Feb 27 Senate Impeachment Court Record

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Monday, February 27, 2012
AT 2:17 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Joker Arroyo. Senator Arroyo. Heavenly Father, as this Impeachment Trial rolls on its seventh week, with every evidence presented and every position argued by both sides, we pray that our mindsthe Prosecution, the Defense and the Senateremain unencumbered, our bodies unexhausted and our spirit unweary. May the gift of the good Lord be sent upon us so that this Impeachment Trial will reach its rightful end towards peace, justice and the unity of our nation achieved. These we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senator-Judges. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ....................................................
______________
*Arrived after the roll call
Present Present Present* Present* Present
Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... The Senate President .........................................................................
Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present* Present Present* Absent** Present Present Present Present* Present
The Presiding Officer. There being 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 23, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 23, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. Calling for the Impeachment Case. The Secretary will now please call the case. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. For the Prosecution.
______________
*Arrived after the roll call **On sick leave
Representative Farias. Good afternoon, Mr. President and the Honorable Members of the Senate sitting in Impeachment, same appearances for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the Business for the Day, there is a pending motion from Senator Trillanes for the service of written interrogatories on Supreme Court Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. The issues were discussed earlier during the caucus so may we ask the Senate President to make the ruling. The Presiding Officer. The motion of the gentleman from Caloocan and Bicol to use the remedy of written interrogatories to get the testimony of the Honorable Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of the Supreme Court has been withdrawn. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, last Thursday we received a letter from the Supreme Court Clerk of Court requesting that Mr. Eric Borlongan and Mr. Christopher Dollente be excused from testifying as they will be asked to testify on cases which are pending before the Supreme Court. We agreed that this will be also taken up in the caucus. I believe we have discussed it fully in the caucus, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Chair has instructed the Clerk of this Court to take this up directly with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court so that we will not take any action that may affect the check and balance and separation of powers in the government. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Representative Colmenares. Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po, Mr. Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. Gentleman of the Prosecution. Representative Colmenares. Thank you. May we be allowed to make a short manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Please, go ahead. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Sir. Last week po, February 20, Monday, pumunta po dito dalawang (2) regular front officers ng Korte Suprema upon the subpoena of the Senate President for them to appear here and everyday thereafter until discharged. Dumating po si Mr. Borlongan at si Mr. Dollente.
Noong nandoon po sila sa holding room, nakausap sila ng Secretariat natin at there were two strange things that happened here po. Una, when they filled up the logbookang sinabi nila, actually, kahit sila ang nag-serve ng TRO noong gabing yon, actually ang isa pala ay security guard at ang isa pala ay driver. So medyo napansin namin, bakit security guard at driver ang nag-serve ng TRO kay Secretary De Lima noong November 15. Noong pangalawa pong strange thing dito is, later on, after an hour doon sa holding room, I was informed, may nag-text o tumawag po sa kanila at dali-dali po silang lumabas sa holding room ng Senado, at nang tinanong sila, Saan kayo pupunta? sabi nila, Magpapa-xerox lang kami. Hindi na po sila bumalik mula noong Lunes, hanggang Martes, hanggang sa kasalukuyan po. Para sa amin po, this is not only disrespect para sa Senado as an Impeachment Court at sa atin kasi may order po ang Senate President. Until formally discharged, hindi naman po puwedeng umalis ang dalawang witness na pumunta na po dito. Pangalawa, ano ang rason po bakit hindi puwedeng mag-testify ang mga personnel ng Korte on administrative matter? Simple lang naman sana ang itatanong namin sa kanila, Anong oras nyo sinerve (serve) yung TRO? Ganoon lang po. At ngayon, siyempre may dugtong na kaming tanong, Bakit driver ka, security guard ka, bakit ikaw ang nag-serve ng TRO? Pero these are things, Your Honor please, that do not go into the deliberation of the Court, that do not threaten the deliberation of the Court. So para sa amin po, na-subpoena na po sila. Si Clerk of Court Vidal has, in fact, been subpoenaed na rin. In a sense napunta na sila sa Senado. They will be made to testify, Your Honors, please, on administrative matters. Anong oras nyo tinype (type) ang TRO, anong oras ito na-serve, anong oras nagbayad ng bond? Which is in no way po confidential. So ang manifestation po namin dito, napakaimportante po nung kanilang mga testimonya dito. If we are saying that the Senate resolutionsorry, the Supreme Court Resolution of February 14 is the reason why we cannot subpoena or impose our powers of subpoena over them po, tingin ko po, hindi dapat natin tingnan yon. Ang Senatethe Impeachment Court has been very respectful of the Supreme Court. Yung ginawa po ng dalawang (2) watchman and the driver po, para sa akin ay disrespectful po yan. Ngayon po, ang testimony ng Clerk of Court, ng other administrative personnel, really hindi naman po sila puwedeng i-disqualify just because they are predecisional. Based doon sa resolution po ng Korte Suprema, hindi sila puwedeng mag-testify kasi pre-decisional sila. The powers of the Impeachment Court is an express constitutional provision. We should not be tramped by unimplied powers in the Constitution na hindi naman natin alam. So nire-reiterate ko lang po. Nabanggit ninyo po kanina na napag-usapan ng Clerk of Court at ng ating Secretariat kung papaano sila mag-testify dito, amin pong i-reiterate, may request po kami for subpoena sa mga administrative personnel. Iyong isa po ay sa Clerk of Court na napaka-importante lalo na po sa narinig kong desisyong bago lang na hindi ma-subpoena si Justice Sereno o ma-invite man lang. Napaka-importante po ng kanilang sasabihin dahil they will prove para sa aminiyong aming teyoriya na may distortion pong nangyari. So iyon lang po ang aming nire-reiterate. At least, as far as the administrative personnel, lalo na po ang Clerk of Court at mga iba pang administrative personnel on issues that we would like to propound on them, Your Honors please. The Presiding Officer. Puwede bang makapagtanong ang Presiding Officer sa Prosecution?
Representative Colmenares. Tatangkain po naming masagot kung kakayanin po. The Presiding Officer. Ang gusto ba ninyong gawin namin ay i-enforce namin iyong subpoena na pinadala namin? Representative Colmenares. Opo, sana po ma-enforce. The Presiding Officer. Ipagpalagay na natin na i-enforce namin iyon at hindi sumunod iyong mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema dahil may utos sa kanila ang Korte Supreme na, Huwag kayong magtetestigo. Ano sa palagay ninyo ang remedyo ng Senado? Representative Colmenares. Ang atin pong The Presiding Officer. Ano ang remedyo ng Senado kaya? Representative Colmenares. Sa akin popara sa akin may contempt, nakalagay po sa Rules natin may contempt powers The Presiding Officer. Ipagpalagay na natin na iko-contempt natin, o sige i-contempt natin. Iyon ba ang mungkahi ninyo? Representative Colmenares. Kasi otherwise po lahat na lang po ng ahensiya po The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga. Iyon ang mungkahi po ninyo na i-contempt nitong Senate? Representative Colmenares. Ako po, I would like to avoid contempt powers, the exercise of contempt powers po, pero ito po lantaran po ito kasi lahat na lang pala po ng ahensiya, bawat may impeachment, will promulgate their internal rules saying na confidential, powerless po ang buong Impeachment proceedings natin. Kaya para sa akin po this time around po The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga tinatanong ko sa Prosecution ito, gusto ninyo na i-contempt namin iyong hindi susunod sa subpoena namin? Representative Colmenares. Kung nag-subpoena po ang Senate at hindi nila susundin na dahil ang administrative matters ay The Presiding Officer. Mayroong nga kaming subpoena. Representative Colmenares. hihingi po kami na i-enforce ng Senate ang kanilang poder and if necessary may contempt powers po, i-contempt po natin. The Presiding Officer. Iko-contempt natin? Kung hindi susundin iyon, sino ang ikukulong natin? Representative Colmenares. Ang tingin ko naman po, ang Impeachment Court is not so powerless na balewala pala po ang Rules natin sa Impeachment proceedings pag hindi sinunod po ng kino-contempt natin. Nakalagay po sa Rules natin, The Senate President, the Impeachment Court has the power to cite anyone who disobeys the Rules of this Impeachment Court with contempt. Pero pag simulan po natin sa puntong, Eh kung kinontempt (contempt) namin at ayaw, baka po malagay po sa alanganin kaagad hindi lang iyong prestige kundi iyong poder po natin bilang Impeachment Court. So, we implore the Senate President. Huwag muna tayo sigurong dumating doon. Puwedeng sabihin sa kanila po na, Ang poder namin ay on this-
The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga po sinabi ko sa inyo na inutusan ko iyong Clerk of Court natin dito sa Senado at makipag-usap muna doon sa Clerk of Court ng Korte Suprema. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. Representative Colmenares. So, kung ganoon po, maraming salamat po at sana po hindi po tayo pumayag kung sasabihin ng Clerk of Court ng Korte Suprema na, Ayaw naming pumunta. Iyon lang po. The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lang i-pursue ito. Kung i-contempt namin ang mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema at hindi sila sumunod at ipaaaresto namin sa Sergeant-At-Arms Representative Colmenares. Opo. The Presiding Officer. ng Senado at hindi rin sila sumunod ay mayroon ba tayong kapangyarihan upang orderan natin ang Armada ng Pilipinas, ang Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas para dakpin lahat iyong mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema? Representative Colmenares. Sa tingin ko po, there is probably no need to resort to that. I am very sure that if the Impeachment Court will really instill on this po The Presiding Officer. Pero iyon na nga ang logical movement noong proseso pag hindi natin pinag-usapan nang mahinahon ito. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Perhaps, iyon pong hinaing ng ating Prosecution, Representative Colmenares Representative Colmenares. Salamat. Senator Sotto. eh na-advance nang konti. If you will notice, the letter, we just said that there was a letter from the Supreme Court Clerk of Court requesting that they not be called to testify, although the Senate has already issued the subpoena. Representative Colmenares. Subpoena. Senator Sotto. Okay. Ngayon, ang Order ng Court was for the Clerk of Court of the Impeachment Court to talk to them about this letter request. We are not saying that we are denying anything at all. Representative Colmenares. Ah, okay po. Senator Sotto. Medyo na-advance niyo lang nang konti yung kilos eh. Representative Colmenares. Kung Senator Sotto. One thing that we should clarify, Mr. President, is that idugtong lang natin doon sa in relation to the denial of a subpoena and invitation to a Supreme Court Justice, this does not preclude you from inviting her. It is suggested that the Prosecution invite Justice Sereno. That is the sentiment of the Court. Representative Colmenares. If I maythank you po sa clarification.
