THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate
Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Thursday, January 26, 2012

At 2:02 p.m., the Presiding Officer, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, called the Impeachment Trial to order. The Presiding Officer. The Impeachment Trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ilagay natin ang ating mga sarili sa dakilang presensiya ng ating Panginoon. Ama naming makapangyarihan, Ikaw ay aming binibigyan ng parangal at papuri. Basbasan Ninyo Po kami ng sapat na katalinuhan, tiyaga at pasensya upang mamayani sa bawat isa sa amin ang katotohanan. Patnubayan Ninyo Po ang bawat isa sa amin upang maisakatuparan at magampanan namin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga Hukom sa paglilitis ngayong hapong ito. Dulutan Po kami ng lakas ng loob upang maisantabi ang mga personal na paniniwala upang ang aming mga desisyon ay maging patas at walang kinikilingan. Sa Inyo, Panginoon namin, iniaalay ang lahat ng magaganap sa hapong ito at sa Inyo rin Po ang tagumpay. Ito ay aming dalangin sa matamis na Ngalan ng Inyong Anak na si Hesus. Amen.

2
ROLL CALL

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara .................................................................. Present* Senator Joker P. Arroyo ...................................................................... Present Senator Alan Peter Compañero S. Cayetano ....................................... Present Senator Pia S. Cayetano ...................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ....................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................... Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada .......................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ................................................................ Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III .......................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan ............................................................... Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................... Present Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid .......................................................... Present Senator Loren B. Legarda .................................................................... Absent Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. ......................................................... Present Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III .............................................................. Present Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................... Present Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III .................................................. Present Senator Ralph G. Recto ....................................................................... Present Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. ........................................................ Present* Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ................................................................ Present Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV ............................................................ Present* Senator Manny Villar ............................................................................ Present* The President ........................................................................................ Present The Presiding Officer. With 18 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 is directed to 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 Majority Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the January 25, 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 January 25, 2012 Journal of the Impeachment Court is approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.
___________________
* Arrived after the roll call

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

3

The Secretary. Case NO. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties and their respective Counsel to enter their appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President, and Honorable Members of the Senate. The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon. Representative Tupas. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances, Your Honors. The Presiding Officer. It is noted. For the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Your Honor, and the Honorable Members of this Impeachment Court, we are entering the same appearance, Your Honor, for the respondent, the Honorable Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, before the business for the day, I move that we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. The Presiding Officer. The lady—the woman Senator-Jurist from Iloilo has the floor. Senator Defensor Santiago. On second thought, I will not object to lady Senator even if it sounds “Baby Senator” because it sounds like a term of endearment and it might refer to certain physical assets that I might possibly possess. But let me move on. I would prefer, if possible, with the consent of our colleagues, to raise my question to Counsel and then to the witness so I prefer that she should be called first. We are scheduled to resume her examination today. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Therefore, Mr. President, we are ready with the continuation of the presentation of evidence. Senator Defensor Santiago. If that is the case, Counsel can call his witness now. Senator Sotto. Yes. Representative Tupas. With the permission of Honorable Santiago, before we call, can we just request the Senate President to excuse four of our witnesses because they have been here the whole week and we might not call them today, namely: the Registers of Deeds of Marikina, Makati City, and Quezon City, as well as the representative of the Burgundy Realty Corporation. May we request the Senate President to excuse them for today and they be directed to appear on Monday at two o’clock in the afternoon.

4

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. The named witnesses for the Prosecution are hereby excused with the injunction that they will appear in this Court when they are called again to testify. Representative Tupas. So on Monday, Mr. President. On Monday at two o’clock in the afternoon. The Presiding Officer. On Monday at two o’clock, as suggested by the Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Now, we call the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Kim Henares, and we also call private Prosecutor, Atty. Arthur Lim, to continue and conduct the direct examination, and to answer the questions of the Honorable Senator from Iloilo. The Presiding Officer. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Honorable Kim Henares, may now take the witness stand and with the chosen counsel for the Prosecution to propound the questions. Proceed. Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel, I refer to your Complaint, Article II, and I will read it. “Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as required under the 1987 Constitution.” I do not need to underline that what you alleged against the Respondent is that he failed to disclose to the public his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, which I shall call SALN. Under the Rules, you are not allowed to introduce evidence that is not relevant to the failure to disclose to the public the SALN. But in the spirit of liberality, this Court has allowed you to do so. Now, I will proceed to the discussion of Article II, under your paragraph 2.3, and I quote: “It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.” First question to you: Are you charging respondent under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, to answer the question, with the permission of the Honorable Presiding Officer— The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. —and with the indulgence of the honorable Senators, may I be permitted to point out the....First of all,.... Senator Defensor Santiago. Why do you have to point out? Answer yes or no. Mr. Lim. The allegations.... Senator Defensor Santiago. I am tired of hearing your voice. Mr. Lim. Yes, but the allegations of the Complaint determine the jurisdiction of the Court— Senator Defensor Santiago. We have already seen that, Counsel, in the.... Mr. Lim. —over the case, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

5

Senator Defensor Santiago. Do not override me. We have already heard that in your pleadings. You have said that in your Motion for Subpoena. You have said that in your Memorandum. Do not be sententious because every hour counts. Kaya, madali lang naman sagutin itong pagtatanong na ito. Ito bang pinapasagot natin o Respondent natin ay binibintangan mo sa ilalim ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Yes or no. Mr. Lim. Opo, Madam Senator, dahil— Senator Defensor Santiago. Opo. Dahil? Mr. Lim. —nakalagay dito in violation of the Anti-Graft— Senator Defensor Santiago. Absolutely, I can read.... Mr. Lim. —and Corrupt Practices Act. Senator Defensor Santiago. Give me the presumption of literacy. Mr. Lim. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. And do not ever overstep yourself. Ngayon, ang pagtatanong ko sa iyo ay ganito. Do not engage in a colloquy with me. As I pointed out during the Estrada Impeachment Trial, you are not supposed to discuss or argue during an impeachment trial, especially when you are speaking to the impeachment judge. Mr. Lim. Can we answer the questions whatever the way we feel— Senator Defensor Santiago. No. Mr. Lim. —it should be answered. Senator Defensor Santiago. No, you should answer according to the Rules of Court as determined by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court. That is the rule here. Mr. Lim. Can the specific rule be cited for our guidance, Your Honor? Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. Mr. Lim. Okay. Senator Defensor Santiago. The Constitution allows the Senate to promulgate its own Rules of Procedure. That has been repeated in this instance. And this is the end of this colloquy. How dare you raise questions to my authority. Be careful because I might request my colleagues to inhibit you and disqualify you for appearing here. The Presiding Officer. May I intervene, Madam Senator. I would like to explain that the nonelected members of the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, can argue among themselves but not to argue against any elected member of Congress. Because there is a parliamentary tradition involved in this. Only elected members of the people can use this forum to argue with one another. Senator Defensor Santiago. I am a Senator-Judge. I am not here in my capacity as a politician. Politicians, when I appear in a rally, anyone can heckle me, but you cannot heckle me. You cannot engage in what the law calls a colloquy with me. You cannot engage in a discussion or argumentation with me. I am the judge. I preside here.

6
How many years have you been in trial practice, Counsel? Mr. Lim. Forty-two years, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Defensor Santiago. And what do you specialize in? Is it not true that you specialize in maritime law? Mr. Lim. In everything, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. What an impertinent answer. Let me go to the point, because I might lose my temper with you. Ngayon, sinasabi mo na you are accusing the Respondent under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. I have here before me a copy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It enumerates what are the acts which establish graft and corruption. Show me or read to me which of these particular listing under the law you are accusing, under which of this listing are you accusing the Respondent of graft and corruption? Dahil dito mayroon (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) hanggang (k). I am talking about Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers. O, ngayon, ituro mo kung saan diyan, from letters (a) to (k). Mr. Lim. Letter (c). Can I read? Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, please. Mr. Lim. “Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift which includes discounts, presents....” Senator Defensor Santiago. Will you please stop emphasizing your words like this, it startles everybody. Mr. Lim. I will just read softly, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Good, thank you. Mr. Lim. “Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section 13 of this Act.” Letter (d) also, Your Honor. “Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.” And most especially, letter (e). “Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. These provisions shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.” And, letter (f) also, most especially. “Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

7

benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of, or discriminating against any other interested party.” And Section 7, Your Honor, in relation to Section 9(b) if the good Senator will allow the reading, Section 7. “Every public officer within thirty (30) days after assuming office and thereafter, on or before....” Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, hindi iyon. Excuse me. Anti-graft and corrupt practices ang pagtatanong natin dito. Mr. Lim. I am reading Section 7 of the Anti-Graft Law, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. No, that is Statement of Assets and Liabilities, hindi iyan nakalista dito sa Section 3. Sinabi ko na Section 3 tayo, ini-enumerate corrupt practices of public officers. Ayan, sinabi ko na, mayroon letter (a) to letter (k) kaya mamili ka diyan sa kursunada mo kung ano ang pagbibintang mo. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Pero huwag kang lumampas sa Section 3. Mr. Lim. I have read them already, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. You have read it out already. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Those are your allegations against the Respondent in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Counsel, I am holding before you your own verified Complaint for Impeachment. I go to page 11, it is entitled “Grounds for Impeachment.” It begins with Article I and ends with Article VIII. Ipakita mo sa akin, saan dito sa Article I hanggang Article VIII, itong mga probisyon na binasa mo ngayon sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mr. Lim. Only ultimate facts, with all due respect, need to be alleged because— Senator Defensor Santiago. Do not lecture me on what is the Rules of Court. You are again engaging in a colloquy. Answer me. Nasaan dito sa grounds for impeachment? Mr. Lim. I believe the best evidence would be the complaint and we leave it to the Senate to interpret. Senator Defensor Santiago. Good. Now, let us move on. Ngayon, we have allowed you to introduce in evidence and I supported this controversial move to introduce in testimony the Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner plus her documents that you will attest to even if it is not strictly within the words, the literal words of the Article II which speaks only of the failure to file the SALN. Pero hindi bale. Sige, sige lang tayo. Ngayon, tinatanong ko sa iyo, saan dito sa listahan ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ang iyong grounds for impeachment, dahil kailangan pag may complaint ka ilista mo lahat ng krimen na idinedemanda mo sa Respondent dahil kung wala ‘yan diyan, hindi ka puwedeng magbigay ng ebidensiya tungkol sa krimen kung hindi mo muna amendahan o palitan ang iyong complaint. That is the gist of my line of questioning.

8

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ngayon, wala dito sa ground for impeachment mo kaya you cannot introduce evidence about the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Instead, what you are doing, Counsel, is, you are invoking the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 8, which is not among the list of corrupt practices. Instead, it is a peculiar law of evidence. In fact, it should be included as an amendment to the law on evidence because Section 8 is subtitled “Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal Due to Unexplained Wealth.” So what you are actually referring to when you say in your Complaint that you are charging a certain offense in connection with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is not that you are charging the Respondent with a specific act of corruption as enumerated in Section 3 but that you are invoking a presumption that is laid down in Section 8. And this is only a presumption because the title is “Prima Facie Evidence.” Ngayon, ang tanong ko sa iyo ay ganito: Ang pinag-uusapan natin sa iyong Article II ay failure to file SALN. Ano ba ngayon ang batas na ini-invoke mo, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act at wala kang patunay na may krimen doon na nakalista doon sa act na iyon or are you, on the contrary—and I am only trying to help you to the best of my ability—invoking the Republic Act, entitled for short, The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, because that is where we find the requirement that every public official shall file a SALN and if he does not do so accurately, he will be penalized? Kaya mamili ka. Mr. Lim. Answer: Both, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is always a safe answer but unfortunately this is not a theoretical exam. Ngayon, hindi bale na. Payagan pa rin kita. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. You are invoking this presumption. Now, I will now turn to the witness. Witness, you have been called here in your capacity as an attesting or authenticating official, not in your capacity as an expert witness. That was established yesterday afternoon. Do you understand what I am saying? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Defensor Santiago. If you recall, I emphasized this point yesterday because the main difference between an ordinary witness and an expert witness is this: An expert witness is allowed to testify on his opinion. He is allowed to sway the jury or the judge by what he says because he is an expert but we already clarified yesterday. You were not called here as an expert witness but simply as an attesting officer. Do you understand that? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Defensor Santiago. Please do not feel insulted, simply so that we will know whether you understand the terms that sometimes we have a predilection for inside the courtroom. So, yesterday, you are not drawing any conclusion or pressing any opinions, were you? You are only presenting documents and you were saying, “These are the documents that are on file in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.” Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Defensor Santiago. Were you, in any way, implying or saying that any of those entries in the documents that you brought with you were stating falsities or stating the truth? Did you imply

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

9

any truth or falsehood with respect to those entries or did you testify that these are the entries as they are reflected in our records? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I testified as to these are the entries as submitted to us by the taxpayer. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is correct. Because, to repeat, you were not qualified as an expert witness and therefore you have no business expressing your opinion or drawing conclusions. You can simply read out the documents or recite them if they are memorized. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Defensor Santiago. Good. Very good. Now, we understand each other. So, may I please end my comment now, Mr. President. The problem at this instance of our trial is that the presumption of unexplained wealth when the income and the assets do not tally, meaning to say, the assets are so much or far more in value than the income. This is a presumption that is laid down in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Instead, maybe it was a congressional oversight, it should have been included in the separate law which is called the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards which is devoted mostly to the filing of the SALN. I am not directing this to you, Witness. I am simply explaining myself. That is why we are a little confused here. Now, remember this is only a prima facie—or as Filipinos say prima facie (fay-shee) evidence lang iyon. Pag hindi sila nag-tugma, prima facie, ninakaw na niya siguro iyan, bakit ang dami-dami niyang pag-aari, kaunti lang pala ang kinikita niya. But that is only a presumption. That is only prima facie presumption. It can be impeached. Meaning to say, it can be overthrown, or can be defeated by evidence to the contrary. Just for your elucidation. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I move that Sen. Joker P. Arroyo be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol is recognized. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. This is really a point of inquiry. I would like to know whether these exhibits—you know, we were given two folders that must be around 50 or 60 exhibits—but among those that I found is Exhibit “CCCCC-1”. Can you please look at that? The Presiding Officer. What is that exhibit? Senator Arroyo. Exhibit “CCCCC-1”. The Presiding Officer. And the nature of the document? Senator Arroyo. This is precisely what I would like to ask, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Senator Arroyo. My understanding is that, these documents were marked yesterday but not yet admitted in evidence. Now, any document that has not yet been admitted in evidence is not yet a public document.

