It is settled jurisprudence in the US -- from where we borrow much of ours -- that the SC cannot and should not intervene or take part in impeachment.

In the landmark case involving Federal court Judge Walter Nixon (who was impeached and convicted by the US Senate in 1989, and who appealed his case to the US appelate court and SC), the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled:

1. Impeachment is a "nonjusticiable political question."
2. Only the Senate has the "sole" power to try and decide ALL cases of impeachment and the Courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot intervenr or take part in it.
3. Interfering in impeachment will jeopardize any subsequent criminal trial that an impeached official could face and violates the principle of checks and balances.

The decision (506 US 224)was written by no less than then US Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It said in part, referring to the SOLE power of the Senate to try and decide impeachment cases:

1. “We think that the word ‘sole’ is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word ‘sole’ appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word ‘sole’ is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. ‘Sole’ is defined as ‘having no companion,’ ‘solitary,’ ‘being the only one,’ and ‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body ‘tried’ an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference."

The wording of the section on impeachment in the Philippine and US constitutions are almost exactly the same.

2. “... the Framers [of the constitution] recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. ... The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments.”

3. ... judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial accountability, Hamilton wrote: ‘The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.’"

Did PSBank violate AMLA rules?

There is an Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) that all the banks are supposed to follow, otherwise they themselves are subject to penalties and sanctions.

Did PSBank report the questionable deposits of Corona? He could not have deposited the large amounts without being covered by the AMLA, which are:

Covered transactions are single transactions in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000) Pesos within one (1) banking day

-the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client;

-there is a deviation from the client’s profile/past transactions;

So, did PSBank exercise its functions as required, or did it violate the AMLA and "accommodated" Corona? It was most likely they did the latter. The Senate should look into this.

Foreign Currency Deposit Act specifically states that a disclosure of foreign currency bank accounts can only be made upon written permission from the depositor.
The above paragraph these bankers keep saying like a litany.
What these bankers do not divulge is that such rule only applies to foreign business investors. Corona is not a foreign investors.

Boycott psbank n metrobank with same owner.
Sila ang pasimuno ng pagfile ng TRO
Sa supreme court because if hindi sila
Nagfile hindi naman pwede maglabas ng TRO ang supreme court
for the love of the Filipino people and our country
I will withdraw all of my accounts
From these banks.
Ang BPI hindi humingi ng TRO
ang psbank lang
Para pagtakpan si corona.
Si rizal nagpabaril para sa atin.
Tayo, the least we can do is
Show our disgust to Psbank n Metrobank
By withdrawung our accounts and sending
Them a note that we are disgusted with them
Protecting a person who stole from us
And kept it in their bank.
Parang ninakawan ka ni JUAN,
ipinatago nya kay PEDRO,
pinuntahan mo si PEDRO,
at sinabi mo kay PEDRO,
isoli mo sakin yung pera na ninakaw ni JUAN.
Ang sagot sayo ni PEDRO,
MANIGAS ka, kikita kami sa deposit na yan
Dahil lahat ng deposit dito may kita kami
Mula sa mga uutang sa amin.
Interest na Ibibigay namin sa depositors mga 3%. lang
Pero 10% singil namin sa uutang samin
Tulad ng business, housing at car loan
Tubong lugaw.
Wala kaming pakialam sayo kahit ninakaw sayo yung pera.

It is time to impeach these 8 "justices". These are corrupt thugs in robes. They are Corona's disgusting minions. It is totally useless to have a Supreme Court occupied by these 8 justices who are anti-Filipino. These 8 justices have no interest in preserving justice in this country. They are there only to preserve their interests and make themselves wealthy like Corona.
The only reason why they don`t want to show the truth is because Corona`s dollar accounts are most likely much higher that $700,000.00.