In that case, I just hope that the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court cannot impose her decision on us. Pero, if I may po, can I just say alsojust a short manifestation po. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Go ahead. Representative Colmenares. I presume po na ang proposal ng Senado is for the Prosecution to invite Justices of the Supreme Court. Ang problema po namin diyan is may Resolution ang Korte SupremaFebruary 14disagree po kami diyan. Para naman sa amin, sige, ipagbigay pa natin yung deliberative aspect ng kanilang privilege pero ang testimony naman po sana ni Justice Sereno is not on the judicial deliberations, merely on whether or not to grant the TRO. Hindi po yun. She is going to testify also po on the distortion as alleged by her in her dissent. At yung judicial misconduct, if any, if there is a distortion of the decision, is not a collegial act po of the Supreme Court. In fact, the allegations of the Prosecution, may desisyon ang Korte Suprema na magbayad ka muna ng bond bago ka lumipad. Ang naisulat po ng Chief Justice is Puwede ka nang lumipad kahit hindi ka nagbayad ng bond. Yun lang po. Ang distortion po na yan should not beshould not hide behind the cloak of confidentiality po. The Presiding Officer. Puwede bang makapagtanong sa inyo ulit? Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, mayroon kayong Mosyon na dumating dito sa Impeachment Court at hinihiling ninyo ang subpoena o kaya imbitasyon kay Justice Sereno, hindi ba? Representative Colmenares. Tama po. The Presiding Officer. Oho. Kung isu-subpoena po namin si Justice Sereno at hindi papayaghindi pupunta rito at hindi magtetestigo, kayo po ba ay inaasahan ninyo na i-contempt nitong Husgadong ito, si Justice Sereno? Representative Colmenares. Ako po, personally po, may tiwala ako na pag na-subpoena si Justice Sereno pupunta siya. Pero ganun pa man po, we invited The Presiding Officer. Hindi namin alam yung tiwala po ninyo eh. Representative Colmenares. Opo. Alam ko po. But we also invited, for example po, Representative Bolet Banal, he could have said no, he could have said yes. But the Impeachment Court asserted its authority. Whatever you say, this is the decision of the Impeachment Court. You are invited to come over kung kaya para sa amin po naman, just to assert po that power of the Impeachment Court, at least kung tatanggihan oang imbitasyonit is an invitation po and therefore, maybe The Presiding Officer. O, ipagpalagay natin imbitasyon. Iimbitahin ng Husgadong ito si Justice Sereno at siya ay pupunta rito, ano ba? Maging testigo o resource person? Representative Colmenares. Well, ang sabi ko nga po sa Motion The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang. Ano ba ang gusto ninyo? Maging testigo ninyo o resource person lamang? Representative Colmenares. Ang amin pong ninanais is mag-testify siya for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Para sa inyo?
Representative Colmenares. Of course, because the Senate Rules also apply here. As far as I know, under the Senate Rules, the resource persons are also invited but as for our purpose po, we would like her sana po to testify. The Presiding Officer. Palagay ninyo na pag inimbita natin si Justice Sereno, pupunta dito, susumpa dito sa Husgadong ito at magdedeklara bilang testigo ng Prosekyusyon, ganun ba? Representative Colmenares. If that is the subpoena The Presiding Officer. No. Tinatanong ko po kayo. Tinatanong ko kayo dahil mayroon akong puntirya diyan eh. Representative Colmenares. That is what we were asking po that she testify for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, kung ganun ang akala po ninyo, bakit hindi ninyo imbitahin muna si Justice Sereno na pumunta rito? Kaya kayo ang Prosecution eh. Sa halip na gamitin ninyo ang compulsory process ng Hukom na ito, kayong mga Prosecution dapat kinausap ninyo yung gusto ninyong maging testigo at dalhin ninyo rito muna. At kung ayaw na pupunta na kusa at sinasabi ninyo sa amin kailangan daw niya ng subpoena o imbitasyon, baka sakali kakausapin ko ang mga kapwa kong Hukom at baka sakali papayagan. Representative Colmenares. Of course, we can also take the advice of the Senate President. Ang problema rin po namin yung February 14 Resolution ng Korte Suprema that not only prohibits but, in fact, threatens members of the Court from cooperating with the Impeachment Court. Iyon ang pinakamalaking balakid eh. The Presiding Officer. Iyon nga po ay meron iyon. Kung meron din kayo nung ganun sa House of Representatives, mapipilit po ba namin kayo na dumalo rito? Representative Colmenares. Tingin ko po yung Internal Rules ng Legislature, ng Supreme Court o Executive ay hindi po dapat siya maging absolute blanket confidentiality na mawalan na po ng poder ang Impeachment Court on issues that are no longer, in fact, part of the adjudicatory tasks of a Justice po. Sa akin po the Internal Rules may only apply pag adjudicatory process. Kung sa Legislative naman po, legislative process. Pero kung katulad ng ina-allege po ng Prosecution na merong pagsalungat, pag-distort sa desisyon po, sana po hindi natin mahayaan na mag-isyu ang Korte Supreme ng isang internal rules na nagpo-protect po niyan despite the fact that in many instances, it has been said that yung mga privilege po na yan should not be used to cover a crime or an offense po or judicial misconduct po. The Presiding Officer. Iginagalang ko po ang inyong opinyon. Pero sa aking paningin iyan ay opinyon lamang. At meron ding mga iba na may opinyon at igagalang ko rin yon. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Pero pag ginawa ko iyon, ginawa nitong Husgado na ito iyon, eh baka magkakaroon tayo ng mas malaking problema. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, Counsel wants to place this Impeachment Court in a direct collision course with the Supreme Court. Counsels answer to the question Anong
mangyayari ngayon pag sinubpoena (subpoena) natin ang isang Justice of Supreme Court at ayaw niya sumunod? The answer is not responsive, Sa tingin ko naman ay susundin niya. Hindi. Sagutin mo ang tanong. Ano ang mangyayari ngayon kung ayaw niya? Sagutin mo. Your answer should be responsive and I am not asking you to answer at this time. You have been asked that several times by the Presiding Officer and you insist on hypothecating that you will obey. Eh kung hindi nga niya gagawin, ano ngayon ang mangyayari sa Impeachment Court? Di away kami ng Korte Suprema. And will you assist us during that? Will you enlighten the public on what is the proper balance of power between an Impeachment Court and the Supreme Court? Ngayon, gusto mo na yung confidentiality privilege ng Supreme Court, should beat least in this instance, should be disregarded. Tatlong (3) branches ng gobyerno, tatlong (3) sangay ng gobyerno: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Bawat isa may privilege. Executive, may executive privilege; Legislative, may legislative privilege during executive session, as what we call it; Judicial, may judicial privilege, also known as deliberative privilege or deliberative process privilege. Pag nagde-deliberate ang Supreme Court, hindi mo puwedeng tanungin iyan tungkol sa kanilang pag-deliberate. Kamukha lang sa legislation, pag nag-closed-door session ang Senate or ang House, hindi mo pwedeng tanungin ang mga legislators, senators and representatives what they took up in a closed-door session. Ganoon din sa Judiciary. Bakit ngayon we are singling out one branch of government so that we can penetrate the rule of confidentiality? Anong klaseng argumento iyan? Do you recognize that you are asking this nation to go on a direct collision between two (2) separate branches of government? Have you fully thought out your position? Tinatanong ka ng Presiding Officer. Ilang beses ka nang tinanong. Ano ngayon ang mangyayari kung i-subpoena namin, utusan namin ang Justice at ayaw niyang sumunod? I-cite namin siya for contempt. Ano ngayon ang mangyayari? Magpapakulong ba siya sukat? Kung i-cite din niya kami for contempt? Ano ngayon ang sagot mo? Pag-isipan muna natin ito because we are talking about the entire nation. This is not a question of pataasan ng ihi. Sino ang mas malakas, ang Supreme Court or Impeachment Court? Hanggat maaari lumihis tayo para hindi tayo nagkokomprontasi. Ganoon iyon. Ngayon iyan ang unang punto. You are not responsive to the question of the Presiding Officer. Ngayon, sabi mo, Gawa-gawa lang ng Supreme Court iyan. Internal rule iyan nito. Hindi, hindi totoo iyan. Mayroon tayong New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Iyan ginawa ng Korte Suprema because of its constitutional power to control and supervise the Judiciary. In that New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Section 9 provides: Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose related to their judicial duties. Kaya hindi naman gawa-gawa lang nila iyon. Are you attacking the entire system of privilege for every three branches of government? If you are attacking deliberative process privilege, as they call it in America, in favor of the Supreme Court, do you want also that the institution of deliberative process privilege for the Judiciary, not only for the Judiciary but also for the Legislature and the Executive Branch of government, should also be made to come tumbling down over our heads? Iyan. You are not being candid with the Court. Pagkatapos sinubukan namin iyan, eh. Mayroong letter from Congressman Joseph Emilio Abaya, Congressman and Impeachment Prosecution Panel Manager, in behalf of the House Impeachment Panel. And in response, the Supreme Court issued, as you said, a Resolution dated
10
February 14, in re: Concerning production of court records and documents and the attendance of court officials and employees as witnesses under the subpoenas of so and so. Sinabi ng Korte Suprema, ayaw namin dahil that falls under deliberative process privilege. Ngayon, you are asking this Court to go all over the Resolution of the Supreme Court because you want us to overturn their Resolution. Eh kung i-overturn natin iyan at ayaw nila kaming sundin, ano ngayon ang mangyayari? You keep on telling us here, Eh palagay natin susundinsa palagay ko susundin iyan. Kung hindi niya sundin, eh di laking kahihiyan ng Impeachment Court. At ano pa ngayon ang mangyayari? It is like putting humpty-dumpty together again. Nabasag na eh. Ganoon iyon. The Presiding Officer. Alam mo, Ginoong Prosecutor, kaya itong hukom na ito at ang kanyang Presiding Officer ay nagdadahan-dahan sa kanilang mga ginagawang hakbang dito sa impeachment na ito sapagkat mayroon kaming iniiwasan na mangyayari. Hindi ko sinasabi na baka mangyari o mangyayari. Pero alam po ninyo, ang inatasan lamang ng ating Saligang Batas na magdeklara na kung ang isang gawain ng gobyerno, ng ahensiya ng gobyerno o ng batas o ng Malacaang o sinuman dito ay sang-ayon sa Saligang Batas o hindi sang-ayon ay Korte Suprema lamang. What the Supreme Court says as constitutional law is constitutional law. No one else can reverse it. Suppose we follow your line of actionhalimbawa gagawin namin iyan, susunod kami sa gusto ninyo kahit na gusto namin at susunod kami, at makikita ng Korte Suprema na magiging arbitrary itong hukom na ito at idedeklara nila itong prosesong ito na unconstitutional, saan tayo pupunta at saan? Saan nga, saan? Please answer lang. Representative Colmenares. In fact po sa totoo lang, nilabanan na po ng Senadong ito yan noon. Hindi namin sinasabi na walang privilege po. Ang sinasabi lang naman po namin, hindi siya absolute. Nilabanan ng Senado ang privilege na iyan noong panahon ng Senate vs. Ermita. Ang sabi ni Presidente Arroyo hindi puwedeng mag-appear dito, because of EO 464, ang mga Cabinet members niya. Inilaban ng Senado po. Sabi ng Senado, That is not the that is impinging on the prerogative, on the powers of the congressional investigation. Is there a chance na magkaclash po ba noon yung Executive at Legislative? Meron po. Pero tingin ng Senado kasi, Tama kami, mag-i-investigate kami ng Hello, Garci mag-i-investigate kami ng NBN at hindi puwedeng mag-issue si Ginang Arroyo ng isang blanket na privilege, Executive Order 464. Na-defanged ang buong Senado. Lumaban na po tayo niyan. At kasama po ako sa petition na iyan noong panahong iyon. At in fact, nanaig po tayo doon. So sa akin po, of course, there is always that pag-agam-agam na puwedeng may mangyari. Kaya lang ang sabi ng Senado noon: Kahit may ganun tayong pag-agam-agam, ilaban natin kasi karapatan at poder ng Senado yon. Yun din lang po. Wala kaming sinasabi na walang privilege ang Judiciary, ang Legislative at ang Executive. Ang sinasabi lang po namin, huwag naman maabuso ang ganong pribilehiyo ng confidentiality lalo na kung ang issue po ay isang paglabag sa Code of Conduct ng Judiciary. Yun, yun na po ang aking masasabi. The Presiding Officer. Totoo po yung sinasabi niyo. Pinaglaban namin iyan. Pero sino ba ang nagdesisyon? Sino ang nagdesisyon po? Ang Korte Suprema. Noon hindi sila nasasangkot. Ang nasasangkot ay ang Senado at ang Ehekutibo. Pinasyahan nila yon. Pero ngayon, ang mangyayari, ang masasangkot ang Senado at ang Korte Suprema mismo. Ngayon, una, pag ginawa natin yan, pupunta ang kaso doon. Made-delay ito. Ang alam ko ay gusto ninyong tapusin itong kaso na ito bago dumating ang Mahal na Araw. Representative Colmenares. Tama po.
