WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate
Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Wednesday, February 8, 2012

At 2:14 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr. Senator Marcos. Let us put ourselves in the presence of the Lord. Heavenly Father, we come to You once more with bowed heads. We beseech You to bless us in the difficult and trying work that lies before us in the days and weeks ahead. As we search for the path of righteousness, shine the light of Your wisdom and fairness to always guide us. Stay our hand that in our zeal to do Your work, we do not fall upon the innocent and unprotected of our citizens. And when this work is done, bind up the wounds it will have wrenched into the fabric of our society and heal the scars that we will have left. That we might emerge from this painful process once again a united people working together for the common good. We pray that You always keep in Your benevolent grace our beloved country and her people. This, dear Lord, is our most fervent prayer. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators.

2
The Secretary, reading:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

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 .................................................... Absent** Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis J.G. Escudero .......................................................... Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmeña III ........................................................... Present* Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present The President ..................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 21 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, 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. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Guingona is seeking the floor, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Bukidnon, Senator Guingona. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. Magandang hapon sa lahat. Para po maintindihan ng mga kababayan natin, marami pong mga kababayan natin ngayon ang nangangamba at kasama na nga ako doon. Nangangamba
______________ *Arrived after the roll call **On sick leave

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

3

na magkakaroon po daw ng constitutional crisis. Ngayon po ay may pending petition sa Korte Suprema na pigilan ang paglabas ng subpoena mula sa Impeachment Court na may kaugnayan sa bank deposits ng nasasakdal. Ngayon pong hapong ito, meron akong tatlong mahalagang punto. First, the impeachment process is the people’s way of making public officials accountable. The people, through the Constitution, reposed this power on Congress. Therefore, the Senate as an Impeachment Court is independent. Second, since the Impeachment Court is independent and a class of its own, the Supreme Court cannot and should not impose this body. Because at this point, we are not a coequal branch of government. We are coequal if we are exercising legislative functions. But at this point, mga kababayan ko, we are not legislating. We are exercising a specific special judicial function and that is sitting as an Impeachment Court. Sana po makita ng Korte Suprema ang puntong iyon. Pangatlo po, the Senate as an Impeachment Court has the sole power to try and decide cases on impeachment. Uulitin ko po ang dati kong sinabi. Nandito po kami hindi lamang bilang Senador, nandito po kami bilang Senator-Judges. We are here to hear a case and to pass judgment on the accused. Pero, mga kababayan, may tiwala pa rin ako sa Korte Suprema na alam nito ang tamang dapat gawin at alam ko tutulungan tayo ng Korte Suprema sa paghahanap ng katotohanan. Maraming salamat po. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move to defer the approval of the Journal of February 7, 2012 for a later time, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? What is the pleasure of the lady Senator from Taguig? Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I just have a comment to make on the Journal. Mr. President, in our Journal of yesterday, a copy of which we were furnished, there is a statement by Representative Fariñas and I would like to quote from the records: “Kaya ang Kongreso po nagsasama po tayo. Magkasama po tayo dito, hindi po tayo magkakaaway. Ang kalaban po natin ay iyong Respondente dahil pinapanagot po natin siya.” Iyan po ang records natin at importante pong malaman ho nating lahat na araw-araw sinusulat po natin ang kasaysayan ng ating bayan. Kaya po palagay ko importanteng ilagay ko din sa record na hindi po tayo sama-sama; kanya-kanya po tayong tungkulin. Ang Prosecutor ay prosecutor, ang Defense ay ang defense at kami pong mga Senador ay mga huwes. So liwanagin po natin kasi marami ho akong natanggap na tanong na mga nakapanood kung magkakasama po ang Prosecutors at ang Senado. Hindi po, magkakaiba ho ang ating tungkulin dito. So nililiwanag ko po iyan dahil po balang araw babasahin po itong records na ito at importanteng malaman ng tao na may kanya-kanya tayong hiwa-hiwalay na tungkulin. Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

4

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

May I just request everybody to think about what they say in this Impeachment Court. The opinions of people speaking here are respected but those statements are opinions. They are not rulings of the Court. The Court will act as a collegial body, they vote on any given issue and the vote of the majority is the position of the Impeachment Court. And I hope that the public will understand this. And may I also suggest and request that whoever speaks in this Chamber must not involve the Members of this Court. We are not partisan in this Court. We are the triers and hearers of fact. And I think every lawyer, elementarily, knows this norm. We are not combatants, we are judges. We are the referee between the Prosecution and the Defense. And I hope that whatever statements implying that this Court is an adversary to anyone, whether the Prosecution or the Defense, should be taken without any value because this Court is a court of law designated by the sovereign people in their Constitution to render justice according to the evidence, and nothing more and nothing less. So ordered. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we now proceed with the trial? May we ask the Secretary to call the Impeachment Case. The Presiding Officer. The Secretary may now please call the Impeachment Case? The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In The Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. I would like to warn everybody that this Court has been quite lenient in the handling of this proceeding. But, henceforth, the Chair announces that we will apply the full force of the powers of this Court to maintain order and discipline in the conduct of this Trial. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, thank you. Mr. President, before I move to recognize a member of the Prosecution, may I ask that they make their appearances or enter their appearances first? The Prosecution and then the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Appearances for the Prosecution. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearances, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The appearance of the Prosecution is noted. The Defense? Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. For the Defense, noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

5

Mr. President, may we recognize a member of the Prosecution panel, Congressman Rudy Fariñas. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte has the floor. Representative Fariñas. Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo. Unang-una po, humihingi po ako ng paumanhin kung iyong istilo po ng aking pakikipagpalit ng kuro-kuro po kahapon ay hindi po maganda ang dating sa iba po. Pero ang sinasabi ko po na ako po ay lubos na gumagalang sa Pangulo ng Senado at saka sa mga Miyembro po, mga Kagalang-galang na Senador. Alam naman po ninyo na sa aking pakikitungo sa inyo, dati-dati na po, Ginoong Pangulo, ang tawag ko po sa inyo “Sir” at buong respeto naman po ang binibigay ko. Kahapon po, may nabanggit po ako dito at lilinawin ko po. Eto po ‘yung records ng Minutes mismo. Ang sabi po dito, sabi ng Presiding Officer: “Pero may parusa dito, di ba?” Sagot ko po: “Ang parusa lamang po sa impeachment, pagkatanggal lang po sa trabaho.” “Presiding Officer: Tama. Pero ‘yun ay hindi ba parusa ‘yon, hindi ba ho”? Sagot ko po: “Yes, Sir. Pero kung sinabi rin po ng labing-anim dito na tanggal ang senador, tanggal na po sa pagka-senador. Maski po si Kagalang-galang Bong Revilla na hinalal ng dalawampung milyon na mamboboto, pag sinabi po ng two-thirds dito, tanggal kang senador dahil ang gulo-gulo mo dito, halimbawa, tanggal po siya sa trabaho. Hindi po siya puwedeng umangal na, ‘Eh bakit naman walang due process?” Ang puntos ko lamang po doon ay sinasabi ko po na tayo po na public officers, maski Pangulo po ng bansa, pag sinabi po ng labing-anim po dito at na-impeach po ng one-third ng House at hinatulan po ng Kagalang-galang na Senado, maski Pangulo po ng bansa o Pangalawang Pangulo po ng bansa, tanggal po ‘yan. Maski po Chief Justice, dahil ganoon po. Kagalang-galang Bong Revilla, alam naman po ninyo ang pag-respeto ko po sa inyo. Ipinakita ko lamang po ‘yun na maski—halimbawa si Chiz Escudero—Honorable Chiz Escudero sa susunod na eleksyon eh mag-Number 1 din siya katulad niyo, maski ilang milyon po ‘yung bumoto sa kanya, pag sinabi po ng dalawampu’t tatlo na miyembro po dito because isa lamang po ang dahilan na puwede po tayong tanggalin ng ating Kamara, disorderly behavior lamang po. ‘Yun medyo kulang po tayo—ano po bang Tagalog ng “disorderly behavior”? Eh parang ang nadukot ko lang pong Tagalog ‘yung ang “gulo-gulo”—magulo, hindi ba? Disorderly behavior—magulo. Yun lamang po ang ibig kong sabihin, Ginoong Pangulo. At kung iyon po ay iba ang dating o pagkaintindi ng iba, ako po ay humihingi ng patawad at paumanhin. Pero, malayo po, malayo po sa aking intensiyon na babanggitin ko na magulo ang sinuman po dito. Wala po iyon. Senator Sotto. Mr. President— The Presiding Officer. We note the statement of the honorable gentleman from the House. The gentleman from Cavite has the floor. Senator Revilla. Well, Mr. President, nasaktan lang ako doon, doon sa point na sinabi niya na “ang gulo-gulo.” Baka maguluhan din ang taongbayan na isipin nila na si Senator Bong Revilla ay nanggugulo sa Senado.

6

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Congressman, matagal nating iniingatan yung pangalan natin. Matagal nating binuo iyan. Kailangan maging maingat tayo sa mga salitang bibitawan natin. I do respect you. You are a friend of my Dad. Pero igalang niyo ang bawat isa sa amin dito. Representative Fariñas. Opo. Katulad nga po ng sinabi ko, ang taas-taas po ng paggalang ko sa inyong lahat po. Kaya maliwanag po na hindi nga— Senator Revilla. Apology accepted. Representative Fariñas. Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us end this discussion. Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Let us proceed with the case. Senator Sotto. Yes, with that, Mr. President, I move to dispense with the reading of the Journal of February 7, 2012 of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. approved. Any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the Journal is

Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. There was a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Senator Defensor-Santiago in a letter yesterday which we took up into caucus. May I be allowed to read the Resolution of the Court after the decision was made this afternoon—or this noon? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Sotto. “This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed on 7 February 2012 by Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago on a 6 February 2012 Resolution of this Impeachment Court granting the Prosecution’s request for subpoena to the responsible officers of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and the Bank of Philippine Islands but subject to specific limits. “At today’s caucus, Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III moved to adopt the Motion for Reconsideration made by Senator Defensor-Santiago. In view of the contrary view on the ruling of the Impeachment Court expressed by a Senator-Judge through a Motion for Reconsideration, a vote to consider the Motion is necessary. “After deliberating on the issue, the majority resolved not to consider the Motion for Reconsideration.” For the information of the Court, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Any comment from the Members of the Court? [Silence] None. Let us proceed with the trial. The Prosecution is still presenting its evidence. You may proceed. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

7

Mr. Cuevas. Yesterday, I requested permission from this Honorable Court to allow me to conduct my cross-examination of the witness on the stand, Mr. Anduiza, Your Honor. We are now ready, Your Honor, to cross-examine Mr. Anduiza. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Let the witness who is supposed to be under cross-examination today be brought to the Chamber, take the witness stand to be cross-examined by the Defense. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Before we proceed with the cross-examination, Mr. President, for the information also of the Court, we have an Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction by Chief Justice Corona, and in receipt also of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure with the Application for TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, and also Motion to Defer Action on Subpoena of Banks and Motion to Stop Reception of Evidence. Mr. President, with the permission of the Chamber, I move that the Body go into caucus immediately to resolve these issues before we go into the cross-examination proper of the trial, Mr. President. I so move. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Court? No objection? [Silence] With due respect to the distinguished head of the Defense Counsel, will you allow us to go into a caucus first before you proceed with your cross-examination so that we can discuss these new matters that were brought to our attention just a while ago so that we can deal with them accordingly? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, very willingly. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Trial suspended and all the Members of the Court will go into caucus. The trial was suspended at 2:35 p.m. At 3:34 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for the record, the Motion to Defer Action on Subpoena of Banks pending before us earlier, the majority of the Members of the Court have decided to deny the Motions, Mr. President, for the record. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Senator Sotto. On the Motion to Stop Reception of Evidence in Relation to the FASAP case, the majority of the Members have decided to deny the Motion with a reminder to the Prosecution not to touch upon the merits of the case which is still pending before the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Thank you.

8

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. President, we are ready for the cross-examination of the Defense. The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel will now proceed with the cross-examination of the witness. Mr. Cuevas. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we are calling back witness, Roberto Anduiza, president of FASAP. Your Honor, the witness is here. The Presiding Officer. Counsel. Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor, the witness is here. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of this Honorable Court… The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. …may we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Mr. Anduiza, I understand that FASAP is a labor union... Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. …duly organized and registered with the Department of Labor. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. So, it also has a board of directors. Mr. Anduiza. Yes po. Mr. Cuevas. May we know from you whether your appearance today is authorized by the board? Mr. Anduiza. Kasama ho ng function ko ‘yun bilang isang presidente. Mr. Cuevas. That is not my question to you. My question to you is, whether there is a board resolution authorizing you to appear. Kindly ask—may we ask, Your Honor, that the witness— Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, wala. So, your coming here is only at your instance, voluntarily. Mr. Anduiza. Bilang isang presidente ng labor union po. Mr. Cuevas. I see. Now, I notice that while you were testifying, you were apparently too mad against the Chief Justice Corona, am I right? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi naman po. Mr. Cuevas. What made you state that “Kaya nga po gusto namin maaalis na siya, eh”?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

9

Mr. Anduiza. Kasi nga because sa pangingialam niya po. Sa tingin namin ang pangingialam niya, nagresulta sa pagkabawi ng final decision. Of course, hindi kami naging masaya sa partisipasyon niya. Mr. Cuevas. Sa pagkaalam ninyo? Ano po ang naging base ninyo sa pakakaalam ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. Sa mga earlier resolution po ng Supreme Court, malinaw na nag-inhibit siya earlier. Tapos, doon sa October 4, ‘yung pagbawi ng decision, nag-participate siya. Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong decision ang binawi? Mr. Anduiza. ‘Yung ni-recall po ‘yung final decision noong September 10. Mr. Cuevas. ‘Yung Order denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration, ganoon ho ba? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. So, the Order on the merit—the decision on the merit still stands. Mr. Anduiza. Yes, Manong. Mr. Cuevas. And it is in favor of FASAP. Mr. Anduiza. Yes po. Mr. Cuevas. That had not been touched whatsoever. Mr. Anduiza. Hindi pa po. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So it is very clear now that what have been touched in the Resolution you are speaking of is only the order denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration? Mr. Anduiza. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I noticed that you do not appear to have examined the Resolution in connection with that, am I right? Mr. Anduiza. Alin po? Mr. Cuevas. The denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Anduiza. Nakita ko po iyon. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I am showing to you a Notice dated October 25, 2011, En Banc, and this appears to—at the bottom portion thereof, it appears “Corona CJ, Carpio, Velasco Jr., Leonardo de Castro, took no part.” Are you referring to that Resolution? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyan. Mr. Cuevas. Oh, why are you saying that it was Chief Justice Corona who engineered the denial of the Resolution? Mr. Anduiza. I was referring on the October 4 Recall Order. Mr. Cuevas. That is not my question to you. My question to you is the Order that nullifies the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Iyon po ang itinatanong ko sa inyo. Representative Bag-ao. Already answered, Your Honor. October 4 na po yung sinabi niya.

10
The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer the question. Mr. Anduiza. Can you repeat the question? Mr. Cuevas. May we repeat, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. nagtatanong sa iyo. Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Witness, intindihin mo lang na mabuti yung tinatanong nung

The Presiding Officer. Para sagutin mo yung tanong at huwag kang liligaw-ligaw. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo yung tanong. Naintindihan mo po ba yung sinabi? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sagot ninyo? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. I am showing to you a copy of the En Banc Resolution which I am referring to in my question. Will you kindly go over the same and tell us whether you will agree with me that Chief Justice Corona took no part in that Resolution? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyan. October 18, Chief Justice Corona took no part. Nandito po sa ibaba. Tama. Mr. Cuevas. And you knew that as a fact? Mr. Anduiza. Yes, po. Mr. Cuevas. That notwithstanding, you are recommending the dismissal of Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Anduiza. Yes, po. Mr. Cuevas. No other ground? Mr. Anduiza. May I add something po para—Kasi iba ho ang nire-refer natin eh. Magkaiba ho. Mr. Cuevas. Just kindly answer the question. I am asking you a definite question. Are you predicate— The Presiding Officer. Huwag kang makipag-argumento sa abogado. Sasagutin mo lang yung tanong sa iyo. Paki lang. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Para hindi tayo tatagal dito. Wala tayong mahabang panahon eh. Sige, sagutin mo lang yung question. Mr. Anduiza. Tama ho ito. Nung October 18 Notice En Banc took no part ho si Chief Justice Corona. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

11

May we request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit “60”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I am showing to you again another Resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc, dated February 6, 2012. Kindly go over the same and tell us whether you are acquainted or you know that Resolution. Witness perusing the same, Your Honor. Ang tanong po lang sa inyo, iyan ba ay nakita nyo nang dati? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit “61”, Your Honor, for the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. What is the date of that Resolution? Mr. Cuevas. October 4, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is different from the previous Resolution? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. What was the date of the previous Resolution? Representative Bag-ao. May we request if we can see also the document, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. The first one, Your Honor, is dated October 18, 2011, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the first Resolution. Mr. Cuevas. Which is Prosecution’s Exhibit “SSSSSS”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That was the first Resolution. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And the second Resolution is dated 24. Mr. Cuevas. October 4, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. October? Mr. Cuevas. 4, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ah, October 4. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Witness going over the same, Your Honor. Sige po. Sige po. Tama yan?