10

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Income tax returns are sacrosanct. They are very, very confidential. Now, it has been marked and identified. My question, Madam Commissioner, is: Can you look at Exhibit “CCCCC-1”. This is the income tax return of Renato C. Corona. Why was this released? Has this been released to anyone? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the release was to the Senate. Senator Arroyo. Only to the Senate? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Arroyo. In other words, this has not gone out yet. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Not that I know of, Sir. We submitted it to the Senate based on a subpoena issued by... Senator Arroyo. Yes, we understand that. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, only to the... Senator Arroyo. There is nothing wrong with the subpoena. I am asking about whether these documents which are not yet public documents—because they have not yet been admitted by the Court—have been released to anyone? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir. Senator Arroyo. The Commissioner said that it was released only to the Senate. May I know whether this has been released to anyone else? No, it is only a yes or no. Pardon? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, we furnished a copy to the Defense, to the Prosecution, and to the Senators, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. To the Defense and the.... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To the Prosecutors and to the Senators, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. So, in other words, if these are released at all, the sources will be either the Prosecution or the Defense. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor, or the Senators. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I would request that the parties be enjoined from releasing any data on this until we admit it, because we defeat the purpose of this confidentiality of the Income Tax Return. That was the subject of our caucus and we discussed it yesterday. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, with the indulgence of Senator Arroyo, just a follow-up question. The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Perhaps, we could ask both the Defense and the Prosecutor if they have released this. Because I know for a fact that on media daily after the session adjourns, everyone is on TV. So, just for the record, at least, we all know. Because I do not really follow it, but I constantly see people flashing documents.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

11

So, to pursue the question of Senator Arroyo, have these documents been shown on television or, for that matter, anywhere else? May we hear from the Prosecution and the Defense. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution panel may reply. Representative Tupas. Yes. As far as we know, as far as we are concerned, Mr. President, we have not released anything to other parties. It is just with us. The Presiding Officer. Did you not release this to your spokesmen? Representative Tupas. As far as we are concerned, no, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Are the spokesmen members of the Prosecution panel? Representative Tupas. The spokesmen are not, but they are members of the House. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a public trial. If we want to keep confidential certain documents then we should call for an executive session. I submit, Mr. President. Senator Arroyo. I do not want to engage in public discussion. It is just a cautionary statement on my part. The Presiding Officer. My understanding of the request of the Senator from Makati and Bicol is for the Chair to caution both the Prosecution and the Defense in exposing evidence not yet offered in evidence, formally offered in evidence in this Court. The presentation of the evidence in this Court of a document is simply to let it be recorded as an evidence for the Prosecution. The time for offer will come, not the time of marking of the evidence, for purposes of identification and for purposes of the statements or the declarations of the witness. So, I would like to caution the lawyers appearing here to be very careful. The Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Let the Prosecution react first. Representative Tupas. Mr. Senate President, I just want to put on record that the only document we released to the public was the Bellagio on January 3. And after the Senate President raised his concern about it and some Senators, we have not released any document to the public. So, we complied at that moment. Around first week of January, we complied with the directive of the Senate President. Until the present we are complying and we intend to comply until the completion of the trial. The Presiding Officer. May we request the spokesman of the Prosecution, as well as of the Defense, not to discuss the evidence including the merits of this case outside of this Court. They can discuss what happened, the procedure, but not the contents of the evidence as well as the evaluation of the merits contained in those documents. Representative Tupas. We will tell them, Mr. Senate President.

12

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would just like to manifest my support to the statement of my colleague, Sen. Panfilo Lacson. I am uncomfortable with this because this is a public trial. This is a trial and this is a people’s court. It is a process by which the people are actually judging for themselves through what they see. And if we are to have a public trial, yet the evidence will not be available to the public, then it would defeat the purpose. However, I do not want to engage in any debate with my distinguished colleague from Makati, Senator Arroyo. I just would like to manifest my support to the view of Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Taguig is recognized. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. Mr. President, I believe there is no disagreement among the Senators. I think we can reconcile the views. We simply have to distinguish between the presentation or the marking of the evidence and the formal offer of evidence. When we are just in the marking stage, by all means, they should not be paraded and I beg to disagree when the statement is made that this has not been released. Perhaps, it has not been distributed to the public, but the news will bear me out that it is shown like this by spokespersons. I do not know how close-up that goes, and I do not know if after that it is released because I have reports that it is circulating in the internet. And there is a big difference between documents that have been marked and have been offered. And, I totally agree that this is a public hearing; that the public should be well informed; that we should not hide anything. In fact, I am not aware that we have any provisions for executive session, but there is a big difference between deceiving the public and making it appear that these have already been formally offered when, in fact, they have only been marked. And these are fine distinctions that lawyers or members of the Senate Judges will be able to determine at the proper time. But to use it at a time in media when it has only been marked is deceiving the public, Mr. President. I will be happy when the ruling should come in. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Anyway, the Chair has cautioned the two sides of this proceeding, adversarial proceeding, the Prosecution and the Defense to exercise caution. You know, in other countries, when you are going to publicize a case, a criminal case especially, and it is inordinately discussed in public, it could be a basis for a mistrial which, of course, is not a part of our system of criminal procedure. But, nonetheless, there is a purpose for this caution because we must not unnecessarily create an impression in the minds of the public that this is already an admitted evidence. Not yet. It is only being presented. The Minority Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Presiding Officer, if we look at Rule XVII: “At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of impeachment, the doors of the Senate shall be open to the public. Silence shall be observed by the visitors at all time on pain of eviction from the trial venue. “The Presiding Officer and the members of the Senate shall refrain from making any comments and disclosure in public pertaining to the merits of a pending trial.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

13

“The same shall likewise apply to the Prosecutors, to the persons impeached, and to their respective counsel and witness.” I read this Rule in support of all those who stood before me. Sen. Joker Arroyo is correct that just because it is a trial and it is open, that does not mean that we violate people’s rights. But Senator Lacson is correct in pointing out that we have to suspend our Rules if we want to go into executive session. But we all agreed when we made the Rules that we should, in fact, put everything before the people. Ilantad lahat po ito para walang magsuspetsa kung anong magiging desisyon, kung ano ang mga ebidensya. But, Mr. President, I would like to point out two things. First, our witness here has been very careful and has followed her oath and her work very well by, noong pinipresenta po iyong Alpha List ng Supreme Court, sinabi naman po niya na may ibang names doon kaya ang ginawa po niya hindi niya inilabas para makita iyong ibang mga pangalan. And there were times in the past that this was also the discussion. And, in fact, we have been discussing kung, halimbawa, maglalabas ng mga titulo na may mga ibang pangalan dito, kailan puwedeng madamay iyong ibang tao because it is necessary in the trial at kailan hindi. So, I agree with the Presiding Officer to exercise caution and let us just simply follow the law. In the case of the ITR of this Chief Justice, the President has already authorized its release. And if it is brought up in the trial, the cameras here are very powerful. They can zoom in anytime and see it for themselves. But let me make the second point very briefly, Your Honor. I keep reading in the newspapers a “gag rule” and I think they are referring to that second and third paragraph I read. But let me just point out that there is a difference between a sub judice rule and a gag rule. Because a gag rule is absolute. Ang ibig sabihin nga ng “gag” ay tatakpan mo iyong bibig in layman’s term at hindi puwede magsalita anything and everything about that case. Iyong sub judice ay merong certain parameters. For example, if you are simply narrating or detailing what was in the Complaint or what happened today or what it was in the Answer, or if you are part of the media or the spokesmen and you are simply recapping or showing both sides. That is why if you look at the words, nakalagay “refrain.” Hindi nakalagay dito na absolutely huwag magsalita ang Prosecution or Judges.” But sa Judges, mas maingat kami sapagkat mai-interpret na kinakampihan namin ang isang side pag nagsalita kami. So, Mr. President, let me just agree with my colleagues here and let me agree with you. Let us just be very careful. Let us not be too excited that in coming out with the evidence, whether for the Prosecution or the Defense, we violate and trample upon people’s rights. But so far, our witnesses have been very careful from the Clerk of the Supreme Court to the BIR Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the final word from Sen. Joker Arroyo. May he be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. I started this. We have rules and rules are designed so that everyone would follow the rule.

14

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The rule is simple: That any evidence that is identified or marked is not yet evidence. It is nothing but a piece of paper. When will it be a public document? When it is admitted. When it is admitted, then it becomes a public document. The Internal Revenue Code is very strict in this, about the internal revenue. The ITR is to be sacrosanct. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Henares would not have been here or brought those documents had not the President of the Philippines, no less, authorized the opening of those documents. The National Internal Revenue Code says that insofar as the ITR is concerned, the Commissioner must seek the permission of the President which she said she did in writing. So, in other words, no matter how public our hearing is, the rules on secrecy must be followed. There is no exception to that. It is a public trial but order must be maintained, otherwise, there is no trial at all. That is the reason for this trial. A trial assumes order, system. Without it, then it is useless. That is all. I do not want to argue with anyone on that. I just want to call the attention so that henceforth, we will follow the Rules. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. And I would like to state for the record that that was precisely the reason why the Chair cautioned the private prosecutor not to go into the substance of the document, meaning, the content. Because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was brought here to testify on the documents that she brought on, whether they were authentic documents, meaning, that they have conformed with the formal requirements of the statute, and to present those documents because those documents are the best evidence of the contents, whether there is income reported and whether taxes were paid. There is no better evidence than the income tax and, of course, the supporting receipts. So, I hope we will adhere to these rules so that we can move into the trial smoothly. I could not object to the questions relating to the substance because I am the Presiding Officer. But I cautioned, the record will show that the Chair cautioned the private prosecutor in delving into the contents of the documents that were presented by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. In fact, even the Alphalist—I said the best evidence—the contents of the Alphalist is the Alphalist itself. So with that—now, I would like to hear the pleasure of the Defense counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. We have always been emphasizing and with positive articulation, Your Honor, that when it comes to documentary evidence, there is a process that is ordained under our Rules of Court and Procedure that there must first be identification, there must be marking, and there must be an offer, and the party against whom it is offered must have the opportunity to comment and/or object. And it is only after all these proceedings had taken place that an order of admission or rejection can be properly made by the Court, Your Honor. In fact, we wanted very much to bring to the attention of this honorable Court the violation of all these things relative to confidentiality and so on. But for fear that we may again be accused of delaying the proceedings in this case, we have chosen not to. Now, they have brought this matter very openly. In fact, when we were still on trial here, our people told us that they were already discussing this issue in these conferences being held, Your Honor. Now, we have no way of stopping them. It is their pleasure and all our spokesman said was, these are not evidences as yet, because they have not yet been offered, neither had the Court ruled on their admissibility. That is the only manifestation we have made, Your Honor. We have never discussed. We do not want to engage them in a discussion relative to the contents of the document. Now, we are very sure that all these things should not have happened if all the parties concerned, more especially the spokesman of the Prosecution, that we should avoid discussing the case on the

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

15

merits. We are not presenting this evidence so that the public will know what is our purpose, what are the proceedings taking place in this Court. So much so that until and unless a formal offer is made of these documentary exhibits, and a ruling is made, then they shall not be considered as evidence in the case, Your Honor. Now, with respect to the comment that they are not public documents, I am sorry that I may not agree with the honorable gentleman from Makati because the nature of the documents is determined by the contents thereof. Has it been notarized? Was it executed before a public official duly authorized to administer oath? If that is the case, then it is a public document. The element of being offered and admitted in a judicial proceeding does not go into the character of the evidence presented, Your Honor. There had been likewise statements here made by the Private Prosecution, Your Honor, relative to the basis of their complaint and mention had been made of several articles, Your Honor. May we be allowed to state, for the record, that there is nothing in their impeachment complaint which alleges the particular acts or omissions constitutive of the violation, and that is elementary in criminal procedure. The acts or omissions constituting the offense must be specifically alleged. There is no allegation of that sort, Your Honor. Hence, we were not able and we did not choose to discuss this matter in our Answer, Your Honor. It is not correct and accurate to state that the bases of their action for this impeachment complaint are the various sections of the Anti-Graft Law. And secondly, the Court will probably agree with me and so with the rest of the honorable Members of this Court that there is no statement here relative to the violation of the Anti-Graft Law. What they said is failure to disclose and so on down the line; there is a violation of public trust; there is culpable violation of the Constitution, but never violation of the Anti-Graft Law. If we found that, our first impulse was to file a motion to dismiss, Your Honor. But we are prohibited and we are afraid and apprehensive that this may be raised as an argument for us delaying the case. There was also a suggestion that we should have filed a motion for a bill of particulars. We do not agree with that kind of a suggestion, Your Honor, because a motion for a bill of particulars alleges, or for purposes of merely making the unspecified or definite allegation to be more concrete and definite. Here, there are no allegations whatsoever. The Presiding Officer. And besides, Counsel, if you will file a bill of particulars and the Articles of Impeachment are wanting, an amendment would be the proper remedy. And if you amend the Articles of Impeachment, it has to go back to the House where it came from for amendment. It cannot be amended by the Prosecutors. It has to be amended by the House and that amendment must be voted upon. Mr. Cuevas. That goes into initiation, Your Honor. We are of the humble submission that this will require that the complaint for impeachment must undergo another proceedings before the House of Representatives. Again, maybe there will be crying “Help.” “O alam na ninyo, ayan ginawa na naman ng Defense Counsel. Gusto lamang nilang ma-delay, babalik.” But when we argue our points, Your Honor, when we object to a particular question, it is not because we just wanted to object. Because this is part and parcel of the right of an accused to due process. If there is no more opportunity to object, there is no more opportunity to argue, then what are we here for? Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago, Mr. President, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

16

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Sotto. Senator Santiago wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle Lady Senator from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you. Under the Rules of Court, no party is allowed to present evidence unless that evidence is relevant to the charges contained in the complaint or, as in our case, in the Articles of Impeachment. That is the general rule. You can admit evidence that is not related to any of the charges in the complaint only after you have amended the complaint. My query now is presented to both Counsels and to my brothers and sisters in the Impeachment Court and I will not necessarily request for an answer at this time, maybe memoranda. The question is this: What is the time frame for amending the complaint or the Articles of Impeachment? Can you amend at any time, or is there a deadline? If the Counsels are interested in this question, may I offer the suggestion that they should file memoranda so that a caucus, the Senate Court, might discuss this among ourselves. Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to present the view of the Defense, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. I think the Counsel for the Prosecution has stood to make a remark. We will allow him first. Mr. Lim. May I be allowed to present some manifestations or comments? The Presiding Officer. …Proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. I believe that distinction must be drawn between the factum probandum and the factum probans. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Yes, what is the probandum here? Mr. Lim. The probandum here, Your Honor, is as stated in Article II and in the body of Article II explaining it. Since the title cannot be taken in isolation, it is failure to report SALN or disclose SALN to the public and the commission of the acts described in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. As a matter of fact, even with respect to Article 2.4, if I may be permitted to respectfully invite attention to the Journal of January 25, 2012, starting on page 3, where we see the name “Senator Drilon. Just to amplify, Mr. Senate President. When the court ruled indeed that the court will allow introduction of evidence on 2.2 and 2.3, which would allow evidence to prove that evidence can be introduced, that a property whether real or personal is not included in the SALN. However, under Article 2.4 which asserts that such properties could be ill-gotten, the Court did not rule on that and we will rely on the presumptions of evidence—-on the presumptions of law, particularly the Anti-Graft Law, Mr. President.” The Presiding Officer. That is correct. It is our humble submission and manifestation then that this honorable Court… The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, Counsel. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We are guided by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Articles of Impeachment against the former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez—I am trying to get a

