isang dahilan po na nag-impeach po sila dito.

Kaya dito po, yun po ang ibig kong sabihin, Sir, nung we are one here because, if we look at the 1973 Constitution po, yung Batasang Pambansa, dahil unicameral po non, siya mismo ang nag-i-impeach, siya ang nagdidinig, siya rin po ang negdedesisyon.  Parepareho pong body yan.  Iisa po yan.

Kaya po dito ngayon, yun ang point ko, Sir, that this is the Congress of the Philippines because no impeachment proceedings will ever be undertaken without these two Houses of Congress, cooperating.  First, the one accusing, the other, trying and hearing the case, all and behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, Sir.

So, our position po, dahil sabi nga po ni Senator Pangilinan, ito pong mga sinasabi natin dito will govern future impeachment cases.  So, pinapaliwanag po lang namin, na kung pwede po, hinihinigi 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 meddle because that has been excluded from their power, Mr. President.

Thank you po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Dadating po ang panahon na itong inyong Senado, binubuo ng 23 ngayon na kaisipan ay papasyahan iyan, at kung ano ang pasya na iyan ay bunga ng nakakarami sa amin.  Kaya iyan po ang batayan ng lahat ng desisyon nitong Senado nyo na ngayon 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.

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 sa ating Saligang Batas, iyong nakasakdal sa impeachment case ay kailangan po na mahusgahan ng 16, hindi kukulang sa 16 na Senador.  Kaya iyan po ang hukom.  Hindi sinuman sa amin na mga Senador kung hindi iyong 16 po na  Senador ang maghuhusga dito sa kasong ito.

Kaya, huwag kayong mababahala, at alam po namin ang aming tungkulin sa bayan.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Wen, Sir, sinabi ko lang po iyong aming panig, dito naman po sa House of Representatives, as the initiator of impeachment proceedings.

(Ilocano)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Ilocano).

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, I move that we terminate the privilege hour and proceed with the trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Privilege Hour terminated.

Proceed with the trial.

REP. 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 explanation regarding the foreign currency accounts of Renato Corona.  So, we want to suspend our direct examination until Monday, and we want to present now–we want to call on our next witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. 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.

REP. TUPAS.  In that case, Mr. President, we will call our witness, Mr. Garcia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please bring the witness, Mr. Garcia, of the PS Bank to take—to go back to the witness chair and to answer questions.

Trial is suspended for one minute to wait for the witness.

It was 2:34 p.m.

At 2:35 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.  Senator Drilon.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, Mr. President.  Mr. Garcia, when were you first informed of the subpoena which was addressed to your Katipunan branch manager?

MR. GARCIA.  Sir, I was informed of the subpoena the day before we came for the hearing yesterday.  We received it, the resolution itself, late in the afternoon.

SEN. DRILON.  Therefore, you were informed of the documents requested by this Court through that subpoena.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, sir, we were.

SEN. DRILON.  And you are personally familiar with the specifics of the accounts of Chief Justice Corona with your bank, both past and present.

MR. GARCIA.  Presently, as of now, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  You are familiar because you examined it after you received the subpoena.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, so that you reviewed the records and made consultations with your other officers insofar as the documents requested in the subpoena are concerned, considering that you are the president and would have personal knowledge of all of these.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, who is the branch manager of your Katipunan branch?

MR. GARCIA.  The manager of our Katipunan branch, Your Honor, is Ms. Annabelle Tiongson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Annabelle Tiongson.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And she talked to you.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And asked you to appear for her.

MR. GARCIA.  I talked to her, Your Honor, and …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because I noticed that under the subpoena, it was the branch manager who 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 recumenations ? the branch manager was made to understand all of these possible liabilities.  She is a lady, Your Honor.  She, of course, was very stressed about the circumstances but …

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 reliabilities.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What liabilities?

MR. GARCIA.  The liability of imprisonment if she would disclose because the law, at least, as we understand it, is very clear and so I recognized this and I offered to her and she accepted …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you trying to tell this court that the manager of your Katipunan branch 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?

MR. GARCIA.  No, sir.  She did not say that in any way.  She just expressed the concern and I told her …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no.  I just want to know the reason why she was not personally the one that was allowed by the bank to come here rather than and instead sent the president of the bank.  was it because the manager of your Katipunan Branch was afraid to appear before this court because of the possible criminal liability involve 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 answer the subpoena?

MR. GARCIA.  I told her I am prepared to answer the court and I am prepared to assume any potential…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no, no.  What I am asking what the manager told you as a reason why she 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 will take 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 position of the bank.

MR. GARCIA.  I told her I will assume the responsibility of explaining all of these and I ask specifically for an authorization from her and she did give me an authorization, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  The President Pro Tempore.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  With the permission of Senator Drilon.  Mr. Pascual, how would you describe Tiongson.  Is she a little lady?

MR. GARCIA.  I can’t really say what the definition of a little lady is but from my own perspective she is not little, she is tall.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Alright, thank you.

SEN. DRILON.  May I now proceed, sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. DRILON.  Let us go to Account No.  089-121020122.  In yesterday’s hearing, you mentioned that the account balance as of 2009 is zero.  As of the previous year, however, you said that the account did not exist.  That is on 2008.  Therefore, is it correct to say that the account was opened in 2009?

MR. GARCIA.    Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright.  Is it our understanding  that under your procedure, before you can open an account, there is a requirement of a minimum deposit?

MR. GARCIA.  For an initial account, as a matter of practice, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, but…

SEN. DRILON.  Just answer.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, and this would constitute the starting balance.

MR. GARCIA.  This would constitute the starting balance but this does not…

SEN. DRILON.  Just answer the question please—this would constitute the starting balance.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor

SEN. DRILON.  So what was the starting balance in 089-121020122 which was opened in 2009?

MR. GARCIA.  I am very sorry, Your Honor, we have prepared the information and the documents as based on the subpoena that was required of us and so we presented the information as required.

SEN. 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 by…

SEN. DRILON.  Can you please stop making your own opinions, the subpoena was issued by this court.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you bring the information on the opening amount on 089-121020122 in the next hearing.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, we will bring the documents that we are instructed formally by this court. via subpoena.

SEN. DRILON.  This witness, Your Honor, is a little smarter than what …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You answer the question.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness, the Presiding Officer would like to inform you that please listen to the question and answer the question asked of you.  And do not—Be sure that your are telling us the truth, nothing but the truth, because if you don’t, and you are found out to make any statement that is not true here in this court, there are sanctions involved.  So, I’m just telling you that so that you will know the procedure.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, may I explain the context of my replies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  (Gavel)

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. President, may I be recognized.

Just a point of clarification with the indulgence of Senator-Judge Drilon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. OSMEÑA. Yes, recently, yesterday, did you present the opening documents for the bank account, the master document that you said?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  And do we have a copy of it?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  So, therefore, would the opening the initial deposits for the subsidiary accounts or the following accounts be also included in the master document?

MR. GARCIA.  It would not be, Your Honor, because they are subsidiary documents.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. Witness, didn’t you mention, in answer to my previous question that you examined all of these documents before you came here, the documents mentioned.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Did you not examine the document pertaining to the opening account of Account No. 089121020122?

MR. GARCIA.  I did, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  You did?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. 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, and ..

SEN. DRILON.  Well, this judge is asking you this question.  You said you are familiar with this account because you examined it, and therefore, you are presumed to know the opening amount.  How much 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.

SEN. DRILON.  Approximately, how much?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would your manager know?

MR. GARCIA.  Our manager would know and she would refer to the records, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She knows?

MR. GARCIA.  I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The manager of your Katipunan Branch would know the answer to the question of the Gentleman from Iloilo?

MR. GARCIA.  I would assume, Sir, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. DRILON.  So, in the next hearing, can you produce this document?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, if it’s so required by the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Better still, produce the manager of the bank.  (Gavel)

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, with the permission of Senator Drilon, if I may be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  I think the vice president of PS Bank isn’t competent to answer all the questions of Senator Frank Drilon since he is not the manager of the PS Bank.

SEN. DRILON.  He said he examined the document.

SEN. ESTRADA.  May I know that we subpoena the bank manager of PS Bank of Katipunan, Mr. President.  I reiterate the subpoena.

MR. GARCIA.  The branch manager, Sir, is Anabelle Tiongson.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Yes, I know.

MR. GARCIA.  May I explain why—You know, the Secrecy of Bank Deposit’s Act …

SEN. DRILON.  Please, again, do not lecture on this court.  You’re a witness.  You’re supposed to answer questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just answer the question.  (Gavel)  We know the law, 1405 is the Bank Secrecy Law.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  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 not covered by a subpoena.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you invoking your right to not to incriminate yourself?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, because I think, it will be violating the secrecy of bank deposits because the secrecy in bank deposits …

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, the witness said, he is going to incriminate himself because this document is not covered by the subpoena.  That is most laughable, Mr. President.  Anyway …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you said before that you came here to assume full responsibility for the bank, and that is why you took over from the person subpoenaed, and that is the bank manager of your Katipunan Branch.  So, if you cannot answer the questions competently, then, this court will be compelled to require the presence of your—the person we subpoenaed, then, that is the manager of your Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, we only bring documents that are required of the subpoena—asked for in the subpoena.  So, that is what we prepared for, and that is what is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  One by one.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, I still have the floor if I may be allowed…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of the Gentleman from Iloilo, this Gentleman from Ilocos Norte.

SEN. 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 the bank?

Because if I remember in our discussions, and I do not think I am giving away any confidences here, we decided only to ask for the year-end balances, specifically because the SALN is required to be based on the year-end balances, and whatever the balance is may be between the Decembers of each year, is irrelevant to the question, as to whether or not the year-end balance in the SALN matches the deposits that had been declared.

So, just to—I guess, using the term housekeeping, are we 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.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is correct.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  So, can I now ask, as a Senator judge, that a subpoena be issued for the witness, as he has agreed to bring the opening balance of account no. 089121020122, if only for this Senators knowledge, information, in the process of this—forming a judgment in this particular case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who is going to be subpoenaed, the bank manager or the bank president?

SEN. DRILON.  The branch manager, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The bank manager—so ordered.

The clerk of court can issue the subpoena.

SEN. DRILON.  Can I continue, just on one more point?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only for this purpose.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, Your Honor.  Can I continue another subject, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, for account no. 089121017358, you earlier testified that the account balance as of December 31, 2009 is zero.  When asked by the Presiding Officer, whether you know when that account was opened, you initially said no.  However, later on, when the Presiding Officer asked you why the account existed , if it was not opened 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 present that information so we are not prepared to present that information.

SEN. DRILON.  Then I move that the court issues a subpoena to the branch manager of Katipunan branch of the PS Bank in order to bring the opening account documents including the initial deposit for account no. 089121017358.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will have to ask the Senate, as an impeachment court, to rule on this because the tendency of the question is to expand what was agreed upon in the caucus and a decision of this impeachment court.  And we want to know whether we are going to change the ruling that we have issued beforehand.

With the permission of the Gentleman from Iloilo.   Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.

SEN. 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 here a copy of a 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.

It says, “and to bring with you the original and certified copies of the opening documents for the following bank accounts.”  Then there is a list of bank accounts and then in the name of Renato C. Corona and bank statements showing year-end balances for said accounts as of December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009 and December 31.  Therefore, opening documents were included in our subpoena.  And I would think it is normal that opening documents would include initial deposits.  So, it is included, in fact, in our subpoena.

SEN. DRILON.  Dapat naman po, huwag tayong magtago rito.  Huwag nating gamitin iyong sinasabing hindi kasama sa subpoena iyan, hindi namin sasabihin iyan.  Eh, ito po ang hinahanap nating katotohanan.  Kaya, Mr. Witness, kung pupuwede lang, dalhin mo na ng sarili mong kusa itong 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 peso accounts yesterday.  And there are other documents actually that pertain to dollar accounts which we …

SEN. DRILON.  No, this is the peso account.