12
Mr. Anduiza. Tama po.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. I notice that this Resolution, more particularly at the bottom thereof which states, “The Court En Banc further resolves to recall the Resolution dated September 7, 2011 by the Second Division in this case.” Did you notice that? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po. Mr. Cuevas. So, the recalling of the Resolution concerning the Second Motion for Reconsideration was made by the Court En Banc. Mr. Anduiza. Yes po. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Not by Chief Justice Corona. Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. You will agree with me that Chief Justice Corona had nothing to do with the recall of the Resolution. Mr. Anduiza. Mayroon po. Mr. Cuevas. Sabihin nga ninyo kung ano ang kinalaman niya sa Resolution na ito? Mr. Anduiza. Kasama po siya sa nag-decide. Mr. Cuevas. Paano ninyo sinabi na kasama siya? Mr. Anduiza. Nakalagay po sa baba ng Resolution na yan yung mga wala doon. Wala yung pangalan niya doon po. Mr. Cuevas. So, yun lang ang batayan ninyo. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. You have not gone over the records of the Supreme Court in connection with this Resolution. Mr. Anduiza. Yung previous records po, mayroon na siyang— Mr. Cuevas. This one only. Mr. Anduiza. Ah, diyan po, wala kami doon sa loob. Mr. Cuevas. Wala. All right. Now, may I know from you whether you had been an employee or official of the Supreme Court? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. You will agree with me, therefore, that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the rules and procedures of the Court, both in a Division and En Banc. Mr. Anduiza. Sa konting consultation po with the lawyers. But— The Presiding Officer. Alam mo ba yung reglamento ng Korte Suprema? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

13

The Presiding Officer. Oh, yun. Mr. Cuevas. So the basis of your statement now relative to “hindi po nakalagay diyan ang pangalan niya” ay yun lang sinabi sa inyo ng mga abugado? Mga abugado ba o abugado lang? Mr. Anduiza. Abugado po. Mr. Cuevas. Sino po in particular? Mr. Anduiza. Si Attorney Kapunan po. Mr. Cuevas. Attorney? Mr. Anduiza. Atty. Santiago Kapunan. Mr. Cuevas. Yung abugado ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ho ba ito ang dating retired Justice Kapunan? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Anak po ito. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, anak. I see. Eh kung sinabi sa inyo na ganito’t ganito, komo wala kayong nalalaman, ang aking pakahulugan ay paniniwalaan ninyo siya sapagkat siya ay abugado ninyo. Tama ho ba ako? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. And based on the records din po. Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong record na sinasabi ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. Yung nandoon po sa baba ng Resolution na binigay ng Korte Suprema. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, you mentioned while testifying on direct that there was a sort of a letter coming from Atty. Estelito Mendoza to the Chief Justice Corona. Am I right? Mr. Anduiza. Mayroon po. Mr. Cuevas. You have seen that letter? Mr. Anduiza. Only after the recall order. Mr. Cuevas. And the letter was signed by Attorney Mendoza? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Addressed to the Chief Justice? Mr. Anduiza. The Clerk of Court. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, Clerk of Court. So you are now withdrawing your statement that it is a letter by Attorney Mendoza to the Clerk of Court, not to the Chief Justice. Mr. Anduiza. To the Clerk of Court. Mr. Cuevas. I see. Now, in accordance with the rules of procedure obtaining in the Supreme Court, once a letter of that sort is brought to the attention of the Court, it is referred to the Clerk of the Division involved. Am I right?

14
Mr. Anduiza.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

(Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer)

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po yun ang—May we move to strike out the answer of the witness, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Answer is stricken off the record. Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito, kapag mayroong sulat sa Clerk of Court ng isang Division ng Supreme Court, ito ay nire-refer sa Division, hindi ho ba? Yun ang tanong ko lang sa inyo, oo lang o hindi. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Opo. Ito ho bang sulat na ito, alinsunod sa pagkaalam ninyo o sa sinabi sa inyo ni Attorney Kapunan, ni-refer sa Division? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong hindi? Hindi ni-refer? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po namin alam iyon. Mr. Cuevas. Ah, hindi ninyo alam. Kung sabihin ko sa inyo na itong sulat na ito ni Attorney Mendoza doon sa Clerk of Court ni-refer sa Division, hindi ninyo mapapasinungalingan iyan, hindi ho ba? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Sapagkat wala kayong kinalaman diyan. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Basta galit lang kayo kay Chief Justice Corona? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi naman dahil galit lang. Mr. Cuevas. Eh, ano po ang ibig ninyong sabihin? Kung walang kinalaman si Chief Justice Corona dito ay bakit kayo galit kay Justice Corona sa pagre-recall nito? Representative Bag-ao. Already answered. Mr. Cuevas. No, I have not even asked the question, how could it have been answered? The Presiding Officer. Antayin mo muna na matapos iyong tanong bago mo sagutin. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Sige po. Anong sagot po ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer.) Mr. Cuevas. Again, we move to strike out the answer of the witness and we request, Your Honor… Representative Bag-ao. But that is the answer of the witness. Mr. Cuevas. …that the witness be directed to—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

15

The Presiding Officer. Unresponsive, stricken off the record. Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po lang sa inyo ay ito: may sulat na dumating sa Clerk of Court na isang Division, in this particular case Second Division, alam ba ninyo na ang sulat na iyan ay ini-refer sa Division? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung anong aksiyon ang ginawa ng Division. Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Kung sabihin ko sa inyo na ini-refer ng Division iyan sa Clerk of Court En Banc because—dahil hindi nila mapagpasiyahan, mayroon ba kayong ebidensiya na iyan ay hindi totoo? Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Mr. Cuevas. Wala. So ang—

The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang. Lakasan mo lang iyong sagot mo. Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. So, the way I understood you, you have no complaint about the procedure regarding this case because you do not know the procedure. Am I right? Mr. Anduiza. Yes po. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, I noticed that you were very, very categorical and positive about complaining against Chief Justice Corona, how about the other members of the divisions? Do you have similar complaint also against them for revoking the previous order in connection with the Second Motion for Reconsideration? Mr. Anduiza. Wala po dahil noong nag-inhibit po earlier, consistent nag-inhibit sila all the way. Mr. Cuevas. Eh iyon pong iba na naging dahilan ng pagkakaroon ng Resolution na ito na nire-revoke iyong Second Motion for Reconsideration, wala po kayong reklamo sa kanila? Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Siya lang po iyong kakaiba ang sitwasyon. Mr. Cuevas. Did you note that the recall order was unanimous? Ibig sabihin lahat eh bumoto, iyong nakalagay dito. Hindi rin ninyo alam iyan. Mr. Anduiza. Alam po. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam. Mr. Anduiza. Wala pong nakalagay yata sa decision. Kasi walang— Mr. Cuevas. Hindi. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito. The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo lang iyong tanong. Alam mo ba o hindi mo alam? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi.

16

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. At kung sabihin ko sa inyo na ang lumagda sa Resolution na ito ay lahat ng miyembro ng Husgado maliban kay Chief Justice Corona, hindi rin ninyo kayang pabulaanan iyan sapagkat hindi ninyo alam ang procedimiento sa kagalang-galang na kataas-taasang Hukuman, tama ho ba ako? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Tama po. Now, I seem to recall you having testified that kayo ay napighati, na-damage kayo, nagkaroon kayo nang hindi magandang pakiramdam sapagkat—gawa ng pagkaka-recall. Tama ho ba ako? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Bakit? Naghahabol ho ba kayo ng damage dito sa kaso na ito kaya ninyo sinabing nagdamdam kayo, nag-emotionally involved kayo, ganito and so on? Mr. Anduiza. Back wages po ng mga kasamahan namin. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi. Kayo po. Hindi ko tinatanong iyong mga kasamahan ninyo. Hindi ninyo kayang sagutin iyon. Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po ako. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. So, wala kayong claim for damages? Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Ako mismo, wala po.

Mr. Cuevas. At hindi naman maaari na kayo ay mag-claim for damages dito sa Impeachment Proceedings na ito. Mr. Anduiza. Wala din po. Mr. Cuevas. Nalalaman ninyo iyan? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Salamat po. That is all with the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Any redirect? Representive Bag-ao. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No redirect, the witness is discharged. Mr. Anduiza. Salamat po. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. May magtatanong sa iyo. Senator Sotto. Yes, Sen. Loren Legarda wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique and the Philippines, Sen. Loren Legarda. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Just points of clarification to summarize that quite complicated issues that were brought about. May I request the Madam Prosecutor to answer the questions and please allow me to just state what you

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

17

stated, if it is correct in terms of the dates. Based on the testimony of the witness, it was on July 22nd, 2008 that the decision was made by the Supreme Court in favor of FASAP. Is that correct? Representative Bag-ao. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Legarda. And on October 2, 2009, a Resolution denying PAL’s MR from the decision dated July 22, 2008. Is that correct? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. And in these two occasions, the Supreme Court—the Chief Justice did not participate? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. Was he already Chief Justice then? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Nasa Division po ang kaso na ‘yan. Senator Legarda. Nasa Division and he was already Chief Justice? Representative Bag-ao. Hindi pa po. Senator Legarda. Not yet. Representative Bag-ao. 2008 at 2009 po ‘yung tinutukoy natin. Senator Legarda. But it was in the Division to which he belonged? Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po. Lima po ang nag-decide sa kasong ‘yan. Senator Legarda. Ah, he just did not take part because he was not a member of that Division to which it was assigned. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. Thank you. On September 7, 2011, there was a Resolution denying PAL’s Second MR with finality, is that correct? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. And it affirmed, again, the July 22, 2008 Decision to award the FASAP with whatever they were due, is that correct? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. On October 4, 2011, there was a Resolution recalling the Resolution dated September 7, 2011 and opening the case again. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. And at this time, Chief Justice Corona was already Chief Justice? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. So in the first two, he did not inhibit. He simply was not a member of that Division?

18
Representative Bag-ao. Iko-correct ko lang po. Senator Legarda. Yes.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Representative Bag-ao. Yun pong pinaka-unang desisyon noong 2008 ay nag-inhibit na po siya sa kaso na yan sa raffle pa lang. Kaya po hindi na siya naging bahagi sa pagde-decide nung kaso dahil pinalitan na siya. Senator Legarda. Yes. Okay. But on October 4, 2011, there was a Resolution recalling—opening the case anew. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. He is already Chief Justice? Representative Bag-ao. Opo, Ma’am. Senator Legarda. PAL filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. This is the status of the case now. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Legarda. This is the case pending. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Yes, Ma’am. Senator Legarda. Yes. It was mentioned in the reasons behind the testimony of Mr. Anduiza that he was supposed to testify on the status of this FASAP case, which he did, and the two decisions which I am asking you now. May this Court be clarified on the circumstances concerning the recall of the decision and the alleged letters of Attorney Mendoza because I do not have a copy of those letters, I do not know whether it has been made an exhibit, so that we will try to link the relevance of those alleged letters whether they are directly addressed to the Chief Justice or merely letters, as mentioned, to the Clerk of Court, copy furnished the Chief Justice. And may I know the relevance of these letters to Section 3 of the Articles of Impeachment? Representative Bag-ao. Una po ay gusto ko pong banggitin na yun pong October 4, 2011 Decision ay AM Matter—Administrative Matter No. 11-10-1-SC regarding letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, re: G.R. No. 178083, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) vs. Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL), Patria Chiong, et al. ‘Yun po yung unang sagot. Pangalawa po yung apat po na sulat ay bahagi po ng exhibit ng Prosecution—Exhibits “TTTTTT-1” to “4”. Yun pong apat na sulat ay iba-iba po ang sirkumstansiya ng pagkakapadala sa Clerk of Court at pagbibigay ng kopya sa Chief Justice. Yung una pong sulat na may date na September 13, ay addressed po sa Clerk of Court pero may copy furnished po na “The Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Supreme Court, Manila.” Yung pangalawa pong sulat ay may date na September 16, 2011. Ulit po addressed po ito sa Clerk of Court at wala pong copy furnished. Yun pong pangatlong sulat ay September 20, 2011 addressed po ulit sa Clerk of Court at meron pong copy furnished na “Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.”

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

19

Yun pong pang-apat na sulat ay ipinadala po noong September 22, 2011 at ang copy furnished po ay ang mga sumusunod: “Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Honorable Jose T. Perez, Honorable Diosdado M. Peralta, Honorable Lucas P. Bersamin, Honorable Jose C. Mendoza, with copies of letters dated September 13, 16 and 20, ’11.” Ano po ang kaugnayan ng mga sulat na ito at yung Desisyon ng October 4, 2011 na Administrative Matter sa Article III? Yun pong Article III ay tungkol sa betrayal of public trust at culpable violation of the Constitution dahil po sa hindi pagsunod ng Chief Justice sa requirement ng Constitution na ang isang huwes o member ng Judiciary “must be a person of competence, integrity, probity and independence.” Ang sinasabi po namin sa titulo pa lang ng kaso na AM na nagresulta ng pagbukas ulit ng GR No. 178083, ito po ay dahil sa mga sulat. In fact, ang title po ay: “Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, re: GR No. 178083.” Pangalawa po, ang gusto pong ihayag nung testigo na pinag-uusapan natin ay ang pagkakaiba ng pagtrato ng mga sulat na ito sa sulat ng mga miyembro ng FASAP. Sumulat po ang mga miyembro ng FASAP, prinisent (present) din po namin iyon kahapon. Instead po sila ay ni-require to furnish a copy sa kabilang partido. Pero itong sulat ni Attorney Mendoza ni hindi sila pinadalhan ng kopya, naging subject pa siya sa Administrative Matter No. 11-10-1-SC. Iyon po ang malaking link at connection ng mga sulat na ito sa akusasyon po namin ng pagkakaiba ng pagtrato sa mga sulat. Pangalawa po, ang pinag-uusapan po natin ay ang partisipasyon. Doon po sa sagot, doon po sa laging paulit-ulit na sagot ni Chief Justice kahit po sa kanyang answer, sinasabi po niya sa Paragraph 4 at Paragraph 6 sa kanyang sagot for Article III na siya po ay “did not take part having been inhibited from the case since 2008.” Iyon pong inhibition since 2008 ay tama. Kasi sa recall pa lang po ng kasong ito na nasa Second Division kung saan si Justice Ynares-Santiago ang sumulat ng ponencia bago pa po ito nadesisyunan ay nag-inhibit na po siya. Kapag po nagiinhibit ang isang huwes, kapag po naglalabas ng desisyon, sinasabi po nila ang kanilang partisipasyon. Sa lahat po ng mga kasong ito, in fact iyon pong order sa FASAP na magbigay ng kopya sa kabilang partido ay may nakalagay na “Chief Justice Corona took no part.” Doon po sa kanilang administrative matter, iyong pinakita po ni Defense Counsel na sulat na may petsang October 18, 2011, ito na po ang AM ulit, October 18, 2011. Nakalagay po dito, “Corona, CJ; Carpio; Velasco Jr.; Leonardo-De Castro; and Del Castillo, JJ, no part.” Sa lahat po ng mga desisyon ay ini-indicate niya na “no part.” Except iyon pong Administrative Matter No. 11-10-1-SC kung saan na-recall ang desisyon ng G.R. No. 178083. Iyong last paragraph po nakalagay, “The Court, furthermore, resolves to re-raffle this case to a new member in charge (Carpio, Velasco Jr., Leonardo-De Castro and Del Castillo, JJ, no part.) Brion, no part insofar as the re-raffle is concerned.” Ito po ay desisyon, October 4, 2011. Hindi po natin makikita sa resolusyon na ito na may nakalagay na “Corona, CJ no part.” Ang simpleng interpretasyon lang po ay siya po ay naging bahagi, no part. Which means— Senator Legarda. Iyon po ang inyong assumption? Representative Bag-ao. Nag-participate, took no part. Ibig sabihin nag-participate po siya sa kaso. Hindi po iyon assumption, iyon po ay nasa records. Senator Legarda. Nasa record ninyo? Base sa record ng Korte Suprema?