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

17

copy of the decision—and in that decision, the Supreme Court opinion penned by the present Ombudsman, then Justice Conchita Carpio Morales said that the Articles of Impeachment must embrace only one charge for each Article of Impeachment. That is a very emphatic rule established by the Court. We did not establish it here. So, I am sad to say that there was fault in the crafting of your pleading and that is why we had to correct it in a caucus. We became liberal. In fact we allowed paragraph 2.3 but we disallowed paragraph 2.4 because it is obviously not germane to the question of SALN to Article II and you included it in Article II of the Article of Impeachment. In fact, even in paragraph 2.3 if you read the specification under the grounds of impeachment stated in your Articles of Impeachment for Article II, you merely alleged the ultimate fact of non-disclosure of the SALN. But we became liberal to allow evidence to be introduced on paragraph 2.3 of your discussion. This is the discussion of your Article II, not Article II itself but a discussion of Article II. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. I hate to say this, but the rule, as directed by the Chair and the Body is that private prosecutors can conduct the examination of witnesses but cannot argue points of law and whatever. If we liberalize this, then we will have again another problem. I am now trying to stand up every time I see a relaxation of the—-not a relaxation but a violation of our rules, otherwise, there will be no order. That is all. Because nobody is suppressing the Prosecution from presenting their position but it has to be a member. I was a member of the Prosecution before. But it has to be the House, commissioned by the House of Representatives, that will have to articulate and represent the House of Representatives. But outside counsel cannot because they were not given the authority by the House of Representatives as Prosecutors. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. That is under the Rules of the House itself that created the panel. So, I think the lead Counsel of the House should exercise his power to control the private lawyers hired by the House to assist. Representative Tupas. We will do that, Your Honors. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. In connection with the topic we are now discussing, Your Honor, may I be permitted and allowed to read the portion of the disposition as embodied in this Journal or Minutes of the proceedings yesterday? It states and I quote verbatimly, Your Honor, “The Prosecution may introduce, if it has, evidence that would support the allegations contained in paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3, under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, but not to introduce evidence under paragraph 2.4, Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.” The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Cuevas. This is the disposition, Your Honor. And we have not seen any modification, much less reversal of this particular disposition of this Honorable Court. May I now proceed to the amendment which was posed by the Honorable Defensor Santiago, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo, Senator Drilon.

18

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Drilon. Just to complete the reading of the records on page 4 of the Record of the Senate Sitting as an Impeachment Court, Wednesday, January 25, 2012, after the Senate President issued an order that, “The Prosecution may introduce, if it has, evidence that would support the allegations contained in paragraph 2.2 and paragraph 2.3, under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, but not to introduce evidence under paragraph 2.4 of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. So ordered.” We stood up and clarified the Court ruling during the caucus, as we have stated on page 4 of the Record, and we said, “When the Court ruled, indeed, that the Court will allow introduction of evidence on 2.2 and 2.3 which would allow evidence to prove that evidence can be introduced, that a property, whether real or personal, is not included in the SALN. However, under Article 2.4 which asserts that such properties could be ill-gotten, the Court did not rule on that and we rely on the presumption of evidence—-on the presumptions of law, particularly the Anti-Graft Law,” Mr. President. And the Presiding Officer said, “That is correct.” And that is clear on the records, Mr. President. And this is a reflection of the ruling of the Court during the caucus which was manifested by the Prosecution and this Representation in open hearing, during the actual hearing. So I think the records are clear, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. President, we have no quarrel with the observation made, Your Honor. But what we wanted to place on record is what was dictated orally as the resolution on our motion, Your Honor. And this is not part of the resolution. This is merely a narration of what happened in that caucus. It does not form part of the decision, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, I beg to disagree. That is a decision of the Court. Mr. Cuevas. It is not reflected. That is why, Your Honor... Senator Drilon. In any case, that is precisely why we go to these caucuses and we decide on how to dispose of the motions. And this is what was agreed to be the ruling of the Court on this issue and that is confirmed by no less than the Senate President. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, gentlemen, with your indulgence, we are going to write a formal resolution. And this will be discussed again by the Members of the Court. So, the records will indicate the ruling of the Chair which is actually a ruling of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. Now, the gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Cayetano (A). From Taguig and Pateros, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. From Taguig City, sorry. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, we just want to place on record napag-usapan namin ni Senator Lacson na napanood na namin ito kahapon, parang nag-replay tayo. So obviously, ang ibig pong sabihin, there is some misunderstanding with the ruling because I also was surprised when the Prosecution stood up to make also a Motion for Reconsideration but, at the same time, the Defense are also making some comments. Ibig sabihin po, parehong ayaw sa desisyon. Bihira pong mangyari iyon. So, let me try to do my part in making some clarification. My understanding of the agreement in the caucus without expounding, simply saying the understanding, ang ill-gotten wealth cannot be accepted as a separate charge. Because tingnan niyo lahat ng Articles, walang nakalagay doon na graft and corruption, na ill-gotten wealth. Okay. So, this Court will not be accepting evidence to prove ill-gotten wealth as far as a separate charge. But as far as

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

19

Article II is concerned, non-disclosure means hindi ka nag-file or nag-file ka ng hindi kumpleto, or nag-file ka na meron pong mga iniba or hindi sinama. Now, in the course of proving 2.2. and 2.3, kung maipakita na mayroong properties na hindi naisama sa SALN at pag naipakita na yong mga properties na ito ay hindi kayang bayaran ng legitimate income ng Chief Justice, then there is a presumption in law because there are Supreme Court cases that said, magsi-shift na ngayon ang burden. Magiging ngayon burden ng kabila to show that this is not ill-gotten. So, in that sense, you are not proving the pagiging ill-gotten, you are still proving whether or not may full disclosure or mayroong complete disclosure under Article II. That is my understanding, Mr. President. But I will stick to what the President said yesterday and the gentleman from Iloilo because anything else we say today will be in the nature of a motion for reconsideration eh. Klaro naman po ang sinabi ng ating Senate President at klaro naman po ang clarification ni Senator Drilon. So, anything anyone else says here right now, unless any of the judges are asking for a motion for reconsideration. But yesterday we were unanimous. So, ang pakiusap po siguro namin ay ituloy na po natin iyong hearing and let us not argue on this point because it has already been decided and we spent so much time reading your memorandum and discussing this on the floor already. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I think...Let me cut short this discussion. I just want to read to you the opinion of the ponente in the case of...This is the case involving the impeachment case against Ombudsman Gutierrez. And a portion of the opinion of the Supreme Court says: “Suffice it to state that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses with each charge.” And I hope you will take heed of this. This is a rule of pleading that the Court established with each charge representing an Article of Impeachment assembled in one set known as Articles of Impeachment. It, therefore, follows that an impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense as a whole but each charge must be represented by an Article of Impeachment. And that is the quandary where this Court was in when we held the caucus, because Article II now was expanded from what was its specification and allegation when the grounds for impeachment were actually narrated in the Articles of Impeachment. So, with that, let us proceed with the trial. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Francis Escudero. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, before we leave the point so that we are sure that we are clear on the matter, Mr. President, I raise the point, as the Chair conceded, that each Article must allege only one specific act. Kaya nga po sa Estados Unidos, minsan iyong articles of impeachment umaabot hanggang 30 o 40 dahil kada individual impeachable act, hiwa-hiwalay na article iyon. But I raise a second question, Mr. President, which I address, perhaps to the Body and to the Presiding Officer. We are impeaching Chief Justice Corona as chief justice, I presume, not as an associate justice, not as an adviser to the Office of the Vice President before, not as a presidential legal counsel. My point, Mr. President, is this: Kahapon po ang dami kong narinig na ebidensya kaugnay sa ITR noong 1992, noong 2003. Hindi po ba ang pinag-uusapan natin dito—and I seek

20

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

the guidance of the Chair and my colleagues—hindi po ba ang pinag-uusapan natin dito acts of the Chief Justice as chief justice, not prior acts? Hindi po ba hindi natin puwedeng i-impeach ang isang opisyal sa mga ginawa niya bago siya naging chief justice? Halimbawa po, si Vice President Binay kung magiging presidente. We cannot impeach him for acts committed as vice president once he is already president. I admit, an associate justice is subject to impeachment proceedings, and he is an impeachable officer. But now, we are impeaching the Chief Justice, I presume, as chief justice. My question, Mr. President, is: Limitado lang ho ba tayo sa mga ginawa at di niya ginawa na impeachable habang chief justice lamang siya o kasama rin ba dahil tila saklaw iyon sa pinipresentang ebidensya ngayon, o kasama rin ba iyong mga nagawa niya bilang associate justice lamang o bago pa noon dahil tila ang ebidensyang pinipresenta po sa atin dito ay may kinalaman sa mga ginawa niya noong unang panahon pa, except perhaps to establish a pattern or practice, but that was not part of the offer of the Prosecution when they presented this, and the previous witnesses? I submit, Mr. President, and seek the guidance of the Presiding Officer or the Body and as well as the parties, as to how we dispose of this matter. The Presiding Officer. I will put that request under advisement because I will have to consult the Members of the Court. I must confess that the Chair is not in a position to make a definitive ruling as to acts done by the respondent as an associate justice all the way to his acts when he was appointed as the Chief Justice. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court only on May 17, 2010. So, whether the acts that he did prior to that, we will have to study it whether it can be covered. Offhand, I would say that probably it is relevant because he is both an associate justice and chief justice of the Supreme Court. But I am not saying that that is a definitive position because that is my offhand reaction, but I will have to study it. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we have a brief statement from Sen. Francis Pangilinan. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, just very quickly but, again, subject to the final discussion and decision of the Court. Section 2 of Article XI, “Accountability of Public Officers.” It states: “The President, the VicePresident, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions,” and so forth and so on, “may be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of,” and so forth and so on. So, it does not say the Chief Justice, it just says the members of the Supreme Court. And since Chief Justice Corona has been a member of the Supreme Court, a member since 2002, then I would like to think that he falls foursquare in terms of the jurisdiction of this Court from the time that he became…. Senator Sotto. Nevertheless… The Presiding Officer. We will note the opinion of the gentleman. So, Floor Leader.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

21

Senator Sotto. Yes, nevertheless, I do not think the answer is being asked of by Senator Escudero today. So, we are ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence of the Prosecution, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. May we proceed now, Mr. President? Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor, please. Just a minute, Your Honor. If we may be allowed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. You have one (1) minute. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. There was a query posed by the honorable Member of this Court, the Honorable Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago as to whether the complaint may be amended, when, where and what will be the result of that amendment. Lest we are charged with violating what she wanted us to do, I am now prepared to discuss this particular point, even two or three minutes only, Your Honor. But if the Court so desires na it must be done later, we will be heavily thankful for that. The Presiding Officer. In the spirit of fairness, please proceed. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Three (3) minutes. Mr. Cuevas. Now, amendment, in accordance with our rules of procedure, may be of two kinds: amendment which is a matter of right; and amendment which is discretionary. Now, when is an amendment a matter of right? Before Answer. So, the moment there is an Answer, there could be no amendment anymore as a matter of right. It must be with leave of Court, Your Honor. And that must refer even to substance or form. Now, supposing there is already an Answer, what is the right of the parties to make an amendment? It will be discretionary, Your Honor. There must be a motion and only after a motion is granted, that the amendment may be made. Now, the next point is, what will be the effect of the amendment? Necessarily, the amendment that was allowed to be submitted by the party seeking an amendment, Your Honor, will form part of the proceedings, will form part of the records of the case. It will be incorporated in the main Petition or main Answer, Your Honor, so much so that it now contains the issues and matters that should be the subject of trial and reception of evidence. Now, in this particular case, may the Petition be amended, Your Honor, so as the proceedings before this Court may continue receiving evidence on the controversial issue? Our answer is “no,” Your Honor, because that will entirely be a different complaint. It will be violative of the right of the accused to due process. It must, therefore, undergo proceedings before the House of Representatives because that will refer to initiation. And initiation must be in accordance with

22

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

the Constitution and their laws. There must be finding of probable cause; there must be voting; and it must be deliberated upon by the Congress in session. The Presiding Officer. And there is a constitutional injunction against multiplicity of impeachment complaints within a certain time. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. I rest my case insofar as that particular issue is concerned. The Presiding Officer. We have discussed this extensively. We will proceed with the trial. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Representative Tupas. We will proceed now, Mr. President— The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. —with the presentation of our witness, Atty. Art Lim. Mr. Lim. Atty. Arthur Lim, Your Honor, respectfully entering the same appearance as private prosecutor for purposes of presentation of the witness on the witness stand. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. There is no need to enter your appearance. It has been entered earlier. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The witness will be testifying under the same oath, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. If there are other witnesses, Your Honor, that the Prosecution will present in these proceedings, may we request that they be temporarily excluded from this.... The Presiding Officer. So ordered. The other witnesses will have to go to the confinement area so that you will not be hearing the declaration of the witness on the stand. Mr. Lim. I understand, Your Honor, that the other witnesses are in the Holding Room. I am not sure if they could hear from there. Mr. Cuevas. May we know their names please so that we can verify whether they are in or out. You do not know their names? Mr. Lim. Giovanni Ng, Nerissa N. Josef, Aniceto Bisnar Jr. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel for the Defense, if they are no longer inside the Hall, they are somewhere else in the building, then the trial may begin. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. May I, please, the Honorable Court, and with your kind permission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

23

The Presiding Officer. The Senate President Pro Tempore. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Narinig ko po kanina, ilan po ang inyong testigo na pinalalabas ni Justice Cuevas? Mr. Lim. Tatlo po pero nandoon na raw sa Holding Room. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Doon sa holding room, hindi ba ho may telebisyon ho roon at namo-monitor din iyong ating proceedings? Mr. Lim. Wala daw po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Sigurado ho kayong walang telebisyon doon? Mr. Lim. Wala po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Puwede ho i-instruct iyong ating mga page kung talagang walang TV doon sa Holding Room nila dahil alam ko live ho iyong proceedings sa telebisyon? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is required to check. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kung mayroon ding computer iyon, eh live streaming ho tayo sa computer. Iyon lamang po, G. Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, pending the return of the Sergeant-at-Arms, I suggest that we proceed with the hearing to discuss the preliminaries. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. With your kind permission, Your Honor, Madam Witness, in yesterday’s hearing, when you were identifying the various CAR or Certificates Authorizing Registration for the La Vista, Bellagio, Bonifacio Ridge and Fort McKinley properties, which were marked respectively as Exhibits “GGGGG”, “HHHHH”, “IIIII”, “JJJJJ” and “KKKKK”, as well as “LLLLL” and “MMMMM”, as well as Exhibit “NNNNN” as in “Nancy,” you told the honorable Court that these various CAR went through a system or a process in the bureau. Will you please state to the court what exactly is this system that the BIR follows in the issuance of a CAR for a property transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We call the system the ONETT system. The first thing that the taxpayer will do is they will file a Capital Gains Tax Return which is Form 1707, file it with the bank, pay the amount with the bank, then submit it to the Bureau of Internal Revenue together with the Deed of Sale, for the transfer. Thereafter, the Bureau of Internal Revenue will check whether the value stated is correct in the sense that it should follow the rule that it should not be either the selling price or the zonal value whichever is higher. The Presiding Officer. I would like to interrupt the testimony. The Sergeant-at-Arms has arrived. Will you please report about what you found in the holding area? The Sergeant-at-Arms. Upon the instruction of the Senate President, I went to verify the room. There are four people there, there is no audio, there is no video, and there is even no computer that will monitor what is happening in here because we are online. Thank you, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Proceed.

