WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

1

Republic of the Philippines

Senate
Pasay City

Record of the Senate
Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Wednesday, February 22, 2012

AT 2:36 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 Manny Villar. Senator Villar. Today is Ash Wednesday, a humbling reminder of our mortality that from dust we were created and to dust we shall return. What we do on this earth, we shall account to the Great Judge and Jury. Lord, You have said, “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Allow us then, o Lord, to sift through the facts with an unflinching eye for truth in accord with the precepts of justice. Let your servants ferret through the impeachment process by looking where there is wrongdoing and discerning where there is none. Let no man, wealth or malice stand between this Court and its purpose. As elected Senator-Judges, make our institution a bastion of democracy and let our conduct mirror the spirit of unity rather than divisiveness. Bantayan Mo Po ang bawat salitang lalabas sa aming bibig. Nawa’y hindi ito pagmulan ng hindi pagkakaintindihan o pagkakagalit, bagkus ay magdulot ito ng liwanag sa aming mga kaisipan.

2

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Panginoon, ikaw ang pinagmulan ng lahat ng pag-ibig at karunungan. Tanggapin Mo Po ang panalanging ito bilang alay sa Iyo at sa bayan. Ikaw ang aming lakas at sa pamamagitan Mo kami ay naglilingkod sa bayan. Hinihiling po namin ito sa banal at dakilang Pangalan ni Hesus. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will now please call the roll of Members. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present Senator Alan Peter “Compañero” S. Cayetano ................................. Present* Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis 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 Senate President ......................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. There are 20 Senator-Judges present. The Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

3
The Floor Leader.

The Presiding Officer.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 21, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 21, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will now please call the case. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, for the Prosecution, Mr. President. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honor. For the Prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before the business for the day, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago would like to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The lady-senator from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Defensor Santiago. I beg the indulgence of our colleagues in making this manifestation. Our Constitution provides under Article III, which is entitled “The Bill of Rights,” Section 1, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Section 1 is only one sentence. It consists of two parts, what lawyers call the “due process clause,” and number two, what lawyers call, the “equal protection clause.” And yet, Section 1 is so powerful that even if you deleted the entire Bill of Rights and remained only with Section 1, every single Filipino citizen would still be entitled to the entire panoply of human rights enshrined in our Constitution. Ganoon katindi ang bigat ng equal protection clause at ng due process clause. Ngayon, the business for the day is the due process clause. Because, yesterday, Prosecution wanted to present a PAL officer and the Presiding Officer ruled that because bribery is not alleged under Article III, then Prosecution cannot present that PAL officer. I support that ruling. In fact, I insist on it because of the due process clause of our Constitution. The due process clause is so important that, as I said, in the view of certain constitutional experts with tripartite democracies like ours all over the world, tanggalin mo na ang buong Saligang Batas, iwan mo lang ang due process at ang equal protection clauses, meron ka ng protection ng buong Saligang Batas para sa karapatang pantao. That is how important due process is.

4

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ngayon, di lamang iyon ang probisyon ng ating Konstitusyon, kung hindi sa Konstitusyon mismo, hindi sa Rules of Court lang. Sa Constitution, Article III, which is also the Bill of Rights, going down the rights, Section 14, paragraph 2, provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be... informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him....” That is due process. That is how our Constitution defines what due process is. You must inform the accused, any accused person in a criminal proceeding or in a semi-criminal proceeding such as ours, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. And accordingly, the Rules of Court provides, Section 1, Rule 115, “Rights of the Accused:” “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: Letter (b) “To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.” So, the Rules of Court is nothing but a reflection of an actual constitutional duty imposed explicitly by the Constitution. That is why we cannot admit the testimony or any other evidence of an officer, of any person, or any witness concerning an allegation which has not been included in the complaint or information or, as in this case, which has not been included in the Articles of Impeachment. Merong mga biritero diyan sige ang false note na magsasabi, “Eh, bakit ano ang diperensiya? Testigo lang naman ‘yan, eh ‘di isingit mo na lang doon.” Hindi puwede iyan! Because that is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. This is, more or less, virtually the same situation during the President Estrada Trial when I voted against opening the second envelope, unless the Prosecution first amended their Information. My basis was due process of law. Ganoon na rin iyan ngayon, meron tayong testigo dito. Ngayon, doon sa President Estrada Trial, naalala niyo? Opening of the second envelope, binilang kami isa-isa tapos nagalit ang publiko—well, at least part of the public—against me dahil bumoto akong huwag niyong buksan iyan. Actually, ang boto ko, puwedeng buksan pero amendahin o baguhin mo muna ang Complaint or Information para mabigyan ng due process clause ang akusado so that he can be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Ngayon, nabuksan bandang huli ang second envelope, wala palang laman na incriminatory doon. Kaya what was all that fury about? That pretended anger at the pretended violation of the constitutional rights of the Prosecution at that time? Ngayon, maliwanag sa ating Saligang Batas at sa ating Rules of Court na hindi ka dapat magbigay ng ebidensiya, testigo man o anumang exhibit mo kung hindi mo sinali doon sa iyong akusasyon, sa iyong Complaint or Information ang partikular na krimen na ginawa ng taong iyon—krimen, according to the Penal Code. Kaya sa mga kaso, our Supreme Court has ruled, particularly in Andaya vs. People, a decision in 2006, “No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information and which is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is contemplating his defense against the ground alleged, would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during the trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.” Kaya fatal iyan. Kaya dapat dahan-dahan ka lang kung gumagawa ka ng Complaint or Information mo or your Articles of Impeachment para sigurado mo na lahat ng ebidensiya mo maiprisinta mo sa bista dahil nakalista doon. Pag wala doon nakalista, hindi puwede. That is the rule. People vs. Flores, 2002. “The right cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.” If you have the right, you cannot even waive it. “It is imperative that a Complaint or Information filed against the accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed for an accused cannot be convicted of an offense even if duly proven unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the Complaint or Information.” And not only that, but our Supreme Court held in the case of Ilo vs. the Court of Appeals (1960)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