20

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi lang po sa record namin at pwede pong mag-take ng judicial notice ang Korteng ito doon sa fact na iyon dahil requirement po na kailangang ilagay sa mga resolusyon at orders ng korte ang kanilang partisipasyon sa isang kaso. Senator Legarda. Okay. Naintindihan na po natin iyan, salamat sa inyo. Ang aking katanungan lang—alam ko may bell na, huling katanungan lang. Sinisisi ba ninyo kay Chief Justice Corona iyong pag-recall ng decision in favor of FASAP bagamat siya’y isa lamang sa mga nagdesisyon sa recall na ito? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. At papatunayan po namin iyan, hindi lang po mula sa testigong ito kundi pati din po sa iba pang mga testigo na gusto sana po namin maging bahagi para po mabuo iyong picture kung bakit po namin sinasabi na may malaking kinalaman, partisipasyon sa pagdedesisyun at pag-recall ng decision dito sa AM case na ito noong October 4, 2011. Senator Legarda. So ang ating testigo ngayon ay isa lamang tungkol sa FASAP case? Dahil kung siya lang ang testigo tungkol dito ay siguro kulang pa ang paliwanag kung bakit… Representative Bag-ao. Tama po. Tama po. Senator Legarda. …si Chief Justice Corona lamang ang inyong sinisisi sa pag backtrack, so to speak, ng Suprema,… Representative Bag-ao. Tama po. Senator Legarda. …ng Korte Suprema sa kasong ito. Representative Bag-ao. Tama po. Ang kahalagahan po ng testimony ng testigong ito ay para lang po i-establish ‘yung unang fact. Andito po kami para i-establish ‘yung unang fact na dito sa AM case na ito kaiba sa lahat ng resolusyon may “took no part.” At may pagkakaiba sa treatment ng letters. Kaya nga po mahalagang-mahalaga ‘yung aming mga request for subpoena para po ibigay ‘yung next step ng istorya ng pag proseso sa pagre-resolve nung AM case na ito. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. The Minority Leader. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Cayetano (A). Salamat po, Mr. President. Magandang hapon po. Marami sa katanungan ko ay nasagot na sa mga tanong ni Senator Legarda. But let me explain my clarification before I ask the questions. Marami po kasing nagtatanong sa amin eh. Pagka erroneous ba ‘yung decision ng Supreme Court or kapagka ‘yung losing litigant ba ay may angal, impeachable ba ‘yon? Or hindi ba natin binubuksan ang Korte, ang Impeachment Court at ang Kongreso bilang mag-i-impeach sa isang impeachable officer na basta’t makapangyarihan din or popular or whatever, for whatever reason matalo sa Korte, ay tumakbo sa Kongreso at hingin ang impeachment nung justices na ‘yan. And in this case, kung live pa ‘yung case, ‘yung magiging epekto sa kaso na ito ano? So not to go into all of those details, but importanteng maintindihan nating lahat ang kaibahan na kapagka ang isang kaso ay erroneous lang ‘yung decision and therefore walang question, hindi naman impeachable or merong ibang circumstance na pupunta sa may basis or mayroong ground for impeachment.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

21

So you answered already the first question about sinasabi niyong reportedly si Chief Justice sa 3.3.1 ang nag-order ng recall. Nasagot niyo na po ‘yan na you will call another witness. Madam Prosecutor, ang tanong ko po, what makes this different from just an ordinary case? Is it the fact that—let me clarify po muna. In your view, final and executory na ‘yung kaso na ni re-open? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Kung titingnan po natin ‘yung wording ng resolution, pareho po doon sa 2008 at 2009, pareho pong may nakalagay na final and executory. 2009 and 2011. I am sorry, Sir. Senator Cayetano (A). So that is what you are proving. Paki—Nabasa ko po sa iyong 3.3— 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, but please explain further what do you want to show here. Na final and executory na pero nabago, and then CJ Corona ang— Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Ang pinakamahalaga pong punto, without necessarily, Sir, going to the merits—because that is an issue still ‘no that we are talking about, ang pinaka bottom line po ay ang partisipasyon ni Chief Justice Corona sa pagbabaliktad ng kasong ito ano, ‘yung recall, in contradiction sa mga sinasabi nga na he did not participate. Sinasabi niya na he did not participate pero klarong-klaro naman na he participated. Senator Cayetano (A). Klaro po sa amin na kung siya ang nag- cause ng recall or kung siya po ay nag-participate o hindi, klaro sa amin na gusto niyong patunayan ‘yon. Ang hindi klaro, katulad po ng sinabi ng witness—and we are not talking about the merits ha at ‘yung simpatiya namin sa mga kaso. Many of us made a stand on that before this Court, before this Impeachment Court. Ang tanong kasi, tinanong noong Defense Counsel eh. So hindi ka galit doon sa ibang mga miyembro ng Korte. So are we saying, because final na ‘yung decision nabaligtad pa, impeachable din lahat ng ibang justices na they reopened the case that is supposed to be closed? Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po namin sinasabi ‘yun sa ngayon kasi ang gusto lang po naming patunayan, at, in fact, ‘yun po ang nakalagay sa aming complaint, ay napaka-partikular… Senator Cayetano (A). Yes, hindi niyo po sinasabi ngayon ‘yun… Representative Bag-ao. …sa partisipasyon. Senator Cayetano (A). …pero hindi niyo rin sinasabing hindi sila impeachable doon. Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po ‘yun naging bahagi ng aming… Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Representative Bag-ao. ..paghahanda ng impeachment. Senator Cayetano (A). The reason I asked that, kasi maraming nagtatanong hanggang ngayon, maging abogado man o hindi, “Bakit si CJ lang kung desisyon ito ng buong Korte?” At ‘yun ang isang, sa aking paniniwala, nililinaw ng ating Presiding Officer at Chief Justice noong umpisa. Na kailangan ipakita niyo… Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Cayetano (A). …kung bakit si Chief Justice ay kailangan ma-impeach samantalang desisyon ito ng buong Korte.

22
Representative Bag-ao. Opo.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Senator Cayetano (A). Can I ask that one clarification doon sa witness, Bakit si CJ noong tinanong ka ng Defense lawyer, si Justice Cuevas, ang sagot mo, “Okay lang ‘yung ibang mga justices.” Hindi po ba kayo—hindi niyo tingin na mali, na final and executory na babaliktarin pa ng Korte? Mr. Anduiza. Unang-una, mali ‘yun, final and executory yun babaliktarin, babawiin pa. At pangalawa, siya lang ‘yung kakaiba dahil nag-inhibit na siya sa umpisa, nag-participate siya sa recall at nag-inhibit uli pagkatapos ng recall. Senator Cayetano (A). But assuming na totoo na siya ang nagmaniobra para mangyari ito, eh kung sumunod naman ‘yung iba? Hindi ba buong Korte ang nagdesisyon nito at hindi lang si CJ Corona? Mr. Anduiza. Eh kung malalaman ho namin na ganun, ‘di pati sila may liability. Senator Cayetano (A). Well, anyway, Mr. President, my time is up and as the Madam Prosecutor—the good Prosecutor said, they will elaborate, I just like to make that point, na kailangan malinaw na malinaw sa amin at sa buong bansa. ‘Pag in-impeach natin ang isang Justice base sa isang desisyon, ano’ng kaibahan na ‘yung liability nung buong Division or nung en banc dun sa liability ng isang Justice lang na ‘yun? Thank you, Mr. President. Representative Bag-ao. Puwede pong sumagot sa huli niyo pong tanong. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may I ask— The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel. Mr. Cuevas. Now, I just would like to elicit an admission from the complainant—from the witness, Your Honor, through his Counsel, whether they admit that the Decision on the merits, awarding them millions of damages, had not been touched in the Resolution with this question because what is being reconsidered is only the motion denying the second motion, not the Decision because the Decision on the merits still stand. There was a first motion, denied. There was a second motion, denied also. The Presiding Officer. There is no detriment to the complainants. Senator Pimentel. Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. So may I ask a couple of questions only, Your Honor. Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor, we can argue about that but we do not want to make any admission because that is part of the issue that we are still trying to resolve. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, wait a minute. I am just clarifying. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. The Presiding Officer. I hope that the Prosecutors are not jumpy. You know, I am lenient but you know the procedure in the Court. You cannot interject a statement while I am talking to another counsel. Counsel for the Defense.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

23

Mr. Cuevas. We are showing the—If your Honor please, in compliance with the… Senator Pimentel. What is the— Mr. Cuevas. … suggestion of the Court, we are showing the Decision now just to prove our point that what was reconsidered is not the Decision on the merits but the Resolution denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the original Decision… Mr. Cuevas. Stands. The Presiding Officer. … stands… Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. … today? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And in whose favor was that Decision? Mr. Cuevas. In favor of the FASAP. Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. FASAP. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Bag-ao. Gusto ko lang po sanang itanong kung cross-examination po ba ito o nag-uusap po tayo ng admission? Mr. Cuevas. I am asking the— The Presiding Officer. The gentleman has the floor here. He is asking a clarificatory question with respect to your manifestation as counsel. So, I am authorizing him to do that. Mr. Cuevas. May I now proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Please proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, likewise in the Resolution of October 2, 2009, a copy of which is part of their evidence, Your Honor, Exhibit “NNNNNN”. There is no revocation of the original Decision. Because what is in controversy here is the withdrawal—is the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration and it is still pending before the Supreme Court En Banc whether that denial or withdrawal is valid, legal or should be allowed. Not the Decision on the merits, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. The Decision is still in their favor. The Presiding Officer. Maliwanag iyan. Nagkaroon ng Decision in favor sa … Mr. Cuevas. FASAP.

24

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Presiding Officer. … FASAP, nag-Motion for Reconsideration… Mr. Cuevas. Denied. The Presiding Officer. … ‘yung kalaban nila, ‘yung PAL, hindi ba? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Dinenay (deny)… Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. … ‘yung Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Pagkatapos ang PAL muli… Mr. Cuevas. Second motion. The Presiding Officer. … nag-file ng Second Motion for Reconsideration, dinenay (deny) din. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, ano ba ‘yung Administrative Matter? Ano ba ‘yun? Is that going into the merits of the case or it is just an administrative matter to dispose whether the matter is to be resolved by a Court or just to be thrown into the waste basket? Representative Bag-ao. Puwede na po? The Presiding Officer. Oo. I am addressing the question to the Prosecution. Representative Bag-ao. Babasahin ko po. “The Court further resolved to re-raffle this case to a new member in charge.” Ang ibig sabihin po— The Presiding Officer. To re-raffle. Representative Bag-ao. At ang naging epekto po ng AM case na ito in relation to G.R. 178083 ay wala pong execution na nangyari. The Presiding Officer. Teka muna. Bakit nga kailangan ang re-raffle? Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po ipinaliwanag. Ang naging epekto po— The Presiding Officer. No. Tinanong mo ba bilang abogado bago mo ginawa itong Articles of Impeachment, “Bakit kailangan ang re-raffle?” Representative Bag-ao. Iyon po ang ipepresenta natin ngayon po sana sa kasong ito. The Presiding Officer. No. As a matter of procedure, you are a lawyer, you should know. Representative Bag-ao. Sa ngayon po ay may pending MR ang mga partido po ng FASAP dito sa AM case na ito at iyon nga po ang gusto nilang linawin sa Korte na nagbigay ng resolution dated October 4, kung ano ang basehan bakit ni-recall ang desisyon kung dalawang beses na itong dineclare (declare) na final and executory doon sa G.R. No. 178083.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

25

The Presiding Officer. Ang itinatanong ng Presiding Officer, ‘yung administrative matter na binanggit ninyo, ano ba iyon, to re-raffle yung kaso? Representative Bag-ao. Yes po. Mr. Cuevas. Only. Representative Bag-ao. To recall the Resolution po dated September 7, issued by the Second Division in this case. Ni-recall po. The Presiding Officer. ‘Yung re-raffle na iyon has nothing to do with the merits of the case? Representative Bag-ao. hindi pa— Mayroon po, ni-recall. Ni-recall po ang case na ito. In fact,

The Presiding Officer. Ano ang ni-recall? ‘Yung desisyon na ginawa na, ‘yung una? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. ‘Yung G.R. No. 178083. The Presiding Officer. O? Representative Bag-ao. To recall—The Court En Banc further resolves to recall the Resolution dated September 7, 2011. The Presiding Officer. Ano ‘yung resolution na ‘yan? Representative Bag-ao. ‘Yun po ang Resolution sa G.R. No. 178083 na dine-deny ‘yung Second Motion for Reconsideration ng PAL na kaso with FASAP. The Presiding Officer. O. Mr. Cuevas. Not the decision. The Presiding Officer. Okay. So— Mr. Cuevas. Not the decision on the merits, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Oo. Mr. Cuevas. If we may be allowed to be heard. Representative Bag-ao. Pero, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed even one minute to make a rejoinder or reply? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Go ahead. You have one (1) minute. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, these proceedings denominated as AM, Your Honor, came into existence because of that letter allegedly to the Clerk of Court, Your Honor. Since there is no resolution it was labeled as AM case and it does not refer to the case on the merits. It has nothing to do with the award of multi-million peso compensation to the FASAP, Your Honor. The original decision stands. But what was recalled is the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration. In other words, when it goes back to the Court En Banc, what will be litigated is the withdrawal of the Second Motion for Reconsideration, valid or not or legal. That is the only thing. Not a decision on the merits, Your Honor. That is why it is merely an AM, administrative matter, not a main case.

26
The Presiding Officer. All right. Anyway—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. I hope I am not lecturing on the Defense and Prosecution. Representative Bag-ao. Permission to respond, Your Honor. Para lang— The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few clarificatory factual questions to the witness. Your Article III is about violating the canons because the Respondent allowed the Supreme Court to act on mere letters. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Senator Pimentel. But kayo din, ang FASAP ba ay sumulat din sa Supreme Court? Mr. Anduiza. ‘Yung mga kasamahan ko po. Senator Pimentel. Ah, mayroon din pong sulat ang FASAP sa Supreme Court, tama po ba ‘yon? Mr. Anduiza. Not FASAP, ‘yung mga miyembro po. Senator Pimentel. Members ng FASAP. Opo. Mr. Anduiza. Yes. Senator Pimentel. So sumulat po kayo at in-expect niyo rin na aksiyonan din ‘yung sulat ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po kami ang sumulat, pero iba ho ‘yung pagkakatrato. Noong sumulat ho ‘yung mga kasamahan namin— The Presiding Officer. Tinatanong sa ‘yo kung in-expect ninyo na aksiyonan ng Korte Suprema ‘yung sulat ninyo? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po FASAP ang nagsulat. Senator Pimentel. Okay. Hindi ikaw, ‘no, so mga kasama mo. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Senator Pimentel. So wala nga sila rito. Pero, at least, factual na ‘yun na may mga kasama kang sumulat din sa Supreme Court? Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Senator Pimentel. At siguro mayroon naman din sila—may dahilan din siguro sa pagsulat sa Supreme Court. Gusto rin nilang maaksiyonan din ‘yung laman nung sulat nila, whatever that is. Mr. Anduiza. Opo. Senator Pimentel. Sa pagkakaalam ninyo po, sino po ang—kaninong sulat po ang nauna, ang sulat po nung mga kasamahan ninyo o ‘yung sulat ni Attorney Mendoza?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

27

Mr. Anduiza. Nauna ‘yung sulat ng mga kasamahan namin. Senator Pimentel. Okay. So ang reklamo lang ninyo is ang ginawa ng Supreme Court—Sino ba ang kumilos pala doon sa sulat ng mga kasamahan ninyo, si Chief Justice Corona rin ba ang nag-aksyon doon na pinasagot iyung other party? Mr. Anduiza. Chief Justice Puno. Senator Pimentel. Chief Justice Puno pa noong time na iyon. So at least naklaro ko na rin sa sarili ko na ang reklamo lang ninyo hindi iyong pag-aksyon sa sulat pero iyong ibang klaseng aksyon sa sulat? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyon. Senator Pimentel. So, hindi masama ang sumulat sa Supreme Court at malagay sa agenda iyong sulat at aksyonan? Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyon. Senator Pimentel. Tanggap ninyo iyon? Mr. Anduiza. Pero ang pagkakaalam ko ho na pleadings lang ang pwede naming i-file. Senator Pimentel. Oo nga. Pero siyempre iyong mga kasama ninyong sumulat gusto rin nila na may resulta rin iyong sulat nila, so maaksyonan din ang sulat nila. Mr. Anduiza. Oo, dahil naiinip na po sila. Fourteen years na iyong kasong iyon. Senator Pimentel. Opo. So tinitingnan ko lang po iyong point of view ninyo. Okay po. Thank you po. The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lang malaman sa iyo, Ginoong Witness, bakit hindi ikaw ang sumulat bagaman ikaw ang presidente noong organisasyon? Bakit iyong mga kasamahan mo ang sumulat, na hindi pinadaan sa iyo bilang presidente? Mr. Anduiza. Dahil iyong bandang nasa 12 years na ho iyon. The Presiding Officer. Ano? Mr. Anduiza. Twelve years na ho kasi iyong kaso, nainip na iyong ibang kasamahan namin. So, may kanya-kanya sila—on their own, may sumulat, may mga—pumunta sila— The Presiding Officer. Pero ikaw bilang presidente nila, lider nila, hindi ka nainip? Mr. Anduiza. Nainip ho kami. Nagpa-follow up ho kami sa Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. No. Ang tinatanong ko lang sa iyo kung nainip ka o hindi ka nainip. Mr. Anduiza. Inip na inip ho. The Presiding Officer. Nainip. Pero hindi ka sumulat? Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po ng letters. The Presiding Officer. Okay, proceed.