24

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. After getting all these documents, the Bureau of Internal Revenue will evaluate whether the proper taxes had been paid. If the proper taxes are not paid, they will make an assessment, and the taxpayer will have to pay additional amount. Upon full and proper payment, the Bureau of Internal Revenue will issue a certificate authorizing registration stating therein the name of the buyer, the name of the seller, and the particulars, and what is being transferred, a description, the zonal value, the selling price to the parties, then that is where the job of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ends. Mr. Lim. Is it correct to state, Madam Witness, that when everything shall have been found to be in order, the Bureau then issues the CAR which now enables the Register of Deeds to transfer the property? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. After you received the subpoena for your appearance today and yesterday before this honorable Court, and for you to produce the documents required therein, among them, the said C-AR or CAR, did you take further action apart from instructing your RDOs or Revenue District Officers to submit to you the documents, particularly, the ITRs of the persons mentioned in the subpoena? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. As part of my official function, we reviewed the document first to determine whether it is complete. Then, as an incident to that, we looked at—we were surprised at what we found, because one of the parties who bought the property does not seem to have income. So, basically, that is the other thing that we did. Mr. Lim. What specific property transaction was this, Madam Witness, where you said you were surprised upon reviewing it? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The sale between Cristina Corona and Maria, the daughter, Maria Carla Corona Constantino for P18 million. Mr. Lim. For the CAR involving said property, it shows the sellers as Maria Cristina Corona married to Renato C. Corona, sellers, in favor of Maria Carla Corona.... The Presiding Officer. Counsel, wait a minute. Under what paragraphs are you asking these questions? Mr. Lim. It is 2.2, Your Honor, and 2.3, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, 2.2 deals with the SALN of the Respondent, 2.3 deals with the non-disclosure of an asset. So, are you proving a non-disclosure of an asset? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, definitely, Your Honor. And the non-disclosure of the asset is embraced not only in 2.2 and 2.3 but within the title itself. The Presiding Officer. Title of what? Mr. Lim. I am sorry, Your Honor, within the title of Article II, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, the title of Article II is Non-disclosure of.... Mr. Lim. The SALN. The Presiding Officer. —the SALN, not the non-disclosure of accumulated assets, that is under Paragraph 2.3? Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. This is under paragraph 2.3, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

25

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. For the CAR pertaining to the La Vista property, where the seller is the Respondent and his wife, and the buyer is their daughter Carla, for the sum of eighteen million pesos (P18,000,000.00), what did you find out in that review? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That the daughter does not have enough—has barely minimal income and therefore is not capable of buying the property. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. Mr. Lim. What documents, if any, did you review? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor, please, I am entitled— The Presiding Officer. Let the Counsel react. Mr. Cuevas. We move to strike out the answer of the witness, Your Honor, because that is specifically irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial. The conclusion that the parties therein stated, especially the buyer, has no means to buy property, is not borne out by the evidence. No basis. Mr. Lim. May I reply, please? Mr. Cuevas. That is her opinion. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Madam Commissioner, what is the purpose....In income taxation, the tax is due from the seller of the property. The buyer has no tax obligation, why are you investigating the buyer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, if the buyer does not have capacity to—if the land being purchased, let us say, is P18 million and her income is only P11,000, then there is a reason to investigate because it means that either the sale is —it is not a sale, it is a donation—so that is 20% tax rate. The Presiding Officer. In this particular case, did you find that the Chief Justice was donating the property to the daughter? Did you make a finding? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, that finding is confidential. The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. You are before this Court, you testified and you revealed this fact. The Court has a right to know. Did you, did you assess the donor’s and donee’s tax? What is the present law that taxes gratuitous transfers? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, we have two choices: One, is to assess donor’s tax against the donor or, two, to go and assess undeclared income against the buyer who does not have enough income, and/or to file tax evasion case against the buyer. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, did you do that? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We are in the process of doing that. The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. When was this, when was this transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The transaction was in 2010 but we came to know about this only last Friday when we were asked to get the CAR and the Income Tax Returns of the parties.

26
The Presiding Officer. When did you get the CAR?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We retrieved the CAR only upon receipt of the subpoena from the Senate, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What is—but is it not a process that is included in your description of the process in connection with the sale, purchase and sale or the sale of capital assets that the Bureau of Internal Revenue will go through that process precisely for purposes of registration? Why? It has already been registered, why are you late in knowing these facts? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, when we determine the issuance of the CAR, it is only to determine whether the capital gains tax and the documentary stamp tax are properly paid. We do not look into the capacity of the buyer at that point. That will come later if we have evidence or information to show that there is something wrong in the sense that the buyer does not have the capacity to purchase those properties. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed, Counsel. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Madam Witness, you stated that you reviewed the relevant documents and arrived at that finding. If you are shown the income tax return of Carla Corona Castillo for the year 2009 which has already been marked as Exhibit “EEEEE”, would you be able to identify the same before this honorable Court? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. I show you Exhibit “EEEEE”....May I please request the Secretariat to produce Exhibit “EEEEE” because the Secretariat is holding all the documents marked. The originals are with the Secretariat. May I make of record that the Secretariat, as requested, produced the folder marked Exhibit “EEEEE”, Ma. Carla Beatriz C. Castillo. Do you confirm that to be the income tax return which you said you reviewed? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor, income tax returns 2009 and 2008. Mr. Lim. Referring you to Exhibit “EEEEE” which is the income tax return for 2009.... The Presiding Officer. Income tax return for what year is that? Mr. Lim. For 2009, 2009, Your Honor. The taxable income as per Exhibit “EEEEE-1” is P8,476.00. Did you also review that entry? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And the transaction happened when? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. This is her taxable income for year 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, when was the sale of the property to the buyer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What month? Mr. Cuevas. May we make of record, Your Honor, that the witness is going over the documents in her possession apparently perusing the same as though this is the first time she has seen it.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

27

Mr. Lim. Naturally, Your Honor, the witness has to peruse but we take exception that the witness saw it only today. The Presiding Officer. Do not argue. Do not argue just present the evidence. Mr. Lim. My apologies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You know, I request both sides, the two Counsels not to waste the time of this court in argumentation. Mr. Lim. We submit, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please.... The Presiding Officer. Let us finish first the presentation. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The CAR was issued on October 22, 2010, Sir. The Presiding Officer. So, that is ten months after the end of the taxable year 2009. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, but she did not file.... The Presiding Officer. I am asking you how long a time between the end of the taxable year and the time of the transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. When we gave the clearance it was ten months after. The Presiding Officer. When was the deed of sale? Mr. Lim. Can I give it, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. November 9, 2010. The Presiding Officer. November 9, 2010. So, that is 11 months. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I am sorry, Sir. The deed of sale is October 18, 2010. The Presiding Officer. So, 10 months after the taxable year ended. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. We were about to object, Your Honor, but the witness was allowed to answer. So, our remedy now is to move to strike out the answer of the witness because what is touched in her testimony is income tax returns. And this goes to the violation of the ruling of this Court that any and all evidence relative to alleged acquisition of illegal wealth are precluded or proscribed from being presented. The Presiding Officer. The evidence is being offered for an unreported asset. That is the offer of the Prosecution. So, the Chair will allow it as a part of the testimony of the witness.

28
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Madam Witness, did you also review the tax paid or the amount of tax paid in the amount of P423.80 as per Exhibit “EEEEE-3-C”? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The witness is a very intelligent witness. The Presiding Officer. Reform the question. Mr. Lim. Will you tell the honorable Court what specific items did you review in Exhibit “EEEEE,” the Income Tax Return of Carla Corona for the year 2009? Please make that of record. The Presiding Officer. Madam Commissioner, will you please state what is the content of that document? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The document is an annual Income Tax Return, BIR Form No. 1701. It is to declare her income for the year 2009. In it, among the figures presented is that she had a sale of her business—she is registered as a business—a gross sale of P97,460, a taxable income of P8,476, a tax due of P423.80. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Those are only facts relating to the income tax returns? What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor. We were about to object a little while ago, but there was already an answer. This refers to the Income Tax Return of one allegedly Carla and not the public official being impeached. So, it is immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is why the Chair asked the purpose of this evidence being offered, and the Counsel for the Prosecution said that it is offered under paragraph 2.3 which is not included assets. So, the Chair allowed that. Because the tendency of the question is, he is proving that the asset sold to the alleged daughter is still the asset of the Respondent. Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. But, Your Honor, this is the Income Tax Return not of the Respondent but of Carla. Why will the act, omission and declaration of a party affect the Respondent here? The Presiding Officer. Anyway, the ruling of the Chair is, let it remain in the record. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor. Madam Witness, will you now please kindly produce before the honorable Court, as subpoenaed, the Income Tax Return of Carla Corona Castillo for the year 2009 which you have just identified? Mr. Cuevas. Again, we will just place on record, Your Honor, our objection to this kind of evidence because it does not conform to the resolution of this Court, disallowing or prohibiting the presentation or submission of evidence tending to prove the alleged illegally acquired wealth. Because it was not properly alleged, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

29

The Presiding Officer. Let the objection be recorded and that will be taken at the proper time when there is an offer of evidence. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. May I proceed. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. The witness has produced and handed to Counsel, the original copy of the subject Income Tax Return, a photocopy of which was marked before the Senate Secretariat as Exhibit “EEEEE” in view of the non-stipulation during the marking by the Defense lawyers of the photocopy marked as a faithful reproduction of the original. We are now requesting that stipulation in open Court. Mr. Cuevas. No objection to the substitution if that is the desired purpose, Your Honor. We go on record that what is being identified now is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Justice. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Do you have any other ITR of Carla which you reviewed as per your testimony earlier? Mr. Cuevas. We will enter our continuing and general objection as we have earlier stated, Your Honor, because we do not want to impregnate the records with our objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let that continuing objection be recorded. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. She has not filed any Income Tax Return other than for years 2008 and 2009. Mr. Lim. For the year 2008, what data did you find in your review? The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of the Income Tax Return on 2008? Mr. Lim. To show, Your Honor, to reinforce and bolster the total lack of financial capacity of the buyer vis-a-vis the P18 million La Vista property transaction. We believe, Your Honor, that it is admissible because it is relevant to 2.2. The Presiding Officer. Why do you expedite the proceedings? Why do not you just.... If you have it, present it to the witness, and introduce it in the trial instead of going into the contents of those documents. This is delaying us. You see? Mr. Lim. Only this, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. These are all covered by the best evidence rule. The contents of that document cannot be added by the lawyer nor anybody if the document is the only acceptable evidence of the contents and you cannot add anything to it. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Can we be allowed to enter it into the Journal aside from being in the document itself, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. What Journal? Mr. Lim. The transcript of stenographic notes, I understand that is called Journal in this honorable Chamber.

30

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Yes. But you have already examined, marked this exhibit. And the Court will appreciate the contents of that document. Mr. Lim. Gladly, Your Honor, I will just mark it in that case. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. I show you this Income Tax Return for the calendar year 2008, which was marked as Exhibit “EEEEE” as calendar 2008, Your Honor. Do you have the original with you, Madam Witness? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. Can we please request stipulation that the photocopy already marked as Exhibit quintuple “EEEEE,” but marked without stipulation, be now shown to the Defense Counsel. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, proceed. Mr. Lim. And I request for stipulation that it is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Let us not be too formal in these proceedings. This is a court of law but as the Prosecution said, “Let us relax.” All right, we will relax the rules. So do not do all these formalities. Just present the evidence and let the Defense say so if they agree or not agree. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Cuevas. We withdraw, Your Honor, our intended manifestation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So what is the pleasure? You accept the genuineness of that document? Mr. Cuevas. No, they are only asking whether we can stipulate or we stipulate that the document being identified is a faithful reproduction of the original. The Presiding Officer. All right. And you agree that it is a faithful reproduction of the original? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, let it be recorded. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, were there other documents... The Presiding Officer. The Chair declares a one-minute suspension of the trial. It was 3:52 p.m. At 3:53 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the trial for 15 minutes.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

31

The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended for 15 minutes. It was 3:53 p.m. At 4:19 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now proceed with the business of the day. Mr. Lim. Just a few minutes more, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Go ahead. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. With regard to the property transaction involving McKinley Hills lot, did you also review the CAR for that transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. And can you tell the honorable Court— The Presiding Officer. Just to clarify, is that one of the alleged undisclosed or rather unincluded assets of the Respondent? Mr. Lim. In the SALN? Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank your, Your Honor. Please answer, Madam Witness. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, we reviewed the Certificate Authorizing Registration and the income tax history of the buyer. Mr. Lim. Who is the buyer, Ma’am? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Ma. Charina R. Corona. Mr. Lim. Who is the seller, Ma’am? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Megaworld Corporation. Mr. Lim. And what was your finding with respect to the buyer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The buyer is registered with us as an ONETT taxpayer which is just to purchase this property and have not filed any income tax return to date. Mr. Lim. I would like that point clarified before the Honorable Court. Not a single income tax return, Madam Witness? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. None, Sir. Mr. Lim. What about what we mentioned yesterday, Alphalist, is there an Alphalist including the buyer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. None, Sir, because she just registered as a one-time taxpayer, sir.