11
The Presiding Officer. Di ba? Siyempre pupunta yan sa Korte Suprema ngayon para pasyahan, kung papasyahan nila. Yun nga po ang iniiwasan namin dahil gusto namin tugunan yung kagustuhan ninyo na matapos ito bago maging Mahal na Araw. Ngayon kung gusto ninyo yan, eh, ako po ay kung yun ang utos ng Hukom sa akin ay gagawin ko. Padadalhan ko ng subpoena si Justice Sereno, lahat ng mga mahistrado sa Korte Suprema kung yun ang gusto ng Husgado na ito. Iimbitahin ko lahat sila rito. Pero, kung hindi sila papayag at sasabihin nila, You are doing an unconstitutional act, ano ngayon ang remedyo po ninyo? Representative Colmenares. Sa ganang amin lang po, yung administrativeat least yung administrative aspects po, sana po ay hindi po nating hayaan na ma-cover po yan ng confidentiality kahit pa man igiit ng Korte Suprema ng deliberative process nila. The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga po kami nagpapakahirap halos hindi kami nanananghalian para pag-usapan itong mga bagay na ito. Hindi lang po kayo ang interesado. Representative Colmenares. I understand po. The Presiding Officer. Oo. Kami rin interesado na pangalagaan namin ang kapangyarihan ng Impeachment Court. Pero, kina-calibrate po namin ang galaw namin dito para sa ganoon ay hindi magkabulilyaso, masisira ang sistema ng gobyerno natin. Hindi tayo po ang magdudusa. Ang magdudusa ang taong bayan. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Senator Lacson and I are preventing Senator Honasan from standing up. So, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago again for the continuation? Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, point of order. This must stop now. No Counsel, whether of the Prosecution or the Defense, is allowed to engage in colloquy. A colloquy is a discussion or a debate between a Senator-Judge on the one hand, and one of the Counsels on the other hand. The two (2) Counsels must debate with each other not with the ruling of a Senator-Judge, much less with the ruling of the Senate President. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, I will give you the last word, Mr. Prosecutor. Representative Colmenares. Yung last word lang naman po namin ay nabanggit na namin. Hindi po talaga maayos na sa ngayon pa lang po ang simula natin dineklara na natin na pagi-defy pala po ang ating subpoena powers, eh wala na tayong magawa, at least for the Justices. Although we still continue to hope na sa administrative aspects po, wala naman masamang tanungin ang Clerk of Court, anong oras mo tinayp (type) iyong TRO? Anong oras nilabas? Sana po naman ay ma-insist ng Impeachment Court ang pagka-subpoena po sa kanila. Maraming maraming salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Salamat. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right, the Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. The Prosecution also filed last Thursday a Manifestation and Request for Clarification on the Order of the Impeachment Court regarding the disallowance of the testimonial and
12
documentary evidence required of Mr. Enrique Javier and Ms. Carreon- Domingo, both of Philippine Airlines, relative to Article III of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment. May the Presiding Officer please rule on this motion? Mr. Cuevas. Mayroon na bang ruling? If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. We were served with a copy of this Manifestation and Motion for Clarification only last Friday, about four oclock in the afternoon, Your Honor. If we will not be asking too much, may we plead that we be given at least five days within which to comment thereon? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, this is merely a Motion for Clarification. Mr. Cuevas. Yes.
Senator Sotto. The Court is ready to clarify. Mr. Cuevas. Meron na? Senator Sotto. So we need not Mr. Cuevas. But if you examine the prayers, Your Honor, together with the allegations, it is more of a motion for reconsideration rather than clarification. That is our basic stand on the matter, Your Honor. This is not seeking a clarification, this is seeking a reconsideration of what has been fully adjudicated by this Honorable Impeachment Court. Senator Sotto. But, Mr. President, we take it as a Motion for Clarification and the Presiding Officer is ready to rule on the clarification that we will make, that the caucus has already arrived at. Mr. Cuevas. Okay then, Your Honor, we submit. The Presiding Officer. I will read to you again the text of Article III of your Articles of Impeachment. The Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and the betrayal of public trust. That is your ground. How did he, according to you, commit culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust? By failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Constitution that provides that a Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. And how did it fail the Respondent failed to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Constitution? And this was your answer, and you said: In allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases. That is one reason why you said there was a failure to observe that standard. Second, this is your second reason: In creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office. That is the second. And lastly, in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court. Now, where did you allege partiality or ill motive or because of reward or indirect bribery or direct bribery in making the principal allegation in your Article III? I did not make this. You made this. Now, but apart from that, you yourself recognized the weakness of your allegation. And that is why in the last hearing, you in this Court openly withdrew the two (2) other reasons that you used to support
13
your claim that the Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Constitution regarding competence, integrity, probity and independence, which are in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before a court. You withdrew this. I repeatedly asked you, Are you sure that you are going to withdraw this allegation? And you said, Yes. Now, why are you asking for clarification now? You know, when I discharged that witness from PAL to testify, I was observing procedural due process in favor of the Respondent because you never made any allegation that would be supported by that evidence. And because of that, there was never any fact answered by the Respondent when he filed his Answer because you failed to present that allegation in your Articles of Impeachment. How can you expect to grant a procedural due process to the Respondent when you yourself denied him to answer what you are now trying to add as an expansion to your Article III of your Articles of Impeachment? Now, you waived it and I am telling you the substantial reason why I denied the presentation of that witness. If you think that I abused power, I committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the remedies are open to you and you know it, what are the remedies. Either you amend or you take me to the Supreme Court. So, that is the ruling of the Chair. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Chiz Escudero? Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is just a brief manifestation, some queries to the Prosecutors. I do not know who will respond. Congressman Colmenares, ang assumption po namin kapagka may tumayo diyan sa kinakalagyan ninyo ngayon, siya na po ang nagsasalita para sa buong Prosekusyon. Hindi po namin alam iyong assignment ninyo na Article III, Article VII, Article I. Pag tumayo ho diyan, ibig sabihin nagsasalita po siya para sa inyong lahat. Hindi po ba? Representative Colmenares. Opo. Pero pag Article III po, with due respect, I just like to ask the lead Prosecutor of Article III if it is about Article III po. Senator Escudero. Hindi. Iyong generalKasi ang tinatanongNagkaroon kami ng mahabang diskusyon kanina dahil dito sa manifestation at clarification ninyo, doon sa motion ninyo for essentially, reconsideration. Nag-rest na iyong isang co-Counsel ninyo sa Article III. Tapos, magpa-file si Congressman Tupas tungkol sa pinag-rest-an ng kaso which will bring me to the point I am driving at, Mr. Presiding Officer. On the motion of Senator Santiago, she asked that you submit tentatively, without holding you to it, your list of witnesses and the same is true for the Defense para naman ho malaman namin at makapaghanda kami doon sa ipiprisinta niyong ebidensiya at nang hindi rin ho kami nagugulat. Sa Article II, ang nilista ninyong testigo ay labingtatlo (13). Ang iprinesenta po ninyo ay anim (6). Sa Article III, dalawamput anim (26) na testigo ho ang inilista ninyo. Ang iprinisinta niyo po isa (1) at tumigil na po kayo doon. Sa Article VII, dalawamput apat (24) na testigo po ang inilista ninyo. Isa (1) pa lang po ang piniprisinta ninyo.
14
May I know, at least, insofar as Article VII is concerned, mga ilang testigo po ba ang ipiprisinta ninyo? Dahil magandang pakinggan ho noong nalista yung maraming testigo pero nalalagay ho kasi sa alanganin yung Senado, eh. Pagkatapos i-anunsiyo sa labas na isangdaan (100) ang testigo niyo ay mukha naman ho kaming mga bulag sa labas kung biglang iilan lamang yung testigo. Maaari po bang malaman ilan po bang testigo ang ipiprisinta ninyo sa Article VII? Representative Colmenares. Actually po, just a preliminary, yung pag-compliance naman po naming, part po siyempre ng lawyer who will submit the list of his or her witnesses yung pinakatingin niya na kailangan niya para naman hindi na rin mag-object siyempre ang Defense later if, you know, you call someone na wala sa list niyo. Sa amin po, dito sa Article VII ang napakahalaga po sa amin yung testimonya. Siyempre po, hindi naman kailangang sabihin ng mga officers ng Korte Suprema at mga Justice. So ang amin pong testigo sa ngayon, gusto po namin i-cut down. Ininstraksiyunan (instruct) na rin po kami ng Prosecution na i-cut down ang number of witnesses kasi ayaw rin nating humaba. If we think that the witnesses are enough, so sa amin po kung payagan po. At, in fact, we hope na payagan po. Sa Korte Suprema, mga walo po siguro or siyam ang aming maiprisinta. Senator Escudero. Under Article VII po? Representative Colmenares. Under Article VII po. Senator Escudero. Huling bagay na lang po, Mr. Presiding Officer. Si Justice Sereno po ba nakausap niyo na? Naimbitahan niyo na ba siya ng personal at sabi ba niya, Kailangan ko ng subpoena o ng imbitasyon mula sa Senado. Kung hindi, hindi ako magpupunta diyan. Representative Colmenares. Ako po, personally, nag-usap po kami ng legal team na pumunta doon para kausapin yung Clerk of Court, Justice Sereno upon, of course, the advice of the Senate President, Na kausapin niyo naman ang witness niyo. Sa mahabang diskusyon po ng legal team po namin, in the end, ang sabi ng legal team it is better not to go there at baka naman, you know, may allegations na you were trying to force her, influence orSo ang ano namin, hindi po ako personally or wala po akong personal na paglapit kay Justice Sereno. Senator Escudero. Again, Congressman Neri Representative Colmenares. Pero naglabas po kami ng isangyung request po namin na, at least, doon sa dokumento na nabanggit na naging ano po ng Resolution noong February 14. Senator Escudero. Again, forgive me, Congressman Neri. Pag tumayo nga ho kayo diyan, kayo na ang nagsasalita para sa buong Prosecution. Hindi ko ho tinatanong yung personal ninyong karanasan kung nakausap niyo siya o hindi. Nakipag-ugnayan na po ba ang Prosekusyon sa kanya? At nagsabi po ba siya na, Isyuhan lang ako ng imbitasyon, isyuhan lang ako ng subpoena, pupunta ako diyan? Dahil sa totoo lang, malaya naman po siyang puwedeng magpunta rito kung ninanais talaga niya, eh. Representative Colmenares. Ayon po sa aming Lead Prosecutor, wala po silang personal na pagpunta kay Justice Sereno po. Senator Escudero. Huling bagay na lamang po, Mr. Presiding Officer.