28
Anything else?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. Ilang katanungan lang po para maliwanagan ko ang sarili ko. Addressed to Counsel for the Prosecution. Unang-una, iyong main Decision dito ay ni-release noong July 22, 2008, ganoon po ba? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Drilon. Ngayon, may Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse the main Decision, tama po ba iyan? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Drilon. Ito po ay dinenay (deny) ng Korte Suprema? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Drilon. Kailan dinenay? Representative Bag-ao. October 2009 po. Senator Drilon. October 2009. Pagkatapos itong dinenay iyong Motion for Reconsideration, mayroong Second Motion for Reconsideration seeking again to reverse the main decision, tama po ba iyon? Representative Bag-ao. Opo.

Senator Drilon. Is that correct? Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Drilon. And what action was taken on the Second Motion for Reconsideration? Representative Bag-ao. Na-deny po ito ulit noong September 7, with finality, 2011. Senator Drilon. Na-deny with finality noong September? Representative Bag-ao. September 7, 2011. Senator Drilon. Ngayon, pagkatapos noong denial with finality, mayroong Third Motion for Reconsideration via a letter of Attorney Mendoza. Representative Bag-ao. Opo, apat na sulat po. Senator Drilon. Apat na sulat. At dahilan po dito sa sulat na sinasabi ninyo ay pinayagan na buksan muli iyong desisyon na naging pinal na. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Senator Drilon. Ayun. So sa ngayon, iyong desisyon na naging pinal ay nabuksan muli?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

29

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. In fact ho hindi po siya pwedeng ma-execute ngayon. Senator Drilon. Salamat po.

Representative Bag-ao. Walang entry of judgment po hanggang ngayon. The Presiding Officer. Teka muna, sandali lang. Iyong pangalawang Motion for Reconsideration na dinenay din iyong First Motion for Reconsideration—sinusteyn (sustain) iyong First Motion for Reconsideration, sino’ng Division ang nag-decide noon? Representative Bag-ao. Third Division po. The Presiding Officer. Third Division. Iyong First Motion for Reconsideration, sino ang nagdecide? Representative Bag-ao. Third Division po. The Presiding Officer. Third Division. Nuong ginawa iyong denial nuong Second Motion for Reconsideration by the Third Division, iyun bang mga member noong Third Division ay pareho nuong member na nag-decide doon sa First Motion for Reconsideration? Representative Bag-ao. Hindi na po, Your Honor, kasi po may mga nag-retire na po sa kanila. The Presiding Officer. Ah, ganoon. Representative Bag-ao. At dalawang beses pong nagkaroon ng reorganization. The Presiding Officer. Sa kaalaman ko kasi ang pwede lang mag-participate sa desisyon tungkol sa isang kaso ay kung sino lang ‘yung mga duminig nung kaso. ‘Yung mga iba na nandun sa Division na hindi duminig ay hindi sila pwedeng makialam. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. The Presiding Officer. ‘Di ba? Kaya tinatanong ko ‘yan baka nagkaroon ng diperensya ‘yung problema ng membership nuong Third Division. Representative Bag-ao. Wala po. ‘Yun pong mga nag-decide po ay laging kumpleto every time may decision, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Oo nga eh, pero duon sa Decision nung Second Motion for Reconsideration na sinustain ‘yung First Motion for Reconsideration ay iba na ang composition nung Third Division. Representative Bag-ao. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. I will just make a short manifestation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. I had a hard time convincing myself, Your Honor, to the status of the main Decision because it was never mentioned in the Order of recall that the Decision on the merit shall be the subject

30

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

matter of deliberation, Your Honor. What is merely referred to the Court En Banc is the correctness, the accuracy and the validity of the recall of the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Not the main Decision. I do not agree with that but I cannot object because according to the Rules, Your Honor, we cannot argue with the member of this Court. So I just made it—I will just make it of record to make the stand of the Defense clear and categorical, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. Mr. President, I recall, I think it was yesterday, we asked for a memorandum on the functions of the—I think the administrative functions of the Chief Justice, I am not sure if a time frame was given but may I know from the Prosecution if this has been submitted—will be submitted? The Presiding Officer. That is correct. The Chair required the Prosecution because there was an issue about what are really the functions of the Chief Justice, that they should submit to us their memorandum defining what they consider to be the functions of the Chief Justice. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. We confirm that, Your Honor. And may we ask—we started on it already, Your Honor, but may we ask till Monday to submit that Memorandum of Authority, Your Honors? The Presiding Officer. It is so simple, all you have to read is Article VIII. Representative Aggabao. May we ask then till Friday, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. All right. You are given— Representative Aggabao. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To be fair to you, you are given until Monday. Representative Aggabao. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I would just like to put on record without that legal memorandum I continue to be confused on the Articles of Impeachment specifically Article III, Section 3.3, because it basically states here that: “Respondent himself caused and allowed the violation of the adverse party’s constitutional rights to due process; 3.3.1. The matter is made worse since the recall was reported to have been at the instance of the Respondent Corona; 3.3.2. What is even more disturbing is that under Respondent Corona’s watch as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court appears to be acting on mere letters.” So we would like to be guided accordingly if in fact any—if at all, any violations committed by the Supreme Court, the Division or En Banc is because of the Chief Justice who should be held liable on his sole account as compared to any acts or omissions committed by other members of the Division or the En Banc. So we need to make that distinction similar to what Senator Alan has said, otherwise, I cannot still follow why this becomes the responsibility of the Chief Justice and we have already taken up two (2) days on this matter. Thank you.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

31

Representative Aggabao. We will make sure, Your Honors, that that will be included in the Memorandum of Authority, Your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, since we are dealing with this, with the permission of the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. The Counsel is recognized. Mr. Cuevas. Since we are dealing with Article III of the Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor, and in order to obviate the possibility of any deferment in my cross-examination, may I be allowed to ask Counsel for the Prosecution to kindly inform us the “litigants” referred to in their third impeachment complaint which is, “and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court”? This seemed to be plural, Your Honor. “Litigants,” so they are more than one. May we know who they are just so we can prepare for our defense and cross-examination, Your Honor? Representative Aggabao. May we ask, Your Honor, that the Defense take a look at the Compliance List. I think it is enumerated there. Mr. Cuevas. No. Discuss “litigants regarding”—I am not asking for the list of witnesses. I am asking a categorical question, Your Honor, and that is, who are these litigants? There are so many witnesses listed in their List of Witnesses. I am not supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker every name stated in there. I just want to know, Your Honor, in behalf of the impeached public official, the litigants they are referring to in this complaint. If there is none, then we will be content with that statement, none other except— The Presiding Officer. What paragraph of—? Mr. Cuevas. Number 3, Your Honor, the last portion thereof, “And in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.” This assumes a situation where the Honorable Chief Justice, in his capacity as such, had entertained litigants in his sala or in his court discussing with them cases. The Presiding Officer. Is the Prosecution ready to answer the simple question? When you wrote these Articles of Impeachment, I am sure that you understood every word that you wrote here. Representative Aggabao. What I can confirm, Your Honor, is that— The Presiding Officer. What are these “litigants?” Representative Aggabao. What I can confirm, Your Honor, is that the Respondent had an ex parte conversation with Vizconde and Dante Jimenez. The Presiding Officer. Is Dante Jimenez a litigant? Mr. Cuevas. Is Dante Jimenez a litigant? Representative Aggabao. He is not a litigant, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So my question is, who are these litigants, Your Honor, not who are your witnesses. That is a very clear and positive query. Representative Aggabao. I can confirm, Your Honor. That I can confirm, Your Honor, that— except Vizconde.

32
Mr. Cuevas. None other, only Vizconde?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel, at the proper time when they present witnesses, you take your legal remedies. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But I am worried that the Court may not understand us when we ask for a deferment. So in order that we will be prepared, we humbly and most respectfully request that these litigants be named so that we will be ready. We will not ask for a deferment of—we have been accused of delaying the proceedings in this case. Now that we are accelerating it, they do not seem to be cooperative, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. May we request the Prosecutors to tell us if you can identify the litigants involved. I am sure that when you prepared these Articles of Impeachment, I assumed that you knew the meaning of the terms you are using and I have no doubt about that. And so I think the question is proper. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. I can confirm categorically that the litigant referred to is Vizconde. The Presiding Officer. Only Vizconde? Representative Aggabao. Vizconde, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Or none other? I am sorry, Sir. Representative Aggabao. None other, Your Honor. I can confirm that. Mr. Cuevas. So this is not “litigants” but “litigant” lang? Representative Aggabao. It is a case of less than perfect drafting, Your Honor, Vizconde. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you for the admission, Your Honor. Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We will be ready then, Your Honor, if that is the correct manifestation as if it is the stand of the entire Prosecution team, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Right. The witness is discharged. Mr Cuevas. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Mr. Anduiza. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Are you ready with your next witness? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, our next witness is the branch manager of PSBank, Katipunan Branch, Loyola Heights. This is under subpoena and was commanded to appear 2 o’clock in the afternoon today, February 8. The Presiding Officer. What article are we discussing? Representative Tupas. This is Article II, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

33

The Presiding Officer. Article II. I thought— Representative Tupas. Yes, because we would have presented this the other day, Your Honor, but because we awaited for the ruling or resolution of this Honorable Tribunal which was issued Monday. So may we go back to Article II, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. May we be heard in connection with this, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. The issue relative to these bank deposits, Your Honor, is now under question, Your Honor. With apology and with the indulgence of this Honorable Court, we went on certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court raising this particular matter as an issue in our claim for grave abuse of discretion justifying the result to certiorari under the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If this witness will be allowed to testify now, which is not scheduled, Your Honor, we are worried that our petition may be rendered moot and academic. So out of respect for the Supreme Court, we beg most respectfully that this be deferred even up to Tuesday, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Can you present another witness today with respect to Article III? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, for today two (2) witnesses were subpoenaed and these are the bank officials—they are bank officials. It was scheduled by this Honorable Tribunal to—that they appear today and I have information that they are here and we want to present them, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. No. It is in connection with Impeachment No. III, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. No, no, no, Your Honor. The only reason, Your Honor, if I may proceed, please? The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense. We cannot stop the process. With due respect to the Supreme Court, we are mandated to try and decide this case. The language of the Constitution is “shall forthwith proceed with the trial and decision of this case.” Now you are free to state your objection on any question against the presentation of these witnesses but we will allow the presentation of the witnesses who are here now. Mr. Cuevas. With due apologies to the Honorable Court, Your Honor. We went this far because of the statement on the part of Your Honor that we are not precluded to take any remedy in favor of the impeached public official under the rising sun. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Cuevas. So we did so, Your Honor. And we are not seeking a deferment but merely— because this is one of the issues that we wanted to raise. And we merely followed the suggestion of the Honorable Court. I do not think it will be a delay of the proceedings in a matter of one (1) or two (2) days, Your Honor. We are not-–We are in total conformity and in full accord with the fact that this Impeachment Court is supreme on any matter relative to the trial because that is enshrined under the Constitution, Your Honor. What we brought to the Honorable Supreme Court is the presence of what we call—with due apologies to the Court—grave abuse of discretion in exercising the trial powers of this Court. And the Supreme Court had acted on similar cases. For instance, the case of Francisco, Your Honor. What was questioned in there is the right to institute the impeachment proceedings. Supreme Court said, “No question. It is the House of Representatives.”

34

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

But in the exercise of that power, although it is stated—sole power to initiate, then we are empowered. It is our duty and power to inquire whether in the exercise of that power or authority, there was grave abuse of discretion warranting the participation or the coming over of the Supreme Court, Your Honor. We do not mean to say, and it is our proposition, that this Court has no power. It has the power. That is undebatable. We submit to that. But in the exercise of that power, that must be in accordance with the Constitution. It must be in accordance with the laws and the rules of procedure. If the Supreme Court said there is no abuse of discretion, then we humbly submit, Your Honor. That is only our point, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. This Presiding Officer is in a quandary at the moment because there is no order from any authority to stop the proceedings of this Court and yet we are now being asked to stop it. What is the pleasure of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. We want to proceed, Your Honor. In fact after the Resolution last February 6 approving the request of the Prosecution to issue subpoena to PSBank and BPI, there was a Motion to Defer Action of Subpoena on Banks from Defense. It was ruled just now. So to us, there is no legal obstacle to proceed and we want to present the witness, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. We are—I thought we are—with the kind permission of the Court. I thought we are discussing Impeachment Article No. III? That was our—We came here prepared for Impeachment Article No. III. Representative Tupas. If I may, Your Honor please. Just a very short— Mr. Cuevas. Supposing the Supreme Court came out with the pronouncement that the subpoena issued as against the bank officials and the productions of those documents is not in accordance with law, Your Honor, what will happen with the proceedings here? Will it be considered null and void? Will it be considered valid, Your Honor, if it is the Supreme Court speaking on the issue already? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please. Your Honor, yesterday… The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution. Representative Tupas. …we presented—one of the Prosecutors stood up and manifested that with reservation on Article II. The first witness for Article III will be presented but with reservation. The reason for that was we had requested last week for issuance of subpoena to the banks specifically PSBank, Katipunan Branch, and BPI. That is the reason why we presented one witness for Article III. But because— or last Monday the Tribunal decided and the witnesses were commanded to appear today. That is why we are now ready for Article II, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. In the absence of a TRO from the Supreme Court, the Chair rules that we must proceed with the trial. So bring your witness. Representative Tupas. Thank you so much. Your Honor, may we call on the Branch Manager or any duly authorized representative from PSBank Katipunan, Loyola Heights. Mr. Cuevas. I only hope and pray, Your Honor, that the handling of the direct examination will be the Chief Legal Prosecutor in this case, Your Honor. Just so we can have a good—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

35

Representative Tupas. I will not bite that bait, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So we have a good encounter, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. I will not bite that bait. And in connection with this, Your Honor, may we request that Atty. Demetrio Custodio, one of the private prosecutors, be recognized to conduct the direct examination. The Presiding Officer. Why not the head of the panel? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, the head of the panel. Representative Tupas. Because according to the Presiding Officer from the very beginning, we have the ground rules. And in the presentation of the witnesses, we may employ or engage the services of private counsel, Your Honor please. And right now, we want one of the Prosecutors, Atty. Demetrio Custodio, to conduct direct examination for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Tupas. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Let Counsel Custodio handle the direct. Mr. Custodio. Good afternoon. Magandang hapon po, Mr. President. My name is Atty. Demetrio Custodio Jr. I would like to respectfully enter my appearance as one of the private prosecutors subject to the control of the Public Prosecutors of the House, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Where is the witness? Representative Tupas. We are calling. We are waiting for the witness. Mr. Custodio. May we beg the indulgence of the Tribunal, Mr. President? The witness is being summoned. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended. Senator Drilon. Can we ask for a one minute suspension while the witness is— The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for one (1) minute. Mr. Cuevas. One long minute, Your Honor, so we can attend to personal necessity already. The Presiding Officer. We suspend the trial for five (5) minutes. The trial was suspended at 4:42 p.m. At 4:58 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Is the witness in the courtroom? Mr. Custodio. Yes, the witness is here, Your Honor.

36
The Presiding Officer. Where is the witness?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Custodio. May we call on the representative of PSBank to the stand, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Let the Clerk of Court swear him in. The Secretary. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment Proceeding? Mr. Garcia. I do swear. The Secretary. So help you God. The Presiding Officer. Do you have a counsel of your own? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You have a counsel of your own. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ask him to enter his appearance so that he can protect you in this trial. Mr. Garcia. May I sit, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, sit down. Let your Counsel—The Counsel for the Witness, please enter your appearance to counsel your witness when there is a sensitive question to be asked. Mr. Puno. Good afternoon, Your Honors. Respectfully entering my appearance as Counsel for Philippine Savings Bank. I am Atty. Regis V. Puno of Puno and Puno in collaboration with Atty. Vincent Bayhon and Richie Pilares, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Make your appearances of record. Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution, proceed. Mr. Custodio. Before I do, Your Honor, I just like to make a slight manifestation, if I may? The Presiding Officer. What is the manifestation? Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, we are minded by the previous suggestions of this Court to priorly deal with the witness so that we could prepare the witness and mark documents. But we would like to make a manifestation, Your Honor, that we tried to do that earlier today but the witness had politely declined showing us the documents. So I just like to put on record that we are viewing the documents for the first time and we are talking to this witness for the first time, Your Honor. And I am simply saying and putting on the record— The Presiding Officer. You are putting this witness as your witness? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Your witness. So you know the rules in dealing with your own witness in a direct examination?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

37

Mr. Custodio. Yes, I am, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Mr. Puno. Your Honor, may we be allowed? Just to—in relation to the manifestation— I apologize, Your Honor. In relation to the manifestation of the Prosecution— Senator Drilon. Point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President. If I understood it correctly, Counsel here was allowed to enter his appearance as Counsel for the Witness. My understanding is that the witness may consult the lawyer, his lawyer on certain points, especially points of law. But I do not think Counsel can address this Court. He is not a party to this case. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Puno. Submitted, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Refrain from participating in the proceeding other than to advise your client, the Witness, in the event that his rights would be affected. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, good afternoon. Mr. Garcia. May I consult my Counsel, Sir? The Presiding Officer. Incidentally—Just a minute. Mr. Custodio. I was only saying, “Good afternoon,” Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. Order. Incidentally, this Witness is representing the bank as a bank, and that bank was the one subpoenaed. Now, the Counsel for the Witness may counsel your witness if the tendency of the question would have any bearing to injure your bank. Okay. So ordered. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. Witness—I am sorry—Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, good afternoon again. Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Will you please state into the record your position in the—

38
The Presiding Officer. Name, personal circumstances. Proceed. Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon, Honorable Members of this Court.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

I am Pascual M. Garcia III, I am presently the president of Philippine Savings Bank. And may I make an—may I ask the Court for an opportunity to make a short statement? Mr. Custodio. Your Honor please, this Witness is our witness, Your Honor, and he is subject to our questioning and presentation. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. And we will not allow him, with due respect to you, Mr. Garcia, at this time, to make any manifestation or any statement to the Court. The Presiding Officer. Witness, just answer the question that will be asked of you. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And if you are in doubt about your answer, ask the advice of your Counsel. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, you are here by virtue of a subpoena, correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, I am. Mr. Custodio. Do you have a copy of the subpoena? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, this is in violation of the rules of procedure. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Cuevas. The purpose for which this witness is being presented, Your Honor, must be made of record. That is what the rules required. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. May I state my purposes, Your Honor? This witness is offered to prove two things, Your Honor. Number one, that Chief Justice Corona is the holder and owner of the 10 accounts that are the subject of the subpoena; and that he will also testify on the ending balances of these 10 accounts for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. And towards that purpose, Your Honor, he will be identifying and authenticating certain bank documents, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

39

So, you have a copy of the subpoena, Mr. Garcia? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, I have. Mr. Custodio. Do you have with you the subpoenaed documents? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may I make it— (Witness and his Counsel are conferring with each other.) Senator Drilon. Your Honor, this Counsel should not be allowed to whisper and coach this witness. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Counsel, Counsel. Wait a minute. Order, please. The Chair would like to advise the witness. Ginoong Testigo, pag hindi ka sigurado, sabihin mo sa akin na gusto mong kausapin ang abogado mo bago ka sumagot. Mr. Garcia. Okay po, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Oh, sige. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you again, Mr. President. To be fair to you, Mr. Garcia, you can consult your lawyer but he is not supposed to tell you what to say. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, avoid those remarks. That is known. Mr. Custodio. My apologies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are attacking the ethics of your fellow lawyer. Mr. Custodio. My apologies, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, do you have the subpoenaed documents with you? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, I have. Mr. Custodio. One of the documents subpoenaed is Account No. 089-19100373. Do you have that with you, Mr. Garcia? Mr. Garcia. No, Sir. I do not have. Mr. Custodio. This is a subject of the subpoena and will you please explain to the Court why you did not have these documents with you? Mr. Garcia. If I may, Sir? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Answer the question if you want. Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Mr. President and Honorable Senators of this Impeachment Court, although the subpoena issued by the Honorable Impeachment Court has been addressed to the branch manager of Philippine Savings

40

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Bank, I, as president of the bank, have personally come to attend to this hearing out of respect of the bank for the Impeachment Court and the importance of these proceedings. I have chosen to personally attend because as the president of the bank, I owe it to the bank and its 600,000 depositors to protect and uphold the rights of confidentiality. I owe it to my subordinates—2,693 of them—who may possibly be subjected to criminal proceedings and imprisonment. The subpoena commands PSBank … The Presiding Officer. What did you say? Mr. Garcia. Who may possibly be exposed to potential risk of liability, Sir. And if I may just explain? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Garcia. The subpoena commands PSBank … Mr. Custodio. Your Honor please. Mr. Garcia. … to bring before the Senate the original and certified true copies of the account opening form and documents … Mr. Custodio. Your Honor please. Mr. Garcia. … for 10 specified accounts, as well as documents showing the balances of said accounts as of December 31 for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Mr. Custodio. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. You cannot interrupt your witness, he is answering the question. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, with due respect, the question was very short and call for a short answer. This is already a narration … The Presiding Officer. Well, that is the way he answers it. Do you want to stop your witness in testifying? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Next question. Mr. Garcia. Sir, I am responding to the question on the … Mr. Custodio. There is a ruling already, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo lang iyong question. Sabihin mo kung bakit hindi ka puwedeng magsalita o hindi ka puwedeng sumagot o ibigay mo iyong sagot mo. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. And the question earlier, if I could recall, was whether I have these documents. And I mentioned that I did not have them. And I am now explaining, trying to explain, why I do not have them. Mr. Custodio. I will ask you another question, Mr. Witness.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

41

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. What documents do you have with you now? Mr. Garcia. Sir, I have documents pertaining to five (5) of the 10 accounts. Mr. Custodio. All right. Mr. Witness, the subpoena commands you to bring the opening documents for the stated accounts. I understand from your answer that your are referring to five accounts, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. All right. Will you please identify the accounts? Mr. Garcia. The accounts are bank accounts that are peso—Philippine peso bank accounts with Account Nos. 089-121017358; another account, 089-121019593; Account No. 089-121020122; Account No. 089-121021681; and Account No. 089-12101195-7, all in the name of Renato C. Corona. Mr. Custodio. All right. Mr. Witness, do you have the—your documents that you have with you are official records? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, official certifications. Mr. Custodio. These are certified by your proper officer as the records of the bank? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. He is a very intelligent witness. We pray that the questions be properly framed, Your Honor, to avoid … The Presiding Officer. Reform the question. Mr. Custodio. This is preliminary question … Mr. Cuevas. Preliminary to what? The Presiding Officer. Just reform the question. Mr. Custodio. This is a certified true copy, Mr. Witness? Mr. Cuevas. We object, Your Honor. The same question. Mr. Custodio. May I see the document, Mr. Witness? Permission to confront the witness, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. The objection is sustained, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the question? Mr. Custodio. The question is, Your Honor, do you have the copies—the opening documents of … The Presiding Officer. All right, let the witness answer. Do you have it? Mr. Garcia. As I mentioned earlier, Sir, I have certifications on five (5) peso deposit accounts that I have enumerated. Thank you.

42
The Presiding Officer.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Nasa iyo ba iyong mga dokumento, tinatanong nung abogado?

Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Pertaining to these five, yes, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Do you have the—Mr. President—do you have the opening documents for Account No. 089-121017358? Mr. Garcia. Yes, I have, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Permission to approach the witness, Your Honor, to get the documents. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Do you have it with you, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What account number is that? Mr. Custodio. 089121017358, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Witness going over his records, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Witness, you are only asked about Account No. 089121017358. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. So, answer the question. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, I have the document. Mr. Custodio. May I see, please. The Presiding Officer. Witness, please fix your microphone and state what you are saying into the record. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. I am sorry, Your Honor. This is Account No. 7358 for the year 2009. This is the record of Account No. 17358 for the year 2009. And for this particular account, Sir, there is no balance— The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, just an order. Will you kindly please leave the witness. Why are you crowding over the witness? What is so important about that witness? Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, it was only I who sought permission to approach the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. I do not know why the other lawyers are crowding the witness. The Court would like to see the witness, how he is answering the question. Mr. Custodio. There is a question to you, Mr. Witness. Do you have the opening documents for Account No. 089-121017358? Mr. Garcia. The account opening document, I do not have, Sir. Mr. Custodio. The subpoena specifically asked you to bring the opening documents for this particular account number.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

43

Mr. Garcia. This particular account number actually has—no such document because normally we only have one account opening document which covers and which may cover not just one account but succeeding accounts as well. Mr. Custodio. But there is a document, would you confirm, Mr. Witness, that will show the opening of 089-121017358? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, the question is very leading. In order to— The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Custodio. There is a document, Mr. Witness, pertaining—when you open an account, Mr. Witness, there would be documents to be filled up, is that correct? Mr. Cuevas. Hypothetical, Your Honor, very hypothetical. Mr. Custodio. This is bank practice, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. That is what you are telling the Court, but there is no evidence coming from the witness. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, lay your basis. Lay the basis for your question. Mr. Custodio. I will, Mr. President. Mr. Witness, can you please state the bank policy or rules or regulation pursuant to the opening of an account? Mr. Garcia. Pursuant to the opening of an account, Sir, we secure certain documents the first time you open an account and this is an Application for Account Opening. We also secure a proper specimen signature card. For subsequent accounts, we may not actually secure that because the document that we first secure refers and pertains and stipulates that succeeding account openings may not require such document anymore. And this is done for the convenience of the depositor, taking into account that oftentimes some depositors may open accounts, close accounts or open a number of accounts over time. And that is— one document is required, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. All right. So for this particular account, does your records show when it was opened? Mr. Cuevas. The best evidence will be the document itself. The Presiding Officer. What is the objection? Mr. Cuevas. The best evidence, Your Honor, is the document itself. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Custodio. May I see the document, Mr. Witness? This is a certified true copy as shown by the witness, Your Honor. May we just respectfully request that it be marked as “UUUUUU”. Will you please, Mr. Witness, describe the document appearing in this paper. Mr. Cuevas. May we know the question? Mr. Garcia. This is a certified—

44
The Presiding Officer. Counsel, Counsel.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Witness, what is the relation of that document to Account No. 089121017358? Mr. Garcia. The relation, Your Honor, is that because we have this particular document on one account, that particular account, as far as the signatures are concerned are governed and covered by this particular document. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Do I get it that this is the document that evidences the opening of 089121017358? Mr. Cuevas. Again, with the kind permission of the Honorable Court, very leading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Evidently, the witness is not familiar with his banking rules. Answer. Mr. Garcia. Sir, I am very familiar with the banking rules. I am trying to respond to the Counsel’s inquiry about such a document. The Presiding Officer. No, I am talking to the witness. I said, “Let the witness answer the question.” Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In spite of the objection that your question is leading. Mr. Custodio. Yes, Sir, my apologies. Mr. Garcia. The particular account does not have a separate document per se. It does have other—I mean, we have a master document that covers one particular account and other accounts opened after. And that particular account that you are referring to is covered by this particular document. Mr. Custodio. I see. And that particular document shows that it is in the name of Mr. Corona? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. How do you identify this document, Mr. Witness? Mr. Cuevas. What document is that? Will you kindly read for the record? Kindly discuss.

The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, please specify the document by describing it so that it is recorded. So that the other party can take proper measures. Mr. Custodio. I will, Your Honor. There is in this paper—are these two documents, Mr. Witness, up and down? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, it is. Mr. Custodio. I would like to refer to the PSBank Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card dated May 16, 2007 in the Account Name of Corona, Renato Coronado and have this marked, Mr. President, as Exhibit “UUUUUU”.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

45

There appears to be another document at the upper half of this page, Mr. Witness. Can you explain to the Tribunal what this document is? The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. A matter of clarification. You are showing one (1) piece of paper. Is that correct? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. And are you saying that there are two (2) documents in that one (1) piece of paper? Mr. Custodio. That is exactly what I am saying, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Then describe those two (2) documents. Mr. Custodio. We already described the bottom half, Mr. President, but there is no description of the upper half document. That is why we are asking the witness to identify. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Garcia. The upper half of the document indicates actually the name and other details of Mr. Renato Coronado Corona. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court. May we invite most respectfully the attention of this Honorable—that the documents being marked are already photographed by those people marking it which is prohibited. They have no authority to do that. The Presiding Officer. Who are doing the photographing? Mr. Cuevas. Those people at the back. And then this afternoon in the briefing, Your Honor, they were shooting like this, like this. The Presiding Officer. Sergeant-at-Arms, exclude all those people that are interfering with this proceeding. Bring them out of the courtroom. Mr. Cuevas. Including the Prosecutors, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are taking liberties out of the patience of this Court. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court. We brought that to the attention of this Honorable Court because in the press conference that they will be conducting, they will say, “This, this, this,” when there is nothing yet in this document, Your Honor. We are still in the process of identifying. They are taking photographs thereof already. Mr. Custodio. May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, Counsel for the Prosecution. Will you kindly instruct your co-counsels and your other witnesses and your assistants to be fair, not to take any photograph of any document without the permission of this Court? Mr. Custodio. We will do that, Your Honor. And everyone is cautioned— The Presiding Officer. You are hereby ordered to do so. Mr. Custodio. Everybody is cautioned to take their seats.

46

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

What was your answer, Mr. Witness, when I asked you what this document is about, referring to the upper half of the document, Mr. Witness? Mr. Cuevas. Our objection was sustained, Your Honor, that the best evidence will be document itself. The witness came over, brought these documents and he is testifying— Mr. Custodio. For clarity, Your Honor— The Presiding Officer. Just mark the document as an exhibit and let the document speak for itself. Mr. Custodio. All right. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Custodio. We would like to mark the upper half of the document as Exhibit “VVVVVV”. The Presiding Officer. Let it be noted that nobody can approach the witness except the Counsel for the Prosecution and the Counsel for the Defense. No one else. So ordered. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Can I ask permission for one lawyer to assist me in the marking while I propound questions, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. You may. Mr. Custodio. All right. Mr. Witness, let us now go to Account No. 089-121019593. Do you have the opening documents for this account? Mr. Garcia. (Reply was stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Mr. Custodio. 121019593. Mr. Witness, my question was the opening account documents of 089-

Mr. Cuevas. We therefore ask, Your Honor, that the answer of witness be stricken of— The Presiding Officer. 019593—what account is that? Mr. Cuevas. What the witness stated is that what he has with him is the document involving 09, Your Honor, 121011597. So we move to strike out that answer of the witness. Not responsive, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Custodio. Yes. So, let us now go, Mr. Witness, to document—to Account No. 0891210189593. Do you have the opening documents? The Presiding Officer. Walang account na ganoon. Mr. Garcia. We do not have them, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Counsel, I have the account numbers, and the account number you mentioned does not appear in the listing that I have. Mr. Custodio. May I restate, Your Honor. Account No. 089-121019593.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

47

The Presiding Officer. Correct, that is the second account. Mr. Custodio. Do you have it, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. We do not have that, Sir. Mr. Custodio. What is the explanation why you do not have an opening document for this particular account? Mr. Garcia. As I explained earlier, different accounts, subsequent accounts, so-called “account opening documents” are, by reference, account opening document of a preceding account. Mr. Custodio. I see. So, there is a preceding account for this particular account that I am asking you? Mr. Garcia. For all of the accounts in PSBank, yes. The Presiding Officer. What was the answer of the witness? What was the answer of the witness to your question? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. By way of reference, we have account opening documents of one account which is good for and covers subsequent account. Mr. Custodio. I see. So, there is only one opening document for all accounts that is covered by that particular opening document. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. And will you refer to it, Mr. Witness, if you have already referred to it earlier? Mr. Garcia. This is for Account Number 089120121011957. Mr. Custodio. How about, Mr. Witness, 089-121020122? Mr. Cuevas. The question appears vague, Your Honor. Mr. Garcia. Sorry, Sir. We do not have it and it is not in the subpoena. The Presiding Officer. What is the question? You are talking—what about— Mr. Custodio. It is in the subpoena, Your Honor. May I be clear? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. 089-121020122. The Presiding Officer. What are you asking about this account? Mr. Custodio. The opening document, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The witness may answer if he understands the question. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we do not have specific account documents for that account but we do again have account opening documents for it. Mr. Custodio. And what is that opening account document that you are referring to? Mr. Garcia. 08912101195-7.