32
The Presiding Officer. When was the transaction?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The transaction was dated October 22, 2008. The Presiding Officer. October 22, 2008. And this time the buyer is the wife of the Respondent? Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor, please, daughter of the Respondent Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. The daughter? Mr. Lim. The daughter by the name of Charina. The Presiding Officer. This is apart from the one sold through another daughter? Mr. Lim. Apart from La Vista property sold to Ma. Carla Beatriz. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. Do you have the original of the CAR for the McKinley lot transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. May we show the original together with this photocopy marked before the Secretariat as Exhibit “RRRRR” with a request for stipulation that the marked copy is a faithful reproduction of the original? Mr. Cuevas. No objection to the substitution, Your Honor. We agree that the document being identified is a faithful reproduction of its original. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Justice. Madam Witness, there is a certification dated January 25, 2012 with regard to this particular taxpayer marked before the Secretariat as Exhibit “FFFFF-1.” Just for the sake of identifying it, will you confirm your signature, Ma’am, at the foot of this document, Exhibit “FFFFF-1”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature, sir. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, in the course of your review of the Fort McKinley transaction, Fort McKinley lot— Ms. Jacinto-Henares. McKinley Hills. Mr. Lim. … I am sorry, Your Honor, McKinley Hills lot. Did you come across the Deed of Sale and other pertinent documents to the transaction? The Presiding Officer. What pertinent documents do you mean? Mr. Lim. I reform, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Lim. Madam Witness—I will just limit myself to identification, Your Honor. You also issued, Madam Witness, a certified true correct copy from the original marked Exhibit “FFFFF-2” of the BIR, Integrated Tax System printout of the ITS concerning this taxpayer. For the sake of identifying the document, can you confirm the signature above the name “Kim S. Jacinto-Henares”?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

33

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature. Mr. Lim. Do you also make the same confirmation with respect to Exhibit “FFFFF-3”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. What about Exhibit “FFFFF-4”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature. Mr. Lim. What about Exhibit “FFFFF-5”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature. Mr. Lim. “FFFFF-6”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature. Mr. Lim. “FFFFF-7”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature. Mr. Lim. “FFFFF-8”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, it is my signature. Mr. Lim. And lastly, “FFFFF-9”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my signature, Sir. Mr. Lim. Last item, Your Honor, and I will close. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Lim. You also mentioned yesterday, Madam Witness, that the BIR also issued a CAR or a Certificate Authorizing Registration for shares of stock at the Palms Country Club. Do you have the original of that particular CAR? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Lim. I respectfully show to the Defense the original of the CAR, together with this photocopy marked before the secretariat as Exhibit “PPPPP.” The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Is there a law requiring a CAR for securities? My recollection is the authorization of the Commissioner under the Internal Revenue Code is limited to capital gains arising from real estate property. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The authority is for capital gains from real property and shares of stock, sir. The Presiding Officer. What is the authority for shares of stock? I do not remember. I was the one who wrote that Internal Revenue Code, unless it was amended, that there is an authorization to secure any authority from the BIR to register shares of stock when it is transferred to another name. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the Certificate Authorizing Registration covers both—covers those that are subject to donor’s tax, subject to estate tax, subject to capital gains tax, which include transfer of real property, transfer of shares of stock.

34

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Is that in the Internal Revenue Code or that is a part of your regulation? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is in the Internal Revenue Code, sir. The Presiding Officer. What section? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Section 24(c) of the Tax Code, sir. The Presiding Officer. 34(c). Ms. Jacinto-Henares. 24(c), sir. The Presiding Officer. 24(c). Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, sir. The Presiding Officer. Can you read it into the Record? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. “24(c). Capital Gains from Sale of Shares of Stock not Traded in the Stock Exchange.—The provisions of Section 39(B) notwithstanding, a final tax at the rate prescribed below is hereby imposed upon the net capital gains realized during the taxable year from sale, barter, exchange or other disposition of shares of stock in a domestic corporation, except shares sold, or disposed of through the Stock Exchange not over 100,000, 5 percent, on any amount in excess, 10 percent.” The Presiding Officer. When is the requirement that before the stocks are transferred, there must be an authority from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, it is in the…. The Presiding Officer. I remember that I did not write any such provision in the Code. But it is only required that the tax must be 10 percent instead of half a percent. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I know it is here. But can I come back and… The Presiding Officer. I am sure that I did not write that in a law. I revised the Internal Revenue Code in 1996 and the only thing that we say is, that in the case of sale of securities and shares of stock outside the Philippine Stock Exchange is that the tax must be 10 percent, I think, over 100,000. And the assessment must be made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue but there is no requirement that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue will have to make a certification so that the succeeding issuance of new certificate to the buyer can be issued except…. That is only true in the case of land registration or land titles. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, can I come back and answer that? The Presiding Officer. Yes, you may. But I do not think you can find it. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Can I reiterate my request for Defense counsel to please stipulate that the photocopy marked as Exhibit “PPPPP” is a faithful copy of the CAR for these shares of stock? The Presiding Officer. I think that will not be allowed because until now, the Commissioner cannot show us that she has to authorize the transfer of stock certificates.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

35

There was a reason in the case of real estate, a policy reason, and that is to prevent tax evasion. Mr. Lim. Can I, at least, request for conditional marking, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. No. You present it at the time that the Commissioner is ready to show us the law. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. We submit. Will you please identify, Madam Witness, your certification in Exhibit “PPPPP-2” and Exhibit “PPPPP-2-C”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is the Deed of Sale of common shares that was submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue by the parties. Mr. Lim. Can I request stipulation? And this will be my last question. The Presiding Officer. The same thing. We have to find out first whether there is an authority to the Commissioner to give an authorization in the transfer of stocks transacted privately before the new certificate was issued to the buyer. Mr. Lim. We submit, Your Honor. And, so, we respectfully reserve our right to present these documents upon compliance with the directive of the Honorable Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Mr. Lim. Thank you very much, Your Honor, that will be all. Thank you, Your Honor, and I beg the Court’s kind indulgence if I had any failings. Thank you for your patience, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No problem, you are doing well. Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel may cross-examine if he wants to cross-examine. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, they have not announced on record that they are through with the direct examination. I would like to start now, Your Honor, but there may be a lot of repercussions later because he may ask quite a number of questions. I am willing to proceed, Your Honor. Mr. Lim. By thanking the.... The Presiding Officer. I leave the pleasure to you to start the cross-examination now or not. It is your decision. Mr. Cuevas. If it will not be asking too much, Your Honor, I will start with my cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. And this is in compliance with the directive of the Honorable Presiding Officer, Your Honor. Now, with the kind permission of the Honorable Court. I notice that you have identified and discussed quite a number of transactions allegedly entered into between the Coronas wherein the matter was brought to your attention and within a week you have acted on it, am I right?

36
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. And you dig deeper in those matters, you dig deeper on the capacity of the alleged buyer to pay the subject matter of the transaction, did I get you right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is in the face of the return, Sir, I do not have to dig deeper. Mr. Cuevas. No, you mean, you did not examine anymore? No examination made? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, the Income Tax Return I retrieved and therefore, I looked at the return and the CAR that was submitted and based on that, that is why I said we made an examination. Mr. Cuevas. Is this ordinary procedure that you adopt in your office? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Your Honor, for some of the cases especially for net worth method of investigation. Mr. Cuevas. So, you will be able to present before this court transactions similarly circumstanced with this in the next hearing of this case? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I do not have to submit because we filed the case against Mr. Villarica under the same circumstance. Mr. Cuevas. But I am not asking you whether you filed the case or not, I am asking you whether you will be able to proceed to produce before this court.... Mr. Lim. Objection, materiality, Your Honor. I invoke materiality as legal ground. The Presiding Officer. Well, she is under cross-examination, let the witness answer. Mr. Cuevas. Now, kindly tell this honorable Court even one or two or three transactions involving similarly circumstanced with this that you have acted upon within a week? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, especially if we have—especially if a taxpayer does not pay any taxes at all then it is a very simple investigation. Mr. Cuevas. No, again, you are not answering my question, Madam Commissioner. My question is: Will you kindly tell this honorable Court the cases that you have acted which are similar to the present transaction? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That is confidential information because my authority to disclose information is only limited to those in the subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Well, you are under cross-examination, the counsel is simply asking whether there are taxpayers similarly situated that also received a similar treatment? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. My question is whether she can make of record, Your Honor, those alleged cases, Your Honor. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Your Honor, I already.... The Presiding Officer. If she knows. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

37

The Presiding Officer. If you know. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I know but I do not have authority to divulge it because of Section 71 and Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Cuevas. But I heard you divulging a lot of transactions relative to Income Tax Returns with respect to other persons in here other than the Honorable.... Mr. Lim. Misleading, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Leading questions are authorized. Mr. Lim. Misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why misleading? Mr. Lim. It assumes as true a fact not stated by the witness or contrary to what the witness has stated, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the fact assumed by the Counsel? Mr. Lim. The Counsel is assuming that the witness has mentioned other taxpayers’ names, which is not the case aside from those listed in the subpoena. There are no other names. Mr. Cuevas. I am on cross-examination, if Your Honor please. Mr. Lim. But I am objecting on the ground that it is misleading. You cannot ask misleading questions on cross. Mr. Cuevas. Are you directing me? The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Mr. Lim. The Chair, I request the Chair to so direct you. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute to clarify. Were you authorized by the President of the Philippines to reveal the income tax return of the persons mentioned by you in the course of your examination in chief? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the Order of the President said that I can disclose any information regarding the income of Chief Justice Corona, from year 1992 to year 2010; Mrs. Cristina Corona, from 1992 to 2010; Maria Carla Corona-Constantino, from year 2000 to 2010; the husband, Constantino III, from year 2000 to 2010; Maria Czarina Corona, from year 2005 to 2010; Francis Corona, from 2005 to 2010; and all the CARs relating to Bellagio I in year 2009, all the CARs relating to transaction of McKinley Hill for a certain year. It is in the Memorandum issued by the President, and I have not disclosed anything that is not included in that Order. The Presiding Officer. The question of the Defense Counsel has been answered. Those are the other persons mentioned. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, I notice that your coming in here to testify as a witness was pursuant to a subpoena issued by this honorable Court, right?

38
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Were it not for the subpoena, you would not have voluntary come over and testify? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, I would not. Mr. Cuevas. You would not. All right. I suppose you must have been informed about the nature of the testimony that will be elicited from you in this trial, right? Mr. Lim. Your Honor, that is hypothetical. Mr. Cuevas. This is a request for admission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. She is a very intelligent witness. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, by reason of the subpoena, I would believe an intelligent person would know what he will be asked to testify on. Mr. Cuevas. You mean the subpoena states the matter that will be subject or covered in your testimony, or you are merely referring to the documents that you have to produce? Kindly clarify. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, otherwise, I do not think I will be needed to testify if not for those documents that need to be presented. Mr. Cuevas. No, but that is not the question to you. Did you have knowledge or information as to what will be the subject of your testimony aside from producing the documents allegedly mentioned in the subpoena. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The knowledge I derived is from the subpoena sent to me, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Nothing more. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Nothing more. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, am I right that you do not know Chief Justice Corona personally? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Actually, I think I know him personally— Mr. Cuevas. Ah, you know him. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. —because he was my colleague in SGV for probably four months, and he is a professor of Ateneo Law School, although I was not under him. My husband was under him, and my husband said he is one of his favorite students. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. So, I must know him. Mr. Cuevas. How about Mrs. Corona? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I do not know her personally, but I always meet her when she accompanies Justice Corona. Mr. Cuevas. You are not acquainted with one another personally? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Acquainted as in I know she is Mrs. Corona, and we say, “hi!”, and we kiss each other in the cheek. Yes, we are acquainted.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

39

Mr. Cuevas. How about the children that you mentioned in your direct examination? Are you acquainted with them personally? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I have never met them personally, I may have met them, but I do not know that they were there. I mean, they were never introduced to me. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, one of the daughters that you mentioned appearing in the Deed of Sale is Charina Corona. Do you know her personally? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. Mr. Cuevas. You do not know, therefore, that she is abroad for no less than ten years? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I was asked to testify only as to the documents that I have. The Presiding Officer. No, the question is, do you know her personally? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. So, your answer is, you probably do not know that she is abroad for no less than a decade? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is not within my jurisdiction to know about that, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I am not asking you about your jurisdiction. I am asking you a question, personal to your— Mr. Lim. Argumentative already, Your Honor. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I already said I do not know her so how can I know if she is here or not. Mr. Cuevas. I see. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Just please answer the question, whether you know her or you do not know her. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, I answered that I do not know her and I would not know where she is at this time. Mr. Cuevas. May I now continue, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Prior to your taking the witness stand today, I suppose you must have been in conference with the lawyers for the Prosecution? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is natural that they would get in touch with me, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. But you do not answer my question. Were you ever in conference with them, I am not asking you whether you were in touch. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, of course. Mr. Cuevas. Who in particular? Congressman Tupas?

40
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I met him, yes, Sir, in one of the meetings.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. So, he conferred with you in connection with this case? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. With regard to the subpoena that they requested the Senate Court to issue. Mr. Cuevas. How about the private prosecutors? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Also? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And, what was the coverage of your examination today were matters you discussed to them? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. What did they tell that they will be asking you in connection with the alleged Impeachment Complaint filed against Chief Justice Corona? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. They told me that I have to present all the documents that they are requesting for and that I will testify with regard to the contents thereof. Mr. Cuevas. I suppose they also informed you about their expectation on the subject that will be the subject matter of your examination, or did they not tell you about that? Mr. Lim. What expectation? Vague, Your Honor. That is a legal ground, Your Honor, please. Mr. Cuevas. Submitted, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel must clarify what is the term used so that it will be understandable by the witness. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, when they talked with you, did they inform you as to what their purpose was when they conferred with you in connection with this impeachment case? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. They told me that they are prosecuting an impeachment case against Chief Justice Corona. Mr. Cuevas. I suppose they also told you about what questions they will be propounding to you, is it not? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. They told me that I would be asked to present the documents and the content thereof. Mr. Cuevas. Nothing more? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Nothing more. Mr. Cuevas. So, when questions were propounded to you on matters that allegedly you know personally, that was not covered in your conference? Mr. Lim. What matters? Vague again, Your Honor.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

41

Mr. Cuevas. The records will show that.... Mr. Lim. It can be anything under the sun, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer, she is very intelligent. That “matters” is very common term. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I only testified as to the documents and the content of the documents and I did not testify on anything else. So, there is nothing to discuss, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, when they conferred with you, they never mentioned to you about their alleged impeachment complaint brought against the Chief Justice? Mr. Lim. Misleading. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, it is a public knowledge, I read the newspaper everyday and I watch news every evening and therefore any person knows that there is an impeachment proceeding. Mr. Cuevas. All right. But that is not my question whether you know or not. My question to you is, did they tell you what they expect to question you in connection with your examination now? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, we never even discussed what they intend, what their objective is, because I think everyone knows there is an impeachment proceeding and they are the Prosecutors and they want me to present this evidence, this document, so there is no discussion of what it is they want to because I do not think there is even a need to discuss that anymore. Mr. Cuevas. Oh, I see. They did not go any further, except that you bring the documents they wanted you to produce, is that right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. They did not even ask you or tell you what this impeachment case is about. True, there is an impeachment case, but did they tell you what this impeachment case is about? Also no? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, no more, it is public knowledge. Mr. Cuevas. No. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. What I am asking you is.... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That is why there is no need to even talk to me what the impeachment proceeding is all about because it is public knowledge, I am a lawyer, I can read and I can get copy of the Impeachment Complaint. It is in the internet. I can have access to that and I guess, to be a Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, I should know reading comprehension, sir. Mr. Cuevas. So you have read news report about this from the newspaper and also from the television. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, that is part of my habit. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And you knew and by this time you must have been informed about the grounds of the impeachment, right?