MR. GARCIA.  This is the peso account.

SEN. DRILON.  So, it is not covered by your exception.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, you can bring the documents.

MR. GARCIA.  I understand and I am made to understand that any disclosure  actually has to be made on the basis of the decision of the for impeachment court for peso accounts and this comes from a subpoena.  And if I will disclose anything beyond that, it is not covered by the order of the impeachment court and we will be violating the law on confidentiality of deposits.

SEN. DRILON.  Please stop lecturing on the court, Mr. Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The subpoena addressed to the branch manager first, acting on the request for subpoena dated and filed 3 February 2012, by the House of Representatives through its prosecutors, you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the Philippines at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the 8th day of February 2012 and everyday thereafter until the purpose alleged in the said supplemental request for subpoena shall have been fulfilled at the Senate session hall, Senate building, GSIS Headquarters, Financial Center, Pasay City then and there to testify your knowledge in the case which is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives has impeached the honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and to bring with you the original and certified true copy of 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 said accounts 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.

SEN. 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.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, let’s go to just one more topic and I’m true.

This is a matter of know your client procedure.  I assume you are aware of this as president of the bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  The KYC?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And of course being a bank, you adhere to this.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And you ensure that the client is properly identified.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And the client here is Renato C. Corona.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

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

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Did you determine his trade or economic justification?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And what was it?

MR. GARCIA.  The justification for the account opening has income…

SEN. DRILON.  First is what was his trade?

MR. GARCIA.  His trade, Your Honor?

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  He was a Justice of the Supreme Court.

SEN. DRILON.  And economic justication.  Just one minute, sir.  What was his justification for opening the account?

MR. GARCIA.  I believe it was income and investments.

SEN. DRILON.  Income and investment.  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 have declared to the body, Your Honor, is that I cannot present anything on five accounts because they are dollar deposit accounts.

SEN. DRILON.  That is correct, they are dollar deposit accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Youir Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, when these dollar accounts were opened, did you ask him where the dollars were coming from as part of your due diligence?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot disclose, Your Honor, with due respect anything with respect to dollar accounts because they are covered by FCDU Law.

SEN. DRILON.  Again, you are saying that this is covered by the…

MR. GARCIA.  The FCDU Law which we explained yesterday.

SEN. DRILON.  But isn’t this part of the know your client rules?

MR. GARCIA.  For all accounts, we have know your client rule.

SEN. DRILON.  That is correct.  And a part of the know your client rule is that you ask what is his trade, his occupation, the source of the amount being deposited and in this particular case, did you ask him where the dollars were coming from?

MR. GARCIA.  We did not present anything on the dollar accounts.

SEN. DRILON.  No, I’m not saying that you presented, you did mention the dollar accounts were existing.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  No.  You said that these numbers correspond to dollar accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. 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 ask, Your Honor, can I consult my counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If you want to consult your counsel, go ahead.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, I respectfully—I am sorry that we cannot disclose anything with respect to dollar accounts of anyone SEN. DRILON.  All right.  I will not tarry further because you have refused—We can resolve that later.  Going back to the peso account, did you determine if the amounts deposited were commensurate to 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 the termination was made for the peso accounts.

SEN. DRILON.  Who ask the questions?

MR. GARCIA.  The persons are asked by the officers of the branch whoever attended to the party.

SEN. DRILON.  All right.  So we will ask that of the branch manager because you, yourself, did not ask these questions.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Well, we reserve our questions to the branch manager when she appears.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you requiring the appearance of the branch manager?

SEN. DRILON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  The branch manager is required to appear before this court on—When is our next hearing?—On Monday, February 13, at two o’clock in the afternoon.  What’s the name of your branch manager?

MR. GARCIA.  Anabelle Tiongson, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anabelle Tiongson.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Kindly notify her.  She is the boss, Annabelle Tiongson.  Your bring her to this court at two o’clock in the afternoon of February 13, 2012 to testify in this court regarding the accounts involved.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So ordered.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cebu.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Garcia, pag binasa ho ninyo yung subpoena, ang nakasulat po, ad testificandum at saka duces tecum.  So you’re not allowed to limit or provide the court with answer that say you are limited merely to the information on documents that you are asked to bring because you are also asked to testify as to your personal knowledge.  Is that clear?

MR. GARCIA.  That’s clear, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  Ngayon, yung practice sa bangko, magdedeposito po ang tao ng pera, pagkatapos, medyo malaki, mababa naman yung binabayaran ng interes, so nagshi-shift yan.

You have other financial instruments, certificates of deposit, UITF, investment trust funds, etc.  So, yung original subpoena po na nirekwes ng mga prosecutors sa Senate, kasama po yan.  However, the Senate simplified it, merely to mention bank accounts.

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

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Ano po yun?

MR. GARCIA.  It could be peso time deposits, time deposits, five-year time deposits.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  So ang ibig ninyong sabihin, if I opened an account at your bank, and let’s say I deposited 5 million on December 1, siguro po on December 10 nanganak na ho yon, at yung 5 million, sinabi ho ninyo sa akin, alam mo sayang naman, why don’t you shift 4 million of your current account balance to a UITF or a unit investment trust fund or to a certificate of deposit, you will bring 4 or 5% higher than what you would normally earn under a savings 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 will not offer UITF funds.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  What do you offer?  You’re a thrift bank so you’re not allowed to offer UITF funds?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Do you offer CDs?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Timed deposits?

MR. GARCIA.  Timed deposits, Sir.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  So, kaya ho kulang ho iyong information na sinulat po sa subpoena, sapagkat the shifting of funds could have been done before December 31, and yet, under the law, that would be assets owned by the depositor.  Hindi ba?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  All right.  So, Mr. Senate President, I hereby move that the—any and all accounts, timed deposits, certificate of deposits, and any such financial instruments offered by the Philippine Savings Bank, be hereby subpoenaed, because it belongs to that category of deposits in the bank, that this court was trying to find information on.  I so move, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In connection with what accounts?

SEN. OSMEÑA.  If you want to be more limited, in connection with the ten accounts, moneys that were taken out of the ten accounts, and merely shifted to another type of deposit, also with Philippine Savings Bank or PS Bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So ordered.  Issue the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, may we ask even one or two minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, counsel for the prosecution.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind indulgence of this honorable court, we want at least, to be educated and be informed, more accurately, Your Honor, in connection with the scope of paragraph 17 of the rules of the Senate impeachment court, Your Honor, which is, if a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he shall do so within two minutes.  A Senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or counsel.  He or she may also offer a motion or order in writing which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer.

My question, Your Honor, is, does this allow cross examination by a member of this court, Your Honor, or merely clarificatory questions?  So, that we will be guided accordingly, Your Honor, because we have noticed that practically, question borders on cross examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The practice in this court, that I can remember, whether it is the impeachment of a President or in this case, the Chair could not control the manner by which any member of this Senate, seating as an impeachment court, how they will frame their questions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, the question, Your Honor, is that it may be in any form.  It may be for clarification or maybe cross examination, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It could test the credibility of the sitting witness.\

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.   Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Taguig.

SEN. 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 the Senator judges.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Thank you.  But I will never be a Senator because I cannot even be a barangay captain.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  You’ll never know po.  But  you will appreciate our questions at the right time ho because we will get to the bottom of all of these and we will find the truthj.

JUSTIC CUEVAS.  Thank you.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Mr. Witness, after two days po kayo dito, I still believe, you are in good faith, and I am trying to understand completely where you are coming from, protecting the banking industry, protecting your employees, and protecting your depositors.  And I hope, through these questions, you’d also come to understand the position of this court.

Unang-una po, noong nakuha nyo iyong subpoena, ipinaliwanag din ho ba sa inyo yung basis o yung resolusyon na nilabas naming na pinapayagan yung subpoena na ito?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pinaliwanag ho ba sa inyo yung interpretasyon naming nung mga batas, kasama po yung sa Salvacion case?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, ang pinaliwanag po sa inyo—ano po ang pagkapaliwanag sa inyo?

MR. GARCIA.  With respect to the Salvacion case, Sir?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sa 1405, we are all very clear na kapag impeachment cases, pwede kayong mag-testify on peso accounts.  So, wala sinuman sa depositors nyo ang aangal doon dahil alam nila, yun ang batas.

MR. GARCIA.  Alam ho nilang yun 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 ordered by the court and nothing else.  And the order of the court, in our particular case, was the subpoena, Your Honor.

SEN. 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 perma po iyong depositor, tama po ba?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  But in our resolution, we said that there is the Salvacion case, was this explained to you?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. 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 was a foreigner whose name I cannot recall, and he was accused of rape and he had raped a young girl and there were damages, and a garnishment order was issued by a court on a dollar deposit account.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Opening the account and then garnishment also.  You cannot garnish it without looking kung magkano ba iyong laman, di ba?

MR. GARCIA.  I am not familiar with the circumstances of that.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Naipaliwanag sa inyo iyong basis ng Salvacion case?  Iyong basis noong decision.

MR. GARCIA.  The basis of the Salvacion case was to execute the judgment of a court and the garnishment was to provide the family or the child actually …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  That was the objective, and that was the decision.  But what was the basis, the legal basis to allow that?  Samantalang iyong batas napaka klaro, hindi puwede.

MR. GARCIA.  I am very sorry, Your Honor, but ..

SEN,. CAYETANO (A.).  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 iyong batas na the makers of the law could not have intended injustice.  So, in this case, na isang foreigner, ni-rape ang isang Pilipina, hindi ba nakapaka-injustice na hindi mo puwedeng … wouldn’t give  so much injustice na hindi mo puwedeng buksan ang account at hindi puwedeng pambayad sa kanya iyong dollars na iyon even if the dollar account law, that law, said hindi puwede.  So, in this case, na parang ang mga… if you say iyong mga corrupt sa ating bansa ay ginagahasa ang Pilipinas, hindi ba injustice na ang impeachment court ay hindi puwedeng buksan ang 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 because in the Salvacion case, Your Honor, there was a judgment made of a court that he is liable of damages because of this.  And, therefore, a court order was issued to garnish, not to look at the accounts, or anything else, but to get the deposits on the account to compensate the victim who had been given, adjudged compensation by the court.  And this particular foreigner was hiding behind, you know, 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 deposit accounts were garnished.

SEN. 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 na magbigay ng exemption at hindi sinunod iyong batas na iyon, o gumawa sila ng exemption, iyon din ang dahilan namin.  So, the next question I would like to ask you, iyong bangko ba na iyon na ;pinayagan niyang mag-garnish at binuksan niya iyong account, nakasuhan ba iyong mga empleyado nila?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, I cannot …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sasagutin ko po para sa inyo.

MR. GARCIA.  I could not recall.  I do not know.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Hindi sila nakasuhan dahil korte ang nag-order sa kanila na ibigay iyong detalye noon at payagan na ma-garnish iyong amount na iyon.  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, 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 honestly … I am sorry, Your Honor. Call upon…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  Inorderan po kayo ng impeachment court through a subpoena na dalhin ang dokumento at pag-usapan natin iyong laman ng dollar account.  So sabi ninyo po ayaw ninyong ibigay dahil may batas at baka kasuhan kayo.  Do you honestly think that hindi na kakasuhan kayo?  Do you honestly think na hindi magandang depensa iyong sasabihin ninyong inorderan kayo ng impeachment court?

MR. GARCIA.  I honestly think I will be breaking that law.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  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 pag na-break iyong batas na iyon makakasuhan sila.  We are saying we interpreted that law with our decision and we are saying that you can reveal it to the impeachment court.  So are you now telling me that you do not believe us that if you reveal it to us there will be criminal case against you?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, with all due respect, it’s not that I do not believe or I don’t have any 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.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  Who interprets the law, Mr. Witness?  Isn’t it the courts?

