Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No.

200238,
February 9, 2012
RESOLUTION
(Re Application by Petitioners of a TRO)

I.

THE FACTS

Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual M. Garcia III, filed
before the Supreme Court an original civil action for certiorari and prohibition
with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction. The TRO was sought to stop the Senate, sitting as impeachment
court, from further implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces
Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, that it issued against the Branch Manager of
PS Bank, Katipunan Branch. The subpoena assailed by petitioners covers the
foreign currency denominated accounts allegedly owned by the impeached
Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Philippine Supreme Court.

II.

THE ISSUE

Should a TRO be issued against the impeachment court to enjoin it from

further implementing the subpoena with respect to the alleged foreign
currency denominated accounts of CJ Corona?

III. THE RULING

[The Court en banc ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER enjoining the

respondents from implementing the subpoena. It also REQUIRED the
respondents to COMMENT on the [merits of the] petition.]

YES, a TRO should be issued against the impeachment court to enjoin it from
further implementing the subpoena with respect to the alleged foreign
currency denominated accounts of CJ Corona.

There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction:

(1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and

(2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be
proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable
injustice.

A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of

the Chief Justice is provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426,
otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (RA
6426). This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency
deposits:

xxx

xxx

xxx

Under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign
currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written
permission of the depositor. In Intengan v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled
that where the accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable
law is not Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent case of
Government Service Insurance System v. 15th Division of the Court of
Appeals, the Court also held that RA 6426 is the applicable law for foreign
currency deposits and not Republic Act No. 1405. xxx.

xxx

xxx

xxx

The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of the depositors

right to privacy in relation to such deposit. In the present case, neither the
prosecution nor the Impeachment Court has presented any such written
waiver by the alleged depositor, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while
impeachment may be an exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA
1405, it is not an exemption to the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency
deposits under RA 6426.