42
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Will you tell us what you were able to retain when you hear talk shows in the TV and in the newspaper? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Well, first, that there are eight grounds. One of the grounds is that, he should not have accepted the midnight appointment because it is a violation of the Constitution. Second, that he is biased by the vote that he voted. I think there is culpable violation of Constitution and all those things, and then the non-disclosure of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. Those are the things that I can remember, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. The way you made your narration, I am inclined to believe that you never had the impression that in this case, the problem of illegally acquired wealth never surfaced. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Well, for me, Sir, when we talk of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, it is inherent in that document that what we are talking about is illegally obtained wealth because otherwise there is no need for anyone to even submit a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. It will be just a piece of paper that anyone can just file and it is just a tedious process. Mr. Cuevas. So when you came over by virtue of that subpoena you knew you will be testifying in connection with the alleged illegally acquired wealth of the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I will be testifying as to what income has he reported; what income has the wife, the daughters, the son-in-law, the son, has reported in their tax history and also I will be asked about transfers of properties, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I understand that Chief Justice Corona is now being sued pursuant to an Article of Impeachment for failure to file and make public his SALN. Mr. Lim. Your Honor, please. Mr. Cuevas. Did you also.... Mr. Lim. Your Honor, please. Mr. Cuevas. I am not yet through, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Let the question be finished. Do not be nervous, Counsel. [Laughter] You have plenty of time to respond. Mr. Lim. Your Honor, please, I object on the ground that it calls for a legal opinion or deals with legal conclusions which is the function of the Court. The Presiding Officer. She is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that is why she could answer. Mr. Cuevas. You asked her about a lot of legal matters. Now I am asking her what she knows. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. So what is the question again? Mr. Cuevas. May we request for a rereading of the question from the....A, wala. Wala. [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. Restate the question. Mr. Cuevas. I will do so as ordered, Your Honor, as directed.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

43

So when you came over, you already knew that one of the matters that will be dealt with in your examination will be the issue of whether he had filed his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. I am referring to Chief Justice Corona. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I think everyone knows because everyone kept on arguing about that article, sir. Mr. Cuevas. May we ask.... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, I know from all the arguments. The Presiding Officer. May I admonish the witness to answer the question, to understand the question and answer the question as precisely and concisely as you can do it. Mr. Cuevas. That is why that necessitates a comparative study of Chief Justice Corona’s Statement of Liabilities in relation to other documents in your possession as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Am I right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I do not have the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of Chief Justice Corona. It is not submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. What I was asked to provide are only his Income Tax Return or income tax payment, if any. Mr. Cuevas. Correct. So, thank you for the information. So, you have never seen any Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Respondent Chief Justice Corona? Am I right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Today, I have seen it already. Mr. Cuevas. No, no. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. You said I have never seen it. Mr. Cuevas. Go ahead, please. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I have seen it today. As of today, I have already seen it, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Only today? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, no. As of today, I have already seen the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. The Presiding Officer. Just to clarify. When exactly were you able to see the SALN of the Respondent for the first time? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. presented. When it was given to me by a media person after the SALN was

The Presiding Officer. A media person. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. When I was waiting on—Thursday when I was called. The Presiding Officer. When was that? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. January 19. The Presiding Officer. January 20? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Nineteen, Sir.

44
The Presiding Officer. Nineteen.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes. I was here on January 19 in the Holding Room. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. So, this Statement of Assets and Liabilities that is now the center of discussion had never been discussed by you with the Prosecution panel. Am I right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Because this is the first time you saw it. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. The first time I saw it was January 19. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. That was when the case was already filed. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. And that was when the case is being tried already, the impeachment case. Is that not right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, you have no idea of what is the issue involved about this alleged Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Chief Justice? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I have no idea in the sense that I do not know what his assets and liabilities are. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And kindly tell the honorable Court whether that was the subject of your discussion with the Prosecution panel at any time before you took the witness stand. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir. We did not discuss the SALN. We discussed the CARs, the income tax return and others, like the Alphalist. Mr. Cuevas. So, there was never a query coming from them asking you whether based on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, together with the documents you have examined, there is a discrepancy or there is something not included in there. Am I right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. They never asked me that question. Mr. Cuevas. When you discovered or when you were informed that you will be taking the witness stand, this is the time that you asked permission from the Honorable President of the Republic of the Philippines? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Pardon, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. Alam ninyo, Commissioner, matanda na rin ako kaya makakalimutin ako. [Laughter]. All right, when you came to know that you will be testifying, that was the time when you asked authority from the President of the Republic of the Philippines to allow you to come over, testify and bring the documents required in the subpoena?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

45

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. When my office got the subpoena on January 18, I was in Tacloban. And the subpoena said I have to appear here on January 19. So, I appeared here without any documents just to comply with the subpoena and I asked that I be excused so that I can gather all the documents. But on the 18th when I got the subpoena, I already ordered my people to start preparing it. And then while I was here waiting on January 19, I also ordered the drafting of a memorandum to his Excellency President Aquino requesting for an authority. Mr. Cuevas. So, that was after a couple of days where you had been here, that you asked for... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, the first day I was here. Mr. Cuevas. The next day. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The first day I was here, that afternoon after being excused, I left here and went to my office and drafted my memorandum and faxed it to the President. Mr. Cuevas. That was the time when the authority was given to you. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The authority was given to me the very next day, January 20. Mr. Cuevas. I noticed that it was not an authority coming personally from the Honorable President of the Republic of the Philippines, but by the Executive Secretary. Right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes. Mr. Lim. We object, Your Honor. It says, “By authority of the President.” Mr. Cuevas. That was precisely my question. Mr. Lim. That is by the President himself. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It was signed.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. You are all too jumpy. [Laughter] Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It was signed by the Executive Secretary under the order of the President. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Was there any instance, prior or after that authority was issued, that you had a talk with the Honorable President of the Republic of the Philippines? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. I had no opportunity to talk to him. Mr. Cuevas. Oo. So, it is safe to presume that when the President knew about this, he never talked to you at anytime. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. From the time I wrote the memo, no. I coursed it through the Deputy Presidential Legal Counsel, who is in his office. Mr. Cuevas. Did you have a talk with the Honorable Executive Secretary about your appearing here? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir.

46

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. With any high government official, in connection with your coming over as a witness for the Prosecution? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I informed my Secretary of Finance that I got a subpoena and that I will be asking for an order from the President to order me to bring those documents. Mr. Cuevas. Did he tell you, “Go ahead, sundin mo iyang subpoena, mag-appear ka, tumestigo ka, at sabihin mo ang katotohanan.” Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. [Laughter] Ayan. Did he also say that “Durugin mo na si Corona kung maaari.”

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Wala po siyang sinasabing ganoon. [Laughter] Mr. Cuevas. Ah, walang sinabi. So, you were holding your punches in connection with the subject matter of your testimony because there was no such statement on the part of the higher-up at Malacañang. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I do not hold punches. I only do my job. And I am a very professional person even if you are my worst enemy I will just do my job. If you are complying, then I do not file a case. Mr. Cuevas. I hope you do not have enemies. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Pardon? Mr. Cuevas. I said, even if you are my worst enemy, please do not consider me an enemy. [Laughter] I am not. I am just discharging the duties or the functions of a Defense lawyer, Madam Witness. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. I am merely discharging my function as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. Mr. Cuevas. Now, examining the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, which you saw while you were here already to testify, based thereon, kindly tell the honorable Court whether you noticed any discrepancy or falsity in the said SALN. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I noticed a lot of discrepancy in the SALN that I saw that the media gave me because I measure it in relation to the SALN I have to submit. Mr. Cuevas. By the way, is your office connected in any manner with the filing of SALN? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Only on our own SALN. And in relation to, when we audit and examine a government official, we request for Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. Mr. Cuevas. In other words, it is very clear that insofar as the SALN is concerned of any government official, including the impeached Chief Justice, that is not a function pertaining to your office. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I never said, it is my function. You asked a question, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I am not saying that you said. I am asking you whether it is part of your.... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is not. It is only a function of my office in relation to when I file or assess tax deficiency or tax evasion cases.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

47

Mr. Cuevas. All right. The Presiding Officer. I have just one point to clarify. Is this the first time that you asked for authority from the President to release the income tax return of taxpayers? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Because this is the first time I have ever been subpoenaed to do so. The Presiding Officer. You do not know whether this kind of authorization which is lodged on the President is covered by authority of the President, authority of the Executive Secretary. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the BIR has had in the past, on our record, authority granted by the President, signed by the Executive Secretary. The Presiding Officer. So, that is on record that it has been a practice that release of Income Tax Returns was done by the signing authority of the Executive Secretary by authority of the President. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, the way I understood your statement now, it is my understanding that so far as the SALN of any person including the impeached public Respondent here, your office has nothing to do with it? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To the extent that I just described, no, I do not have anything to do with it. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Neither does your office take charge of the collection, compiling and taking care of the SALN? It is entirely foreign to your function as a Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Only for our own employees. We collate and keep record of our SALN. Mr. Cuevas. And how about other government officials? I am not asking you about your employees—other government officials. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, it is filed not with us. Mr. Cuevas. I see. But, it is filed with their respective offices to whichever they belong? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Is not that right? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So much so that if you have no case involving it, you will not come to know whether it was filed, whether the entries there appearing are correct, authentic and believable? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. I think that will be all in the meanwhile, Your Honor, with the witness. I will ask permission to be allowed to continue my cross-examination because I have to deal with a lot of all the documents, Your Honor.

48

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. All right. The manifestation of the counsel for the Defense is noted and recorded. The gentleman from Sorsogon, after that, the gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Escudero. Just a few questions, Mr. President. The first question is really to enrich jurisprudence on this matter. Madam Commissioner, how would you define an “assessment?” Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin ng assessment? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. When somebody filed...An assessment is a letter written by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to a taxpayer, telling them that either they have not paid the taxes and therefore this is your tax liability or what they have filed is deficient and therefore there are more taxes that they have to pay. Senator Escudero. Sinulatan ninyo na po ba ng assessment si Chief Justice Corona, ang kaniyang asawa, ang kaniyang mga anak? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Hindi pa ho. Senator Escudero. Again, Mr. President, we already admitted this into evidence. But only to enrich jurisprudence. The section cited by the Honorable Commissioner, Section 71 of the Tax Code, says: “After the assessment shall have been made, so on and so forth....” And that is where the authority of the President comes in for it to be released because the ITR is already now with the Office of the Commissioner. But, correct me if I am wrong. Before that, the ITRs and other documents are not yet with the Office of the Commissioner and some were, siguro nasa ibaba, hindi po ba? So, again, we already admitted it into the Record. It is part of the records of this case. Gusto ko lang po maliwanagan para in subsequent cases klaro po iyong authority naibinibigay. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Because if you look at our tax system, it can be argued that when you file the return, it is a self-assessment. It is a voluntary assessment on yourself. But, aside from Section 71, it is said here, “Rules and Regulations.” There are rules and regulations, Regulation No. 33, which is an old, old rule since 1992 and which has also been cited in a Supreme Court Cu-Unjeng versus somebody that says that when there is a proceeding where government’s interest is involved, we can actually present the document even without the order of the President. Senator Escudero. I agree with you, Madam Commissioner. You can do that under, perhaps, Section 270 or another section of the Tax Code. But, for this particular instance, you quoted in your Memorandum to the President in response to the subpoena Section 71 and not any other section of the Tax Code. Again, I just want to be clarified so that we are sure that next time we do it, we will be doing it properly also. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, if I may recall, I beg the indulgence of the Senate President. I think when I was excused, the Senate President mentioned that I should make sure that I comply with Section 71 and Section 270. And, therefore, just so that it will not delay the proceeding, I went ahead. It is like an overkill. I just went ahead and got that order to make sure that.... Senator Escudero. That you comply with our subpoena.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

49

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Escudero. But strictly speaking, under any other circumstance, the permission of the President can only be given after assessment shall have been made. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That is something that has not been resolved by jurisprudence. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Ma’am. My next question, Mr. President, is, hindi ko maintindihan actually ang tinatanong ni Atty. Cuevas kanina, pero para malaman ko lamang ang significance. Pag abroad po ba ang isang Filipino kailangan niyang mag-file ng income tax return? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, ganito po. Pag kayo po ay Overseas Filipino Worker, ibig sabihin noon may kontrata kayo ng employer-employee arrangement, exempted po kayo sa pagbabayad ng buwis sa Pilipinas kasi nagbabayad po kayo ng buwis sa ibang bansa. Kasi hindi po por que nasa abroad kayo ay exempted na po kasi kayo. Senator Escudero. So, OFW lamang po ang exempted. Pag hindi po kayo OFW, kailangan pong mag-file. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo. Senator Escudero. Next is, I have encountered several situations with an office before your term, in fairness, Madam Commissioner, na sinasabi ng BIR, “No record on file” pero hindi pa naman kumpleto kasi ang computerization at that time. May I ask the status of that? When you say, “No record on file” is that proven one hundred percent or is it possible that there is an ITR somewhere there na hindi pa lang napapasok sa computer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. There is a slim possibility, Sir, especially for the earlier year returns but not for the more recent return, and especially the possibility is not there if he is never registered as a taxpayer. Senator Escudero. As a final question, Mr. Presiding Officer. May I ask what taxes, aside from capital gains—nabanggit na po ninyo iyon—ano po iyong mga buwis na puwede ninyong bayaran, na nabayaran na, na hindi kailangang ideklara sa ITR? Pasensiya na po kayo. Isa sa mga pinakamahina kong subject ang tax. So, kindly educate me also on this. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. In relation to income po.... Senator Escudero. ITR. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Kung subject na po siya sa final tax. Katulad ng interest sa bank deposit, ito po interest lamang po sa bank deposit. Kasi pag interest po sa ibang bagay, kailangan pa rin po ninyo ideklara. Capital gains tax, kasi mayroon kayong dinideklara sa ibang returns.... Senator Escudero. Pangalawa. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Stock transaction tax sa stock exchange.... Senator Escudero. Pangatlo. The Presiding Officer. Capital gains of real estate on capital assets. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo, nakadeklara iyan po sa another returns. So, basically ho, those are the....

50

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Escudero. So, itong tatlong ito pag kumita ka roon hindi mo kailangang ideklara sa ITR mo dahil may ibang form na sinu-submit sa BIR para roon. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo. Iyong pong withholding sa interest on bank deposit dapat ang bangko mayroon pong pinapadala sa amin para pong Alphalist din po iyon. Senator Escudero. At sa kaso naman ng shares of stock, inyong stock exchange o iyong broker. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo. Iyong sa stock exchange iniimbestigahan namin po iyon in regular interval po. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Commissioner. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a few questions sa ating Commissioner. Magandang hapon. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Magandang hapon po. Senator Pangilinan. Noong isang araw nabanggit po ninyo, Commissioner Henares, na Biyernes lamang ninyo nabuo yong mga dokumento, tax records ng mag-asawang Corona at yong mga anak. Tama po ba iyon? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Actually, it went all the way to Monday.... Senator Pangilinan. Hanggang Lunes. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo. Senator Pangilinan. In other words, very recent. Bago noon, hindi ninyo pa nabuo itong mga tax records na ito. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Opo, hindi pa po. Senator Pangilinan. Tinatanong ko iyon dahil gusto ko ring dagdagan iyong unang punto na nabanggit ni Senator Escudero. Mayroong A-list. Posible ba na iyong nasa A-list ay mag-file ng separate income tax return na wala sa record ninyo o hindi napaabot sa Office of the Commissioner? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Kaya po kung makikita ninyo iyong Certification namin, wala po siyang return. Kaya we have to go to a deeper step because we know he is employed. So how can he have no return? So we went to the next step of getting the Alphalist. So, that is how the process went. Senator Pangilinan. So, nakita natin mayroon siyang pangalan doon sa Alphalist from 2007 up to 2011? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. From 2006 to 2010. Senator Pangilinan. Ang tanong ko dahil sabi ninyo kanina maaaring may mga income tax returns na hindi pa na ri-retrieve—minimal, sabi ninyo ho kanina sa interpellation kay.... Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Hindi. Ang tanong ho niya kung may possibility ba ho na hindi ho kami nakakuha noong income tax return.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

51

Senator Pangilinan. Yes. That is right, ang sabi ninyo minimal? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Minimal. Senator Pangilinan. So, is it possible na mayroong income tax returns ang mag-asawang Corona na hindi ninyo nalikom at maaaring naririyan pa. In other words, to prove na mayroon siyang ibang source of income apart from iyong dokumento ninyo sa A list? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. As far as we are concerned, we checked everywhere. Of course, it is a possibility. Nobody can foreclose that. But upon due diligent search, we did not really get any ITR, hence, we went one step further. Because we cannot believe that there is no income tax return because we know that he is a Chief, he is employed. So, we really double-checked and then since there is none, we went and looked for the Alphalist. Otherwise, we would not have gone to look for the Alphalist. Senator Pangilinan. Apart from the Alphalist wala ng ibang record kayong na-secure na mayroong ibang tax records ang nasasakdal? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Maliban ho doon sa CAR,... Senator Pangilinan. Yes, and the CAR. Apart from the Alphalist and the CAR. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Pangilinan. But as you said, potentially, posible, there could be an ITR there somewhere that you have not been able to retrieve. And assuming it is out there, I mean, hypothetically, would you still be able to retrieve it? Sabihin na natin given the next few days, the next few weeks with a more diligent search. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We already certified that there is no return and because, normally, it is like this, Sir: If there is a return out there, then it must be a “no payment” return. No taxes were paid on that return because all returns that has payment will automatically be tagged in our system. So, if there is any return out there, the tax due is zero. So, it will be very, very minimal, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. All right. And this is another point altogether and I beg the indulgence of our colleagues here. But I was just interested and curious. Sabi ninyo walang ni-remit ang Supreme Court na A list from what year to what year? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Walang sinabmit ho. Senator Pangilinan. Na A list? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Alphalist ho from 2002 to 2005. Senator Pangilinan. Ano ang ibig sabihin noon? From 2002 to 2005, hindi sila nag— Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Hindi ho. Marami—may mga taxpayer ho na nagwi-withhold sila at niri-remit niya iyong withholding tax. Whether tama iyon o hindi, we have to check. But they are remiss in their reporting requirement. This is a reporting requirement. They feel that sometimes it is not necessary. They think it is not necessary and the Tax Code kasi only provides a penalty. Some people will say that,”I will just be penalized”. Senator Pangilinan. But that does not mean that the taxes that were withheld were not turned over.

52
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Were not remitted. Senator Pangilinan. Hindi ibig sabihin noon? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Hindi ho. Senator Pangilinan. Maraming salamat. Salamat po.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Alan S. Cayetano wishes to be recognized; and then Sen. Franklin M. Drilon, and thereafter, Sen. Ralph G. Recto. The Presiding Officer. In that order. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. Ma’am, magandang hapon po. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Magandang hapon ho. Senator Cayetano (A). Just some questions to clarify. Sabi ninyo po na may nakita kayong discrepancy sa SALN ng Chief Justice. Tama po ba iyon? Observation ninyo? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Cayetano (A). What do you mean discrepancies? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Well, first, Sir, the most important thing in the SALN is the Acquisition Cost column. The SALN of the Chief Justice, he does not fill up the Acquisition Cost column and, secondly, based on the CARs that were issued, there were properties that should have been registered on a certain year, but it was not registered. It was registered subsequently. And then there were properties that were not registered. Senator Cayetano (A). Let us stop there because, as the Defense has been pointing out, it is important that competent iyong isang person mag-testify on that matter, and I would not have asked you kung hindi ka tinanong din ni Justice Cuevas. But my point is—and to be fair to everyone—just because may discrepancies, hindi ibig sabihin na iligal ito o mali na ito. Meaning, it could be, but it could also be explained, correct? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is possible, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Meaning, you are just giving your observation that you saw it at sa tingin mo may discrepancies. But to be fair to the side of the Chief Justice, it is possible that it can be explained. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, it is for him to explain. Senator Cayetano (A). For example, sabi po ninyo, hindi inilagay iyong mode of acquisition. Kasi ang alam ko diyan, you can have a choice. Pagdating sa price, you can either put the appraised or assessed value or you can put the acquisition cost. Ang nakalagay kasi dito sa SALN niya, mode of acquisition, hindi iyong price ng acquisition. But we are not here to argue this. I just wanted to point out because we are going to another point that you have a presumption of innocence, but then if you can show that there is property not included here or even if it is included pero hindi mo maipakita na sa income mo kaya mong bilhin iyon, then the presumption shifts, hindi

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

53

ba? Nagiging presumption na mayroon kang ill-gotten wealth. And then the Defense can now try to explain and if they can explain kung saan galing ang pera at legitimate iyong pera, then na-overthrow ulit ang presumption. So, my point, Ma’am, kasi kanina nag-testify kayo na iyong isang daughter, was it Charina? Nagkaroon kayo ng investigation dahil ang sabi ninyo wala siyang income pero nakabili ng property. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Did you ask her or did you give her an opportunity to answer or at the stage of your investigation, it did not call for that yet? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It just came to our attention while we were preparing for the impeachment case, and I did not have any opportunity to go back to my office and do my work. So I do not have the opportunity. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. So, you were simply testifying on your personal knowledge in the usual course of the procedure when something is brought up to your knowledge? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). But meaning, to be fair again to the Defense and to everyone, there is a possibility when she is asked to explain, she will be able to explain? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. There is a possibility, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. And, for example, for those possibilities, halimbawa, Ma’am, pagka kayo ba ay kumita sa stock market, hindi ba final tax iyon? At hindi ka naman talaga magpa-file ng income tax doon, hindi ba? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Pero ang problema ho doon is dapat ho mayroon kayong unang capital. Wala naman ho siyang income. Senator Cayetano (A). And are you familiar with the presidential decree of President Marcos which prohibits gifts to public officials? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Are you familiar with the exception? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Not really, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). To family members, donations of small amounts or of reasonable amounts are allowed. So, if for 18 years, binibigyan mo ang anak mo ng P50,000, P100,000 a year for 18 years, then you would have P1.8 million when you are already 18 years old. So I am not giving or testifying for anyone here. I am just saying balansihin natin that tama po iyong sinabi ninyo, there has to be capital. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). But I would also like to point out that that is why the burden is on the Prosecution to show that there are, in fact, properties na hindi maipaliwanag. But kung maipakita nilang hindi nga maipaliwanag, nagsi-shift na iyong burden na ito.

54

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

And I just did not like to end the day na you did your job well and you testified in your personal knowledge, but then hindi natin makumpleto iyong picture just on your testimony. That is why I wanted to clarify those matters. Lastly, Your Honor, you got authority from the President to testify on the income tax returns, correct? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To bring the income tax, yes. Senator Cayetano (A). To bring and to testify on that. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Can a taxpayer waive his right? Meaning ako, sasabihin ko, halimbawa, tsi-nallenge ng media, “O lahat ng Prosecution ipakita rin ninyo ang SALN ninyo, lahat ng judges, ipakita ninyo rin, o BIR ninyo ilabas.” Can we write you a letter and say na ipakita ninyo? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Can we waive it in favor of a different person? Waive it na sinasabi ko, “The Secretary of the Senate is authorized to look at my income tax”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. In effect, you are telling me to allow her to look at it. Senator Cayetano (A). Correct. Now, because, again, to be fair, Your Honor, let me just read the statement behind the—which was signed by public officials when they do the SALN. “I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his duly representative”—“his duly representative”—mali yata ang English nito—dapat duly—“his duly representative”—(binabasa ko ito lang po ito ah, hindi ko ito English) “to obtain and secure.” Senator Sotto. (off-mike) To obtain and authorize. Senator Cayetano (A). To obtain and secure. Ito po ang nakalagay, “I hereby authorize…” I am reading behind Exhibit “G-1.” “I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his duly representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate government agencies including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents that may show assets, liability, networth, business interest and financial connections to incluse”—hindi include—“those of my spouse and unmarried children below 18 years of age living with me in my household covering previous years to include the year I first assumed office in government.” I am saying this because, apparently, hindi unusual na tingnan ang SAL at tingnan ang tax records ng isang public official. In fact, baliktad. Dapat tinitingnan ng Ombudsman at dapat may nagbabantay dahil ito ang magiging basehan kung tapat ang isang public official or kung siya ay nagpapayaman. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Parati ho kaming hinihingan ng Ombudsman ng SALN namin at tax return.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

55

Senator Cayetano (A). Parati. Thank you, Mr. President. My time is up. I have other questions but let me give way to the other Senator-Judges. The Presiding Officer. I just want to clarify one point. Madam Commissioner, just for the information of this Court, when you do a net worth method of investigating any taxpayer, you use acquisition cost, is it not? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Not the value—not the fair market value? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Acquisition cost against liabilities… Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Real liabilities. The Presiding Officer. …and income. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senador Drilon. Madam Witness. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Drilon. For many of us, we heard of the Alphalist for the first time only yesterday. And from the way we understood your testimony, where the income is only from one source, then it is the employer who, in effect, files the Income Tax Return and the taxpayer need not file an Income Tax Return? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, if the income is from one source and that withholding taxes are properly withheld— Senator Drilon. Yes. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. —then the annual Alphalist will take the place of the Income Tax Return and the person need not file an Income Tax Return. Senator Drilon. So that, if there are other sources of income, you have to file an Income Tax Return and you have to pay, the taxes if any, is that correct? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. If there are other sources of income or if the taxes were less than what you have to pay, you have to pay file an Income Tax Return. The Presiding Officer. With the permission of Senator Drilon, would the withholding apply to bonuses and allowances? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

56

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

The Presiding Officer. The party paying the bonus and the allowances will have to withhold the corresponding tax? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The only exemption is up to P30,000 and for government officials, it is the RATA, the Representation Allowance and Transportation Allowance, and the PERA, those are the only exemptions, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Thank you. Senator Drilon. Now, you earlier mentioned that after you received the subpoena on this particular matter of Chief Justice Corona, you went one step further. I heard that phrase. Can you tell us exactly what you meant by “going one step further”? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, because the subpoena said, “Income Tax Return of the people involved.” So we looked for the Income Tax Return and we cannot find any. But we know that he is employed and, therefore, we gave instruction to find out where the Supreme Court filed as taxpayer. And we asked the RDO if the Supreme Court submits the Alphalist and to provide us with the Alphalist. So that is the one step further that we meant, Sir. Senador Drilon. And Chief Justice Corona was in the Alphalist submitted by the Supreme Court? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Senator Drilon. And since you mentioned that the Alphalist would only be feasible where you have one source of income from one employer where withholding tax was done, it means that in the case of Chief Justice Corona, your records will show that he had only one source of income and that is his salary from the Supreme Court. Is that a correct statement? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. And that salary is only—that income is the amount shown in the Alphalist. Senator Drilon. That income is what is shown in the Alphalist. Does the Alphalist indicate whether it is basic salary, bonus, et cetera? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It has different columns. It includes their non-taxable bonuses and gratuities and the GSIS, Pag-IBIG, PhilHealth contribution. It is in the column, sir. Senator Drilon. In the case of Chief Justice Corona, on which column did his compensation appear? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, can I?

Senator Drilon. Yes, you may. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I will just get one… Senator Drilon. Yes. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. With Justice Corona, the column is like this, there is a gross compensation income. It says, under the gross compensation, it has a subheading “Non-taxable” and under nontaxable, there is the “GSIS, PHIC and HDMF.” The amount there is P23,374.74. Then there is the “Bonus/Benefits,” it said there “P30,000.” Then it said “taxable,” there is a taxable sub-column and it said there, “Bonus/Benefit,” which is taxable—P27,417. Then another sub-column saying “Salaries and Others,” P604,388.46.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

57

Senator Drilon. What year was that? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Year 2008. Then there is an amount of exemption. I think this is personal exemption, it said “P41,000.” Then “Tax Due, January to December,” it is P154,057.75. Then it said “Tax Withheld, January to December, P157,236.24.” Because there is a column “Over Withheld Tax or Refunded”—there is over withheld, so, P3,178.49. So, his tax withheld, as adjusted, is P154,057.75. Senator Drilon. One hundred fifty-four thousand— Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is P154,057.75.

Senator Drilon. And therefore, he got a refund? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. When you are in the Alphalist, it is a requirement in the Tax Code, the December the employer has to make the adjustment, so that there is no more refund coming from the BIR. Senator Drilon. So that that amount corresponded to the taxes on the bonus in excess of P30,000 and the salary of P604,308.45. Is that correct? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Senator Drilon. All right. Now, you said that Chief Justice Corona had no Income Tax Return filed? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Senator Drilon. It means that other than what is stated in the Alphalist, the Chief Justice did not have any other income per BIR records? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Senator Drilon. What about his wife? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. His wife also did not file an ITR. She also has an Alphalist from Camp John Hay. Senator Drilon. And therefore, the same presumption is valid that she did not have any other compensation other than what appears in the Alphalist. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Actually, with the wife, she has a little problem because she received, aside from her compensation, she received a director’s fee where withholding tax is only 10 percent. So, there was no proper withholding of taxes and she should have filed an Income Tax Return. Senator Drilon. And your records will not show that an Income Tax Return was filed. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, there is no Income Tax Return filed. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Anyone else? The Floor Leader. The Floor Leader. Senator Recto, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Batangas.

