Skip to content

@senmiriam Senator Miriam Santiago motion for reconsideration re subpoena of bank accounts

Below is the full text of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s motion seeking the Senate impeachment court to reconsider its February 6 resolution granting the prosecution’s request to subpoena bank records.

Dear Mr. Senate President:

This is to respectfully and humbly propose the procedure to be followed on the defense counsel’s pending motion for reconsideration. I refer to this Court’s resolution yesterday, which approved the prosecution’s request for subpoena to certain bank officials.

At today’s hearing, counsel from both panels should be allowed to argue the motion for reconsideration for not more than one hour for each side, unless the Senate orders otherwise. (Impeachment Rules, Rule 5.)

After this debate, the Senate President could then give time for each panel to submit its written memorandum. After both memoranda have been filed, then the Court could go into closed session (caucus) to resolve the pending motion. If necessary, I shall, despite ill health, attend this caucus, if give advance notice of at least three hours.

Yesterday, I watched the live telecast of the proceedings. I noticed that one senator stated that the Rules allow s a senator to file a motion for reconsideration. There is no such provision in our Impeachment Rules. Perhaps what he referred to were the Senate Rules, which provides that any senator who voted with the majority may move for reconsideration within the next two session days. (Rule 33). The only time that the Impeachment Rules allow the Senate Rules to apply suppletorily is under Rule 6, which does not concern a motion for reconsideration filed by counsel.

In any event, if it is your judgment that only a senator can file a motion for reconsideration, then I respectfully request that this letter should be considered, ex abundanti cautela, as a motion for reconsideration from a senator-judge, on the following grounds:

1. It appears that the subpoena would violate this Court’s own ruling that evidence shall NOT be allowed on ill-gotten wealth. (Complaint, Art. 2, para. 2.4.) Since 2.4 is the only paragraph that specifically mentions “bank deposits,” any requests for subpoena concerning any bank deposits should be rejected.

2. It appears that the Court’s resolution allowing subpoena even for foreign currency deposits appears to be a direct violation of R.A. No. 6426. The Supreme Court ruled in Intengan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128996 (2002), that this law is violated if a foreign currency deposit is examined, except only when the depositor gives written permission. This is the only exception, and it is not present in this case.

3. Prosecution cited the 1997 case of Salvacion, 2000 case of China Banking Corp., and 2006 case of Ejercito. It appears that all three cases are off-tangent.

I cite these grounds, without prejudice to my final vote, after the motion for reconsideration has been properly debated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Share:

About BlogWatch

BlogWatch began in November 2009 as a group of independent-minded bloggers and social media users helping with voter education. It has since evolved into a group of citizen advocates who engage government and the private sector, online and offline, for social good.

BlogWatch does not solicit, ask for, demand or receive any financial or material remuneration for involvement in its activities, whether in cash or in kind. Read our editorial policy which includes disclosure, methodology and corrections policy.

Share your thoughts on BlogWatch

 

Got something to say? Share your perspectives on current issues and contribute to the conversation.  Just contact the editorial board.

Read our older posts

“Best Story:” Award for Data Journalism PH 2015

BlogWatch received the “Best Story” Award for the First Data Journalism PH 2015 from the Open Knowledge Foundation and Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism “Aid Monitoring: Citizens’ Initial Efforts in the Wake of Typhoon Yolanda” . Forbes Philippines also garnered the same award.

BlogWatch receives the “Best Story” Award for the First Data Journalism PH 2015 from the Open Knowledge Foundation and Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism  for their story on “Aid Monitoring: Citizens’ Initial Efforts in the Wake of Typhoon Yolanda” . Forbes Philippines also received the same award.

Send Us A Message