MR. GARCIA.  The Supreme Court, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  In the case of the Supreme Court, didn’t they interpret the Salvacion to be another exception to the law?  Isn’t the law very clear, bawal i-garnish ang dollar accounts?

MR. GARCIA.  My personal appreciation of the case is the Supreme Court interpreted the exception to the law only insofar as that particular case is concerned and there is no other case.  As a matter of fact, sir, the Supreme Court even in that ruling declared that it upholds the confidentiality of the law and the FCDU Law and said only in this particular case which…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  I agree 100%..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 clear but the impeachment court feels that—I will end the sentence, Mr. President.  Ang pinapaabot ko lang po sa inyo, Mr. Witness, is that naintindihan naming kayo.  May depositors kayo, iyong banking industry—we are not unmindful of that.  Hindi impeachment lang ang tinitignan ng mga Senador, iyong ekonomiya ng ating bansa.  Pero binalanse din namin ito ano.  Imagine the public policy kung hindi bubuksan ng impeachment court iyong dollar account.  Imagine if Filipinos start, iyong mga corrupt, start putting it in dollar account dahil ito ay hindi pwedeng buksan.  Of course we can amend the law but anyway, Mr. President, I am sure their lawyers are studying all of these.  I will just throw you a last question and I won’t have anymore follow up questions.  Kung sa Monday wala pang TRO ang Supreme Court dahil in-apply ninyo is an injunction, right, with TRO.  Kung wala pang TRO sa Monday and all lawyers will tell you, pag wala kang TRO you are forced to comply with the court, kung wala kayong TRO by Monday, will you comply and bring the documents and testify on it?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, it is my belief that the FCDU Law will be violated and I will be…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  So, therefore, will you if you do not have a TRO on Monday, will you or will you not…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I now request the Gentleman to please finish his question.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  Mr. President, can I just get the answer from him then I‘m finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  So if you do not have a TRO on Monday, that is your interpretation that 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 there are any exceptions to it, the Supreme Court actually will rule.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  Mr. President, can I ask for a yes or no answer please.

THE PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Just answer the question yes or no.

MR. GARCIA.  The question actually is THAT…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  If you do not have a TRO by Monday, will you bring the documents and testify on it, yes or no?

MR. GARCIA.  If the Supreme Court decides, Your Honor,…

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  If there is no TRO, of course, if there is TRO that is a different matter.  If the Supreme Court does not grant a temporary restraining order, will you testify on it and will you bring the documents.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, with all due respect to this court, I will not testify, because I believe I will be breaking the law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Already answered.  Okay.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pangilinan, Mr. …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Just a quick response that I’d like to place on record that as 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 Act is if the depositor consents.  And therefore, if a written authorization from the Chief Justice is given to you, 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 or respond to any inquiry on any dollar account.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Okay, on hypothetical question, if a depositor sends you a letter authorizing you to reveal a dollar deposit account, you will no longer be in violation of the law?

MR. GARCIA.  If a depositor gives us …

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Consents.

MR. GARCIA.  … authorization or his consent, we will disclose.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, okay.  Well, having said that, may we get a response from the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Is that addressed to me?

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, to the defense.  Because you filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the proceedings, 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 a petition before the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’ll have to consult him and discuss this matter very legally, Your Honor, please.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Well, in that case, hopefully—Well, perhaps, the Chair may persuade counsel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because your referral to the petition, and the petition itself, if Your Honor, please, is not merely center on this bank deposits and so on.  We have alleged various grounds, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, correct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For instance, the violation of the right of the petitioner to due process since the impeachment complaint was immediately directed to this court without any notice nor hearing.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, we read the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are other grounds, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  With respect to our Justice, we went through the pleadings.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  But I just wanted to focus on this particular issue.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Because, ultimately, if a depositor consents that the records of his dollar deposits be accessed, then there won’t be any legal confrontation.  That’s why I’m asking the question, will the Chief Justice refuse if this Impeachment Court requests for a consent or to secure his consent to …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  First, I do not think that this Impeachment Court will go that far.  But even assuming it does, Your Honor, I am inclined to believe that the Chief Justice may not give his consent.  Because it’s questioning the validity of all this proceedings, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Precisely, and that’s why I say—that’s why I premised my question that considering there is now a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the proceedings, then a request by this Impeachment Court for the dollar accounts, and him consenting to allowing this accounts to be turned over, or the documents will be refused.

Thank you, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you also.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.  Senator Estrada and then Senator Pia Cayetano, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Estrada is recognized.  (Gavel)

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Just for the record, isa po ako sa mga Senador na sumuporta sa desisyon ng ating Pangulo ng Senado para buksan ang bank accounts ni Chief Justice Corona, nguni’t ako po’y nababahala sapagka’t ang tanging basehan lang ng prosecution panel ay isang dokumento na inatach nila sa motion for subpoena na nanggaling po sa PS Bank, bago po mag-issue ang korteng ito ng subpoena.

Ngayon, I would like to invite the attention of the President of the PS Bank, in Republic Act No. 1405, Section 3, if you are aware, it shall be unlawful for an official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person, other than those mentioned in Section 2 hereof, any information concerning said deposit.

Noon bang ho kayo po ay pumunta rito, alam nyo ba na meron pong naka-attached na papel na allegedly ay galing daw sa PS Bank o sa isang maliit na babae, sabi nga po ni Congressman Umali. Aware ba kayo na naka-attached itong papel doon sa subpoena?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness.  Wait a minute, counsel.  Let the witness seek—address the Chair and ask their 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 …

SEN. ESTRADA.  But this was included in the request in the request for subpoena by the prosecution.

MR. GARCIA.  We do not know that, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  All right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.

Mr. Witness, do you accept that that material referred to, comes from your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  We have not seen it, Your Honor.  And we do believe, that does not come from our bank.  If ever there was anything.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you suggesting to this court that that is a fake document or is it a genuine document?

MR. GARCIA.  We cannot say, Your Honor, because we have not seen …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, can I show him this particular document?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You may.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, may I respond, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please tell us whether that document that was shown to you by the Gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, is a document 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?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

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 original document here and I note, at least, just of hand, there seems to be some differences.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you competent to testify regarding the forms that are used by your bank—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 that show dollar …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.  The only question is whether that is a document from your bank or a copy of a document in your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot make that determination right now, Your Honor, because we have to compare 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?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, you better ask your manager of your Katipunan branch to be prepared 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 custody of records like these?

MR. GARCIA.  Because this is the subject matter of this impeachment process, we have controlled the documents with our head offices and it is controlled by some officers, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who would be the employees of a branch of your bank that would have 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 this is a photocopy, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Don’t miss the tenor of my question.  I am asking, who can access the record of your bank for a document like the one presented to you?

MR. GARCIA.  For a document such as specimen signature cards, the tellers would be able to access, our officers.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The manager of the bank?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He has 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.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

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, Your Honor, would normally be the customers’ service officer who is the operations officer of the bank.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The customers’ operations officer.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not necessarily the customers operations 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 the customers of a particular branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  You please identify all of those to us.  In the case of your Katipunan branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Because I must tell you that this court is in possession of an information regarding this leakage.  And in fact, the Bangko Sentral ng :Pilipinas is now conducting an investigation regarding this leakage.  And not that we do not want the secrets to come out involving anybody, but the fact 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, etc.  And in our determination, because this matter was being brought about earlier, we have to really determine that as far as we believe documents that are 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.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you saying that your security procedure in your bank is loose?

MR. GARCIA.  No, I am not, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That it can be accessed by just anybody photographing sensitive documents like this.

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 manner of this leak, the release of these documents and so you better be candid with us because if you don’t, 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 and we have determined that based on what we have as original documents those documents floating around do not come from PS Bank.

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’s very easy to prepare 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.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that original is in your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So the question is, would a fly or a rat or an ipis go to your bank to photocopy those documents?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.  But if we will compare the original versus the photocopies document, it does not appear to be a photocopy of the original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then you produce the original.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that we can compare this and then the prosecution will have a lot of things to answer for this if indeed they do not jibe with your original document, how they came into possession of these documents.  They say it was given to them anonymously.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, Your Honor, if I may point out, the subpoenas stipulates 10 accounts and it stipulates that they are based on documents presented for those particular years.  And we had certified, Your Honor, that in some of the years, no such account was actually in existence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  Yes, yes, yes, correct.  But the request to this court for a subpoena was based on alleged documents anonymously given to the prosecution and in fact we do not know these numbers, these numbered accounts…

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, I cannot comment on…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … before it was supplied to us by the requesting prosecution panel and they claimed 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 other parties except us because we really 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 here on certain accounts, on the years that they are required that we are required to present they were not in existence so they must be fake.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The question is you are not denying that these account numbers are account 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, as we were required to present information on accounts allegedly open for certain years, these accounts had not yet even been opened.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  I’ll 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, as of …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does it exist?  Does it exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  For the year 2007 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just tell me, yes or no, if it exist or not exist.  Does it exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Account No. 089-141008145, does that account exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Does it exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  This pertains to a dollar account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I’m only asking whether it exist in your record.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, it exists, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  089-141007469, does this account exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  089-141007129, does this exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  089-121021681, does this account exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  I’m sorry, Your Honor, which particular account?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Account No. 089-121021681, does this exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Account No. 089-121020122, does this exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Account No. 089-121019593, does this exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Then, next, Account No. 089-121017358, does that exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Account No. 089-131002826, does that exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Lastly, Account No. 089-191000373, does that account exist in your record?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

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 from your account, from your records.

MR. GARCIA.  The information on these accounts were not drawn from us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would this account number exist in other banks?

MR. GARCIA.  Other banks, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  We cannot comment on other banks because we do not really know what their account numbers …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Would these records be found in your central office, in Metrobank for instance, which is your mother company.

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.

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 this would exist only in—these accounts would only be recorded in your Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right, tapos.  So, it can only be—the conclusion could only be that this leak came from your Katipunan Branch.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor.  I honestly believe, it did not.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How—what is the basis of your belief?

MR. GARCIA.  For the peso accounts …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  For the peso accounts, our original documents actually have differences.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But you agree that these accounts only—are only recorded in the Katipunan Branch of your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  For the peso account, Your Honor, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  It will not appear in the record of other branches of your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  For the peso accounts, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  For the peso accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  For peso accounts, yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  How about the dollar accounts?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot comment, Your Honor, because dollar accounts are …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  My God, what is that?  I am just asking whether they would exist in the other branches of your bank.  I am not delving into the details of the account.  I do not even know who is the owner of this account.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, may I consult our counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You can consult.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, may we request that the question be repeated again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I ask the stenographer to repeat the question, in order to maintain its accuracy.  The last question.

STENOGRAPHER.  I am just asking whether it exist in the other branches of your bank.  I am not delving into the details, I do not even know who is the owner of this account.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, when an account is opened in one branch, it is domicile in that branch and will not exist in other branches.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Thank you.  I am done.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ginoong Pangulo, maraming, maraming salamat po sapagkat lahat po ng itatanong ko sana ay naitanong nyo na po.

Maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am sorry ha.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Hindi.  Okay lang po iyon.  Only on one point, Mr. Witness, isa na lang po, Ginoong Pangulo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN.ESTRADA.  Having showed you the document that I showed you earlier, if you’d notice, in the right hand corner, it says here, P-E-P or PEP.  What does PEP mean?

MR. GARCIA.  Within the bank and as required by the Anti-Money Laundering Law, there are certain accounts that have to be classified as politically exposed persons.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Politically exposed persons.  So, can you please give me a background or a real definition.  What does politically exposed person mean?  Si, Mr. Corona hindi namn po pulitiko ito.

MR. GARCIA.  Ang politically exposed persons would refer, Your Honor, to those who are elected public officials, those that hold positions of significant levels in various government agencies and instrumentalities.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, all politicians or government officials who are depositors in your bank, PS Bank, mayroon pong naka-stipulate doon na PEP, ganoon ba ho iyon?

MR. GARCIA.  Within our system, Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Before you became or you were promoted as president, what positions did you hold?

MR. GARCIA.  As president of PS Bank, Your Honor?

SEN. ESTRADA.  Before you became president.

MR. GARCIA.  Before I became president, I was a president of another bank.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Did you become a bank manager, naging bank manager ho ba kayo?

MR. GARCIA.  For a bank, Your Honor, no.

SEN. ESTRADA.  As president of a bank, usually when a depositor fills out a deposit slip, and iyong teller, siguro tinutulungan niya iyong depositor para i-fill out iyong kanyang deposit slip, tama ba iyong in filling out deposit forms, you state the actual amounts in words and figures, am I correct?

MR. GARCIA.  In words and figures?

SEN. ESTRADA.  Yes.  Up to the last centavo.

MR. GARCIA.  Normally, yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Because here, there is an entry here like 700k, is that allowed in banking practice?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot comment on the practices of other banks, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  This is from PS Bank.  It comes from your bank.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, by our determination, that document does not come from the original of the holder.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Okay.  In your own opinion, is 700k, is it allowed in banking practice, the word K.  What does the word K stand for, based on the documents allegedly coming from your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  I will not comment on the so-called documents because I have not determined or believed that it really came from the bank.  But as to the matter of 700 …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Can you say your last line again.  You deny that this came from your bank?

MR. GARCIA.  I cannot comment on that sir, because it appears that based on the originals, there are material differences.  This is a facsimile supposedly of an original and on that particular basis we hold the originals and there are some material differences there.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So, the Senate President has already required you to bring the original documents of the opening of deposit accounts, the deposit slips of CJ Corona, am I correct?

MR. GARCIA.  I beg your pardon sir.  Deposit slips, no.

SEN. ESTRADA.  The opening of deposit accounts.

MR. GARCIA.  It was not indicated, sir, in the subpoena and so we just complied with the subpoena.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Going back to my previous question, and I think you haven’t answered my question yet.  Is it a normal banking practice, and you answer me yes or no.  Is it a normal banking practice, in your bank most especially, to put K after the figures, yes or no?

MR. GARCIA.  A practice can be done.  I would not classify it as normal, there are some people who might use the terminology K but I have seen it, some people use it but it is not standard. SEN. ESTRADA.  It is not?

MR. GARCIA.  It is not  standard.

SEN. ESTRADA.  It is not standard.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So what do you mean by K in your own opinion?

MR. GARCIA.  In my own opinion as far as the letter K and if it is used, how will it be used, Your Honor?

SEN. ESTRADA.  Again I will show you the documents.  Mr. President, Senator Estrada showing the witness a document—ito tignan mo.

MR. GARCIA.  In all honesty, Your Honor, it is hard to say.  It is not clear to me that it is a K.

SEN. ESTRADA.  E anong letter kung hindi K ito?

MR. GARCIA.  I have no idea, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  So it is not clear to you if this is a letter K.  Maliwanag na maliwanag  K e.

MR. GARCIA.  Well, it is not clear to me, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Anyway, you better bring the original copies of these particular documents.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, what particular document, the documents that we have…

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ipinakita ko na nga sa iyo e.

MR. GARCIA.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  The Senate President already instructed you to bring the original documents.  This is not a dollar account, okay, this is a peso account.

MR. GARCIA.  We will

SE. ESTRADA.  The Account No. 089-19100, Malabo…

MR. GARCIA.  It is not clear, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the question?

SEN. ESTRADA.  I wanted him to compel, Mr. President, to bring the original documents of the documents which I showed him, Mr. President, if it is possible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is this account?  Is this a peso account or a dollar account?

SEN. ESTRADA.  These were the documents that were attached by the prosecution to the request for subpoena, Mr. President.  So I wanted to determine if this was leaked out before the court issued the subpoena, Mr. President.  Because this in violation of Republic Act No. 1405, Section 3 of RA 1405, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I will address this question.  After seeing that document shown to you, are you aware of the existence of a document like that in your branch records of Katipunan?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, may I consult…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, consult.

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, we have presented the documents of all peso accounts in this court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have presented…

MR. GARCIA.  We have presented all of the documents for peso accounts to this court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, the question I am asking after you saw the document presented to you by the Gentleman from San Juan, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, are you aware whether or not the original of that document would be in the records of your Katipunan Branch?

MR. GARCIA.  Your Honor, I can only comment actually on original documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You cannot comment?

MR. GARCIA.  I can only comment on original documents.  What was presented to me was a photocopy.  For me it is not the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And so, you do not know whether you have that kind of a document in your records?

MR. GARCIA.  I do not know whether we have any document that is not our document, original documents that we have.  If there are photocopies around, I cannot comment on them because only—what we have is our original documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we have two more Senator-Judges who wish to ask questions to the witness.  So, before we continue, may I move for a suspension of the trial for a 15 Senate minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial suspended.  (Gavel)

It was 4:06 p.m.    

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  (Gavel)

At 4:45 p.m., the trial was resumed.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognized Senator Pia Cayetano, and then Senator Ping Lacson.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Taguig is recognized.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Good afternoon.

Mr. Witness, can you confirm that as president of a very large savings bank, you have a solemn duty to uphold the interest of your clients?

MR. GARCIA.  I do confirm, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And I imagine that as such, you take into consideration existing laws?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And the intention is, of course, to uphold the law.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor, at all times.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Now, you are aware of RA 6426, the law on the Foreign Currency Deposit that has the general rule which requires that we respect the secrecy of foreign currency deposits.

MR. GARCIA.  I am aware of that, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And you’re also aware of the written exception under the law.

MR. GARCIA.  I am aware also, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Which is?

MR. GARCIA.  Only by the consent and authorization of the depositor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Now, have your read the resolution of this Impeachment Court on the request for the issuances of subpoenas on the bank records?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  You’ve read it?

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yourself? En toto?

MR. GARCIA.  The resolution, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yes.

MR. GARCIA.  I have read, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  So, you are very much aware, and I will quote the second paragraph on page 5 that states, “The court would like to emphasize that a non-disclosure of information relating to the bank accounts of individuals is still the general rule, and it has no intention of going against the public policy on this matter.

However, the court is only issuing the subpoena relating to the bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona because of the pendency of the present impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.”

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  You are familiar with that?

MR. GARCIA.  I am familiar with that.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Okay.  Now, I would like to put on record, Mr. Witness, that I, personally, and I’m quite certain the rest of my colleagues in the Impeachment Court are one in upholding, because the majority did sign this resolution, are one in upholding this law, and it is very clear as written in the resolution that this exception is being made because of the pendency of the present impeachment proceedings.  So we want to give you that assurance that as your solemn duty to protect the interest of your client, this is not being made as a now en blanc exception that will open the floodgates to kinds of exception to the rules.  I want to be sure that that is understood by this witness.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, I understand that, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Now, going back to the exception provided by Republic Act 6426, you also mentioned earlier that you are familiar with the case of Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines.

MR. GARCIA.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And you have also read the case yourself?  The entire case?

MR. GARCIA.  No, Your Honor.  I just read the synopsis of the case.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  May I request that you read the entire case because you understand that this case provided another exception.

MR. GARCIA.  In that particular case, Your Honor, yes, Your Honor, this exception was provided by the Supreme Court.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  And I was listening to your testimony earlier, you stated it quite accurately that the exception was made because it involved a foreign national and his accounts were—the Supreme Court ruled that his foreign account could be opened in the interest of justice.  In a nutshell, that was your understanding of the case?

MR. GARCIA.  In a nut shell, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yes.  The reason why I would like to request that this witness—I’m not commanding you, I’m simply requesting that you read the entire case because the explanation of what the interest of justice is being served is in this case, and you cannot read it by a mere synopsis.  May I …

MR. GARCIA.  I’ll take your …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  You will take my advice seriously?

MR. GARCIA.  … yes, seriously.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Because if you like, I can give you my personal copy with my highlighted—Would you like my copy?

MR. GARCIA.  Well, if you would offer it …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  I will give it to you, and my bell has rang so let me just very quickly read the emphasis that I had already put here. It sates here that the application of the law depends on the extent of justice.  I will skip the other parts, and it says for—that this would negate Article X of the new Civil Code, which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

So, I ask that you read this case because we are also asking that justice prevail, but that is for you–that is a decision that you are to make.  The impeachment court has made their decision in the issuance of the resolution, so I will now ask the page to just hand you my personal copy.  I hope you trust …

MR. GARCIA.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  This is not certified but it is a faithful reproduction of the Supreme Court reports, annotated.

MR. GARCIA.  Thank you, Your Honor, but as best as I can recall, the Supreme Court also indicated that the exception is only made in this particular case, and no other case.  As a matter of fact, as I have read it, the Supreme Court actually reinforced very strongly that all FCDU deposit accounts are covered by the FCDU Law.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yes, and I actually thank you for mentioning that because I had wanted to end on another point.  In the same way that the Supreme Court has very clearly indicated that this was a specific exception to the law.

This impeachment court also makes an exception to the law.  And I have also confirmed with you when I asked you of some questions yesterday, that you acknowledge that this impeachment court has the sole power to try impeachment cases.  You also acknowledge that.

MR. GARCIA.  For impeachment cases, Your Honor, yes.  But as I believe and as I understand, any exception to any law must be approved by the Supreme Court.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Well, I trust that over the weekend, and with the personal copy I will hand you, you will at least, think, you know, give it serious thought, given the gravity of this matter, and in the interest of justice.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Lacson, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite.

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you, Mr. President.

My manifestation would have involve the subpoena issued by this court in relation to the FCDUs and since we are in receipt of an information that the Supreme Court has just issued a TRO.  In that regard then, I would like to defer to the caucus which is scheduled on Monday, so, we can discuss this thoroughly or extensively.

That is all, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Anyone else?

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, may we ask from the prosecution if they are suspending their direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  From here on, in deference to the Supreme Court, the interpreter of the Constitution, and the guardian of our basic rights, guaranteed by the bill of rights, this Chair would suggest and commend—recommend to this impeachment court and the two sides of the case, the prosecutor and the panel to take heed and let us discuss other issues other than foreign currency deposits because of the presence of a TRO with the Supreme Court, and we will discuss that in due time.  Please proceed.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, prosecution.

REP. TUPAS.  We move to discharge our—temporarily excuse …

SEN. SOTTO.  There is a may we ask from the defense panel if they are ready to cross examine the witness.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, we are not yet, Your Honor, please, we are not yet through with our direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, cross examination is deferred until they finish their direct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you have another witness?

REP. TUPAS.  We have, Mr. President, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged temporarily, but you come back on Monday at two o’clock in the afternoon for the continuation of this trial.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we have a one-minute suspension, .  I would just confer with some of the other members of the court.  They are giving a message.  Discharge the witness.

May we have a one-minute suspension.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT.  One long minute suspension.

It was 4:55 p.m.

At 4:57 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is resumed.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, may we recognize the prosecution now, Mr. President.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, may we call now our second witness for the day, the branch manager of BPI Ayala Branch in Makati.  The name is Ms. Leonora Dizon.  May we call on now Ms. Dizon, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ms. Dizon is requested to enter the plenary session of the impeachment court, take the podium, the witness stand, to be sworn in and to testify in this trial.

REP. TUPAS.  Your Honor, may we also request that Atty. Arthur Lim  be recognized to conduct the direct-examination for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  My brod, Arthur Lim, is recognized to make the direct-examination.

REP. TUPAS.  Thank you.

(Witness was sworn to an oath.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.  May it please the honorable court.  I am Atty. Arthur D. Lim, respectfully appearing as private prosecutor under the control and direction of the public prosecutors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.

ATTY. LIM.  Your Honors please, may I, before proceeding with the direct, respectfully manifest that the prosecution did not have the chance to pre-mark the documents or any documents for that matter, brought by the witness today because of the stand of the witness and her bank, I suppose, that she will disclose the documents only to the impeachment court.  So, we will be seeing the documents for the first time in open Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  Noted.  We note the manifestation of counsel.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor please.  One last manifestation which is also in the nature of a request.  May I respectfully request the honourable Presiding Officer that since the witness appears to be heavy with child, that she be allowed by the Chair to interrupt this Representation at any time by raising her hand if she should experience any discomfort or should ask anything in the course of the examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Pampanga?

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes.  May we just know how many months pregnant  is the witness, if she may wish to divulge the information.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is immaterial, I think.

MS. DIZON.  9 months, Your Honor, due any time po.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  It is material, Mr. President, because she may give birth.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, okay, okay.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Order.  The Lady Senator from Taguig.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Just a small matter.  May we  request the prosecutor to lower his voice a little bit because it might be the one that aggravates the witness and honestly it aggravates us a little bit.  Thank you.

ATTY. LIM.  That is very timely and good reminder.  I will comply, ma’am, and please accept my apologies, I am used to speaking that way.  I will tone it down before the court.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.  A pleasant good afternoon to you, ma’am.

MS. DIZON.  Good afternoon, sir.

ATTY. LIM.   Please state your name, your address and your occupation.

MS. DIZON.  I am Leonora Rivera Dizon, a resident of 8003 Hoover Street, Makati City.  I am the branch manager of Bank of the Philippine Islands, Ayala Avenue, SGV Branch.

ATTY. LIM.   Thank you, ma’am.  Your Honor please, the testimony of the witness is hereby respectfully offered for the following purposes—one, to prove unreported assets in the form of bank deposits not included in the respondent’s SALNs.  Number 2, to show that respondent Chief Justice has assets in the form of bank deposits manifestly disproportionate to his income as member of the Supreme Court which income was already testified to by BIR Commissioner Kim Henares.  Number 3, and not the least, to show that respondent Chief Justice committed culpable violation of the Constitution particularly Section 17 of Article XI under Accountability of Public Officers as well as betrayal of public trust and should not stay a minute longer as Chief Justice.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  You are the branch manager, ma’am, of BPI Ayala Branch.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.   First of all, kindly tell us what type or kind of bank is BPI?  A thrift bank or a universal bank?

MS. DIZON.  It’s a commercial bank, sir.

ATTY. LIM.   As a commercial bank, kindly state for the record as a preliminary point, what products or services your bank offers to clients or depositors.

MS. DIZON.  Our bank offers deposit products like savings, current account, time deposits.  We also offer investment accounts and loans and other products, sir.

ATTY. LIM.   Since when have you been the branch manager of BPI Ayala?

MS. DIZON.  I had been assigned with Ayala Avenue SGV Branch since May 2009.

ATTY. LIM.  Kindly state, ma’am, your important duties and responsibilities.

MS. DIZON.  As a branch manager, among my duties and responsibilities are overall in charge of the management and operation of the branch, directly supervise my service staff or personnel, among others, and periodic review of the bank reports.  I also have the authority to sign documents that are within my approve authority limit and other responsibilities that may be assigned from time to time.

ATTY. LIM.   Thank you, ma’am.  Why are you appearing here before this honourable impeachment court?

MS. DIZON.  I am appearing before this honourable court because I am the addressee of the subpoena.

ATTY. LIM.   Did you bring the subpoena documents which, as stated in the subpoena are the following:  “The original and certified true copies of the opening documents for Bank Account No. 1445-8030-61 in the name of Renato C. Corona and the bank statements showing the bank balances for the said account as of December 31, 2005; December 31, 2006; December 31, 2007; December 31, 2008; December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010?”

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  By the way, what is this Account No. 1445-8030-61?  Is this a savings account or a checking account or a TRUST agreement or the like?

MS. DIZON.  It’s a checking account, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  On what date did Renato C. Corona open this checking account?

MS. DIZON.  Based on the document, Sir, it was opened in 1989 which then is Fareast Bank pa po.

ATTY. LIM.  Can you tell this honourable court how much was the opening or initial deposit?

MS. DIZON.  Sir, based on the info that were indicated in the subpoena, only the ending balances as of the given year po and required, so, right now po, I did not have the opening balance and since I was just assigned po in Ayala Avenue Branch in 1989, I do not know po what was the opening balance at that time.

ATTY. LIM.  Mawalang galang na po sa inyo ma’am, gusto ko po ipaliwanag sa inyo na yung subpoena nagsasaad ng opening documents.  Tama ba po yung pagkaintindi ko na ang opening document, iisa lang ang account, walang master account, walang subsidiary account, iisang account lang po ito.  Tama ba kung sabihin ko po na ang opening document mayrong initial deposit makikita doon?

MS. DIZON.  Based po don sa mga dokumentong nakuha ko sa branch, wala pong naka-indicate na opening balance.

ATTY. LIM.  Pinapadala po sa inyo ng kagalang-galang na hukoman na ito yung opening documents for this bank account.  Nandiryan pa po sa inyo yung signature card o kaya yung application form?

MS. DIZON.  What I have with me, Sir, is the signature card po.

ATTY. LIM.  Yung application form for opening of the account?

MS. DIZON.  Unfortunately, Sir, ito lang po yung naabotan ko sa branch po, yung signature card.

ATTY. LIM.  Are you telling this honourable court that only opening document that is available right now is the signature card?

MS. DIZON.  Opo.

ATTY. LIM.  Okay.  Did you bring with you the bank statement, because that is the physiology used in the subpoena, the bank statement showing the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005?  Yun po ang unang binanggit sa subpoena na taon.  Nagdala po kayo?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  How much is the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005?

MS. DIZON.  The best evidence, Your Honor, will be the document itself.

ATTY. LIM.  Leeway must be given to the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sustained.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LIM.  Please produce the bank statement showing the outstanding balance as of December 31, 2005, as directed and required by the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we request, Your Honor, that Attorney—a member of the defense panel, Your Honor, be authorized to examine the document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Request granted.

ATTY. LIM.  May I request, Your Honor, that this certified true copy of account—of the balance, outstanding balance of account no. 1445-8030-61, for the period December 31, 2005, be marked as Exhibit …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  Just a minute, counsel, is that a  peso account?

ATTY. LIM.  Peso sum, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It is a local currency account.

ATTY. LIM.  This is a peso account, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, precisely, local currency account.

ATTY. LIM. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDNG OFFICER.  Not a foreign currency account.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay, proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  May we mark this, for purposes of identification, as Exhibit ZZZZZZZ, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Exhibit 7?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the correct exhibit number?

ATTY. LIM.  Septuple Z, Your Honor.  Seven letter Z.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.

May I propound the questions near the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Madam Witness, there is a figure in Exhibit ZZZZZZZ, below the account no. 1445-8030-61, right below it, is the number or figure 149, 767.36, what is that Ma’am?

MS. DIZON.  This is the ending balance, as of December 31, 2005, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you read the ending balance.

MS. DIZON.  Ending balance as of December 31, 2005 is P149,767.36.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  We would like also request the witness to read into record, the name of the account holder and the address.

MS. DIZON.  The name of the account holder is Renato Corona, C.  Address is 95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is for the year …

MS. DIZON.  2005, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2005.

ATTY. LIM.  I noted that this certification does not bear any date.  Can you explain, I mean, the date of the certification, your certification is undated, do you confirm that?

MS. DIZON.  Sir, this is not a certification po.  It is a bank statement po.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes.

MS. DIZON.  As of a given date.

ATTY. LIM.  When was this bank statement, now marked Exhibit ZZZZZZZ prepared?

MS. DIZON.  It was prepared when we received the subpoena which was February 7.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And the date of that—what is the ending period covered by that statements?

MS. DIZON.  December 31, 2005, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  So, as of that date, the ending balance was what you read, as of that date, as of December 31, 2007, the ending balance was what you read?

MS. DIZON.  As of December 31, 2005 …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ah, 2005.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor, the ending balance is P149,767.36.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.  Did you bring the bank statement showing the outstanding balance of this particular account as of December 31, 2006?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Will you kindly produce it, Ma’am.  Witness, Your Honor, handing to counsel a one-page undated document under the printed stationery, Bank of the Philippine Islands, which we would like the witness to further identify by way of reading, and I am requesting her to read, the period and the outstanding balance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Witness, proceed.

MS. DIZON.  The outstanding balance of account no. 1445803061 as of December 31, 2006, outstanding balance is P153,395.12.

ATTY. LIM.  Ma’am, I noted or noticed from Exhibit CCCCCCC, for the December 31, 2005 outstanding balance as well as for this document that you have just presented for December 31, 2006, the typewritten words, express teller checking after period colon December 31, 2006.  Can you kindly elaborate to the honourable court what is meant by express teller checking.

MS. DIZON.  We call the account express teller checking when the checking account comes with an express teller or ATM card, Your Honor.

ATTY. LIM.  You are, therefore, telling the honourable court, Ma’am, are you telling the honourable court, and I ask this by way of preliminary, not a leading question, that this checking account is linked to a savings account that is funding the issuance of checks?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Still it is leading, Your Honor.  Very leading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Lay the basis.

ATTY. LIM.  May I first request, Your Honor, that this document for December 31, 2006 be marked as Exhibit DDDDDDD, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LIM.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Kindly read into the record the account holder, just for the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You do not have to ask the permission of the court to proceed.  You are doing a direct-examination

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. DIZON.  Account holder of 1445803061 is Renato Corona C. With address of 95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights Quezon City.

ATTY. LIM.  You were mentioning just a few minutes ago ATM account.  Can you kindly elaborate, ma’am.

MS. DIZON.  Type of account is Express Teller checking account.

ATTY. LIM.  You mentioned ATM, what did you mean by that?

MS. DIZON.  Express Teller or what we call iyong ATM card po.

ATTY. LIM. Do I understand it that this checking account is also an ATM at the same time?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Is that preliminary?

ATTY. LIM.  No more.  For confirmation, it is a question that is merely a consequence of a previous question already answered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If it is not preliminary, I will object.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

MS. DIZON.  Our checking account comes with an ATM card po.

ATTY. LIM.  And what does that mean?

MS. DIZON.  It means that when you open a checking account, you are also issued an ATM card.

ATTY. LIM.   So aside from withdrawing by way of a check, you may also use your ATM card to withdraw.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, ma’am.  Did you also bring with you the bank statement for the period ending December 31, 2007?

MS. DIZON.    Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.   Can you kindly produce, ma’am.  Witness handing to counsel, Your Honor, a similar one-page document which is also undated and I would like to ask the witness to read the period and the express teller, I withdraw that, Your Honor.  I just would like to request the witness to read the period covered, the period only, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will admit that whatever is stated in there, whatever appears there was stated.

ATTY. LIM.  I am on direct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer that.

MS. DIZON.  This particular document shows December 31, 2007.

ATTY. LIM.  Kindly explain to the honourable court, Madam Witness, kindly explain, ma’am, to this honourable impeachment court the figure or number appearing right below Account No. 1445-8030-61, reading “5,069,711.18”.  What is this, ma’am?

MS. DIZON.  The figure 5,069,711.18 is the ending balance or outstanding balance as of December 31, 2007.

ATTY. LIM.   If I may read it correctly, ma’am, is it correct to read it as 5,069,…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. LIM.  P5,069,711.18.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  May I request that this document be marked as Exhibit EEEEEEE-A, Your Honor.  I respectfully manifest that Exhibit EEEEEEE mentions the same account holder or depositor, Your Honor, or client, Renato C. Corona.  Please produce, ma’am, the bank statement for the ending balance December 31, 2008.  Witness as requested has handed to counsel a one-page similar document with the letterhead Bank of the Philippine Islands and I would request the witness to read into the record the period covered outstanding balance for ending period.

MS. DIZON.  Ending period December 31, 2008.

ATTY. LIM.  And ma’am, please read the figure below the account number.

MS. DIZON.  Outstanding balance as of the given period is P1,525,872.87.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, ma’am.  I manifest, Your Honor, that it refers to the same account holder Renato Corona C.

May I request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit FFFFFFF, Your Honor.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Mr. President, may I be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.

Mrs. Witness, are these all checking accounts?

MS. DIZON.  It only pertains, Your Honor, to one account which is a checking account.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Wala siyang savings account diyan sa bangko ninyo?

MS. DIZON.  I was only required, Sir, Your Honor, to produce this particular account po.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Okay.  Do you have any knowledge if the Chief Justice has any savings account?

MS. DIZON.  Your Honor, if I—I only concentrated on the account numbers stated in the subpoena.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, counsel.

The Gentleman from Taguig …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Just one question to follow-up the question of Senator Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You have two minutes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Just one question, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Pero yung current account na yan, because you’re only allowed to testify on that account right, the checking account?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Is that linked to another account?  Kasi ‘di ba pag cheke usually, popondohan mo yan e.  So dahil mas maliit yung interes usually ng checking account, usually may iba ka pang account na yun ang mas malaking interes, tapos ililipat mo yung pera don.  So, yan bang account na yan naka-link sa isa pang account?

MS. DIZON.  Not necessarily, Your Honor.  Sa BPI po, hindi lahat ng checking accounts …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.  Not necessarily, but this specific account, is it linked to another account.

ATTY. LIM.  As mentioned po, I did not look into the other accounts not subject of …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  It’s not possible.  You didn’t look into it?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So you do not know?

MS. DIZON.  I do not know, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETAN (A.).  But it’s possible—Of course, anything’s possible, what I meant is that makikita mo sa documents ng account na ‘to ha, kung may naka-link na account diyan?

MS. DIZON.  Wala pong naka-indicate.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

MS. DIZON.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Madam Witness, where is the bank statement showing the outstanding balance for the ending period December 31, 2009?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tapos na yung 2008 ano?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor, 2009 na po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  2009.  Okay.  Tapusin na natin 2009 hanggang 2010.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  As requested, witness has handed to counsel a similar one-page which I would like the witness to identify and read into the record the ending period, Your Honor.

MS. DIZON.  As of December 31, 2009, the outstanding balance of 14458030361 is P678,501.83.

ATTY. LIM.  It refers to the same account holder.  May I request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit GGGGGGG as in golf.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LIM.  Madam Witness, last but not least, where is the bank statement showing the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the last but not least?  Is there an additional …

ATTY. LIM.  In the subpoena, Your Honor, it is up to year 2010, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  So it’s the last one.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor, as per subpoena.

Madam Witness, where is the bank statement for the year ending December 31, 2010, ma’am?

Witness has handed to counsel a similar one-page document which I would like the witness to read into the record period and the—The period only, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just state the period and the bank balance.  That is the same account.  I don’t think the defense will dispute that.

MS. DIZON.  As of December 31, 2010, outstanding balance of the subject account is P12,024,067.70.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LIM.  There is a name below the details stated at the top reading Renato Corona, C.  95 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.  What is this name?  What does it represent?

MS. DIZON.  Renato Corona, C. is the account holder of 1445803061

ATTY. LIM.  I noticed, Ma’am, and I am doing this for the clarification of the honorable court.  I noticed, Ma’am, that aside from the account number which is indicated consistently in the first line, reading, number 1445-8030-61, in the portion relating to the identification of the account holder, right on top of his name, are the numbers 10-144R-0109-803061, which I also noticed in the other documents.  What is this number, Ma’am?

MS. DIZON.  That refers to the reference number of the bank statement, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Kindly—may I, Your Honor, request that this last certification for ending balance, December 31, 2010, certifying an outstanding amount of P12, 024,067.70 be marked as Exhibit HHHHHHH as in Hotel, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LIM.  Ma’am, is this account no.1445-8030-61 still an active account, as we speak?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  That would be all for the witness, Your Honor.

Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any cross, on the part of the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be permitted, Your Honor, to conduct our cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Awhile ago—good afternoon, Madam Witness.

MS. DIZON.  Good afternoon, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Awhile ago, I heard you stated that this document, rather—awhile ago—I withdraw the question.  Awhile ago, I heard Atty. Lim stated that this is the first time he saw these statements.  Do you confirm that?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, I confirm, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the first time is today only.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Prior to this date, you never—he never had the opportunity to have seen these documents, banking documents?

MS. DIZON.  Sir, Mr. Lim?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How about any of the lawyers for the prosecution, whether private or public?

MS. DIZON.  None of them, Sir, have seen these documents.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, this complaint, the complaint here was filed way back in December 13, 2011, I would like to understand that they never did have the—any information regarding these accounts, prior to that date?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now, this statement—this account of Mr. Justice Corona, as you have testified, is a checking account for a current account.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the deposits made in here, together with the withdrawals are certainly borne out by the statement of account for every month.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Do you have those statements of account?

MS. DIZON.  As mentioned awhile ago, I only have with me the—what was required in the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, I am not asking you whether you have them with you, whether your bank keep records of the statements of account.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  So, for the year 2010, there is a statement of account.

MS. DIZON.  2010, yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And this statement of account is monthly or annually?

MS. DIZON.  Monthly, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The same holds true with the December 2009 statement.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There were several statements, and so on with the other period covered by your testimony.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In other words, am I correct to state that for every year, there are 12 statements of accounts?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the deposits, together with the withdrawals, are recorded therein.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, this P12,024,067.00 balance in this account, was this pursuant to several deposits and withdrawals, or only one deposit, one withdrawal for that year?

MS. DIZON.  I do not recall, sir, because I concentrated really on what was required in the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  As you stated, the statement of account pertaining to these years exist in your office?

MS. DIZON.  As of the time I prepared this document, it is still existing, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Am I right to presume or am I correct to presume that this P12,024.067.00 account or balance of the account must have been covered by several deposits and several withdrawals.

MS. DIZON.  I will not confirm right now, sir, because I haven’t prepared the statement for the 2010.  But it could be po.  It could be possible.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is the kind of procedure pertaining to this current accounts that you have in your bank.

MS. DIZON.  Sorry, can you please repeat, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is a standing practice in your bank, there are withdrawals there are deposits.

MS. DIZON.  Yes,. Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, this is not one single transaction, P12,024,067.00.

MS. DIZON.  Since this is an ending balance po, it could come from the ending balance of the previous months and then the transactions for deposits and withdrawals, this is the net amount po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So that you will agree with me that this must have covered several transactions involved in that year?

MS. DIZON.  It could be, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There were several deposits in various amounts.

MS. DIZON.  It could be, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There were several withdrawals covering various amounts.

MS. DIZON.  It could be, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And your observation or you statement applies to all this account particularly for the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

MS. DIZON.  It could be, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, if ordered by the court to produce the statements of accounts will you be able to do that?  I am not asking you whether you are willing, but  will you be able because I know you will be willing, except when you are already somewhere else.

MS. DIZON.  We will comply to whatever  is being required in the subpoena.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In view of the answer of the witness, Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the statement of account covering these periods, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, be produced by the witness at the most convenient time considering her condition now, Your Honor.  Our purpose, Your Honor, is to show that this figure is not made in one single deposit, one single withdrawal, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I just address, before I make a ruling on your request.  This is a checking account, Witness?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  When was it first opened?

MS. DIZON.  It was opened in 1989.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And this continued up to 2010.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that this account carried a running balance, month by month, year by year, quarterly, semi-annually, annually over the years up to 2010.  It is a running balance, isn’t it?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And that the balance at the end of December 30 or at the end of December 2010 is the result of those running balances from the time it was opened in 1989 until the year 2010.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And it reflects the changes in that account over these years reflecting at the same time the transactions that went on in the deposit and withdrawal of monies in this special account over these long period from 1989 ending December 31, 2010.

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  So the witness is instructed by this court or ordered by this court to produce the documents that the defense counsel requested.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, notwithstanding the willingness of the witness to bring them, may we ask that we be permitted to go to their bank just to save—for convenience, Your Honor, because we can procure certified copies, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If there is no objection from the prosecution, I will authorize it.

ATTY. LIM.  We respectfully and vigorously object.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why not joint him so that we can expedite the hearing?

ATTY. LIM.  We defer, we…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You join him.  Anyway there is nothing unusual.  It is already established that this is a running balance over a long period of time that will entail 1989 to 2010.

ATTY.  LIM.  We withdraw our objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  120 months of balances.

ATTY. LIM.  We withdraw our objection and accede to the good suggestion of Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Both prosecution and defense counsels, go to the bank, examine the monthly balances and the quarterly balances and the semi annual balances and the annual balances over this period of time.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  So ordered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, thank you, Your Honor.  Now in view of this development, Your Honor, we have in the meanwhile no further cross-examination question to the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the meantime ha?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, because our continuation of cross-examination…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Subject to further cross-examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because there are no statements yet  that we have examined, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We wanted to assume or to prove…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So you are suspending your cross-examination first?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, granted.  The Gentleman from Cebu.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cebu has the floor.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  May I just address some questions to Ms. Dizon.

Ms. Dizon, are there any other accounts in Bank of PI under the name of Renato C. Corona?

MS. DIZON.  Your Honor, as I mentioned earlier, I only looked into the subject account number stated in the subpoena.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Alright.  Without objections from the defense counsel since they are already going to go to the bank, would the court kindly subpoena other accounts under the name of Renato C. Corona in the Bank of PI including savings account, certificates of deposit, time deposits, unit investment trust funds and other such deposits in the Bank of PI.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I respect the request of the distinguished member of this court but under the rules, a subpoena must specify the periods involved, the bank accounts involved, and the specific documents required.  But that is a fundamental requirement of subpoenas and so we have to observe.  In fact we have already made a ruling on that.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  I understand if I just recall about an hour ago, Mr. President, the court accepted our request to subpoena attached accounts at the PS Bank including without limited to certificates of deposit, time deposits, savings deposits and unit investment trust funds.  Now, the reason for this and if I might explain, Mr. President, these funds tend to come and go but they are normally if the, I am sorry, if the SALN asks the filer to list his assets and liabilities and net worth as of a given year and the court sees fit to subpoena the bank accounts in a certain bank, the court limits itself very severely by not looking into the other deposits in that bank.

Now, I’m only asking for peso deposits, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, this is a peso account.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  This is a peso account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Republic Act 1405, in an impeachment case, we can look into an inquiry into the bank accounts of the respondent, the court will grant it.  (Gavel)

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the corresponding subpoena.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, may the court be provided with the documents that counsel for the defense has so kindly allowed to be examined in the bank premises.  We would also, as Members of the court, I believe that we are also entitled to see these documents.  Because this is already with the—

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, that’s a reasonable request.  So the bank concerned is ordered to submit a certified true copies of the bank statements over the period from the time this checking account was opened up to the year ending December 31, 2010.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  The Member of the court who wish to be clarified on the motion for subpoena of Senator Osmeña earlier and today, so may we recognize Senator Pia Cayetano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Pia Cayetano has the floor.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Marcos took the floor and put on record that what was resolved in caucus yesterday—was it yesterday or two days ago—was the ending balances, and his honor confirmed that, and then later on, there was a request by Senator Drilon and then now Senator Osmeña states that that request for subpoena on additional documents was approved, so, I have to say I’m a little bit confused because my understanding, in conference also with the Majority Floor Leader was that these were all going to be subject of a caucus because it is a change in what was taken up in caucus.