58
Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Very briefly, in the interest of fairness and justice and to increase the intellectual quotient of our public with regard to taxes, I ask these few questions. Mr. President, let me first follow up on the question of our Senate President. Allowances and bonuses, ang sinabi ng ating testigo kanina, pagka mahigit 30,000 ay taxable na, tama ho ba iyon? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Recto. Sino ang dapat mag withhold niyan, iyong employer? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho, ang employer ho. Senator Recto. At kung alam ng employee na kulang ang winithold, dapat nag-file siya ng Income Tax Return para iyong balanse siya dapat ang magbayad? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Recto. Pero mahirap sigurong isipin para sa ordinaryong empleyado but that is the case. Halimbawa, pagka dito ka nagtatrabaho sa Senado, nakatanggap ka ng bonus mahigit 30,000, hindi ka na magpa-file ng bagong Income Tax Return. I suppose that is happening throughout the bureaucracy in the different government agencies. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I think— Senator Recto. I am just stating a fact, ha? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It should be the employer who should make the adjustment at the end of the the year. Senator Recto. Correct. So samakatuwid, pagka halimbawa in the case of the Supreme Court, there is is an accounting office, kung hindi nila—on the initial basic salary, kung hindi nila kinaltasan lalo pa at hindi nila ni-remit, sila ang mananagot. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Actually, sa batas dalawa ho ang mananagot. Senator Recto. So, silang dalawa. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho, silang dalawa pareho. Senator Recto. I just reviewed the law pero silang dalawa ang mananagot. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Iyong isa for non-withholding, iyong isa for not paying taxes. Senator Recto. Posible. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Recto. Okay. So, let me move from that issue. Incidentally, I do have a bill. On February 2 we will have a hearing on that. But let me move on, Mr. President. On the face of the CAR testified to earlier, I think this is WW—this is with regard to the La Vista property. Without looking at the income tax returns, dito, ito

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

59

‘yong binenta ni Cristina Corona kay Maria Carla Castillo, just on its face, samakatuwid, dito nakalagay dito, binenta ko itong properting ito, 18 million iyong halaga, just on its face. At nakalagay dito nagbayad si Mrs. Corona ng 1,296,000, tama ho ba iyon? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Recto. Okay. Therefore, kumita siya ng mahigit 16 million, tama? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho, kung totoo ho iyong transaksyon. Senator Recto. Tama, on its face. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes. Senator Recto. Totoo iyong transaksyon nangyari, ha? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Oho. Senator Recto. Let us not make any conclusions further than that. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Recto. Okay. So having said that, Madam Witness, aside from the income of the Chief Justice para makita natin ang katotohanan din to be fair to the Defense as well. Halimbawa, kung saka-sakali na totoo itong transaction na ito, hindi lamang iyong sweldo ni Chief Justice Corona ang dapat natin i-compute kung hindi itong isang pagbentang ito, nagbayad pa siya ng buwis katunayan ng 1,296,000 at dapat idadagdag natin ito, kumita sila ng mahigit 16 million dito, on its face, isn’t that correct? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. On its face, yes, Sir. Senator Recto. Thank you, thank you for the answer. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. But the period is different. Senator Recto. No, what you are saying now is in the Income Tax Return—so let me proceed to that. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes. Senator Recto. What you testified earlier is on the Income Tax Return of Maria Carla Castillo. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Recto. In effect, you are questioning her capability to buy this property. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Recto. Just by reviewing the income tax returns. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Of Maria Carla Constantino. Senator Recto. That is right. Have you reviewed the Income Tax Returns of the husband as well? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Recto. But that has not been testified to yet?

60
Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Recto. Hindi pa? So ibig sabihin magkakaroon pa kayo niyan? Posible. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I do not know, Sir. Senator Recto. Maybe, kasi tinawag ng Prosecution, eh. Okay. Kung halimbawa naman iyong kanyang father-in-law ang nagpautang sa kanya—I mean it does not necessarily prove anything immediately if at all, non-payment of taxes sila, it does not prove immediately that it is conclusive na wala siyang pera para bilhin ito, on the other hand, hindi ba? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Recto. Well, thank you for that. My time is up, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the mere incapacity on record of his income tax by a buyer of property to buy the property is not an absolute evidence of illegalness of sources used— resources used to buy the property? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We have to look at other circumstances, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. You are just basing your conclusion on the fact that the Income Tax Return, on its face, of the buyer would not support the ability to purchase? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, one final Member of the Court, Sen. Joker Arroyo, wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. It is not really a question but clarification. You said that on the 19th of January, you received a subpoena. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. 18th, Sir. Senator Arroyo. Ah, 18th.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Arroyo. And immediately, you wrote the Executive Secretary. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I wrote the Executive Secretary on January 19, the next day. Senator Arroyo. All right. Now, on January 20, you received the authorization? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, at 6:45— 4:00 p.m. Senator Arroyo. I just want to see the speed with which— Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Pardon. Senator Arroyo. The speed with which. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I harassed them to issue it because otherwise I might be cited in contempt by the Senate.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

61

Senator Arroyo. How could you have harassed them when you said you did not talk to them? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. I harassed the Deputy Legal Presidential Counsel, Sir. Senator Arroyo. We will take your word for it because… Now, I did not exactly capture what you answered the Defense. Is this the first time since you assumed office that the President of the Philippines issued an authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to release the ITRs? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Arroyo. So, in other words, throughout the period when you were—when did you assume the office? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Just July 2, 2010, Sir, at the same time as the President. Senator Arroyo. So, that is roughly one-and-a-half years. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Arroyo. Okay. So, for one-and-a-half-years, there was never an instance where the President of the Philippines had authorized the release of an ITR? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir. Senator Arroyo. So, this stands out as, you know, kind of, singular incident. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. authorized, sir. Sir, because nobody asked for returns from us that are not

Senator Arroyo. Then, again, I want to be clarified as to a statement that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is now conducting an investigation of Chief Justice Corona. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I said that it warrants a further investigation, Sir. Senator Arroyo. Okay. Correct me if I am wrong because I am just basing this on the recollection of your statement. In the course of your examination with the papers that you have, you found it necessary to pursue an investigation. Do I understand you correctly? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, because of the…. Senator Arroyo. Do not give the reason first. It was because of your investigation, then you can…. Was it because of that? The papers in front of you. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The papers in front of me dictate that I should investigate further. Senator Arroyo. All right. And you conducted an investigation? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We are conducting an investigation at present. Senator Arroyo. Now, does the Commissioner of Internal Revenue personally conduct an investigation of the papers? I mean, at your level, is that not delegated to someone else?

62

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, when a paper comes to me and I see there is something wrong, I order the investigation. So, on my first review if there is already something wrong, then I will order. But if there is nothing wrong, then I will just leave it aside. Senator Arroyo. I asked this question because if you pursue your investigation—I am not saying you should not—then there will be a parallel case against the Chief Justice: one in the Impeachment Court; and another in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Now, I get a little bothered by that. I am not saying it is wrong or right. But if we move against one person, here, in the Senate through impeachment and another one in the Internal Revenue through investigation using the powers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, that is very potent. I am just saying that because from your testimony you said that, “We are now conducting an investigation,” there seems to be some overeagerness in there. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I guess the thing there is, if we see there is something wrong and we do not do anything, people will accuse us of sleeping on our job. Senator Arroyo. All right. Let me ask you. Do you think you could have postponed the investigation? You can imagine, you were going to appear here and simultaneously you are conducting an investigation. I mean, is it not a little bit unusual? What I am saying is this. You are preparing for your testimony here, at the same time you and your office are studying already whether the respondent Corona did not file or did not have enough income or made his report or his income. What is your investigation about? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir? Senator Arroyo. What is the nature of your investigation? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is a net asset, net worth method to determine whether there was some income that he did not report and did not pay taxes thereon. Senator Arroyo. All right. I ask the question: Could you not have waited? Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I only answered the question about seeing this…. Senator Arroyo. Remember, the question to you is one of policy. We do not want the public to think that the forces of the government are being used; one impeachment initiated by the House of Representatives and now tossed to the Senate for trial; then another one before the Bureau of Internal Revenue for some tax malfeasance or whatever. I am just saying, that is my concern. I am not questioning any, but my concern. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Arroyo. Thank you very much. Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

63

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Inasmuch as it was manifested earlier that the continuance of the cross-examination will be next week, may I manifest some other matters. Mr. President, we would like to make of record that yesterday, January 25, 2012, the Prosecution filed a manifestation stating that the Prosecution is now temporarily discharging from appearing before this Honorable Tribunal until further notice the following: Robert Guillermo, Register of Deeds, Pasay City; Romoles D. Penilla, Assistant City Assessor of Makati; Raymond G. Ramos, Register of Deeds, Paranaque City; Fernando M. Fandino, City Assessor of Pasay City; Marco Antonio B. Abad, OIC, City Assessor, Parañaque City; Roberto S. Villaluz, OIC, City Assessor, Taguig City; Jaime Agbayani, President and CEO, Camp John Hay Management Corporation; Sonica O. Angeles, Vice President Staff Officer IV, Office of the Vice President; and Jose O. Castro, City Assessor of Quezon City. We manifest the— The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, yesterday also, January 25, 2012, Counsel of Chief Justice Renato Corona filed an Opposition to the January 25, 2012 request of the Prosecution for the Court to issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum requiring certain officers of various banks to testify and to bring documents in relation to the purported bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona and/or his wife Cristina R. Corona. This morning, the Prosecution filed a Motion to Withdraw its earlier request for the issuance of the subpoena to certain officers of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Philippine National Bank, Landbank of the Philippines and the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Savings Bank so as not to saddle this Honorable Court. And while waiting for the issuance of the formal resolution of this honorable Court regarding the clarifications to its January 25, 2012 ruling in the said motion, the Prosecution prays that the request for subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum dated 25 January 2012 be withdrawn with reservation to the right of the Prosecution to file the appropriate request for specific bank accounts of Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona at the appropriate time. Mr. President, I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion. The Presiding Officer. If I recall correctly, there was, I think, a motion of the Prosecution to withdraw that request for subpoena against the banks. Representative Tupas. Yes, we filed for the information, Mr. President, we filed a manifestation. The Presiding Officer. An ex-parte manifestation. Representative Tupas. Yes, I think it was filed this morning. The Presiding Officer. Yes, we received it, that is why I am making that statement that the request for subpoena against the banks had been withdrawn. Am I correct with this? Representative Tupas. Yes, you are correct, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. May I request, rather the Chair now requests the parties that when they request for a subpoena to be issued by this Court, you must make your request for subpoena duces

64

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

tecum with respect to documents in such a manner that there is specificity of the documents to be requested. Because I noticed that the Prosecution has requested this Court to issue a subpoena against certain real estate developers especially developers of buildings like condominiums requiring the production of all kinds of records involved in the development which is a buckshot manner of requesting subpoena and I am not saying that you are doing it intentionally but the impression is that you are as actually fishing for evidence which is not proper. So, if I grant the subpoena, then I will be compelling the developers to bring even the engineering plans, the architectural plans, the sewage plans, and all other documents involving the construction of the building which are not relevant in this proceeding. So, I would suggest that in order not to intrude into the privacy of people who are not involved in this proceedings, that you specify with particularity the documents that you want this court to be subpoenaed. Representative Tupas. We will comply, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there anything else, Floor Leader? Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, just two small items. We are in receipt of a Notice of Appearance filed by several private prosecutors on January 25, 2012, where as counsel for complainants in relation to Article I, subject to the supervision and control of the public prosecutors. The names and signatures of the counsel are indicated in the said notice, Mr. President, just to manifest. The Presiding Officer. Can you read the notice? Senator Sotto. Yes. We are in receipt of the notice, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Can you read the notice? Senator Sotto. Thank you. One final matter, Mr. President. May we recognize Sen. Gregorio B. Honasan for a manifestation. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Bicol. Senator Honasan. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Court, I would just like to raise two issues. One administrative and procedural, the other a matter of principle as it relates to the procedures. Mr. President, I would like to move for the Court to direct the Court’s spokesperson to confer with the spokespersons of both the Prosecution and the Defense, so that if it is not yet being done, they may moderate their public pronouncements and statements. Mr. President, I proceed from the issue raised by Senator Arroyo about the premature and unwarranted disclosure of what constitute the merits of the case, which to my mind remain unresolved and unverified. I am not suggesting a gag rule. I still subscribe to the liberal application of the rules. Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, to my mind, I believe that the trial outside the courtroom is proceeding faster than the trial inside the courtroom. And, as we speak, I think it should be the other way around. Because as we speak, verdicts are being rendered in the hearts and minds of our people.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

65

The second issue, Mr. President, is related to an issue we raised when we resumed last Tuesday, to which both the Prosecution and the Defense agreed, the principle in the rule in our Constitution that presumes innocence. Mr. President, I believe, this is a continuing presumption until the verdict is rendered. In fact, I would expand this principle. What about the presumption of honor of a good family name? Sa tingin ko po, G. Pangulo, hindi naman tama. I do not think it was the intention of the law or the spirit of the law na payagan tayong sirain yong pangalan ng isa’t isa. What about our children and grandchildren? What about their future? So, Mr. President, I submit. The Presiding Officer. Before we proceed, I would like to state that the Chair approves and grants the motion of the Prosecution to withdraw their request for subpoena duces tecum against the banks filed by them previously. So ordered. Now, there is this request by private lawyers to appear for the Prosecution. Are they authorized to represent the Prosecution, or are they appearing here in their private capacities to participate in the proceeding, and are they asking the leave of the Court? Representative Tupas. I signed that request, Your Honor, as part of the House Panel Prosecution under our direct control and supervision. The Presiding Officer. It is upon the behest of the panel of House Prosecutors that this request is requested. Representative Tupas. And it is specific that they will act as private prosecutors for a particular Article in the Impeachment Complaint. The Presiding Officer. So, you want these people to assist you? Representative Tupas. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right, granted. Representative Tupas. We heard earlier that the Defense reserved their right to continue their cross-examination of the Witness. And I was just informed by the Witness, Your Honors, and we would like to inform this honorable body that next week, she will be out for one week from Monday until the following Monday because I think it is official out-of-the-country official business. So, I just want to inform the honorable Tribunal. The Presiding Officer. The Defense counsel may consider postponing his cross-examination upon the return of this witness. Mr. Cuevas. We have no objection, if Your Honor, please. Why we were not able to terminate is because they have not announced that they are terminating the direct. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. If they have closed their direct examination, Your Honor, I will be compelled to carry on the cross-examination. It is on that basis, Your Honor. We have no objection, if Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. All right. Granted. The request of the witness to appear for further crossexamination when she returns is granted.

66

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the manifestation of Senator Honasan was in the form of a motion and I call for the previous question, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection regarding the motion of Senator Honasan? The gentleman.... Senator Sotto. For clarification, it is for the spokesperson of the Senate to coordinate with the two panels’ spokespersons. It is an administrative matter, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection to that request? [Silence] There being none, the request is granted. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn the session until two o’clock in the afternoon, Monday, January 30, 2012, for the continuation of the presentation of evidence for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion of the Majority Leader is approved. It was 6:02 p.m.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful