There was so much discussion re bank secrecy law and the peso vs. dollar accounts in today's Impeachment proceeding. The unbiased LP Senators led by Prosecutor Drilon were coaxing the hapless president of the PSBank who would not be budged. Then came the reelectionist Prosecutor Alan Peter Cayetano who even cited a Supreme Court ruling. He asked the bank president if he was aware of the aforementioned ruling to which the latter acquiesced. They have stipulated on the facts -- both agreed. Cayetano went on to say that in this case, SC made an exception into allowing a writ of execution over the dollar accounts. Cayetano asked why cannot the Impeachment court make such an exception now; Cayetano tried hard to connect serving justice with flouting a clear provision of a statute. The PSBank President stood his ground and explained how he understood the case.
The Lawyer vs. The Banker
Prosecutor Cayetano is convinced that the Supreme Court has made an exception with this Bank Secrecy Law concerning foreign currency accounts. He is so convinced that he tried to convinced the Manager. After all, he was the Lawyer. Cayetano tried to appear and sound like an authority in interpreting law. But surprisingly, the banker's understanding is more in line with the court's ruling; he was correct that yes, the SC made an exception, but clearly applicable only on this SPECIFIC case.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the provisions of Section 113 of CB Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246, insofar as it amends Section 8 of R.A. 6426 are hereby held to be INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents are hereby REQUIRED to COMPLY with the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 89-3214, “Karen Salvacion, et al. vs. Greg Bartelli y Northcott, by Branch CXLIV, RTC Makati and to RELEASE to petitioners the dollar deposit of respondent Greg Bartelli y Northcott in such amount as would satisfy the judgment. (click here for the complete case)
Is Corona Case on all fours with Salvacion?
NO. In Salvacion, there was a final and executory decision made by the trial court already; the defendant-foreigner was guilty. He lured a 12 year old Filipina, detained her for 4 days, and was raped 10 times. The bank refused to garnished on the dollar accounts because of the contested statute. In this case, the court clearly ruled base on justice and equity (the reason was explained in the case thoroughly). What's telling is that the court SPECIFICALLY said that the exception was applicable pro hac vice-- in this case only. Thus, there was no carte blanche exception made.
On the other hand, the circumstances in Corona's impeachment trial is really different on so many accounts. No less than, Prosecutor Farinas has admitted that the articles of impeachment were badly composed. It cannot be denied that it originated from Malacanang. The charges/offenses charged were nebulous at best. So, how can this be an issue of justice so that it may be said to be in pari materia with Salvacion?
That the banker's understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is better than a lawyer is most appalling.