15
Congressman Neri, nalalagay ho kasi kami sa alanganin. Tuwing may testigo kayong gustong iprisinta rito, hinihingan niyo po kami ng subpoena. Nakatali din po ang kamay namin sa ilang pagkakataon. Sa totoo lang, nag-litigate ho kayo maski noong napa-practice ho kayo, hindi ba? Obligasyon namang pangunahin ng Prosekusyon ang alagaan ang kanilang testigo at iprisinta rito. At kung kinakailangan, halimbawa, kung 9:00 to 5:00 pa siya para naman hindi mabawasan yung suweldo niya eh di maisyuhan ng subpoena para magpunta rito. O sa ibang mga pagkakataon tulad ng bangko, sige puwede po yun. Pero may mga pagkakataon na hindi naman ho kailangan ang subpoena and on your own and it is your lookout to present these witnesses. Gayun din po sa Depensa, pag turn na nila ang magprisinta ng ebidensiya, lookout din nila yung mga testigo nila. At pareho ho yung batayan ng standard na i-apply ng Korte sa mga testigo ng nais nilang iprisinta. May nais silang iprisintang Justice din, i-apply po namin yung parehong rule doon na hindi po iisyuhan ng subpoena. Kung nais nilang boluntaryo magpunta rito, bahala ho sila. Tatanggapin sila nang maluwalhati basta iprisinta sila nung panig na nagpiprisinta sa kanila. Sana po maunawaan ninyo yung aming kalagayan kaugnay noon. Sana sikapin po ninyo. Sigurado ko naman tatanungin ni Attorney Cuevas eh, Kinausap ka ba nung abogado ng Depensa? Ganun naman ho yung palaging tanong ni Attorney Cuevas sa mga testigo eh. Kinausap niyo ho para magpunta rito eh, wala naman hong masama dun basta hindi siya nagsisinungaling at bastat nagsasabi siya ng totoo. Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. At actually po, ang nabanggit ko pa po sa kaso na ito, actually sabi ko, talagang pahirapan itong kaso na ito kasi sa nature niya po, ang karamihan po ng witnesses po, very reluctant talagang mag-testify. Siguro dahil ang kalaban mo Chief Justice ng Korte Suprema kaya hindi po kami ganun kadali na makakuha po ng mga willing and cooperative witnesses. Pero tatangkain po namin na makakausap at least yung ilang mga witnesses. Siguro, simulan na namin itong sa Korte Suprema. The moment that the Impeachment Court will allow the subpoena of the Clerk of Court, we will probably do that. Senator Escudero. Salamat po. At hindi lamang po naman limitado sa Korte Suprema. Maski na sariling ninyong testigo, si Secretary De Lima, maski naman po siya at hindi naman din kayo nagreklamo o nag-object, nag-invoke din siya ng executive privilege eh sa ilang katanungan na ayaw niyang sagutin at sa palagay niya ay maba-violate yung executive privilege kaugnay ng kanyang komunikasyon sa Pangulo man o sa ibang mga testigo o tao na kumausap sa kanya kaugnay ng kasong ito. So ganun lang talaga yung pagdribol, siguro bagsak ng bola. I hope that you will be able to work with this and through this and be able to still present your case adequately. Thank you, Mr. President. Representative Colmenares. Thank you po. We will try to work within the difficulties po. Salamat po. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President? And then, Senator Santiago, for the final word. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. Maraming salamat po. Nagpaalam ako kay Kagalang-galang Senadora Santiago.
16
Ginoong Taga-usig, nabanggit niyo kanina nagpulong kayo ng legal team at napagkaisahan ninyo, huwag na lang tumuloy para kausapin si Justice Sereno dahil baka isipin ay pinupuwersa o inimpluwensyahan ninyo. Eh bakit kami isusubo ninyo sa kinahihiyaan nyong gawin? Representative Colmenares. Hindi po iyan, kami kasi po Senator Lacson. Eh ganun po ang gusto ninyong mangyari. Salamat po. Representative Colmenares. Wala po kaming poder po na katulad ninyo po na magsubpoena kay Justice Sereno po. Pero, yes, ang nabanggit ko po kanina kay Senador Chiz, we will attempt to talk to the witnesses ng Korte Supreme kung sakaling i-subpoena na po sila ng Impeachment Court po. Senator Sotto. Finally, Mr. President, Senator Miriam Santiago. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, allow me to address this question to the Prosecution panel as a group. What on earth were you thinking? You are asked to tell the Court early in the opening of this Impeachment Trial, How many witnesses will you present? You answered, One hundred (100). It was in all the banner headlines of all the major newspapers. Now, you are telling us, you will present maybe, in effect, fifteen (15) at most. I repeat, what on earth were you thinking? Were you playing games with us? You know that when the Judge asked you how many witnesses you will present, that is not binding on the lawyer. The Judge has no power to limit the number of witnesses. That is only an approximation. So if your answer is, We only wanted to make sure, then you could have approximated a figure relatively close to the above fifteen (15) or so that you will present. Why say one hundred (100)? What on earth was going through your mind? Were you trying to mislead the Court? Were you trying to conduct trial by publicity? And may I remind you, Prosecution panel, in the Rules of the Impeachment Court promulgated by the Senate, the Senators are themselves prohibited from making public statements on the merits of the case. How dare you make allegations about personal attacks concerning Senator-Judges? Parepareho tayong nasa pulitika. Huwag niyo kaming lokohin dito. Nanggagaling yun sa inyo. In the same way that maybe the Defense is also engaging in the same practice, let us say, in self-defense, in its kindness light. Kaya huwag na kayong magpapanggap-panggapan diyan. Irespeto niyo ang Impeachment Court. Huwag kayong mang-atake personal. Malapit na talaga akong mag-privilege speech dito tungkol sa sub judice rule. Nagtatago kayo ha. Lumabas kayo dito. Ngayon, itong Article III ninyo. I am reading from your Complaint: In creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office. What are you thinking? Excessive entanglement is a term of art in Constitutional Law that is applied in cases involving the separation of Church and State. When you use the term excessive entanglement, that means this is a case involving the power of the State to regulate the activities of the Church and vice-versa. Do not use this term of art here because it has nothing to do with the Church-State conflict. Pasiklab kayo nang pasiklab, you are using terms of art in law. Puwede ba sabihin ninyo na lang, You are so close, therefore could no longer maintain the independence or the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, ganoon na lang. Huwag na kayong gumamit-gamit pa ng kung anu-anong salita sa constitutional
17
law. Hindi tayo maintindihan, pagtatawanan tayo ng mga students of constitutional law in all tripartite democracies like ours. Pag may term of art, huwag mong gamitin yan kung hindi ka sigurado kung ano ang meaning niyan. Kaya tayo tumatagal dito eh. These are all taking a toll on my physical condition, I have to make that of record. Because I think to myself, what will lawyers outside of our country think when they read the transcript? Saka habang nagbibista tayo dito, walang patid ang atake personal sa aming mga Impeachment Court Judges, whether we are perceived to be in favor of the Prosecution or of the Defense. Ano ito, trial by publicity? Are you hoping that you can frighten or threaten or intimidate the Impeachment Court into a decision in conformity with your own particular view of the law which I must say is sometimes bizarre? It is not only peculiar but itself bizarre, so Byzantine, that I cannot figure out what it is that you are trying to do. Pagkatapos kagabiMr. President, I want our colleagues to know there was a special newscast saying that UP students are going to conduct a referendum or a survey with three questions. Sa tingin mo ba puwede pang manatili si posisyon si Chief Justice Corona? and others of like import. In the first place, no UP student with an IQ that is demanded of a state university will conduct that kind of a survey when only the Prosecution has presented the evidence. Wala pa nga na-present na evidence ang Defense, magtatanong ka na? And secondly, what is the implication? That this matter can be resolved by referendum? Eh kung mag-survey kaya ang Ateneo at kontra sa survey ng UP, ano ngayon ang gagawin natin? Anong klaseng propaganda iyan, aber? Mag-isip-isip naman kayo, nakakainsulto. You are an insult to the intelligence of educated Filipinos. At saka hindi man lang ang Student Council ng UP ang magko-conduct. Nag-interview sila ng student leaders daw of two colleges. The UP has a constituency of maybe 30 million all over the country or maybeI do not know. Senator Angara would know better than me. Maybe close to 50 million. Anong ibig sabihin nito? At huwag nga ninyo akong lokohin. Hindi iyan lilitaw sa newscast kung walang may nagbayad dahil hindi naman legitimate news iyan. Magsu-survey ang isang campus? Is that even officially sponsored by the owner of the school or the administrators of the school or by the student council of that school? At saka ang dami ninyong komentaryo sa aming mga Senator-Judges. Eh kung magkomentaryo kaya kami during the trial about your competence, in fact, maybe about your mental sanity, aber, gustuhin ninyo? Huwag ninyo kaming ginaganyan ha. And besides I have evidence about a certain congressman who has been testifying here. Huwag ninyo akong pilitin to reveal my hand, I can prove that he is lying under oath. Be careful. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Joker Arroyo, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. Gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. You know I keep on wonderingI am amazed at the statement of the Prosecution that they have difficulty because the Respondent is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now, but you have the backing of no less than the President of the Philippines. How can you say that?
18
You have hereyou have the support of the President of the Philippines no less. You should have no problem getting witnesses because of thewhat is this?of suasion. So I supposed you should notyou should be careful about your statements. I can understand your problem that you willas I have said always, I have been in that seat. But you canyou will have problems. But do not ascribe that to external problems like citing that it is hard to fight the Chief Justice of the Philippines. You have on your corner the President of the Philippines. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.
The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.
The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please may I be allowed to say a couple of words, Your Honor?
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Mention had been made of the pattern of my cross-examination when the Defense turn come in. Now, I had all the while resorted to a question relative to the conference between the witness and the Counsel for the Prosecution because it is our humble opinion, Your Honor, that the Complaint had been haphazardly prepared, it was railroaded with no evidence on hand yet and immediately it was thrown into the lap of this Honorable Impeachment Court. Will they prove that this is true? Because as what the witnesses have been saying, there have been no conferences with them by the Prosecution panel, neither were they asked to submit any evidence whatsoever. And our point is to show that there was merely a fishing expedition on the part of the Prosecution when these witnesses were called, Your Honor. The Complaint was filed way back in December, Your Honor. They were interviewed only at the time when they were on the stand, Your Honor. So that supports our suspicion, Your Honor, that at the time the Complaint was filed, there was no evidence on hand which is violative of the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Salonga vs. Pao, that before any Complaint or Prosecution Complaint must be filed, then the Prosecutor must have, in his hand, the evidence to support the allegations of the Complaint or accusation and not file the Complaint and thereafter look for evidence. That was our intention. We neverit was never our intention to cast aspersion or any malice against the members of the Prosecution. But only to show that notwithstanding the absence of probable cause, notwithstanding the thorough investigation that was necessary demanded by the nature of the proceedings, Your Honor, the Complaint was filed and it was railroaded to this Honorable Impeachment Court. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Colmenares. If I may, Mr. President? Just a short manifestation lang po.
The Presiding Officer. Can we shorten this? Representative Colmenares. Yes po.
The Presiding Officer. I will give you a chance but we have wasted almost Representative Colmenares. Maigsi lang po.
19
The Presiding Officer. more than an hour already discussing things that are ought to have beena time that ought to have been utilized to present your case. But anyway go ahead. Representative Colmenares. Opo, salamat po. Totoo po iyon kahit na may question ang Depensa, talagang may kahirapan kami sa witnesses. Nadagdagan po siyempre iyong decision, halimbawa, ng Korte Suprema, iyong Resolution ng February 14 na-cut po siyempre ang aming mga witnesses. Pero gayunpaman po tatangkain pa rin namin makapresenta ng pinakaimportanteng witnesses namin dito at para ayaw naman naming humaba ito. So ang aming statement lang po eh handa naman po kaming magpresenta ng mga witness at ebidensiya, may problema lang po kami talaga. Katulad nito sina-cite ko po ngayon, itong February 14 Resolution, mula Chief Justice hanggang security guard po, baka mahirapan kaming mag-present. Lahat na lang ng dokumento na kahit walang kinalaman sa deliberasyon ng Korte Suprema, pinagbabawal po ng Korte Suprema. So we are having that difficulty. But we will try, Mr. President, our utmost to overcome that difficulty po. The Presiding Officer. Alam mo, Ginoong Prosecutor, ang remedyo diyan ay hindi manggagaling dito sa Impeachment Court. Ang remedyo diyan ay baguhin iyong Saligang Batas na ginagamit natin sa paglilitis na ito. Habang iyan ay hindi napapalitan, iyon ang susundin natin na reglamento, iyong Saligang Batas natin na nakasalang ngayon, hindi ba? Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. Senator Sotto. Mr. President?
The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, may we move on to the business for today? The Prosecution may call on theProsecution, they are ready for the continuation of their presentation of evidence. The Presiding Officer. Your witness. Representative Colmenares. Thank you po. The first witness will be presented by private Prosecutor Atty. Art Lim, Your Honor, please. May I give the rostrum to him po. Mr. Cuevas. I was about to suggest, Your Honor, if it will not be asking too much, that the good Prosecutorpublic Prosecutor handle the Prosecution, Your Honor, so that we will be better enlightened, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, there will come a time when I will handle a witness. If Justice Sereno is The Presiding Officer. Counsel Representative Colmenares. I think, Your Honor, it was unfair for the Defense to dictate sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I said already let us stop all of this discussion. We cannot finish this case if we are not going to do our work. We have heard enough. So, let us forget about these opinions. Let us go to the business of the day, present the case. Present your witness.