48

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Custodio. Is it your testimony, Mr. Witness, that from the opening account document for 089-121011957, that is also the opening document account or opening document for the other accounts, Mr. Witness? Mr. Cuevas. Again, Your Honor, with due apologies to this Court, we are constrained to object. Very leading, Your Honor. The witness is on direct examination. The Presiding Officer. Answer it. Proceed. Mr. Garcia. We do have, Sir, the opening documents, again, of 12101195-7 which, by way of reference, would apply to other and all accounts. Mr. Custodio. I see. Okay, thank you very much. So now, can we go to the second part of the subpoena that tells you to bring the ending or the bank statements showing the year-end balances for the said accounts as of December 31, 2007; December 31, 2008; December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010. Did you bring the documents? Mr. Garcia. Sir, we brought bank certifications stipulating details and ending balances as required in the subpoena for five (5) of these accounts. Mr. Custodio. Will you please state into the record what bank accounts you brought documents on? Mr. Garcia. For the record, we have brought documents certifying balances as of the end of the years indicated for Account Nos. 089-12101195-7, 089-12102168-1, 089-12102012-2, 089-12101959-3, 089-12101735-8. Mr. Custodio. May I see, Mr. Witness, the documents? All right. May we, Your Honor, mark the ending statement for Account No. 089-12101195-7 for the year December 31, 2007, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. There is no identification made by the witness yet, Your Honor. Marking is premature. Mr. Custodio. May I see? Mr. Cuevas. He merely brought papers, but he is now concluding that there— The Presiding Officer. Is there a document that— Mr. Custodio. It was referred to already, Your Honor, that is why. Mr. Cuevas. No. But he merely— The Presiding Officer. Counsel, just a minute. What was your question to the witness? Mr. Custodio. I was already going to ask that this Certification identified already by the witness to be marked. That was all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Certification? Mr. Custodio. Yes. He identified bank certifications for the five (5) accounts that he read into the records for the particular years of December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

49

The Presiding Officer. Is that bank certification in writing? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It is a document? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Will you describe it into the record? Mr. Custodio. May I have, Mr. Witness, the bank certification showing the ending statement or balance for Account No. 089-12101195-7 as of December 31, 2007? Witness showing the document, Your Honor. This is a Bank Certification of a PSBank Katipunan dated February 7, 2012, certifying among others that the balance as of December 31, 2007 of Account No. 089-12101195-7 for, again I will repeat, December 31, 2007 in the name of Renato Coronado Corona is P5,018,255.26. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, the Witness is already— The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Five million what? Mr. Custodio. Five million eighteen thousand two hundred fifty five-point twenty-six (P5,018,225.26). That is the balance as of December 31. The Presiding Officer. Is that in pesos? Mr. Custodio. Pesos. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. As of December 31— Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court. Counsel is already testifying. We wanted to subject him to cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. He is just reading the certification. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely. Our first objection, Your Honor, is the best evidence will be the document. And let the witness testify. We are not preventing them from presenting evidence but let it be adduced by question and answer, Your Honor, not by manifestation of Counsel. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. May I say something, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Counsel, ask the question and then let the witness answer. Mr. Cuevas. We therefore move to strike out any and all manifestations made by the lawyer, Your Honor, because it may deceive the public, Your Honor. This is not evidence presented but manifestation made evidence. This is violative of all the rules, revolutionizing the law and evidence.

50

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, we were just following the suggestion of the Honorable Presiding Judge to read and identify the document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The understanding of the Chair is that the Counsel for the Prosecution has with him a document called Bank Certification bearing Account No. 09121011957. And he read the bank balance as of a certain year. That is what he did, he was describing the document. Let the manifestation remain. Mr. Custodio. Counter-manifestation, Your Honor. That was pursuant to the suggestion of the Court that I identify particularly the document. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Mr. Custodio. I was merely complying with the— The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Your Honor. May I request that it be marked as “WWWWWW”. Mr. Witness, do you have the bank certification showing the ending balance for Account No. 089121011957 for the year December 31, 2008? The Presiding Officer. Will you repeat the— Mr. Custodio. Same account number, Your Honor, 089-121011957. The Presiding Officer. The same account number? Mr. Custodio. Same account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. Do you have the bank certification showing the balance for that account as of December 31, 2008? Mr. Garcia. Yes, we have, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Witness, Your Honor, giving to Counsel a Bank Certification from the PSBank Katipunan dated February 7, 2002. The Presiding Officer. Just ask him—direct a question based on that document. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Direct questions to the witness based on that document. Mr. Custodio. This is the bank certification that I asked you to present, Mr. Witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. May we just respectfully request that it be marked as “XXXXXX”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. Do you have, Mr. Witness, the bank certification showing the ending balance for this particular account of December 31, 2009?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

51

Mr. Garcia. We have the bank certification for Account No. 189121011957 as of December 31, 2009. Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, may we ask permission to allow one of our lawyers, Attorney Manalo, Your Honor, to be able to get to the witness and examine the document. The Presiding Officer. Granted. The witness was asked about a bank balance of his account for what year? Mr. Custodio. For 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what is the answer of the witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, we have a certification for that account for the year 2009. The Presiding Officer. So next question. Mr. Custodio. We would just like to mark first, Your Honor, as “YYYYYY” this bank certification for that account, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, do you have another bank certification for that same account? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, may I be recognized. Mr. President, may I be recognized? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan is recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. How much is the ending balance in 2008, if I may ask? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the balance as of 2008 is zero. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kaya pala ayaw mong tanungin. The Presiding Officer. Your know, Counsel, I think there is a certain amount of fairness that must be done here. You have to be truthful in the presentation of the document. You are ordered to do so. Mr. Custodio. We will comply, Your Honor. Do you have, for the record—in compliance with Senator-Judge— the account balance for that particular account for December 31, 2009 is zero? The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Garcia. We have a certification on this account and it likewise indicates, and if I may explain, a zero balance because a zero balance here indicates the account had already been closed. Mr. Custodio. Oh, I see, okay. So— Mr. Garcia. So in the interest of probably— The Presiding Officer. Let the witness continue. What is your answer? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, we have and the balance is zero. The Presiding Officer. All right.

52

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Custodio. Do you have with you, Mr. Witness, the bank certification showing the ending balance for Account No. 089-121021681 for the year December 31, 2007? Mr. Garcia. For the year 2007, we certify that for Account 0891121021681, we have no bank record because this account is not existing. Mr. Custodio. Will you go to your records again and— The Presiding Officer. Let me understand the answer of the witness. This account is nonexistent? Mr. Garcia. As of this particular date, 2007, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Nonexistent. Mr. Garcia. Nonexistent because it had not yet been opened. There is no such account. For that particular year. If I may explain, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. I will ask you. I will ask it. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. And why was this account included in the request for a subpoena by the Prosecution if it is non-existent? Mr. Custodio. It has not yet been opened, I believe, is the answer of the witness. So may I go to the succeeding years, Mr.— The Presiding Officer. I just want to clarify this because this Presiding Officer was the one who signed the subpoena upon a request of the Prosecution. Where did you base your request for the subpoena that included an unopened account? And how did this account number invent itself to be presented to this Presiding Officer on a request for a subpoena? Senator Drilon. Mr. Chairman, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes? Senator Drilon. Yes. Can we ask questions just to clarify matters? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. You said, Mr. Witness, that this particular Account 089121021681 was not existing as of December 31, 2007. When did it start to exist? Mr. Garcia. Sir, Your Honor, this particular Account 089121021681 had an existing balance as of December 31, 2010. Senator Drilon. How much is the existing balance as of December 31, 2010? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the balance as of December 31 was P7,148,238.83. Senator Drilon. …Seven million one hundred forty-eight thousand … Mr. Garcia. Two hundred and thirty-eight pesos and eighty-three centavos. Senator Drilon. And? Mr. Garcia. Two hundred thirty-eight pesos and eighty-three centavos.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

53

Senator Drilon. What type of account is this? Is this a checking account? This is a time deposit? What is it? Mr. Garcia. This is ah—I am sorry, Your Honor, we were not—we just followed the subpoena. We were not requested to provide the details so I did not bring it. Senator Drilon. You mean, you did not— Mr. Garcia. But it is a peso… Senator Drilon. Yes, this is a peso account. This is a peso account. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Senator Drilon. The question is, what is it, a savings account, a time deposit account, a checking account? Mr. Garcia. As we have prepared the Certification, Sir, it is—we had—I am so—we apologize, we have not indicated. The Presiding Officer. May I clarify. The Chair frankly is confused about this thing. This account that we are talking about Account 089-121021681, had an ending balance as of December 31st 2010, correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about in 2009? Mr. Garcia. No such account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2008? Mr. Garcia. None, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2007? Mr. Garcia. None, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2006? Mr. Garcia. I cannot say, Your Honor, because we just— The Presiding Officer. When was this account opened? Mr. Garcia. This account was opened, Your Honor, sometime in the year 2010. The Presiding Officer. So, it was only—it existed only since 2010? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What month in 2010? Mr. Garcia. I apologize, Your Honor, we did not bring those details because we just followed the subpoena, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So, it is clear that it existed only in 2010? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

54

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Presiding Officer. So, it must be prior to December 31st that it was opened? Mr. Garcia. Prior to or on—we cannot say. The Presiding Officer. Prior to December 31st 2010? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may I respectfully request that the document identified by the witness, showing the ending balance for the year—December 31, 2010 for Account No. 089-121021681 be marked as “ZZZZZZ”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. I did not get the kuwan—the balance. Did you say the balance? Ha? No, what is being marked, Your Honor, it is not clear to us. Mr. Custodio. The bank certification dated February 7, 2012. Mr. Cuevas. So, the certification itself? Mr. Custodio. The certification itself. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you— The Presiding Officer. The bank certification was marked already as an exhibit, correct? Mr. Custodio. Not this particular one, Mr. President. This is new. The Presiding Officer. Not with this particular account? Mr. Custodio. Not for this account for that particular year, Mr. President. So that was only for December 31, 2010, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Custodio. May I move on, Mr. President? Mr. Witness, can you refer to your records and tell us when Account No. 089-121020122 was opened? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Sir, I do not have that information right now because we only prepared the documents as required under the subpoena which stipulates balances as of the end of each year. Mr. Custodio. All right. Fair enough.

Do you have, Mr. Witness, the bank certification showing the ending balance of Account No. 089121020122 for December 31, 2007? Mr. Cuevas. Misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2000 what? Mr. Custodio. ‘07, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

55

Mr. Cuevas. Misleading. The Presiding Officer. May answer, may answer. You are asking for 2007? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Garcia. For Account No. 089121020122 for the year 2007, this account had not yet been opened. Mr. Custodio. How about— Mr. Garcia. We have no bank record. Mr. Custodio. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Not yet opened. Mr. Cuevas. No bank record. Mr. Custodio. How about, Mr. Witness, for December 31, 2008, do you have an ending balance? Mr. Cuevas. May we request the witness, Your Honor, to kindly speak a little louder so we can comprehend the question and the answer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So what is your objection? Mr. Cuevas. No objection, Your Honor, I am just requesting that he be asked to talk louder, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is true. Mr. Cuevas. We cannot— The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, will you kindly speak clearly and a little louder because you are really mumbling. Mr. Garcia. I apologize, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Oo. Kinakain mo ‘yung words mo, eh. Hindi namin naintindihan. Mr. Garcia. For Account No. 089121020122, we have no record as of December 31, 2007. Mr. Custodio. Do you have, Mr. Witness, the bank certification showing the ending balance for this account for December 31, 2009? Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor, because the witness— The Presiding Officer. 2009 or 2008? Mr. Custodio. 2008. Mr. Cuevas. But the witness stated they have no record whatsoever, Your Honor. So there is no enough basis.

56
Mr. Custodio. They have no records for the year 2007. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, let it be listed.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. He started with 2007. Then he went to 2008. Then, are you talking of 2009 now? Mr. Custodio. 2008, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2008. You may answer. Mr. Garcia. For the year 2008, Your Honor, for this particular account, we have no bank record. Mr. Custodio. All right. Will you look at your records again and tell us if there is a bank certification showing the— The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Witness, do you have a bank record for this account in 2008? Mr. Garcia. We have no bank record, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In 2009? Mr. Garcia. We have a certification here for 2009 for this account that at the end of the year, as required by the subpoena, Your honor, there is zero balance. The Presiding Officer. Zero balance? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2010? Mr. Garcia. For 2010, also zero balance. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. All right. Let us move to the next account, Mr. Witness. The Presiding Officer. Tapos. Mr. Custodio. For Account No.—Thank you, Mr. President. For Account No. 089-121019593? Mr. Garcia. For the Account No. 089121019593, we have no bank record as of December 31, 2007. The Presiding Officer. In other words, you do not—as far as your record is concerned, this bank account does not exist? Mr. Garcia. If I may, Your Honor. It does not exist as of 2007… The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Garcia. …as of 2008, as required by the subpoena. However, as of 2009, we do have a record of this bank account.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

57

The Presiding Officer. What was the bank balance of that account in 2008? Mr. Garcia. As of 2008, Your Honor, there was no such bank record. The Presiding Officer. 2009? Mr. Garcia. But as of 2009, we have a record, a balance of P8,500,000. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. May I respectfully request that the bank certification be marked as Exhibit “AAAAAAA”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. Can we wait for the marking, Your Honor? We request that it be marked as “AAAAAAA”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly, bank balance for Account 089121019593 as of December 31, 2009. Correct, Witness? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, P8,500,000 as of 2009. The Presiding Officer. As of what year? Mr. Garcia. 2009, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Custodio. For December 31, 2010, Mr. Witness, can you tell us if there is any ending balance for that particular account? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, I can. For the year ending December 31, 2010, the balance of Account 089121019593 was P12,580,316.56. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may we respectfully request the bank certification identified by the witness and being read from as “BBBBBBB”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How about 2011? Mr. Custodio. We did not subpoena that document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. So you did not subpoena the records for 2011, only 2010. Mr. Custodio. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. May we respectfully request, as requested earlier, bank certification of February 7, 2012 as “BBBBBBB”, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Of the same account? Mr. Custodio. Your Honor. Of the same account, Your Honor, 089121019593. The same account,

58
The Presiding Officer. And the bank certification is as of what? Mr. Custodio. December 31, 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2010. Go ahead. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Witness, can you look at your records now and see the ending balance as of December 31, 2007, if any, for Account No. 089-121017358? Mr. Garcia. We have no such record, Sir, as of December 2007. Mr. Custodio. How about the next year, December 31, 2008? Mr. Garcia. No such record for Account 358. Mr. Custodio. How about December 31, 2009? Mr. Garcia. As of December 31, 2009, there is no balance of an account that was previously opened. Mr. Custodio. Does that bank certification show when it was opened? Mr. Garcia. No, Sir, because the subpoena actually only requires us to indicate balances as of the end of that year. Mr. Custodio. But if it was not opened the year prior, it would have been opened on that year? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. No, just ask the question. That is a speculative question. Direct the question. Do you know when that account was opened? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor, not at this time because the— The Presiding Officer. Is that account existing in your record? Mr. Garcia. As of December 31, 2009, the account had already been closed. It has no balance. The Presiding Officer. But the question is, why was it in your account if it was not opened at all? Mr. Garcia. It was opened, Your Honor, sometime in December 2009. But the subpoena requires us to just stipulate the balances of this account as of the end of 2009, December 31, 2009. That is why we— The Presiding Officer. As of that date, December 31, 2009, it has a zero balance? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Do I get it to mean, Mr. Witness, that there is no record for the following year, December 31, 2010?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

59

Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Garcia. There is no record for December 31, 2010 because their account had already been closed. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may I make a manifestation and motion, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. What is the manifestation about? Mr. Custodio. The witness had earlier testified or stated that he was unable or did not bring to this Tribunal the opening documents and the certifications showing the year-end balances of several other accounts, Your Honor. And may I— The Presiding Officer. What are those accounts? Mr. Custodio. May I read for the record, Your Honor, that the accounts that the witness says he did not bring records on are: Number one, 089-191000373. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Number two, 089-13100282-6; Number three— The Presiding Officer. Dash 6 or 26? Mr. Custodio. Two six (26), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Be careful with the way you ask your question. Mr. Custodio. Number three, Your Honor, Account No. 089-141-00712-9. The Presiding Officer. Dash 9 or 29? Mr. Custodio. Two nine (29), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why are you using “Dash Nine” (-9)? Mr. Custodio. Because there is a dash in the account number, Your Honor. But the number, read sequentially, would read “089-14100712-9.” Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, with the kind permission of the Honorable Court, the manifestation is not totally correct, Your Honor. When the witness stated he does not have with him the documents asked for is because it does not exist. That is the statement of the witness. That is your manifestation. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The Request for Subpoena identified this account as 089-141007129, and you are giving us another account with a dash. Explain. Mr. Custodio. It is the same account, Your Honor, except that the dash was in the original records but does not appear in the subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. How did you happen—how did the Prosecution get these numbers which are totally different from the account numbers in the bank?