I am not taking a position, simply clarifying that Senator Marcos, to my recollection, correctly stated what was taken up in caucus.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is only …

SEN CAYETANO (P.).  With reference to peso accounts, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no.  Let me explain.  The ruling of the course is, as you stated correctly, we had made it a formal ruling that only ending balances would be required.  But in the case of this particular account that we are now discussing, in effect, the depositor already gave permission …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … for the examination of all the accounts month by month from the beginning of the opening of this account up to the year ending December 31, 2010.

Then Senator Osmeña, in the face of this development, made a motion to include other bank accounts in this bank, and there was no objection on the part of the depositor, represented by counsel, and that is why the Chair has seen fit to issue a ruling, an order rather, to subpoena the records of any bank accounts from this particular bank only, if there are any such bank deposits.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Mr. President, I’m looking at the defense and either their not listening or it is okay with them because I am simply reiterating the understanding in caucus, so definitely, if the defense has no problem, I’m not speaking on behalf of the defense, I am simply confirming that the resolution in caucus to limit it to the ending balances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If the depositor will reasonably object, then I would enforce our ruling, but it was in fact, the depositor that started the request for the production or examination of the bank—monthly bank balances of that current account that was mentioned, involving the Bangko delas Islas Filipinas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Besides, Your Honor…

SEN. MARCOS.  Mr. President, with the indulgence of Senator Pia Cayetano, if I may?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. MARCOS.  I would just like to remind everyone that the reason that the—I believe, that we cannot read anything into the fact that the defense did not object, because according to our rules, they cannot object.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Precisely, I was about to mention that, Your Honor.

SEN. MARCOS.  I think, maybe, we should hear from them, if they have any reservations about all of these suggestions and motions and …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is why I wanted to take the floor, if, Your Honor, please, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … and place on record that even if we wanted to object, in view of the clarification made by the honorable Presiding judge, Your Honor, we are constrained not to do so for fear that we may be violating the order of this court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You stood up, ask the permission of the Chair.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We just went ahead with it, even if there is an objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you objecting to the request for subpoena by the Gentleman from Cebu?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If the question is addressed to us, Your Honor, it will appear to be a fishing expedition because as the court will notice, none of this account have been the subject of any examination, prior to the filing of the complaint of this case.

We had been stating all the while that all these amounts are fishing expeditions because the evidences are not with them when they filed the case, Your Honor.

That is not the ordinary procedure, if this may be compared to a criminal case …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is the request of a judge, a member of the Senate, not a request of the prosecution service or the prosecutors.  So, I will leave it to the pleasure of the Chamber if you want to object to the request of the fellow member of this House, I will divide the House.

SEN. PANGILINAN.   Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Mr. President, it is my understanding that, yes, we did have a caucus, and we had a ruling on the basis of that caucus as regards the subpoena and the items.

However, Mr. President, after two days of trial, new information has surfaced.  Yesterday and today, we have come to realize that are certain figures here, and amounts here that are surfacing which brings us to the next stage, ika nga.

We want to know more about this information that we are receiving, and I think, any of the Senator judges should be given enough leeway to be able to secure more information, based on the subsequent information that is now made available to us, for us to stick to what we decided on during the caucus, and ignore all the information that we are now receiving, at least, up to this point, I think, would also be—well, it is asking of us in the Senate to sort of close our eyes and not move towards getting more information that we deem is necessary to get a clearer picture, Mr. President.

So, I hope that this can be considered by those who are of the opinion that whatever it is that we decided in the caucus, two days ago, is what we should stick to, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In the first place, the caucus referred to this request for subpoena by the prosecution, it did not cover request for documents by any member of the court, for his information.

So, if there is an objection to the request of the Gentleman from Cebu, then, say so, put it in the form of an objection and let us divide the court.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.)  Mr. President, I would just like to clarify that the reason I bring this matter up, is because since caucus, we had discussed that the reason why we are asking for the ending balance is because we are looking at Article II, which is on the SALN which requires that the ending balance is what will be declared.  And that is why, as a Senator Judge, I am guided by what is required by the SALN and that is my understanding why those are the documents, the figures that we requested from the bank.  Now, if we are changing that because of new circumstances, I am very open to discussing what this is.  But precisely why there was a reason why it was pegged on December 31.  Otherwise, we will go into 2.4 which is on ill-gotten wealth.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Chair is not changing any ruling that it has made.  It stands.  It applies to requests for subpoena on the part of the prosecution.  Now, in the case of this matter that triggered this discussion, it was a request not by the prosecution but by the defense.  Which I took as an authority of the depositor himself to produce the monthly balances, monthly statements on that current account all the years up to December 31st 2010 to show that the P12 million ending balance on December 31st 2010 was not a one-time deposit reflecting an income deposited by the depositor at that time.  I knew the thrust of his request that he wants to show that that is the sum total of all the balances of that current account over the years.  Am I correct, Counsel?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I agree.  Very correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, that is not covered by our caucus.  Now, neither did the caucus cover any request by a member of this impeachment court to request for documents from the parties …

SEN. OSMEÑA.  May I interrupt please because I can clarify this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cebu.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Mr. President, with your permission, we are talking about two different issues here.  What I requested was just the balance of any deposit, any other deposit in the bank as of December 31st.  So, it might be under a heading of CDs, time deposits, savings account, UITF.  For December 31st, I will be satisfied with that.  Now, there is another request which I was about to make and which I think the Senator from Iloilo was going to make, because the defense counsel himself requested a monthly balance.  So, I was going to ask that this also be applied to the monthly balances in the PSB accounts.  If we can ask for the monthly balances in the Bank of PI account, then we can also ask for the monthly balances in the PSB account.  So, those are two different issues.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only if the depositor would consent.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Well, does that mean that the defense counsel would like to agree …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We authorized the opening of the monthly because balances upon the request of the depositor but if it is requested by a member of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment, I am subject to the decision of the Body.

SEN. OSMEÑA.  Well, my only point is that if the defense or one side can ask, why can it not be applied to the other accounts also?  If it is their purpose.  Now, this is not covered really by bank secrecy because this is an impeachment court.  We are not talking about the dollar accounts.  We have not decided on that yet.  But we are talking about the peso accounts, the December 31st balances which we obtained the other day.  That is what I am saying, Mr. President.  Thank you.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Mr. President, may I just offer my help to clarify.  Actually, both sides are correct.  It is correct that in the caucus, we decided that we will not allow fishing expeditions.  So, therefore, the subpoenas that will be issued we will ask that it will at least specify the bank account numbers.  So there is a certain level of information that we need.  If not, we simply write the Central Bank and say give us all of these bank accounts and that is where we stop in the caucus.  However, yesterday and today, testimony tended to show that certain bank accounts are linked with one another.  So Senator OsmeÑa and myself I asked awhile ago are also correct to say that if these are linked together, there is some sort of basis to ask for this other account.  The question that the Presiding Officer has been asking is there any objection and should we vote on it.  I don’t think it is a matter of there’s objection although that is the correct procedure.  I think the question is do we debate it here and now where the rules only limit us to one minute each or do we debate it in caucus where each of us will have our papers, our staff to assist us and we can balance the interest of the banking industry, the economy, the secrecy of bank accounts and our function to come to the truth?  It is a very fine line between a fishing expedition and searching for the truth, Mr. President.  So I haven’t heard an objection but I think the question really was without giving away our positions and I didn’t think Senator Pia, if I may say, I didn’t hear he or her give a position whether or not she is objecting or not.  It is just a matter of clarification, would we want to discuss this in caucus where we would be able to balance the conflicting interest.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I am open to any suggestion.  We can decide it here, we can decide it in caucus.  It depends upon the pleasure of the House.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Are you through, Senator Cayetano?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  Mr. President, I just clarified that as of the new accounts but I was also one of them who asked awhile ago, is this account linked?  Two more clarifications.  Two witnesses already kept on answering here that they can only reveal information on bank accounts if they are subpoenaed.  I have a different interpretation of 1405.  In impeachment proceedings, for as long the court is inquiring into it, you can give information here and the order of the court is not limited to a subpoena.  When the Presiding Officer directs you to testify on it, that is also an order of the court.  Am I correct, Mr. Presiding Officer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.).  So do not limit the order of the court, ma’am, to the subpoena.  But  since hindi po lawyers lahat, hindi ba we are not taking that against you pero pag inutos po ng korte kahit written or oral form here na sinabi sa inyo order pa rin iyon, protected pa rin kayo sa 1405.  Lastly, Mr. President, I heard the last statement of Senator Osmeña na kung pwedeng tignan iyong balances bakit hindi sa PS account.  Without making a stand, actually the defense took an extra trouble of asking the court if they can go to the bank and if they can get that.  But actually that is even unnecessary because their client is the owner of the account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.P.)  All he has to do is write the bank, give me my statements and the bank will give them the statements.  But it created confusion now that if you can ask for all of the accounts balances why now for the other accounts.  That is a legitimate question from a Senator-Judge.  But just to clarify all those issues, Mr. President.  So tatlong issue iyon—new accounts, accounts statement at pangatlo iyong order of the court.  Thank you, Mr. President, and my apologies to the Gentleman from Iloilo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.)  Mr. President, I will not continue the discussion right now but before we go on, may we just know from the witness if she needs to go to the restroom.  I have been nine months pregnant at one time and she’s been sitting for an hour so just as a matter of courtesy.

MS. DIZON.  Thank you, Your Honor, for the consideration.  Okay lang po ako.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you want to be excused for a while?

MS. DIZON.  No, Your Honor.  Pwede lang pong makainom ng tubig.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, if there are no questions to the witness, why don’t we discharge her until the next session?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo first.

SEN. DRILON.  Mr. President, I wish to add my voice and hopefully clarify the order, just limiting it to the BPI.  The first set of documents were those produced by the witness this afternoon which shows the cash position of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31, 2005 etc. up to December 31, 2010.  The ending cash position as of December 31, 2010 is P12,024,067.00.

Now, that’s the first set of documents.  The second set of documents, Mr. President, will be the monthly statements from 1989 …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, no, no.

SEN. DRILON.  19 what?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  2005.

SEN. DRILON.  2005.  From 2005 up to 2010 which in effect the depositor has given his consent, through counsel, for the examination.  I don’t think there’s no dispute there whether or not it is called in the subpoena, it is immaterial because the depositor has given his consent through his counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute.  2005 or 1989?

SEN. DRILON.  I do not know, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The opening of the account was 1989, isn’t it witness?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  So, all right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  2005 only, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ha?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  2005, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are asking only for 2005?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, no, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  He is consenting to 2005 up to 2010.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If I may be permitted to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We went this far, Your Honor, because it is not very clear to us what the prosecution wanted to prove by these documents, Your Honor.  If they are merely proving that the accounts of the amounts reflected in these accounts were not included in the SALN, then they have gone too far, Your Honor.  To us, it appears as though they are now prosecuting a case of violation of the Anti-Graft Law or forfeiture proceedings, Your Honor, because apparently, there seem to be no need for this.  Only one account may be sufficient, Your Honor.

Now, we do not want to assume that the correctness or the statement relative to the amount involved because apparently it prejudiced the public, Your Honor.  Ayun pala, P12 million and so on.  That P12 million …

SEN. DRILON.  We’re not arguing on what is written.  I’m just asking about the influx and I’m trying to set the records straight what documents are to be produced.

And may I continue.  All right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, it is 2005 ha?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To 2010?

SEN. DRILON.  That is correct.

So, the monthly bank statements from January 2005 up to December 31, 2010 will be examined by counsels and will be produced before this court for the individual Senators-Jurors.

The third set of documents which are now being debated upon is the request of Senator Osmeña.  The issue here is whether or not the SALN reflects the assets of Chief Justice Corona as of December 31 of the pertinent period.

Now, Senator Osmeña is saying that apart from this accounts, there could be other monetary instruments which were existing as of December 31 of any particular year to show a difference between what is stated as assets in the SALN and what actually exist, whether in the form of a checking account, savings account, time deposits and other monetary instruments as of December 31, ending 2010.

And this is for the information of Senator Osmeña and the Members of the court who may be interested in that.  It is not evidence for either side.  This is in effect an evidence for the court that is certainly allowed and covered and limited by our subpoena.  I repeat, this in effect, is a document that a judge is asking for.  It can be an exhibit for the court.  And the information being asked is whether or not, as of December 31 of a year ending the SALN correctly directly reflects the assets of the respondent.

That same rule will apply to PS Bank.

So, that is our submission, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  At any rate, the Chair has already ruled to allow the request of the Senator from Cebu.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Lacson and then Senator Arroyo wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Lacson will have the floor.

SEN. LACSON.  I have, maybe a couple of questions to the witness, Mr. President.

Madam Witness, If I provide you with a sequence of cheque serial numbers, obviously, this was issued by BPI, if I provide you with a sequence of cheque serial numbers, will you able to tell this court if this cheque serial numbers was issued by your branch?  For example, there is a cheque serial number 0000404774, there is another one, 0000404870, so, sequential po ito, magkakasunod.  Another one, 0000404955, so, kung hindi po ngayon, ano, pwede pong pagabalik nyo sa Lunes, kung hindi pa kayo nanganganak, kung ibigay ko po sa inyo ito, ma-identify nyo kung nanggaling po sa bangko nyo ito?

MS. DIZON.  Your Honor, I can only identify if the cheque is issued by the account holder from my branch, through the account number po at saka yung address nung …

SEN. LACSON.  Kung account name po, hindi po account number, kundi account name, associated with the cheque serial number or numbers?

MS. DIZON.  Kahit serial number po, hindi ko po ma-identify.

SEN. LACSON.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Who else?

SEN. LACSON.  Mr. President, para hindi ako pagbintangan na nagsasaliksik dito, e yun ding exhibit na nai-submit dito sa korte, Exhibit ZZZZ, Exhibit ZZZZ-1 and Exhibit ZZZZ-2, kasi ito po yung ginamit na pambayad, itong mga cheque serial numbers na ito ang ginamit na pambayad doon sa unit 38 B sa Bellagio, isang P5 million, isang P5 million at isang P4.510,225.

MS. DIZON.  Again po, I can only identify through the account number and through the signature po noong kliyente namin.

SEN. LACSON.  Not by …

MS. DIZON.  Not by serial number or by account name.

SEN. LACSON.  Salamat po.

MS. DIZON.  Thank you po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Senator Arroyo, the Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I will not discuss the pro and con of the issue before us.  But the way I understand it, what is of issue, is the effect of our decision in caucus, and the resolution, the agreement of us, embodied in a resolution, formal resolution.

Since that is an agreement in caucus, and we are going to amend it, and that is the issue, we should also take that up in caucus because we cannot be arguing among us.  A collegiate body like the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, their judges and justices do not disagree in public.  They go to their chambers, and then they discuss it, because—especially in a nationally televised proceeding, there will be speculation as to the tendency or rather the leanings of each member, and I think, it could not be fair.

So, my respect to the submission is that we started that in caucus, and if it says it, we have to decide it in caucus, but not publicly.

That is my respect to the submission, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I suggest, to avoid this discussion like this, that henceforth, when we go to into a caucus, those who have some special concerns they should submit in writing to the Presiding Officer their requested suggestions or proposals so that when we discuss these things in caucus, then we take minutes of the caucus so that we will have a basis.  So that we will not be groping.  And my recollection really is that, we were deciding the request for subpoena filed by the prosecution.  We did not touch on the request of fellow Senators who are sitting as Judges in this proceeding.  And we are confronted also with a development like a request from the defense counsel, moto propio, to ask for the bank records of his clients over certain period of time.  Now, so that we will not have any misunderstanding among ourselves, and to facilitate our proceedings, I would suggest that on Monday, I would respectfully request the members of the court to submit in writing their proposals so that we will have a record of these things.

Senator Pangilinan.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes, Mr. President.  Just a few questions sa ating witness.  Magandang hapon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I just, with your permission, request the pleasure of the Senator from Taguig.  Are you going to ask questions or ..

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Actually, no, Mr. President, with the indulgence of Senator Pangilinan.  I was going to comment on His Honor’s statement.  So, if I may, so that we can conclude this issue.  Precisely, Mr. President why I stood up, was because the request of some of our colleagues, and I thank Senator Osmeña for the clarification because his request for year-ending December 31 was consistent as discussed in caucus, I stood up because some of the requests were different from what I remember was decided on in caucus.  Which is precisely why I just wanted to bring it to the attention of His Honor, so that we can decide.  If everybody is amenable, that we move forward and expand what was decided in caucus, I had no problem.  I did not take a position.  That is exactly what I was trying to do.  But I would also like to mention in His Honor’s suggestion, that we put it in writing—the difficulty is that sometimes we cannot predict what issues would come about.  So, in other words, when we decided that December 31 was the year ending, it would not have come to mind then that I indicate that this is a matter important to me because I just assume that it was what was agreed upon.  So, sometimes, we will just have to raise our hands and point out that that it is different from what was agreed upon and can we go back to caucus and discuss it if other people have the same view.  That is my only desire, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  But I would urge everybody, so that we can remember the subject matter of discussion, to please submit to me your special request for consideration, and I will make a file of this.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  I submit.  I am looking at my colleagues.  I think many will have a hard time putting everything in writing.  But perhaps we could just request His Honor if he could accommodate our concerns if we take note that there may be something that is outside and if we could give, you know, indulge us and  allow us to just raise the point so that perhaps it could be included in the agenda for the following caucus.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I assure you I am open to any discussion of anything coming from the members of the court.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.)  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Mr. :President, magandang hapon ulit, Madam Witness.  Okay naman po kayo?

MS. DIZON.  Good afternoon po.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  You are doing okay?

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Magiging boy ba or girl iyong …

MS. DIZON.  Girl po.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Ah, girl.  Baka magiging Senador din o abogado one day.  Maybe the counsels for the prosecution or the witness can answer.  My understanding is that the subpoena was supposed to be from, documents from 2002 to 2010 when he was Associate Justice until now as Chief Justice or is it only until 2005?

ATTY. LIM.  Your Honor, to answer your question, as per subpoena signed by the honourable Senate President and Presiding Officer of this honourable court, the original and certified true copies of the offering documents…

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Two thousand…

ATTY. LIM.   The year is not indicated because we do not know when it was opened.  But the bank statement or the bank balances for said account started with the year ending 31 December 2005, 2006 up to 2010.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  I see.  So despite the fact na 1989 pa iyong account na ito ang hinihiling lang ng korte ay mula 2005.

MS. DIZON.  Yes,Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Kaya iyon ang dinala ninyo

MS. DIZON.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So kung hiniling ng korte iyong bago 2005 mula 2002 dadalhin ninyo rin pero hindi iyon ang hiningi.  Tama po ba iyon?

MS. DIZON.  Depending on the availability of the documents, Your Honor.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Yes.  Now, my second question is, if we are going to the monthly statement, is this from 2005, just to be clarified, or even before 2005?

ATTY. LIM.  2005.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  2005, okay.  Sige po.  I just want to be clarified.  Thank you, Madam Witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, earlier I…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there anything else?

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.  There was a manifestation by the defense that they will suspend the cross-examination.  So with that…

ATTY. LIM.  Your Honor.  Your Honor please, just one or two housekeeping matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  First, this representation and the prosecution panel would very much appreciate if we can agree on the date and time now for the examination of those monthly statements.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We cannot agree yet on the date, Your Honor, because we were communicating with the Chief Justice and he mentioned to us that there were several statement of accounts with him.  So as of this moment, I feel that if we have those statement, we need not go into the bank records, Your Honor, because he is the depositor, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  My understanding is, when are you going to the bank to examine the records?  Is that correct?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we excuse the witness while they are discussing about housekeeping.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is excused.

MS. DIZON.  Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. LIM.  With your kind indulgence, Your Honor, just one…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is your pleasure?

ATTY. LIM.  Yes.  Before the witness is discharged, ma’am, the witness identified and referred to a signature card, may I just please request that that be marked as Exhibit IIIIIII, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. Lim.  That’s all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, counsel for prosecution, you asked when you are supposed to go to the bank, isn’t it?

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  To examine the documents.

ATTY. LIM.  As suggested by them, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, that is what the prosecution requested.  So what is the pleasure of the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was trying to tell the honourable court, Your Honor, that if the statement of accounts we wanted to examine had been kept intact by the depositor, then we will waive that particular request, Your Honor.  We were of the assumption when we made that manifestation since we were not furnished with this…

SEN. SOTTO.  The witness is discharged.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … statement of accounts, Your Honor, that the only alternative left will be to go into the bank records.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, the court directs the prosecution and the defense counsels to arrange the time to go to the bank, to examine the documents before what date?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. LIM.  Point of clarification Your Honor.  If I heard the good counsel correctly, he seems to be withdrawing that earlier request of his.  We are very eager to go to the bank and examine the monthly statements as suggested by them.  We will go with them, Your Honor.

Can you suggest tomorrow morning, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What’s the pleasure of the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we have it next week, Your Honor, say Monday morning.

ATTY. LIM.  Next week, we will be presenting another article, Your Honor.  No, no, I mean we’ll be presenting another article, Your Honor.

I withdraw that, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let us accommodate each other.  They were very lenient with you and the court was very lenient with you in changing the arrangements of your Articles of Impeachment, in effect, your order of proof.

ATTY. LIM.  My apologies, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, why can you not accommodate their—Just a minute.  I will just finish this.  Why can you not accommodate their request?

ATTY. LIM.  My apologies.  Next week, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Then as Members of the Bar, you can work it out.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, we are good friends with the Justice, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I’m sure.  I’m sure.  It just happened that you are on opposites side.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Mr. President, my point has been rendered …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think he is your fraternity brother.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  I respect him so much, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. LIM.  Just like I respect the honourable Presiding Officer so very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  Thank you.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Mr. President, my point has been rendered moot.  I was supposed to point that it should be the head of the prosecution panel who should be negotiating with the defense panel.  So, anyway, it has been rendered moot and academic, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is under the supervision of the private prosecutor.

ATTY. LIM.  Public prosecutor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  It should be that way.  The public prosecutor having control and supervision over the—But it is now the private prosecutor having control of the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  This is a simple problem.  Let them decide who is going to confer with the defense counsel.  You want to deal with the head of the panel.  I think since they have control over their panel, they can designate whoever they want to go with the defense counsel to examine the records.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is my point, if Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  While the court is debating among its Members a matter of inspection or production of the statement of accounts, Your Honor, my co-counsel in the defense, Your Honor, received a call from the Chief Justice that he has these documents—some of these documents I am referring to, the statement of accounts, are with him.  I would not know which will be material to us.  If this is true, Your Honor, then in effect, we will be withdrawing the motion because we have them already with us.

That’s my point, Your Honor.  We will not unduly burden our colleague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then why can you not talk to your client and then communicate …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, we will do that, Your Honor  Precisely, that’s why we’re asking up to Monday, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Then, let it be Monday.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Majority Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President.  May we just inform our colleagues that there will be a caucus at eleven o’clock in the morning on Monday, and if …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Everybody is notified.  The Members of the Impeachment Court will have a caucus on Monday at eleven o’clock in the morning.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement, Mr. President, before my motion.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.

All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  I move to adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Monday, February 13, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  Hearing none, this trial is adjourned until two o’clock next Monday, 13 February, 2012 in the afternoon.  (Gavel)

It was 6:30 p.m.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s