20
Representative Colmenares. Atty. Art Lim, Your Honor, please.
The Presiding Officer. Now, Counsel for the Defense, let them control their side of the controversy. The panel of Prosecutors created by the House has full control of the manner by which they will present their case, including the designation of lawyers that will direct the examination. So, please do not interfere. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. I was making that as a suggestion only, Your Honor. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Good afternoon, Your Honor, and the Honorable Members of the Court. We would like to call on Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes as our first witness for today, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. May we request the Secretariat to fetch the witness from the holding room, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. While the witness is coming to the Chamber, I will suspend the trial for one minute. The trial was suspended at 3:23 p.m. At 3:29 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Is the witness here? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please swear in the witness. The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Prosecution, proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. You may please take your seat, Madam Witness. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lim. Magandang hapon po, Doktora Cervantes. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Magandang hapon rin ho, Attorney Lim. And magandang hapon ho sa inyong lahat.
21
Mr. Lim. Kindly state, Maam, your full name, your address and your occupation. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Ako po si Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes. Mr. Lim. Address po? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Ako po ay nakatira sa 9th Street, Rolling Hills, New Manila, Quezon City. At ako po ay isang manggagamot. Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, we are presenting the witness, Doktora Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, as our own witness but only as an ordinary witness. We are respectfully offering her testimony for the purpose of proving that she issued a medical certificate dated October 1, 2011 relative to the health condition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Presiding Officer. What date is that? Mr. Lim. October 1, 2011, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Lim. Your Honor, as records show, we would like to manifest that this medical certificate was submitted to the Supreme Court as Annex I to the Petition for TRO in GR No. 199034 filed by the former President. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Doktora Cervantes, did you receive a subpoena in relation to this hearing? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, sir. Mr. Lim. And is that the reason why you are here? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Opo. Mr. Lim. Do you know former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Why do you know her, Maam? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Ako po ay siyang pinaka-main attending physician ng former President every time she went to St. Lukes Medical Center from Quezon City and lately in Global. And I was the main attending physician from 2006 to December 2011. So for five (5) years, I have been the main attending physician of the former President. Mr. Lim. Can you kindly explain what exactly you do or you have done as main attending physician for the former President? What exactly do you mean by that, Maam? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Sir, I am a gastroenterologist and a hepatologist, meaning, I specialized in the gastrointestinal tract and most especially in the liver. In 2006, the former President developed diarrhea and the family decided that she be brought to St. Lukes Medical Center in Quezon City. So being the attending physician of the former First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, and her problem was in gastroenterology, she was referred to me to attend
22
to her diarrhea. And from then on, even there were occasions that the problem was no longer in gastroenterology neither in the liver, because I started as her main physician, whether it is in gastroenterology or other problems, it was decided that I will be the main attending doctor. But if there are occasions or there were occasions that the problem is no longer in my field of specialty, then I refer to the different subspecialties depending on what the problem was. So as the main attending, I evaluate the case, I evaluate the problem and if I saw the need that it is beyond my specialty as gastroenterologist or a hepatologist, I refer the problem to the different subspecialties and then decide whom to refer the problem and ultimately summarize everything and then come up with a decision whatever it is, whether in the diagnosis or in the management. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, do you recall having attended to the former President, Honorable Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in the month of July 2009, August 2009 and also in September 2009? I am sorry, 2011, July of 2011, August of 2011 and September of 2011? My apologies, Doktora. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. For what ailments? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Mainly for the problem in the neck. Mr. Lim. Yes, Maam. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. She was admitted because of severe neck pains. Mr. Lim. Can you please state, for the record, the dates of confinement of the former President? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, at this juncture may we place this observation on record, Your Honor. There is a categorical statement on the part of the Prosecutor that the Madam Witness, Your Honor, is being presented as an ordinary witness. We noticed, however, that practically from the start, she is testifying along medical lines, Your Honor. We would like to know The Presiding Officer. She is being presented as a doctor and as an ordinary witness testifying on general medical matters. So let her answer. Mr. Lim. Can you kindly answer the question, Maam? I just would like to request you to state, for the record, the dates of confinement or hospitalization of the former President in 2011, specifically July 2011, August 2011 and also September 2011. Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. She was admitted July 25, 2011 to August 5, 2011 and then she was readmitted on September 20, and then discharged the following day, September 21. Mr. Lim. In the subpoena, Doktora Cervantes, you were required to bring and produce the original and certified true copies of the medical certificate dated October 1, 2011, which you issued on the medical condition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Did you bring that medical certificate, Doktora? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Witness, Your Honor please, handing to Counsel a one-page document captioned Medical Certificate with the handwritten notation at the bottom left-hand portion printed
23
from the computer file on February 17, 2011, Friday, followed by a signature which this representation cannot read. Your Honor, I would like to ask these questions to the witness. Madam Witness, I noticed that this medical certificate which you have produced and which you have just handed to this representation is an unsigned copy and I also noticed that it is merely a printout on a one-page bond paper without any letterhead. Can you please explain why this is unsigned? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Sir, because that was a print from the computer because the original copy is with the former President. When we issued that medical certificate, the former President was already discharged so there was no duplicate copy that we made because it was issued on an out patient basis, and I did not realize that I will end up this way in front of the Court that is why I did not xerox the out patient medical certificate. But it is in my computer, so when I was asked to bring the said medical certificate, I printed a copy. And I will be able to recognize the duplicate if ever I will see it even if I have no signature on that medical certificate that I am bringing. Mr. Cuevas. We have no objection to the authentication of that document, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. Just to make it easier for you. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Mr. Justice. There is a signature at the bottom of the handwritten notation which I read earlier, printed from the computer file on February 17, 2011, Friday. Whose signature is this, Maam? Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. It is mine, Sir. The Presiding Officer. They have already admitted the authenticity of that document, Counsel. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. We would like to request The Presiding Officer. Only for detailed presentation. Go ahead. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. We would like to request, Your Honor, that this medical certificate be marked in evidence as the Prosecutions Exhibit NNNNNNNNNN as in Nancy, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Lim. We would also like to request, Your Honor, that the penultimate paragraph in this medical certificate containing the phrase The Presiding Officer. Please read the entire penultimate paragraph. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The penultimate paragraph, Your Honor, reads as follows: Ms. Macapagal-Arroyo has metabolic bone disease and osteoporosis due to hypoparathyroidism with electrolyte imbalance and Vitamin D deficiency. The Minerva brace should remain in place for at least three (3) months and barring any complications, she should be fully recovered from her spine surgery in six (6) to eight (8) months. Her metabolic bone disease needs lifetime maintenance treatment.
24
The last paragraph reads: Issued unsigned on October 1, 2011 at Taguig City, Philippines, Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, M.D., Gastroenterologist-Hepatologist, main attending physician, end of quote, Your Honor. That is all for the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Cross. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, I just would like to elicit an admission from my colleague in the Prosecution as to whether he admits that these matters taken up today are involved in the Supreme Court case in connection with the restraining order. If they are, I have no cross. Mr. Lim. I will readily admit and stipulate, Your Honor, that the medical certificate, the penultimate and last paragraphs of which were read into the record, was submitted by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Annex I to her Petition for TRO in G.R. No. 199034. The Presiding Officer. Supreme Court? Do you admit that this is involved in a pending case in the
Mr. Cuevas. That is the request for admission. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Lim. Well, the matters mentioned therein, Your Honor, are before the Court and subject even of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno. The Presiding Officer. Supreme Court? No. Do you admit that that is involved in a pending case in the
Mr. Cuevas. Before the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. If you do not, you do not. Mr. Lim. The medical certificate? Yes, it is there, Your Honor, in the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. The Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Madam Witness, no cross. Thank you very much. Mr. Lim. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Mr. Lim. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Your next witness for the Prosecution. Representative Colmenares. Thank you po. Our next witness po will be presented by Representative Raul Daza, Your Honor, Ms. Emma Abanador, Your Honor. May we request for a one-minute suspension while we get the witness po. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for one (1) minute to allow the witness to come in. Representative Colmenares. Thank you po. The trial was suspended at 3:45 p.m.
25
At 3:48 p.m., the trial was resumed The Presiding Officer. Session resumed. The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Ms. Abanador. I do. The Clerk of Court. So help you God.
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Your witness. Representative Daza. With the permission of the Impeachment Court. Mr. President, the Witness is here simply to identify and authenticate certain documents that have already been pre-marked. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Would you please state your name and personal circumstances. Ms. Abanador. I am Mrs. Emma Abanador from the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines. I am at present the Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of the Vice President. Representative Daza. Mrs. Abanador, a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum was served on you to bring to the Court certified true copy of the personal record file of the Chief Justice, the Respondent in this case, while he was employed with the Office of the Vice President. Did you bring those documents with you? Ms. Abanador. Yes, Sir, I have submitted that last February 23 to the Legal Officer of the Senate. Representative Daza. Mr. President, request permission to approach the witness. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. You may. Representative Daza. I am showing to you these documents marked on February 23premarked rather, on February 23, 2012 which are exhibits AAAAAAAA. Sorry, Mr. President. AAAAAAAAAA, BBBBBBBBBB, CCCCCCCCCC, DDDDDDDDDD, EEEEEEEEEE, FFFFFFFFFF, GGGGGGGGGG, HHHHHHHHHH, IIIIIIIIII, JJJJJJJJJJ, LLLLLLLLLL and MMMMMMMMMM. Could the Defense Counsel stipulate that these pre-marked exhibits are true and faithful copy of the originals that were brought by the Witness on February 23? Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor, that they are genuine reproduction of the respective originals. Representative Daza. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Justice. The Presiding Officer. You mean all the documents brought by the witness are genuine documents?
26
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right.
Representative Daza. May I just put on record the titles of these documents: MMMMMMMMMM, Certificate of Service Exhibit AAAAAAAAAA, Special Order No. 2000-19 signed by then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Exhibit BBBBBBBBBB, Consultancy Agreement, dated January 24, 2001. Exhibit CCCCCCCCCC, Certificate of Service for the month of January 2001. Exhibit DDDDDDDDDD, Consultancy Agreement dated May 24, 2000. Exhibit EEEEEEEEEE, Certificate of Service for the month of December 2000. Exhibit FFFFFFFFFF, Certificate of Service for the month of November 2000. Exhibit GGGGGGGGGG, Certificate of Service for the month of October 2000. Exhibit HHHHHHHHHH, Certificate of Service for September 2000. Exhibit IIIIIIIIII, Certificate of Service for August 2000. Exhibit JJJJJJJJJJ, Certificate of Service for July 2000. Exhibit KKKKKKKKKK, for the month of June 2000. Exhibit LLLLLLLLLL, Certificate of Service for the month of May 2000. Exhibit MMMMMMMMMM, for the month of April 2000. All of these Certificates of Service contained the signature of Consultant Renato C. Corona. I have no further question of the Witness, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Cross. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Maam. No cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No cross. Representative Daza. Thank you. May I request that the Witness may now be discharged? The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged. Next witness. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. Then our next witness will be presented by private Posecutor Atty. Al Parreo, Your Honor please.
27
The Presiding Officer. Atty. Al Parreo has the floor. Mr. Parreo. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, our next witness is Mr. Edmond Llosala. May we ask the Secretary to please call Mr. Llosala to the witness stand, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Please call the Witness to enter the Chamber. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Witness, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment proceeding? Mr. Llosala. Yes po. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may I proceed? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Proceed.
Mr. Parreo. Mr. Witness, please state your name and other circumstances. Mr. Llosala. Ako po si Edmond Handes Llosala, nakatira po sa Unit 9-F, El Hardin, Del Presidente 2, Quezon City, Sgt. Esguerra. Ako po ay empleyado ng ABS-CBN News, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. Ako po ay isang news cameraman. Mr. Parreo. Your Honors, we are offering the testimony of the Witness, Edmond Llosala, to prove the following material allegations found in the Complaint including the following The Presiding Officer. This is under Article VII? Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor, this is under Article VII. Yes. Proceed.
The Presiding Officer.
Mr. Parreo. To identify and authenticate the video recording he took on November 15, 2011; to prove that the November 15 Supreme Court TRO in favor of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo mandated that she fulfill three conditions before she can leave; to prove that Respondent, through Midas Marquez, coordinated with GMAs lawyer to ensure that GMA can leave on November 15, 2011; to prove that Respondent Corona using his administrative powers as Supreme Court Chief Justice extended office hours so that the TRO conditions can be fulfilled by GMA and thus allow GMA and the then First Gentleman to leave; to prove that RespondentMidas Marquez misled the public into believing that a TRO is effective when it is not; to prove that Respondent distorted the effectivity of the TRO to make it effective even if GMA failed to comply with the conditions; other related matters, Your Honor. May we proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
Mr. Parreo. Mr. Witness, saan po kayo nagta-trabaho? Mr. Llosala. Sa ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation po. Mr. Parreo. Bilang ano po? Mr. Llosala. Bilang cameraman po ng News.
28
Mr. Parreo. Kailan po kayo naging cameraman? Mr. Llosala. 1994 pa po.
Mr. Parreo. At hanggang ngayon po ay cameraman din po kayo? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Parreo. Ano po ang trabaho ng isang cameraman? Mr. Llosala. Nagko-cover po kami ng mga issues, mga newsissues, mga ibat-iba pong istorya ng buhay related po sa mga coverage ng aming kumpanya. Mr. Parreo. At saan po ang inyong beat? Mr. Llosala. Ako po ay naka-beat sa Justice Departmentsa Department of Justice and Supreme Court po. Mr. Parreo. At noong buwan ng November 2011, saan po ang inyong beat? Mr. Llosala. Sa Department of Justice po. Mr. Parreo. Noong November 15, 2011, nasaan po kayo noon? Mr. Llosala. Sa Department of Justice po. Mr. Parreo. Sa Department of Justice lang po? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Parreo. Nasa Supreme Court din po ba kayo ng mga panahong iyon? Mr. Llosala. Once na mayroon pong istorya po sa Supreme Court, saka na lang po kami nagpupunta. Mr. Parreo. At ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court noong November 15, 2011? Mr. Llosala. Pag may istorya po, nagpupunta po kami doon. Once na may mga press con or interview. Pero after po noon, babalik na po kami doon sa Department of Justice. Mr. Parreo. Kayo po ay nandito dahil po isang subpoena. Tama po ba? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Parreo. At ayon po sa subpoena na ibinigay po sa inyong kumpanya, kayo po ay inatasang magdala rin po ng tatlong (3) videos. Tama po ba ito? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Parreo. Nasaan po ang mga videos po na ito ngayon? Mr. Llosala. Pinadala na po dito po. Mr. Parreo. Ipapakita ko sa iyo ang unang video. May tagal ito na 23 minutes and 17 seconds. Mr. Llosala. Yes po.
29
Mr. Parreo. Panoorin mo itong mabuti tapos sabihin mo sa amin kung ano ang relasyon ng video na ito sa videong unang pinadala namin sa inyo. Mr. Cuevas. We will object, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the ground of the objection? Mr. Cuevas. There is no showing. There is no basis, there is no showing that it was he who took it and that it was really taken on that date as specifically mentioned and for the purpose as enunciated by the Witness. The Presiding Officer. Can you reform your question, please? Mr. Parreo. Actually, Your HonorSige po. Kayo po, nasabi niyo po kanina na nandoon kayo noong November 15, 2011, ano po ang ginawa po ninyo doon? Mr. Cuevas. Vague, Your Honor. Mr. Parreo. Bilang isang cameraman po. The Presiding Officer. Let him answer. Mr. Cuevas. The question doon. Saan doon? The Presiding Officer. Let him answer. Mr. Llosala. Iyon po yung regular beat po namin, sa Department of Justice po. Kaya po kami nandoon dahil po everyday po kaming may regular na coverage po doon. At kung ano po yung magiging issue, iyon po yung kinukunan namin. Mr. Parreo. Nabanggit niyo po kanina na nasa Supreme Court din po kayo noong panahong iyon, ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court? Mr. Llosala. Once na meron pong press con or mga-nagpupunta po kami doon. Mr. Parreo. At noong November 15, 2011, meron po bang press con na nangyari po noon? Mr. Llosala. Meron po. Mr. Parreo. Sino po ang nag-press con? Mr. Llosala. Nagpa-press con po si Atty. Midas Marquez. Nagbigay po siya ng statement. Mr. Parreo. At ano po ang ginawa ninyo habang siya ay nagpa-press con? Mr. Llosala. Nag-set up po kami ng camera, tripod and audio at para po mai-cover namin, ma-on-record po ang statement na ipinahayag niya. Mr. Parreo. At nabanggit ninyo kanina na kayo ay nagpadala ng video rito, eto ho ba yung video na nakunan ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Yung video one po na pinadala namin. Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may we now present the video that was described by the Witness.
30
The Presiding Officer. Why do you not show it to the Witness first so that he can verify whether that is indeed the video that he was referring to? Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. We have the screen right here, Your Honor, and we have already coordinated with the The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, for identification purposes, this video previously marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTT described in the Senate subpoena as a video of the press conference of Supreme Court Midas Marquez on November 15, 2011 at approximately 1:30 p.m. We request that the compact disk previously marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTT be presented and the time period from zero to 30 minutes be shown. Can you please play? To the Secretariat. Your Honor, may we ask the Secretariat to please (Video Tape Presentation) Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, with the indulgence of the Honorable Court, may we be informed as for the purpose of this video playing The Presiding Officer. What is the question? Mr. Cuevas. May we be informed as to the purpose, Your Honor, of the video playing? Mr. Parreo. Can we pause the video, please? Your Honor, as stated in our Offer The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly answer the question of the Defense? Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. As we stated in the Offer, this video is being presented to show that the TRO on November 15and this was taken, Your Honor, at around 1 to 2 p.m. The TRO was stated as being suspensive. Meaning, Your Honor, that according to this press conference, Midas Marquez will state that GMA has to fulfill three conditions first before she can leave. Mr. Cuevas. May we make a counter-statement, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. This is allegedly a press conference held by Attorney Marquez, Your Honor. We do not see any relevance or importance because the impeachment here is against the Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor. Whatever he may say cannot be said to be binding upon the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. I will allow the Witness to answer. Let the Prosecutor develop their evidence and we will see as we go along. Mr. Parreo. Thank you, Your Honor. Can we please play the video again? (Video Tape Presentation) Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, if we may. Can we proceed, Your Honor, with the next videos, Your Honor.
31
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. How long will that be? Mr. Parreo. This one, Your Honor, is for 23 minutes. We just presented the first 13 minutes of the video. If The Presiding Officer. How many minutes would be the next video? Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor. We do not know the actual purpose. Is it to make it evident that the spokesman of the Supreme Court speak in the manner they wanted it? We do not know the purpose, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. According to the allegation of Article VII, Respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a Temporary Restraining Order Mr. Parreo. Yes. The Presiding Officer. in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, in order to give them an opportunity to escape. To see his partiality in granting a Temporary Restraining Order so Mr. Cuevas. But theI am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I do not know the purpose. The purpose I suppose is to show his partiality. So let us see. Mr. Cuevas. What will be noticed, Your Honor, is a video being played. Now, it is about 20 or 30 minutes, nothing of that sort had come out. Mr. Cuevas. There is not even a The Presiding Officer. Actually Counsel, the video, to be fair, is talking about a TRO being considered in the Supreme Court. In fact, I heard the Court Administrator said that it was being drafted. Mr. Cuevas. The restraining order, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. But the resolution granting the same had been earlier issued. The Presiding Officer. The TRO, yes. Yes, the TRO was beingprecisely the whole process was under consideration. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. With condition. So let us allow the Witness to answer. Mr. Parreo. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Can we Mr. Cuevas. I reallyI have to confess, Your Honor, I really cannot comprehend the materiality of the evidence being presented. Senator Legarda. Mr. President.
32
The Presiding Officer. Let them present their case and we will see. Can weMajority Floor Leader, can we suspend the Senator Sotto. Senator Legarda, Mr. President. Senator Legarda. Mr. President, just a one minute
The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Senator Legarda. Just a suggestion, Mr. President. Instead of us laboring to watch 23 minutes of a video which is not even properly produced and which is somewhat inaudible, may we request the Prosecution to provide the Senator-Judges, with the concurrence of my colleagues, with a transcript of this video so that we can appreciate it better? Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. We will do that. Senator Legarda. This video personally, I think, would not be very relevant or material at this point. I do not know if you want to show the whole 30 minutes to us now? Mr. Parreo. No, Your Honor. We actually just presented 13 minutes. Senator Legarda. Thirteen. Ah, it is finished. Mr. Parreo. It is done, Your Honor. We are just going to present two short videos, Your Honor. One is just one (1) minute and the other one, I think, is just a few seconds, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. That is our point. With the kind The Presiding Officer. We will allow the video to be shown so that we will finish with this matter. Proceed. (Video Tape Presentation) The Presiding Officer. Tapos na? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, actually that is The Presiding Officer. Tapos na ba? Mr. Parreo. That is the same video, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. O, tapos na iyon? Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Iyong next video. Sige, tapusin natin. (Video Tape Presentation) Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, so those are just three videos, Your Honor. May I now proceed with asking questions from our Witness? The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. What is the relevance of the third video?
33
Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, that third video, Your Honor, showed the actual payment, the attempted payment at around 4:30, Your Honor, by the Counsel of GMA. The Presiding Officer. Between the first video and the third video, how long a time Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, the first video happened between 1:30 to 2:30, Your Honor. The second video, Your Honor, happened after the first video. The third video, Your Honor, happened The Presiding Officer. Yes. Of course, it happened after the first video. But how long? What was the time interval? Mr. Parreo. According to the Witness, Your Honor, it happened around fifteen (15) minutes or thirty (30) minutes after he went down after the presentation, Your Honor, after the press conference. So the second video, Your Honor, wherein Attorney Topacio was saying that he spoke with Midas Marquez, happened at around 3:00 p.m. thereabout. The Presiding Officer. And then? Mr. Parreo. And then, he mentioned that he was The Presiding Officer. No, but the third video was at four oclock.
Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. It happened at around 4:15, according to the watch of the The Presiding Officer. All right. Before you examine the witness, let us The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. Before the examination of the Witness, may we move for a 15-minute suspension of the trial. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for 15 minutes. The trial was suspended at 4:27 p.m. At 4:54 p.m. the trial was resumed The Presiding Officer. Trial is resumed. Prosecution, your witness. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the suspension, the Prosecution was still on direct examination of the witness. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now proceed. Mr. Parreo. May we proceed, Your Honor? Mr. Witness, nakita niyo po kanina yung Video No. 1, which was previously marked as TTTTTTTT. This is the video of the press briefing of Supreme Courts spokesperson Midas Marquez. Mr. Llosala. Opo.
34
Mr. Parreo. Ano po ang relasyon nito sa video na nabanggit niyo kanina na kinunan po ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Ang relasyon po noon ay yun po ay press con about sa statement po. Mr. Parreo. Opo. Mr. Llosala. About sa statement po ni Attorney Midas. Mr. Parreo. Opo. Nabanggit niyo po kanina na may video kayong kinunan. Ano ho ang relasyon nito doon sa video na pinakita po natin kanina? Mr. Llosala. Pareho naman po siya. Mr. Parreo. Bakit niyo po alam na pareho lang po yung video na yun sa binanggit ninyong video kanina? Mr. Llosala. Bale ako po kasi, Sir, ang nag-roll ng video na yun. Ako po ang kumuha. Mr. Parreo. May naririnig po ako na mga nagsasalita sa video na ito. Sino ho yung nagsasalita sa video po na ito? Mr. Llosala. Si Attorney Midas po. Mr. Parreo. At bakit ninyo po siya kilala? Mr. Llosala. Although regular po namin siyang nakakausap at naiko-cover sa Supreme Court, everyday or every other day po, once po na mayroong istorya po sa Supreme Court. Mr. Parreo. Sa video po na ito may naririnig din po kaming mga ibang boses na nagsasalita, sino po iyong mga nagsasalita na ibang tao dito? Mr. Llosala. Ang alam ko po lahat po iyan ay mga media. Mr. Parreo. Nabanggit ninyo po kanina na kayo iyong kumuha ng video na ito Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Parreo. paano po ninyo siya kinunan? Mr. Llosala. Nag-set up po ako ng tripod before pobago po magkaroon ng press con nagset up po kami ng tripod and microphone at noong lumabas na po si Atty. Midas Marquez, sinimulan ko na pong i-record iyon pong statement na sinasabi niya. Mr. Parreo. At ano po ang ginamit ninyo po na camera na pang-record po nito? Mr. Llosala. GF po na Ikegami, professional, pang-broadcast camera. Mr. Parreo. Paano ho niya na-save o paano ho nakuha iyong recording na sinabi ninyo na nakuha ninyo kanina? Mr. Llosala. Iyon pong camera po namin ay mayroon po siyang CF card. Iyon po iyong recording storage ng camera. Mr. Parreo. At ano ang ginawa po ninyo sa CF card po na ito? Mr. Llosala. After po noong press con, tinanggal ko na po sa camera ang CF card at ipinadala ko po sa driver ko na dalhin niya sa van at i-feed sa base, sa ABS-CBN po.
35
Mr. Parreo. Salamat po. Nakita ninyo rin po ang aming tinatawag na The Presiding Officer. Defense Counsel, do you dispute this video? Mr. Cuevas. I am not in a position to dispute it, Your Honor. But my point is, it appears to be immaterial and irrelevant. Because this is a prosecution for impeachment of the Chief justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Anyway, we will see. Mr. Parreo. Mr. Witness, nakita ninyo rin po iyong Video 2 kanina na aming ipinakita, na previously marked as UUUUUUUU. This is described in the Senate subpoena as the Video showing Atty. Ferdinand Topacio referring for the payment of the cash bond on November 15, 2011. Ano po ang relasyon ng video na ipinakita po namin dito po sa hiningi naming video sa inyo kanina? Mr. Cuevas. Apparently Mr. Llosala. Pareho rin. Mr. Cuevas. Apparently, Your Honor, there is no basis. We did not see that in the video. There was Attorney Topacio speaking but with respect to payment and so on, nothing had been shown. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. We were just referring to the subpoena. That was the title or the label used in the subpoena but The Presiding Officer. What are you trying to prove? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, we are just authenticating the videos as of this moment. The Presiding Officer. You are just authenticating. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, I think the authentication is already done. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. If the Defense The Presiding Officer. There is no question about it. Mr. Parreo. Okay, Your Honor. If the Defense Counsel is also in agreement that the three (3) videos are already duly authenticated, we have no further questions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That it was taken by this guy. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. By this Witness. Mr. Cuevas. What we are objecting, Your Honor, is the statement to the effect that the video reflects Attorney Topacio speaking about the payment of the P2,000,000 cash bond, which is not reflected, neither is there any statement to that effect.
36
The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the video is the best evidence of that Mr. Cuevas. Correct. The Presiding Officer. whether he said that or not. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Parreo. That being the case, Your Honor, and with the Courts pronouncement as to the authentication of the said videos, we have no further questions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. May I be allowed to start, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, cross. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court. Good afternoon, Mr. Llosala. Mr. Llosala. Good afternoon po, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Narinig ko kayong sinabi ninyo matagal na kayo sa ABS-CBN, tama ho ba? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Mga ilang taon na po? Mr. Llosala. Almost sixteen (16) years na po. Mr. Cuevas. Sixteen (16) years. Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. And you started as what? Nagsimula po kayong ano? Mr. Llosala. Camera man na po. Mr. Cuevas. At magkano po ang suweldo ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Noong una po nasa P7,000 a month lang po eh. Mr. Cuevas. Inut-inot tumaas ang suweldo ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Kada taon o kada limang (5) taon o ano? Mr. Llosala. Depende po kasi po talent lang po ako noon. Mr. Cuevas. Eh sa ngayon po magkano na sinasahod ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Nasa 35 plus po a month. Mr. Cuevas. Thirty five thousand (P35,000) a month?
37
Mr. Llosala. A month po. Mr. Cuevas. Nagkamali pala ako ng karera dapat pala photographer. Necessarily po, iyang ibinigay sa inyong increase na iyan ay depende doon sa serbisyo ninyo at sa tagal na nang inyong serbisyo? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. And because of that you would not like to incur the ire or displeasure of ABSCBN? Mr. Llosala. Yes po.
Mr. Cuevas. Tama po yun? Mr. Llosala. Opo.
Mr. Cuevas. Hanggat maaari gagawin ninyo ang magagawa ninyo para makalugod kayo sa ABS-CBN? Mr. Llosala. Yes po.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, bakit po kayo nagkaroon ng pagkakataong kunan ito ng video, ito ba ay inutos sa inyo ng ABS-CBN or boluntar kayo? Mr. Llosala. Inutos po sa amin yan. Meron po kaming superior na everday po at sila po nagbibigay ng coverage sa amin. Mr. Cuevas. Ang inaalam ko po itong particular video lamang na ito, hindi yung iba. Ito ba ay may utos sa inyo na kunan ninyo ng video? Mr. Llosala. Opo inutos po sa amin.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. At ang layunin ninyosinabi ba sa inyo kung ano ang dapat na mafocus ang inyong pagkuha? Mr. Llosala. Hindi naman po. Sinabi sa amin na kunan mismo ito pong press con.
Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sabi sa inyo kung maaari ninyong ipagtapat sa Husgado? Mr. Llosala. Everyday po kasi na naka-beat kami sa Department of Justice automatic po yan na lahat po ng istorya na makukunan namin, na magagawa namin sa beat po namin na yon ay kailangan po naming gawin. Mr. Cuevas. I see. So ito po ay boluntar ninyo walang may utos sa inyo? Mr. Llosala. May utos po.
Mr. Cuevas. Ah, meron? Mr. Llosala. Opo.
Mr. Cuevas. Paalam nga po ninyo sa Husgado kung sino nag-utos sa inyo? Mr. Llosala. Ang amin pong news department. Mr. Cuevas. Sino po sa news department ninyo?
38
Mr. Llosala. Sa ano poang reporter ko po.
Mr. Cuevas. Sino po sila? Mr. Llosala. Si Ms. Ina Reformina po. Mr. Cuevas. Ina Reformina? Mr. Llosala. Opo.
Mr. Cuevas. Sinabi ba sa inyo ang dahilan kung bakit pinakukunan ng video ito? Mr. Llosala. Hindi naman po.
Mr. Cuevas. Eh sa pagkaunawa ninyo, bakit ninyo kukunan ng video? Mr. Llosala. Dahil po yun yung parte ng aming trabaho.
Mr. Cuevas. Anong ibig ninyong sabihing parte ng inyong trabaho? Mr. Llosala. Sa araw araw po yun po ang aming trabaho mismo.
Mr. Cuevas. Nadinig ko ngang tinukoy ninyo yung restraining order, nauunawaan ho ba ninyo kung ano yung restraining order na tinutukoy niyo? Mr. Llosala. Hindi naman po. Hindi po.
Mr. Cuevas. Eh papaano kayo nakapag-deklara tungkol dito? Saan nanggaling yung kaalaman ninyo sa restraining order? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, objection, Your Honor. There was no statement as to the Temporary Restraining Order that is being inferred to by the Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But this is cross-examination, my dear colleague. Mr. Parreo. But it is misleading, Your Honor. It is premised on a statement The Presiding Officer. What is the misleading portion of this Mr. Cuevas. What is the misleading? Mr. Parreo. He infers, Your Honor, that the Witness made a testimony regarding a Temporary Restraining Order. Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor. It is very, very much within the coverage, in fact, even in the video. The Presiding Officer. TRO where he was taking The video that was played was about the pending issuance of a
Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. the video. If he knows, sagutin mo kung alam mo. Mr. Llosala. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sagot ninyo?
39
Mr. Llosala. Hindi po ako familiar doon po sa restraining order. Ako po ay cameraman lang, kinukunan ko lang po kung ano po yung sinasabi at ang nagdedesisyon po niyan sa mga detalye po ng mga statement ay yung aking reporter. Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid po tama ho ba yung aming pagkaalam na wala kayong alam kahit gaano diyan sa restraining order na yan? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po ganoon kaano po.
Mr. Cuevas. Anong ibig niyong sabihin na hindi ganoon? What is it that you wanted to tell the Court? Ibig niyong sabihin, meron po kayong kaunting kaalaman pero hindi lubos, ganoon po ba? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po lubos.
Mr. Cuevas. I see. Itong si Chief Justice Corona, kilala niyo siya? Mr. Llosala. Simula na lang po noong ma-assign po ako sa department beat, sa Justice beat saka ko na lang po siya Mr. Cuevas. Noon lang niyo siya nakilala? Mr. Llosala. Opo.
Mr. Cuevas. Dahil nakikita niyo siya? Mr. Llosala. Yes po.
Mr. Cuevas. Hindi niyo siya nakakausap? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po.
Mr. Cuevas. Wala kayong kumperensya (conference) na nagagawa sa kanya kahit ano? Mr. Llosala. Wala po.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, meron kaming kopya dito ng Temporary Restraining Order, ipakikita ko sa inyo. Kindly go over it and tell us whether you are acquainted or familiar with this restraining order Mr. Llosala. Opo.
Mr. Cuevas. which for purposes of identification, Your Honor, we request that it be marked as Exhibit 63, Your Honor. Anong page yan? Page 4. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. I am pointing, Your Honor, to the particular portion referred to in my question, Your Honorin my cross-examination. Nabasa po ninyo yan? Mr. Llosala. (nodding)
Mr. Cuevas. All right. This first paragraph of this Page 8, Now, therefore, effective immediately, continuing until further orders from this Court. Nauunawaan ho ba ninyo yon?
40
Mr. Llosala. Hindi masyado po. Hindi po masyado.
Mr. Cuevas. Anong pagkaunawa ninyo diyan kung nauunawaan niyo kahit na kaunti? Sinasabi diyan, Your respondent, your agents, representatives or person acting in your place or stead are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing DOJ Department Circular No. 41 and Watchlist Order No. ASM-11237 dated August 9, 2011; 422 dated September 6 Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Wala. Hindi pa ako tapos.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, if I may. The Presiding Officer. Let the Counsel finish and then you object if you have any objection. Mr. Parreo. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. 2011; 573 dated October 27. Paki-tingnan nga po ninyo, basahin ninyo at sabihin ninyo sa Kagalang-galang na Hukuman kung nauunawaan ninyo yan pagkat tinutukoy diyan, effective immediately. Mr. Parreo. question Objection, Your Honor, on the firston the question, Your Honor, that
Mr. Cuevas. May we know the basis, Your Honor? Mr. Parreo. That question, Your Honor, was already asked and answered as he understands. The Witness The Presiding Officer. What is the answer? Mr. Parreo. The witness said hindi raw niya masyadonghindi raw niya nauunawaan po iyan. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Llosala. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Llosala. Hindi ko po nauunawaan po yan. So wala kayong kaalaman diyan. Wala po.
Mr. Cuevas. Eh, iyong ipinakita nyong video kanina, sinasabi ninyo na parang hindi pa effective pero sinabi naman ni Kagalang-galang Midas Marquez na effective kaagad. Tama ho ba yun? Tama ba yung pagkakaunawa ko o mali? Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. There was no video
The Presiding Officer. What is the ground? Mr. Parreo. There was no video stating that Midas Marquez said that it was effective immediately. In fact, Your Honor, the video that we first presented said that according to Midas Marquez, it is not effective immediately. If I may quote the exact words, Your Honor, that was The Presiding Officer. Best evidence will be the transcript. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. But the Counsel is
41
The Presiding Officer. You are not under oath to make any certitude here. Mr. Parreo. Okay, Your Honor. I submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the video and the transcription of what was said be the best evidence of that. Mr. Parreo. Okay, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Ano sagot ninyo?
Mr. Llosala. Tungkol po doon sa video, ang parte ko lang po ng trabaho ay makunan yung video at yung sinasabi ng nagsasalita. Pero yun pong ibig sabihin na unawain ko po yung sinasabi niya, hindi ko po maunawaan. Mr. Cuevas. Wala kayong kinalaman doon sa katotohanan noong sinabi niya o hindi. Ganoon ho ba ang ibig niyong sabihin? Mr. Llosala. Opo, wala ho.
The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the Defense Counsel, the gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is recognized. Mr. Cuevas. Willingly, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ginoong Pangulo, hindi ko po maintindihan kung ano ho ang ipinapakita ni Lead Counsel on Defense kung anong klaseng papeles yan. Hindi naman po sa minamaliit ang ating testigo, ang testigo po ay narito para i-authenticate lang yung kanyang nakunan. Siyempre hindi ho niya maintindihan kung ano ang ibig sabihin nung mga TRO, kung ano yong binayaran na bail bonds. SiyempreI think that the Witness right now is incompetent to answer all the questions coming from the Defense dahil siya ay nandito practically witness ng Prosecution yan para i-authenticate lang kung ano yung kinunan niya. Yun lang yata ang aking pagkakaintindi. Yun lang po. Mr. Cuevas. May we reply, Your Honor? We are not arguing with the Honorable Senator. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. My understanding or the understanding of the Defense is, this video presentation was made in order to show that there were no compliance. First, the TRO is not effective, there was no compliance with the conditions therein set forth, although it was not very clear, Your Honor. That is why we were trying to ask for a clarification, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Actually the video being an evidence presented under Article VII was intended to prove partiality. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So let the video speak and the transcription whether there is any indication that the Respondent is partial. There is no connection so far that I could see. Let them establish the connection.
42
Mr. Cuevas. Yes. May we now proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, likewise Senator Sotto. Mr. President.
Mr. Cuevas. My question was premised on the resolution, Your Honor, of the Honorable Supreme Court dated November 15, 2011. Now The Presiding Officer. December 15. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honorno, Your Honor. November 15, 2011. I am sorry. Now, may I likewise invite you, if you are in a position to tell the Honorable Court, whether you understood the first or second paragraph of Page 3 of this document. I am showing it to you. Pakitingnan nga po ninyo, tingnan ninyo kung nauunawaan ninyo ang nakalagay diyan. Mr. Parreo. Your Honor thisObjection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Parreo. This question has been repeatedly asked and the Witness has repeatedly answered na hindi niya naintindihan. Mr. Cuevas. That is a different portion. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. He is only being asked if henaunawaan niya yung laman nung dokumento na pinakikita sa kanya. Sapagkat testigo ninyo yan eh kaya kino-cross examine. Mr. Parreo. We submit, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sagot ninyo? Mr. Llosala. Doon po sa statement Mr. Cuevas. The portion, Your Honor, referred to in the cross-examination question is, the Temporary Restraining Order shall be immediately executory. Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Bienvenido L. Reyes have reserved the right to submit their dissenting opinions. Leonardo de Castro, Justice Del Castillo, also on official leave. Yan po lang ang tinatanong, kung nauunawaan niyo ang nakalagay diyan. Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. All right. Now, noong makunan na ninyo ng video eh kayo bay nakausap ng inyong boss, si Ina Reformina? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Napag-usapan ba ninyo ang tungkol sa Restraining Order na nasasaklaw ng inyong video? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po.
43
Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. So, wala siyang sinabi sa inyo,Ah tama pala o Mali pala yung aming pananaw. Mr. Llosala. Wala po. Mr. Cuevas. Wala po. All right Now, correct me if I am wrong. My impression is, the restraining order in this case imposes three conditions. Am I right? Mr. Llosala. Yes, po. Mr. Cuevas. Tama po ba yon? At lahat ng condition na ito dapat matupad alinsunod sa inyo bago ma-issue ang restraining order. Ganon ho ba? Ganoon ba ang pagkaunawa niyo? Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is your objection? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, we have repeatedly stated that the Witness, well, answered the other questions, but on this question, Your Honor, he is incompetent. He has established that he is a cameraman and yet the Defense Counsel keeps asking questions of law. Mr. Cuevas. Well, but he The Presiding Officer. He is under cross. Mr. Cuevas. We are not supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker every statement made by law. The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo kung alam mo. Pag hindi mo alam Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. The Presiding Officer. sabihin mo, Hindi ko alam. Yung alam mo ang sagutin mo. Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Ang ibig niyong sabihing hindi po, hindi niyo alam ang mga kondisyon Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. ng pag-i-issue ng restraining order na yan? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Merong sinasabi kanina dito ang abogado ng Prosecution na diumano yung sinasabing P2 million cash bond eh tinamaan noongtama ba yung salita na tinamaan ng video niyo, tama ho ba yun? Mr. Llosala. Opo. Correct. Mr. Cuevas. Yung P2,000 cash bond na yun, yun ang The Presiding Officer. P2 million.
44
Mr. Cuevas. P2 million, I am sorry. Yung ang kinakailangang maideposito yung petitioner doon sa TRO, tama ho ba yun? Mr. Llosala. Hindi ko po alam. Mr. Cuevas. Eh ano po ang kahulugan noong pagkakakuha ninyo yung kay Attorney Topacio na diumano nagbabayad ng P2 million. Mr. Llosala. Basta ang alam ko lang po yun po ay cash bond. Mr. Cuevas. Oho. Para saan po iyon sa pagkaalam niyo? Para ibigay sa huwes, ibigay sa Mr. Llosala. Ang alam ko lang po na ibibigay doon sa cashier ng Supreme Court kaya ko po kinunan. Mr. Cuevas. Para po ano yun sa pagkaalam niyo? Mr. Llosala. Hindi ko po alam. Mr. Cuevas. Hanggang ngayon hindi niyo alam? Mr. Llosala. Hindi ko na po alam kung ano. Mr. Cuevas. Yung ibang kondisyon na nakalagay doon, alam ho ba ninyo o hindi? Mr. Llosala. Hindi na po. Mr. Cuevas. Sinabi ba niyo kanina na yung restraining order eh hindi tama ang pagkakapagpatupad dahil yung mga kondisyon eh hindi nagaganap? Sinabi ho ba ninyo yun? Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. The Presiding Officer. What is the objection? Mr. Parreo. Same objection, Your Honor. And also he is misleading the Witness and he is asking for an opinionso many objections, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. He is under cross. Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, hindi ninyo sinabi iyon?
Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. So, wala kayong kinalaman doon sa mga sinasabing kondisyon? Mr. Llosala. Wala po. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now ang isa sa kondisyon doon, eh pagdating nila sa ibang bansa magre-report sila sa Consular Office ng gobyerno ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Hindi rin ninyo alam iyon? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. All right.
45
I think that will be all for the witness today, Your Honor. If permitted by this Honorable Court, I will continue with my cross tomorrow, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. May I just recognize the gentleman from San Juan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Isang katanungan lang po, Ginoong Pangulo. Ginoong Testigo, iyon bang ipinakita ninyo pong video na kuha po ninyo, iyan ba ho ay edited na noong ipinalabas dito o unedited? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Anong hindi po? Mr. Llosala. Hindi po siya edited. Raw material po siya. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ah, raw material. Mr. Llosala. Opo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, wala kayong in-edit diyan? Mr. Llosala. Wala po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Pimentel. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, I am asking for permission to continue tomorrow because I have a lot more of cross-examination questions. I have to go to the various documents just presented to me this afternoon. Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may we ask that the cross-examination be finished today? The witness has a pending job and he wished to be discharged immediately as possible. The Presiding Officer. Can you finish your cross-examination today? Mr. Cuevas. Well, I have to examine the other documents to be able to intelligibly propound my question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, we cannot deprive the Defense of his right of cross-examination. So, you presented your witness, you completed your direct. It is the turn of the Defense to ask him questions and he would not complete it so let the witness come back tomorrow when we resume the Impeachment Trial at 2:00 in the afternoon for further cross-examination. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President, thank you. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. I want to ask Justice Cuevas.
46
Justice, a lot of law students are watching our proceedings and excited to learn. Mr. Cuevas. I hope they learn the correct law. Senator Pimentel. They are learning a lot from you, Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Pimentel. But you know, ito nga. I have noticed that in the course of confronting the witness with the document, you had it marked Exhibit 67 yata. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, 67. Senator Pimentel. But yes. Although the witness had nothing to do with the document. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. Because Senator Pimentel. So, for the benefit of our law students who are watching you, is that the correct procedure? Mr. Cuevas. Very correct. Because how can it be referred to later, Your Honor. If they will not be marked, they will be useless piece of paper. Senator Pimentel. So, even if the witness did not identify the document or had no part in the document, is it the right time for you to have it marked or should you not have it marked at the time that you are now presenting your case through your own witnesses? Mr. Cuevas. Not the right time but it is right time for identification because insofar as documentary exhibit is concerned we have various stages: identification, marking and then offer. We are not yet at that point where we are making the offer, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Yes, sir. That is very clear. But technically, Justice, we have been very liberal no. You have done that actually a couple of times. I think that is the fifth document you have marked with a witness not even being a party to the document. And we have allowed that because this is sui generis. We will be liberal. But for the benefit of our law students who are watching the proceedings, one thing to learn the application of the Rules of Court to an actual trial, would you say that what you are doing is technically correct? Mr. Cuevas. Very correct, Your Honor. Not only technically correct; it is very correct. The Presiding Officer. May the Presiding Officer intervene? In a cross-examination, there is a lot of leeway given to the Counsel. And there are four techniques of cross-examination: probing, to insinuate, to undermine and to confront. And I understood, I allowed the question because of my understanding that the document was being used by the cross-examiner to confront the witness. Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir. Those are the purposes of cross-examination but on the proper time to mark an exhibit or a document. Just for the benefit of, especially, the law students who are closely watching our proceedings. Mr. Cuevas. For the better appreciation of the Honorable Senator, Your Honor, the documents that I confronted the witness with today had already been marked as evidence for the Prosecution more particularly Exhibit UUUUUUUUU, Your Honor and the other one is TTTTTTTTT, Your Honor. They had previously been marked.
47
Senator Pimentel. How about Exhibit 67? I think there was an order to mark it. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. It is only a portion. Senator Pimentel. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. That is only a portion of the exhibits, Your Honorof Exhibit Voice. [Off-mike] 63. Senator Pimentel. Well, anyway, Justice, it does not affect the exhibit marking. I just wanted to highlight that because I have noticed that we have been very liberal, and I have no objection. Actually, I want the liberal application of the Rules of Court, rules of evidence to these proceedings. Mr. Cuevas. May I state, for the record, that even if we adopt the strictest rule Senator Pimentel. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. this will still pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The Floor Leader.
Senator Sotto. It was ordered by the Presiding Officer that the Witness will be back tomorrow at two oclock for the continuation of the cross-examination. In the meantime, we may excuse the Witness at this point. The Presiding Officer. This Witness is excused. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Sotto. And then may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. I move that we adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon on Tuesday, February 28, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 28, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

Feb 27 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feb 27 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

Present Present Present* Present* Present

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

The Presiding Officer.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Tama po yun? Mr. Llosala. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Ah, meron? Mr. Llosala. Opo.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

You might also like