60

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. Custodio. May I clarify, Your Honor? They are not different. They are the same numbers. May I read it again, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, at this juncture since this is— The Presiding Officer. No, no, wait a minute. Do not interrupt please. Go ahead. Mr. Custodio. I would like to read the several accounts that the— The Presiding Officer. No, read the last one that you mentioned. Mr. Custodio. 089-141007129. The Presiding Officer. Not dash nine (-9), huh? Mr. Custodio. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Custodio. And then the other account—I am now reading from the subpoena, Your Honor. 089-141007469. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Next, Your Honor, is 089-141008145. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Custodio. And lastly, Your Honor— The Presiding Officer. Do these numbers correspond with the numbers according to the records of the bank, if you know? Mr. Custodio. That is why we were trying to establish— The Presiding Officer. Just say if you know or you do not know. Mr. Custodio. I do not know for sure, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay. So this is the Request for Subpoena. We use these numbers. Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. And then the last Account Number is 089-121011957, Your Honor, as the last account. The Presiding Officer. I do not have that number. Mr. Custodio. We read, Your Honor, the accounts—Your Honor— May I make a correction, Your Honor, that last account is not included, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The last account was already discussed. Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

61

So, Your Honor, may we now make a manifestation that in view of the failure of the witness to bring the subponaed documents for five (5) accounts, Your Honor, may we ask that the Tribunal direct the witness to present the subpoenaed documents for these five (5) accounts, Your Honor, they being already mentioned in the subpoena earlier issued by this Honorable Tribunal. The Presiding Officer. We have already directed them in the subpoena. Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. But because they have failed to comply with the subpoena, Your Honor, may we invoke the Rules and ask the Honorable Tribunal to take appropriate action to enforce obedience, Your Honor, to the subpoena that was issued. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, why did you not bring the records of the accounts mentioned, the five (5) accounts? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, if I may— The Presiding Officer. No, just tell me. Go directly. Do not beat around the bush. Direct answer. Why? Mr. Garcia. The direct answer, Sir, because we had assessed and determined that the disclosure of these accounts would have exposed us to criminal liability and we, therefore, then sought guidance from the Supreme Court on a petition that we made this morning to provide us that guidance, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu, Senator Osmeña. Senator Osmeña. Thank you. Mr. Witness, these five (5) accounts, are they dollar or peso? Mr. Garcia. They are dollar accounts, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. So you are invoking your right to keep silent because of criminal liability? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have requested the guidance of the Supreme Court and we thought it best that we do not disclose at this particular time anything on the dollar deposits because it would have invoked us to criminal liability. The law on FCDU deposits, Your Honor, specifies that these are absolutely confidential. And if we do disclose without the consent of the depositor, we would have been exposing ourselves to possible criminal liability with an imprisonment of— The Presiding Officer. You ask your—I direct you to ask advice from your Counsel. If I ask you to disclose these accounts, would you do it? (Witness conferring with his Counsel) Mr. Garcia. With much regret, Your Honor, at this time we cannot because we had filed a petition with the Supreme Court earlier. The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I just like to clarify. Sabi ho ng witness, humingi kayo ng guidance sa Supreme Court? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.

62

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Senator Cayetano (A). Ano po ang pinayl (file) ninyo sa Supreme Court? Mr. Garcia. We requested for them to give us a ruling actually. Senator Cayetano (A). Please ano—please be very honest with this Court. Ano ang pinayl (file) ninyo sa Supreme Court at ano ang hiningi nyo? Mr. Garcia. We asked for a temporary restraining order to restrain and protect us—restrain the Court and protect us from having to disclose these documents because we believe that it is— Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I will cut you there. Please be honest with this Court. Ang sinabi mo kasi ano, eh, you are seeking guidance. Kung declaratory relief ang pinayl (file) ninyo, ang ibig sabihin humihingi kayo ng opinion nila at guidance. Ang hiningi ninyo sa kanila TRO at saka injunction. Ibig sabihin may stand na kayo na magiging liable kayo kaya hindi ninyo ilalabas. Magkaiba iyong dalawang iyan. Anyway, we will give you leeway personally because I assume you are not a lawyer— Are you a lawyer? Mr. Garcia. No, Sir. No, I am not a lawyer. Senator Cayetano (A). But please be very honest with this Court. We will let the slight this time because siguro wala kang intensyon na ganyan pero ibang-iba po iyong sinasabi n’yong eto ang stand ng bangko n’yo at ibang-iba na sinasabing humingi kayo ng guidance. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. Gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a manifestation because I think the witness mentioned that because of their fear of incurring criminal liability, they refused to bring the documents as subpoenaed. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia. We are refrained from doing so, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. Because of fear of criminal liability? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir, because of understanding of the FCDU Law stipulates such. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Well, under the Revised Penal Code, just for the information, Article Xl, Chapter II, Justifying Circumstances. And if I may quote: “The following do not incur any criminal liability: “x x x 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.” Perhaps they may reconsider their position given these justifying circumstances under the Revised Penal Code. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Taguig.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

63

Senator Cayetano (P). I would just like to direct my questions to the witness. Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you are not a lawyer? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And do I understand correctly that you made your decision not to bring the subpoenaed documents upon advice of your Counsel? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). So if you were advised by Counsel or Counsels that you would not be violating the law, then you would submit to this Honorable Court. Mr. Garcia. I believe so, yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). So the reason you do not have it right now is upon that advice, you now decided that you will go to the Supreme Court on certiorari? Mr. Garcia. The advice— Senator Cayetano (P). And commit— Mr. Garcia. Sorry, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Please proceed. Mr. Garcia. The advice of our Counsel is by so doing, we will open ourselves to possible violation of this law which includes criminal liability. And on the basis of that advice, we made a decision not to… Senator Cayetano (P). But is it also true, Mr. Witness, that you made a distinction between the local accounts, the peso accounts? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). And you brought them because of your belief that you are not violating any law. Do I follow your logic? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Yes, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, I would have covered that in an opening statement that I had earlier wanted to make but unfortunately I was not allowed to do so. We would have explained that there are two laws governing deposits: one for peso deposits and another for foreign currency deposits. And for the peso deposits, while there is secrecy of bank deposits and confidentiality, it clearly stipulates that the exception to this rule actually is by the Order of the Impeachment Court. And because of that, we have therefore complied and we have offered it to this Body. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes, let me—We are aware because we have debated this quite lengthily in caucus and we have come to our own conclusions which is why we have asked you to produce those documents. I think this will be my final question. Were you also advised that based on the Resolution of this Impeachment Court wherein you were required to produce those documents that there is also possibility of you being held in contempt? Mr. Garcia. Yes, we were also advised, Your Honor.

64

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Senator Cayetano (P). I just want to be sure the witness is properly advised. And one last point. On the criminal liability that you mentioned, does that liability expose the witness as in his capacity as president, the officers or can you—what is your understanding of the law? Mr. Garcia. My understanding of the law is anyone who violates it, whether they be employees, bank president who discloses information with respect to foreign currency deposit units violates such law which is so stringent. It only allows as an exception, as we understand the law, the express, written consent of the depositor. And in this particular case, we do not have any such exception. We are confronted with this law, we understand our liability. And if I may add, Your Honor. We are confronted and as I am confronted today with those two possibilities. First, the— The Presiding Officer. Anyway… Senator Cayetano (P). One last question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. … you did not bring the records? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor, we did not. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I have one last question. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Cayetano (P). I would just like to ask, His Honor, finally. Did Counsel also explain to you the provisions of the Constitution that the Impeachment Court has the sole authority to try impeachment cases? Mr. Garcia. Yes. The Counsel did explain that and we understand that there is this conflict between the law and the requirements of the Impeachment Court and it will expose us to criminal liability and that is the reason why we ask for guidance from the Supreme Court, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Osmeña wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. Senator Osmeña. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. President. Just for clarification, may I address my question to the Prosecutor? We are a little bit confused. We counted 14 accounts that were subpoenaed from PSBank. Do you have the list in front of you, Attorney? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor. The subpoena lists 10 accounts, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Ten? Not 14. Mr. Custodio. Not 14, Your Honor. Our request was 14, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Yes. Mr. Custodio. But the subpoena that came out only lists 10 accounts. Senator Osmeña. All right. Thank you very much.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

65

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. The witness, Your Honor, stated that he did not bring five (5) accounts which are all dollar accounts because of his belief and his own interpretation of the law that is exposed to criminal liability. That matter, Your Honor, is a matter that they can pursue in the Courts, if they want. But insofar as this Court is concerned, there is a subpoena for the witness to bring these accounts. There is no TRO issued. And even if there is a TRO issued, we reserve our judgment on that. But that is beside the point at this point. The important thing is the witness was required by this Court to bring these documents for his own reasons, valid or not, he said: “No, I did not bring them.” We, therefore, Mr. President, moved that this witness be required to explain in writing, not later than 12 noon tomorrow, why he should not be declared in contempt of this Court and to come back at 2 o’clock tomorrow with the documents. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. As I have told the Prosecution before, I once sat in that Prosecution table. In the Impeachment Complaint of President Estrada, we requested and the Senate issued various subpoenas. Everyone complied on the peso account. When Citibank was subpoenaed, the representative of Citibank appeared but said in a polite but firm manner that insofar as foreign currency accounts are concerned, they cannot produce it because of the Foreign Currency Law where there is absolute confidentiality. The Senate then did not impose a penalty on the Citibank representative. I do not know, I do not remember his name but the records of that proceedings would show that. Now, I just want to show that in treating this, we should also be guided by precedents. There is a precedent in the trial of President Estrada. Are we going to disregard that precedent? I thought that practice—any ruling made either by the Senate sitting as a Senate and the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Body will have to honor past precedents. Now, we have reached the point where there is now a proposition that the witness may explain why he should not be cited for contempt. I said we did not go that far in 2001. The witness has explained that he is between the devil and the deep blue sea, namely: the dilemma is, if he complies with the order of the Senate, he and the officers of the bank run the risk of being sued criminally and that imprisonment could follow. On the other hand, there is the proposition here that the orders of the Impeachment Court must be followed. So, the question now is, which one is the witness bound to follow? In a situation like this, we should grant to the witness some consideration. Consideration that he is saying that he is faced, confronted with a dilemma. If that is so, are we so crude as to now say, “You follow us regardless of what the consequences are for you because that is our command.” Have we reached that point? I am asking the Senate because I experienced already that one—that issue. “If you dare disobey, we will cite you for contempt.” The witness is now a victim of circumstances. He is not in bad faith, he is in good faith. He is faced with a problem. Which one is he to follow, the law on foreign currency deposits which imposes a penalty of imprisonment or the command of the Senate? I submit, Mr. President, because this is a problem which we should take I think with a little more circumspection and with certain degree of prudence. Thank you.

66

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Under the rules—there was a motion and I take the statement of the gentleman from Iloilo in the nature of a motion to ask this witness to explain why he should not be cited for contempt or punished for contempt in not complying with the order of this Court. Another member of this Court, the gentleman from Makati, took an opposite position which is, to me, a form of objection to the motion. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Then, in that case— Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I offer a... The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. ...may I offer a middle ground, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Let us cross the bridge when we get there. We can accept the motion of Senator Drilon that the witness be asked to explain until 12 noon tomorrow. Let us decide later on... The Presiding Officer. Yes. But the— Senator Sotto. ...based on his explanation what to do and not hover a sword of Damocles as manifested by Senator Arroyo. Well, if that could amend the motion of Senator Drilon, I hope so, Mr. President, and if he will accept. The Presiding Officer. But the tendency of the motion is actually to ask the witness to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. There is an objection. And under the Rules, we have to divide the house on this issue. Senator Drilon. In fact, Your Honor— The Presiding Officer. Huh? Senator Drilon. In fact—may I just make a manifestation? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Drilon. We have not decided to cite the witness in contempt. For all we know, after he submits his written explanation, we will find it valid and sustain his position and therefore there is no contempt citation. But he must go on record and he must be required to explain, as we discussed it earlier, why he should not be cited in contempt and submit a written explanation and we decide. For all we know, I would repeat, we may not even cite him in contempt when we find his explanation plausible and valid. The Presiding Officer. Precisely. If we find his explanation not plausible, not acceptable, then perforce, we will be compelled to cite him for contempt and that is precisely the understanding of the Chair that there is an objection to that. Senator Drilon. Yes. And that is precisely, Your Honor. Yes, the Chair is correct, Your Honor, because this is a compulsory process. We must stand by our compulsory process. We have subpoenaed the witness. He has not complied with the subpoena. We want to know why he has

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

67

not complied with the subpoena. And if we find his explanation valid, then so be it. It is valid. But if he does not, we do not find his explanation valid, then he is deemed in violation of the orders of this Court and we can cite him for contempt. The Presiding Officer. But there is an objection to that motion and so therefore the Chair cannot resolve that issue himself. Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That has to be resolved by the House—by the Impeachment Court as a Body. Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The gentleman from Makati. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Arroyo and then Senator Recto, Mr. President. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Gentleman from Makati. Senator Arroyo. What I said was not even an objection. I was presenting a situationer, a situationer where— The Presiding Officer. Let me just clarify. Are you offering an objection to the position taken by the distinguished gentleman from Iloilo? Senator Arroyo. I will yield the floor first to Senator Recto because he is insistent, without prejudice to my— Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Recto, Mr. President, and then Senator Arroyo afterwards. Senator Recto. Thank you, Majority Leader. Just a clarification, Mr. President. The witness here is representing an institution. I do not think that we should cite him for contempt, if at all. After all, it is the policy, I suppose, of the bank. I do not think that the witness asked the legal officers of the bank to prepare a TRO with the Supreme Court— to ask for a TRO with the Supreme Court. It is the policy of the board of directors. So I think it is very difficult to talk about contempting or citing in contempt the witness. Because the Board’s position, I suppose, in this case is that FCDUs cannot be opened. That is the position of the bank, not of the witness, I suppose. So, let me clarify with the witness, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Recto. Yes. Mr. Witness, did your bank have a board meeting before you testifying in this Impeachment Trial? Mr. Garcia. For purposes of this Impeachment Trial, Sir, no.

68
Senator Recto. No? Mr. Garcia. No, Sir.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Senator Recto. Not even for you—no discussion in the bank with regard to you bringing this document as subpoenaed by the Impeachment Court. Mr. Garcia. With the Board, Your Honor, no. Senator Recto. No. So, was it you, as president of the bank, was it your decision to come here and not to bring the subpoenaed documents? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. It is just your personal position. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, because it exposes me personally to that criminal liability. Senator Recto. Okay. Did you cause also the legal officers of your bank to file with the Supreme Court? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Recto. As president of the bank? Mr. Garcia. As president and in my personal capacity, Your Honor, because the criminal liability will be imposed upon me and not upon— Senator Recto. Well, I suppose, Mr. President, that clarifies the issue and, therefore, maybe the witness should come back tomorrow and explain to this Impeachment Court the position of the witness. The Presiding Officer. But still, there is a pending matter to be decided by this Impeachment Court. Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Joker Arroyo before I insist on my amendment to Senator Drilon? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I heard the witness say—Can you tell me—you said that you are concerned for—how many depositors in your bank? Mr. Garcia. We have 600,000 depositors, Your Honor. And as I speak, I believe I speak likewise for 1.6 million dollar depositors of other banks as well who will all be covered by this decision. Senator Arroyo. You mentioned also about your employees. How many employees do you have? Mr. Garcia. We have 2,693 employees, Your Honor, and each of them would be exposed. Senator Arroyo. I hope that the Senate will not be so unconcerned about 600,000 depositors and 2,000—How many? Mr. Garcia. Two thousand six hundred and ninety-three … Senator Arroyo. Employees.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

69

Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I presented myself precisely— Senator Arroyo. No, no. In fact, what impressed me with your appearance is that what we subpoenaed was simply—whom do we subpoenaed, by the way? The branch manager. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. Now, you explained that because of the gravity of the subpoena, as president, you came here. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, I did. Senator Arroyo. All right. So this is the problem that we have and I would like to say that by coming here, you did not want your branch manager to be the one exposed. Mr. Garcia. Precisely, Your Honor. I do believe that as a leader of the bank and as I understand and appreciate that all of our employees, including the branch manager, would be exposed to risk of imprisonment upon disclosure, I precisely came here and presented myself to offer myself as an alternative to them. Because I am the leader of the bank, I do not want anyone of our employees to be exposed to this particular liability. If there is any liability at all, let it be me. Senator Arroyo. So if that is the case, Mr. President, I have said my piece. Let the Senate do its worth. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Drilon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. All right. Just to settle this issue, Mr. President, we will just require this witness to submit his written explanation. Tomorrow afternoon, in caucus we decide whether or not his act is contemptuous. So we do not have—but, you know, the Majority Leader has requested that we amend the motion. If that is acceptable, then we so request that this witness be required to explain his action. And then, we have a caucus tomorrow and we decide what to do with this witness. The Presiding Officer. That is precisely the problem of the Chair. Because the moment we require this witness to submit a written explanation, then we have to make a decision in the caucus. And if we find that his explanation is not acceptable to us, then necessarily, this Chair will have to cite him for contempt. And I am sure that the Court will cite him for contempt. And there is an objection in— I do not know whether it was an objection but the Chair has the impression that it is an objection requiring the witness to make an explanation. That is my understanding of the position of the gentleman from Makati and Bicol. So that is why the Chair cannot decide this issue. It is a major issue and I have to submit it to the House for a division of the house. Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. If I heard Sen. Joker Arroyo correctly, he said it was not an objection. And he can confirm or deny that but we thought that we heard him say, it is not an objection. In any case— The Presiding Officer. So it is not an objection? May I request the gentleman from Makati to state it into the record? Senator Arroyo. Well, frankly, Mr. President, I do not know whether to call that an objection or a manifestation or an observation. But my colleague seemed to be in a hurry to crucify this witness.

70

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Here is a witness who came here in obedience to our subpoena. He did not come here—His testimony is not in bad faith. Look at this witness. Is he acting in bad faith? What he is saying only is that he has to protect the bank, the depositors and whatever. But what is the response of the Senate? To cite him to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. Is his action so far contemptuous? Let me ask you: Is his action so far contemptuous? That is the question. Because I do not want to be explaining here and defending that—You know, the moment you speak here and you say something which might favor the Respondent, you are pro-Corona. That is our problem. But I have to say it because we have to observe at all times the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. That in the Bill of Rights, every second of it can be availed of, whether a person is good or bad can avail of it. Now this person is in effect asking that: “Why am I being punished? Have I done anything contemptuous?” If you are in a hurry, I give up. Senator Sotto. No—Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader? Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President, on the contrary, we are not. And as accepted by the proponent or the movant I think it is clear. So may I call for a previous question, Mr. President, as amended, that the witness explain by tomorrow 12 noon, give an explanation of why he did not bring the other accounts. The Presiding Officer. Just an explanation? Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Was that satisfactory to the proponent of the— Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, the witness is required to submit an explanation why he was not able to bring the records as requested by this—was ordered by this Court in the subpoena. This is not a show cause order. The order to you is just to submit an explanation, a written explanation to this Court. So ordered. Senator Sotto. May we ask the witness to appear tomorrow? The Presiding Officer. Yes. And the witness is ordered to appear in the hearing tomorrow afternoon at two o’clock. Senator Sotto. Yes. And may we know from the Prosecution if they are through with their direct examination? Mr. Custodio. No, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

71

Senator Sotto. You are not. Mr. President, because of the lateness of the hour, may we suspend the direct examination and continue tomorrow? The Presiding Officer. Direct examination suspended. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may we make a motion, Your Honor, and that is to save on time, Your Honor. Just in case the Tribunal decides to compel the witness to bring the records, Your Honor, so that we would be able to terminate our direct examination tomorrow that this witness now be directed to bring with him the subpoenaed documents for the dollar accounts so that we can continue with our direct examination tomorrow, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We have already issued the subpoena and we are asking him to explain why he did not bring the record according to the subpoena. That is the decision of this Court. Senator Sotto. Yes. May I have— Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Thank you. With that, Mr. President, may we do just— The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. The gentleman from Pampanga, what is your pleasure? Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, just a clarification regarding the documents that will be forwarded. Because the subpoena requested for bank documents, particularly ending balance from 2007 to 2010 of the different accounts that the witness already testified to. My question, Mr. President, is that there are some accounts that were zero all throughout, but it appears like in the middle of the year, there were some bank transactions. So my inquiry, Mr. President, is, just to complete the picture, should we not access those documents in these accounts not ending balance December 31 but perhaps those accounts that were zero, the monthly balances? This is an inquiry, Mr. President. I leave it to the wisdom of the Chamber to decide on the matter. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I just remind the distinguished gentleman that we resolved that during the caucus. And that was decided on already that anything that is not in parallel with the 31st of December of any particular year will not be related to the SALN. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. We submit, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President, there is a very urgent matter that we have to resolve also. We have a Resolution that we would like to read for the record, just the pertinent portions. This is

72

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

a request of the Prosecution to subpoena members of the Supreme Court. And this Resolution of the Court resolves the request for issuance of subpoena requiring Hon. Martin Villarama Jr., Hon. Maria Lourdes Sereno, Hon. Bienvenido Reyes and Hon. Presbitero Velasco, all Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, to appear and testify as well as bring before this Court the pertinent records in their possession relative to AM No. 11101-SC, letters of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines. The stated purpose of the subpoena is to require the above-named Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to testify on the participation of Chief Justice Renato Corona in October 4, 2011 Supreme Court En Banc session, specifically in the deliberations of the letters. The Court resolves, as I have— The Presiding Officer. No, wait a minute. Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The Chair prepared a written Resolution of this issue. And it is best that it be read in toto into the record for the information of the public. Senator Sotto. Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. President, may we do that tomorrow or would you want us to read the Resolution in toto now? The Presiding Officer. Right now. We will wait. We can finish until eight o’clock. The Chair orders the reading of that Resolution. Let the Clerk of Court read the Resolution. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. Before we do that, Mr. President, there is a request by a member of the Court to just ask a few questions to the witness if we will allow. Senator Osmeña wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu. You may proceed. Senator Osmeña. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to address some clarificatory questions of the witness. Mr. Garcia, the PSBank is a subsidiary of MetroBank, correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. How many percent of the stocks of PSBank does MetroBank own or the holding company that MetroBank uses? Mr. Garcia. MetroBank has around 76 percent, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. So MetroBank is in effect the owner of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Senator Osmeña. Now, you are under oath. Did you talk with Mr. George Ty before you came? Mr. Garcia. No, I did not.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

73

Senator Osmeña. Did you talk with Mr. Arthur Ty? Mr. Garcia. I did, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. You did. Mr. Arthur Ty is the new Chief Executive Officer of MetroBank. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. Senator Osmeña. Is he also the Chairman of the Management Committee of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. He is Vice-Chairman of the Board, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. Who is the Chair of the Management or Executive Committee of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. The Executive Committee, Sir? The Executive Committee actually would be Mr. Arthur Ty. Senator Osmeña. Mr. …? Mr. Garcia. Arthur Ty. Senator Osmeña. Arthur Ty. That is what I asked you earlier he was Chair of the Executive or Management Committee. All right. So you did confer with Mr. Arthur Ty. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. And Mr. Arthur Ty owns 74 percent of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmeña. In effect, when you are talking to Mr. Arthur Ty, you are talking to 74 percent of the Board of Directors of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. In that aspect I … Senator Osmeña. In a manner of speaking. Mr. Garcia. In a manner of speaking, … Senator Osmeña. He is the boss. Mr. Garcia. He is the boss. Senator Osmeña. He is the boss. All right. So therefore, you are taking the fall for PSBank and the Board of Directors. In other words, I am asking the Senate to consider subpoenaing the Board of PSBank to produce the documents. So now it will not only be you who will be cited or who would be in danger of being cited for contempt of the Impeachment Court, it would be the entire Board of PSBank. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, there is a pending matter. I would like suspend the trial for one long minute. The trial was suspended at 6:50 p.m.

74
At 6:55 p. m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The Clerk of Court is directed to read the Resolution on the Request for Subpoena against Justices of the Supreme Court and including the Court records. The witness is discharged in the meantime, with an instruction to return tomorrow at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. The Secretary. RESOLUTION. This resolves the Request for Issuance of Subpoena requiring Hon. Martin S. Villarama Jr., Hon. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Hon. Bienvenido L. Reyes and Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, all Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to appear and testify, as well as bring before this Court the “pertinent records in their possession relative to A.M. No. 11-10-1Supreme Court (Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: G.R. No. 178083, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) versus Philippine Airlines Inc., et. al., in the en banc session of the Supreme Court on October 4, 2011.” The stated purpose of the Subpoena is to require the above-named Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to “testify on the participation of Chief Justice Renato Corona in October 4, 2011 Supreme Court en banc session specifically in the deliberations of A.M. No. 1110-1 SC (Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: G.R. 178083, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) versus Philippine Airlines Incorporated, et al., and the action that was made by the Supreme Court relative to such case.” The Court resolves to DENY the request. Section 2, Rule 10 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides: SEC. 2. Confidentiality of court sessions. — Court sessions are executive in character, with only the Members of the Court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the Court. The Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson shall record the action or actions taken in each for transmittal to the Clerk of Court or Division Clerk of Court after each session. The notes of the Chief Justice and the Division Chairperson, which the Clerk of Court and the Division Clerks of Court must treat with strict confidentiality, shall be the basis of the Minutes of the sessions. It is, therefore, unequivocal from the above rule that the sessions of the Supreme Court are executive in character with only the Members of the Supreme Court present and that the deliberations therein are confidential. The intention of the request for subpoena is to require the abovenamed Members of the Supreme Court to bring before this Court documents relative to their deliberation on a particular case and testify on their deliberation specifically the participation of the Respondent Chief Justice in such deliberation.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

75

This Court cannot do so without transgressing the basic constitutional principle of separation of powers. This Court is bound to respect the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court which is a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court was promulgated in accordance with the rule making power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to: Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. The only constitutionally recognized limitation of the rule making power of the Supreme Court is that it must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights, which is basically the function of Congress considering that the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court is a consequence of its rule making power, this Court should not attempt to undermine the efficacy of an act of a co-equal branch of government. Therefore, for this Court to issue subpoena in order to require the Members of the Supreme Court to testify on their deliberations which are confidential according to its Rules is to make this Court omniscient over a co-equal department which will run afoul of the tripartite system of government and thereby dilute the well entrenched constitutional principle of separation of powers. This argument is not without justification. The Congress does not have the power to amend the Rules of Court. Unlike the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions where it was specifically provided that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court may be “repealed, altered or supplemented” by Congress, no similar provision appears in the 1987 Constitution. This will show that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress. The Supreme Court categorically ruled in Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice: The rule-making power of this Court was expanded. This Court for the first time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. B u t most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. But while the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions provide that Congress has the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules of court, said power, however, is not as absolute as it may appear on its surface. In re: Cunanan Congress in the exercise of its power to amend rules of the Supreme Court regarding admission to the practice of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 which considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in the bar examination after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar examinations. The Supreme

76

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. Justice Diokno held that “x x x the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment—a judgment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments, even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department that may do so. Any attempt on the part of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the law in question.” The venerable jurist further ruled: It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. By said ruling, the Supreme Court qualified the absolutist tone of the power of Congress to “repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. Thus, if the Congress does not have the power to amend the Rules of Court under the 1987 Constitution, by parity of reasoning, this Court does not have the authority to disregard the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its constitutional rule-making power. Respect should be accorded to the rules promulgated by a co-equal branch of government, as Congress expects the same treatment from other branches of government. For instance, the Congress under the Constitution has the power to determine the rules of its proceedings. What stands out from jurisprudence on the subject is that, except for some limitations on details found in the Constitution itself, there is a clear recognition of the overall autonomy of the legislative body both in the formulation and in the application of its rules. “The power to make rules is not one which, once exercised, is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to exercise by the House and, within the limitation suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other tribunal. The absolute control which Congress has over its rules is well illustrated in the case Osmeña, Jr. vs. Pendantun. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms declared therein: On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive constitutes disorderly conduct for which Osmeña may be disciplined, many arguments pro and con have been advanced. We believe, however, that the House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior, not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which cannot be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if this Court assumed the power to determine whether Osmeña conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would thereby have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the government. The theory of separation of powers as tediously observed by this Court, demands in such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each department, it has been said, had exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. It is thus clear that on matters affecting only the internal operation of the legislature, the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its rules is beyond the reach of the courts.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

77

If this is so, then this Court has also no authority to interfere with nor undermine the control of the Supreme Court over its Internal Rules. The House of Representatives, through one of its Prosecutors, has intimated that the Principle of separation of powers only applies when the Congress, and in this case, the Senate, is exercising its legislative functions but not when it is sitting as an impeachment Court and as much as it has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases under the Constitution. This Court, however, is not yet ready to accept the Prosecution’s contention. It must be pointed out while the House has the exclusive power to impeach and the Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, it is still the Congress, one of the three branches of government, which is exercising this prerogative under the Constitution. Hence, whether it is performing a legislative function or sitting as an impeachment Court, the Senate is not insulated from the operation of the principle of separation of powers. As held in Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, the doctrine of separation of powers simply means that each of the three great powers of government has exclusive prerogatives and cognizance with its own sphere of influence and effectively prevents one branch from unduly intruding with the internal affairs of either branch. This has to be so in order to maintain the balance of power among the three branches. This is to prevent the aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of another. This will enjoin one branch from lording it over the other and prevent too much concentration of powers to only one branch. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Prosecution’s Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes and Presbitero J. Velasco, All Associate Justices of the Supreme Court is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. February 8, 2012, Pasay City. (Sgd) Juan Ponce Enrile, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. I concur in the result because the Resolution is very specific as to the application for subpoena regarding Article III concerning the FASAP case. However, Mr. President, I have reservations regarding the statement in the early part of the Resolution where the essence I get is that the Supreme Court is a coequal of this Impeachment Court. So, therefore, Mr. President, I want to study this matter further and reserve the right to file a separate concurring opinion. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The gentleman from Bukidnon. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President.

78

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Mr. President, I concur in the result also but I do object to the use of the concept of coequality. As I earlier manifested, I do not believe that this Court sitting as an Impeachment Court is a coequal of the Supreme Court because we are not exercising legislative functions here. We are exercising a special, specific judicial function. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, likewise, I concur as to the result. And considering that we are doing pioneering work here in terms of legal precedents and that what we do and decide, and the rulings of this Court will serve as basis and guide for future courts should there be impeachment proceedings in the future, I would like to manifest that I, too, would like to file a separate concurring opinion, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, I, too, concur with the ruling of the Court and of the Presiding Officer, the Honorable Senate President. But same manifestation as my colleagues and I concur as to the application of this ruling to the specific case. Meaning, I would like to elaborate that there can be circumstances where the records of the Supreme Court can be looked at. But I will not elaborate at this point in time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I just like to put on record that during the deliberation on this Resolution, my understanding when the Presiding Officer was speaking on this particular statement, that precisely we are respecting the internal rules because to that extent we all have our internal procedures and we respect that the Supreme Court is supreme in their own territory as we are supreme in ours. So to that extent, I am totally supportive of this Resolution because that is the understanding that I believe was intended during the caucus. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Noted. What is the pleasure of the Chief Prosecutor? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, I just want to manifest that the other witness is here today pursuant to the subpoena that commanded her to appear February 8, today. The Presiding Officer. Who is that witness? Representative Tupas. The witness is the branch manager of the BPI Ayala branch. But if we are adjourning tonight, may we just request, Your Honor, that the BPI Branch Manager, the name is Ms. Leonora Dizon, be directed to appear, to come back tomorrow, 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

79

The Presiding Officer. Ms. Dizon is hereby ordered, not only instructed but ordered, to appear in this Court at 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon to answer questions, if she wishes to answer those questions. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, may we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, February 9, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; therefore, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, 9 February 2012. The trial was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful