MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) - The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, voted 13-10 to respect the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) stopping the opening of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s alleged dollar accounts.

The 13 senator-judges who voted to respect the SC temporary restraining order (TRO) are:

Joker Arroyo,
Miriam Santiago,
Manny Villar,
Ralph Recto,

Francis Escudero,
Aquilino Pimentel III,
Loren Legarda,
Gregorio Honasan,

Bong Revilla,
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,
Vicente Sotto III,
Jinggoy Estrada,
Juan Ponce Enrile.

The 10 senator-judges who voted otherwise are:

Franklin Drilon,
Alan Cayetano,
Serge Osmeña,

Edgardo Angara,
Panfilo Lacson,
Pia Cayetano,

Francis Pangilinan,
Antonio Trillanes,
Lito Lapid,
TG Guingona.

This does not mean, however, that the SC already has power over the impeachment court, Enrile said.

The senator-judges discussed the matter lengthily during its caucus on Monday.

The SC voted 8-5 last Friday to grant Philippine Savings Bank's (PSBank) motion for a TRO on the Senate's subpoenas for Corona's alleged dollar accounts in the bank.

Enrile said the Senate, however, “deserves its right to vigorously defend before the Supreme Court…We are prepared to argue our case on its merits and defend our policy basis on the subpoenas.”

Senators explain their votes

Explaining his vote, Guingona said he fears that the decision of the majority may be used as a “technicality, which will hamper us from finding the truth.”

Trillanes, for his part, said: “The Senate missed its opportunity to stand on moral high ground.”

Alan Peter Cayetano, on the other hand, said he could not place the Supreme Court as higher than the impeachment court. “Ang impeachment court ang huling takbuhan ng mamamayan na gustong ipatanggal ang isang government official.”

His sister, Pia, on the other hand cited the Nixon case in the United States, where the Supreme Court there recognized the powers of the impeachment court.

'Yes' votes

Enrile said, however, that the jurisprudence cited by Pia Cayetano can’t be used in the context of Corona’s trial.

“If they will decide the case based on our 1987 Constitution, I’m not sure they’ll make the same pronouncements," he said.

Escudero, on the other hand, said: “I am saddened by the fact that we had to put this to a vote…As student of law, we were taught that we follow the Supreme Court.”

He fears that disobeying the SC would result to anarchy. “In our search for truth, we don’t have the license to violate laws.”

Santiago also chimed in, explaining earlier a letter submitted to Sotto.

Estrada, meanwhile, noted: “My family has been a victim of past [Arroyo] administration…the SC has even designed a special court to convict [then President Joseph Estrada]…but we have respected the SC, whether the decision is adverse or not.”

He said he supports the Aquino administration, but the latter cannot afford a constitutional crisis and political instability at this time.

Ruling closes door on defense walking out - Palace

In response to the Senate's ruling, Malacañang said the decision "closes the door on the defense walking out of the proceedings and heads off any attempt to entice the Supreme Court to put an end to the impeachment trial."

"From the very start, the defense has maneuvered to give the impression that a constitutional crisis is inevitable. They no longer have a pretext to make this claim," the Office of the Presidential Spokesperson (OPS) said.

Despite the Senate's ruling, Malacañang believes "the impeachment trial will continue to bring to light evidence to prove the guilt of the Chief Justice."

"The evidence thus far presented, in the form of cash accounts and luxury properties, shows that the Chief Justice has not rendered a faithful accounting of his assets and liabilities as required by law. The Senate has categorically stated evidence on peso accounts has been validly produced. As more evidence of this nature is produced, it can only underscore how the Chief Justice willfully broke the law," the OPS said.
 
"Everyone is conscious that this impeachment trial is establishing precedents that will affect not only the outcome of this process, but future processes, to exact accountability. Surely the intention of the Senate is not to embolden those with ill-gotten wealth, to salt away their funds in foreign currency accounts.
 
"The truth will emerge. The issues remain joined. There is much more evidence to present. There are many more fights left before the day of judgment comes."