Here is the concurring opinion of the Supreme Court re G.R. No. 200238 – PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK and PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal capacity, Petitioners, v. SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT
The view expressed that the majority’s TRO is “a mockery of all existing laws designed to insure transparency and good governance in public service” is likewise not well taken. This view declares that “the majority ruling advises all government officials and employees that they can legally evade reporting their actual assets in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth x x x by simply opening foreign currency deposit accounts with local banks.”
The majority makes no such ruling in granting the TRO. The question the Court has resolved for now is whether the facts and the law justify the issuance of a TRO. The object of a TRO, as earlier mentioned, is to simply maintain the status quo. The TRO, to be sure, is not a ruling encouraging public officials to use foreign deposits to legally evade the correct SALN report. To so claim is to extend the import of TRO beyond its clear objective to maintain the status quo.
In light of these considerations, I reiterate my vote for the grant of the petitioner’s prayer for the issuance of the TRO.
G.R. No. 200238 – Concurring Opinion Re PSBank TRO
Source: concurring opinion from Supreme Court