Senator-judges are not ruling out possible sanctions against House prosecutors for submitting spurious bank documents that the Impeachment Court used as basis in issuing a subpoena for Philippine Savings Bank to produce deposit accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona in his ongoing Senate trial.

At the start of Day 17 of the proceedings, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile assumed “full responsibility” for the questioned subpoena the court issued at the behest of the prosecution, specifically Rep. Rey Umali, who claimed the bank documents were passed on to him by an unidentified “small lady” at the Senate.

Senator-Judge Francis Escudero said the prosecutors who submitted the questioned bank documents “can be subjected to disciplinary action and contempt or any other penalty by the Senate.”

He cited the manifestation made by Majority Leader Tito Sotto that a review of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitors at the Senate showed that “mula noong natapos ’yung impeachment trial hanggang sa nakasakay ng auto si Congressman Umali ay wala hong nakikitang lumapit sa kanyang small man o big lady na nagbigay ng envelope.”

If proved to have misled the court, an erring official can be the “subject of disciplinary action by the court” and if it is made clear that they have something to do with the unauthorized disclosure of PSBank records, this would constitute a violation of Republic Act 1405, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

PSBank officials, testifying the other day, said the “leaked” documents, one of them showing that Corona opened a dollar account at the PSBank branch in Katipunan with an initial deposit of $700,000, did not come from them. PSBank Branch Manager Anabel Tiongson told the court the document was bogus.

 “I will not pass the buck to the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. As the presiding officer, I am personally bound to assume the consequences of my action,” Enrile said. He also said he was ready to defend his position “in any court of law, if there is a need for that.” 

 But Enrile told reporters he also has the option to revoke the questioned subpoena if the senator-judges find the prosecution’s explanation not good enough.

“I have a right to inquire [into the documents submitted by Umali] because I don’t want to be deceived into issuing a compulsory process like a subpoena duces tecum based on false evidence,” he added.

Defense panel spokesman Tranquilino Salvador, in a separate interview, pointed out that if the bank documents presented to the court by Umali were fake, indeed, this would constitute a violation of the Revised Penal Code. But if they were genuine, the offense for their unauthorized disclosure would be covered by penalties provided under the law on secrecy of bank deposits. 

Asked if the prosecution could be held liable for submitting spurious documents, Enrile replied: “It depends if it can be shown that they were part of the machination.”

Sen. Miriam Santiago took the floor to air her “disgust” over the submission of dubious documents to the Impeachment Court; she said she almost had a heart attack on hearing about it. “Galit na galit ako dahil  sa tingin ko masyado nang maraming nalalabag,” she said.

Enrile affirmed that the Senate as an Impeachment Court “must at all times observe the rule of law. It cannot transgress any of the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights. It must be guided by presumption of innocence before the pronouncement of guilt. It must at all times observe principle of procedural and substantial due process. It cannot use its power to issue compulsory processes to compel any witness to appear and testify and in testifying, is forced to commit a crime.”

He also said: “It cannot compel a witness to testify against himself. It cannot arbitrarily declare a person guilty of contempt and deprive that person of his or her liberty. It cannot violate the laws passed by Congress, of which it is an integral part.”

But he said, “We felt we have an obligation to inform the Impeachment Court about it, so we requested for a subpoena, which the defense panel did not object to.”

He said that “if the defense felt it was fake, it should have objected and asked the court to quash the subpoena.” 

Fariñas also said that as far as the questioned subpoena issued by the court was concerned, “there is no question on its legality because there was basis for it.” He cited the court’s subsequent confirmation of at least 10 bank accounts in the name of Renato Corona at PSBank, five of which were listed as dollar deposits that could not be looked into without Corona’s consent, as provided under Republic Act 4626, the Foreign Currency Deposit Law.

According to Farinas, the House prosecutors, in seeking the subpoena, informed the Impeachment Court they could not “vouch for the authenticity” of the purported bank records of Corona at PSBank.

He said there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to mislead the Court and the public on the bank documents.

On the 13-10 vote of senator-judges on Tuesday to comply with the TRO issued by the Supreme Court barring disclosure of Corona’s foreign deposits at PSBank, Enrile said the case pending in the High Tribunal was filed by the bank to be protected from any liability.

“That’s why the SC issued a TRO. That’s also why majority of this [Impeachment] court yesterday ruled in an open, uninfluenced voting, that this court must respect the order of the SC to issue its TRO,” Enrile said.