5

on the effects of a fatally defective information. “A substantial defect in the information cannot be cured by evidence, for that would jeopardize their right to be informed of the true nature of the offense for which they are charged.” Iyon lamang ang gusto kong sabihin noon sa Estrada Impeachment Trial eh, ang dami kasing sawsawero doon eh. Mas marunong pa sila sa nag-aral ng batas. Palagi silang nagsasabing “technicality, technicality.” Exactly, the law is exactly a body of technicalities. That is why you need four (4) years of law school plus one (1) year of the Bar, in all a total of nine (9) years para malaman mo kung ano itong mga teknikalidad na ito. Dahil kung wala tayong mga teknikalidad na iyan, wala tayong tinatawag na “rule of law,” wala tayong tinatawag na “due process of law.” Kaya itong mga iba na nagdudunung-dunungan, akala mo marunong pa sila sa abogado o sa dating hukom o sa mga hukom ngayong nakaupo, kung anu-ano ang mga pinagsasabi. So filled with hubris about their ignorance. Kasi kursunada nila o kaya mayroon silang intuition o kaya mayroon silang conscience. Para bang ang konsiyensiya nila mas malakas sa konsiyensiya ng lahat ng tao sa buong bansa. Iyan ang problema sa bansa na ito, nagdudunung-dunungan. Plus the Rules of Court provides, Section 5. “Amendment to Conform True or Authorize Presentation of Evidence.” You cannot, as I said, to repeat the rule, you cannot present evidence unless it is included within a charge that is listed in your Complaint or Information. Ngayon, kung gustong magprisinta ng ebidensiya at hindi nag-object ang kabilang panig, puwede iyon dahil wala naman pala silang objection eh. Pero kung may objection, this is what the Rules of Court says: “If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality, et cetera.” Under this ruling, our Supreme Court in 2005, in the case of Cagungun vs. Planters Development Bank. Under this section that I have just read, “If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and admission of such evidence would not prejudice subjecting party in maintaining his action or defense upon the merit. It is thus clear, that where there is an objection on the evidence presented because it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, an amendment must be made before accepting such evidence. If no amendment is made, the evidence objected to cannot be considered.” That is the categorical ruling of our Supreme Court in the 2004 case, Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff. “The complaint should state the theory of a course of action which forms the bases of the plaintiff’s claim of liability. The office, purpose or function of the complaint is to inform the defendant clearly and definitely of the claims made against him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at the trial.” ‘Yan ang batas. Ngayon ang problema natin, marami kasi na mga kibitzers mahilig mag-abo-abogaduhan. Kung gusto ninyong mag-abogado, mag-enrol kayo o kaya magbasa kayo tungkol sa batas. At hala, criticize, batikos nang batikos na wala namang base sa batas natin. Gusto ba nilang gagawin sa kanila ang gusto nilang gawin sa ibang tao? That is the basic question. Akala mo kasi nakikipag-fish ball-an tayo dito. Hindi. Mahalaga ang pinag-uusapan natin dito. Hindi tayo nakatayo sa tabi ng fish ball vendor at bumili ka ng fish ball stick mo at bumili din ako ng akin. Tapos, kakain tayo doon at maglandian tayo tungkol sa ating mga opinions sa batas. Magbasa kayo ng batas. In short, we did a discretion of this Court. We can have a continuance because that is what the law says, to allow the Prosecution if it makes the proper request to amend their Complaint. If they do not, then they simply cannot present the witness because he will testify to a matter that is not alleged

6

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

in the Articles of Impeachment. That was my position in the Estrada Impeachment Trial. That is the very same position I take today. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are ready to listen to the presentation of the Prosecution for the continuation of their presentation of evidence or witnesses. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution has the floor. You may now present your witness, if you have any witness. Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honors. Good afternoon. I speak—Your Honor, this representation speaks relative to Article III, Your Honors. The Presiding Officer. Article II? Representative Aggabao. Article III, Your Honor. We have started. We have reverted back to Article III yesterday, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, we have concluded the presentation of evidence yesterday with the offer of—with the proffer of proof. The Presiding Officer. Proffer of proof? Representative Aggabao. Proffer of proof, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not offer of proof? Not offer of evidence? I just want to clarify. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. With the proffer made by the private Prosecutor yesterday, in light of the ruling by this Court, Your Honor, that a pivotal witness may no longer testify, that is the last witness we have, Your Honor, for the so-called FASAP case. Now, this is embraced in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the Complaint, Your Honor. Just to be very clear. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Three point one (3.1)… Representative Aggabao. To 3.3 of the Complaint. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. I want to see the—3.1 up to 3.3? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, 3.1 to 3.3. The Presiding Officer. At any rate, the understanding of the Court is the private Prosecutor made a manifestation and proffered what he considered to be an evidence. The Chair will allow it to stay in the record but at the time of the offer of evidence, then the matter will be revisited and decided whether it will be admitted or not.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

7

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I just want to put on record with a caveat that Article III does not allege any subornation or bribery or any special favor that influenced the thinking, the attitude or whatever of the Respondent. I just want to make that clear so that if you want to strengthen your position, you know the remedies. Representative Aggabao. Thank you. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Having said that, the Prosecution would like to respectfully manifest, Your Honor, that so far as the other wrongful acts stated under Article III is concerned, namely, that Respondent created an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office which is embraced under Paragraphs 3.4 to 3.4.8, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 3.4— Representative Aggabao. To 3.4.8.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Aggabao. That is the second wrongful instance or wrongful act that we alleged, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Aggabao. Also, that Respondent dipped his hands into public funds to finance personal expenses. This is embraced in Paragraphs 3.4.9 to 3.4.10. The Presiding Officer. 3.4— Representative Aggabao. Point 9 (.9), Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To? Representative Aggabao. To 3.4.10.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Aggabao. And finally, that Respondent discussed with litigants cases pending before the Supreme Court which is embraced in Paragraphs 3.5 to 3.6.5. The Presiding Officer. 3.6— Representative Aggabao. Point 5 (.5), Your Honor, 3.5 to 3.6.5. The Presiding Officer. What I have here is 3.6.4. There is— Representative Aggabao. Up to fifth. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Aggabao. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. 3.6.5. Representative Aggabao. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

8

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Aggabao. In all these allegations of wrongful acts, Your Honor, starting with 3.4 to 3.6.5, Your Honor, the Prosecution respectfully manifests that we are no longer presenting evidence in regard to this. The Presiding Officer. Are you dropping these matters? Representative Aggabao. Only with respect to the three wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint, Your Honor. But as far as Article III is concerned, Your Honor, the case is there. And in support of that, Your Honor, we have the evidence submitted in that so-called FASAP case, Your Honor. To recall, Your Honor please— The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. To be clarified. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Your allegation in Article... Representative Aggabao. III.

The Presiding Officer. ...III is, “Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards of Article VIII, Section 7, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution that provides that, ‘A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity and independence’ (1) in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final executory cases.” Now... Representative Aggabao. We stopped there, Your Honor. We stopped there. The Presiding Officer. ...you want to maintain this allegation... Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. ...to be the subject of proof. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. We have proven that already, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. proper time. Precisely. To be the subject of proof which you will offer at the

Representative Aggabao. Yes. Yes, Your Honor please. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, the next charge that you included in Article III—the predicate of your conclusion is that—“...in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office.” You are now dropping this? Representative Aggabao. That is right, Your Honor. We are not presenting evidence on this. The Presiding Officer. And you are not going to present any evidence? Representative Aggabao. No more.

The Presiding Officer. And this will not be presented to the Court for decision? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

9

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Then the last one is “and”—you have a conjunction here“and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.” You will also drop this allegation; you will not offer any evidence and it will not be presented to the Impeachment Court for decision? Representative Aggabao. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Joker Arroyo— The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Arroyo would like to ask a question on this point. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President. It is just a simple question. I will just ask from the Prosecution, anybody can answer. There was a lawyer here that appeared as a private Prosecutor, is he here now? Representative Aggabao. Senator Arroyo. Yes. Representative Aggabao. Si Attorney Marlon. We are not sure if he is here, Your Honor. We will try to answer it, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. Now, anyway, I just want to ask the question. Is he the lawyer of PALEA? Because I received information that he is the lawyer of PALEA, meaning the labor union in Philippine Airlines. Representative Aggabao. We will have to make an inquiry, Your Honor. Yesterday, Your Honor? The one that made—

Senator Arroyo. All right, take your time. I just want to have an answer on that. Representative Aggabao. We will provide you with the answer, Your Honor. Senator Arroyo. Okay. Representative Aggabao. Thank you.

Senator Sotto. Still on the issue, Mr. President, Senator Escudero. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Some questions to the Honorable Congressman, Congressman Gigi Aggabao with respect to the statements he made. Do I take it that the Prosecution will no longer present evidence aliunde with respect to the other subparagraphs of Article III? Representative Aggabao. That is right, Your Honor, with respect to Article III.

Senator Escudero. But the Article still stands?

10
Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Senator Escudero. And simply you are resting on the allegations contained in your Complaint and will no longer be presenting documentary or testimonial evidence on the matter? Representative Aggabao. Yes, with respect to the other allegations there, Your Honor. But with respect to the FASAP case, Your Honor, as I said, we have concluded the presentation of evidence. Senator Escudero. Just to be clear, Mr. President, Your Honor. So therefore we will still be putting it to a vote? You are not withdrawing it, as I earlier heard you respond to a question by the Presiding Officer? Representative Aggabao. No, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. You are not withdrawing Article III? Representative Aggabao. No, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. We will still put it to a vote? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. And the Defense is free to present evidence aliunde should it so desire? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. Or rely on the allegations of their own answer in other pleadings, if at all, when their turn comes? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, that is true.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Aggabao. If I may add, Your Honor, we feel that—

Mr. Cuevas. Before we leave the subject, Your Honor, may I be allowed to make a short clarification, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. The only witness that I recall having been presented by the Prosecution is the president of PALEA, Mr. Anduiza—FASAP, rather. Is he the only witness you are referring to in support of the allegations mentioned in here which you allowed to remain? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, because the pivotal witness for the Prosecution, Your Honor— Mr. Cuevas. So no other witness? Representative Aggabao. No other witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Will you allow the Prosecution to finish first? Representative Aggabao. No other witness, Your Honor. I reiterate, Your Honor, that so far as the Prosecution is concerned, we have concluded the presentation of evidence with respect to the FASAP case covered under Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the Complaint—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

11

The Presiding Officer. The only one presented by you is the— Representative Aggabao. The FASAP president, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The FASAP president. And that will be the only witness you will present under Article III? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, I would like to reiterate my question. You have totally waived the—other than the flip-flopping-—you will waive everything else? Representative Aggabao. That is true, Your Honor. We have—

The Presiding Officer. And you will not present anymore evidence, and this portion of Article III will not be presented for the consideration of... Representative Aggabao. ...of the Impeachment Body, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. …the Impeachment Court? Representative Aggabao. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So that is very clear. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, yes.

The Presiding Officer. In effect, what you are saying is that you are waiving—you are excising this particular portion of your Articles of Impeachment? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman— Mr. Cuevas. If I recall correctly, Your Honor, while Mr. Anduiza was on the stand, he admitted that he had no complaint against the—he admitted that he had no complaint against the rest of the other members of the Court although he knew that the decision of the Court is a collegiate one and not solely a ponencia by the Respondent, the Honorable Renato Corona, Your Honor. Now, there was also an admission by him that he was of the impression that the decision that was altered or modified or reversed is the decision on the merits. But when we clarified this point through cross-examination and confronting him with the records of that case, You Honor, it becomes very clear that the decision on the merits of this case awarding the PALEA employees millions of dollars in back wages, Your Honor, had never been modified, altered nor revoked. It remains as it is, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mr. Cuevas. I was— Well, Counsel—

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, that will be proper— Representative Aggabao. In the memorandum.

12
Mr. Cuevas. In the appreciation of—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

The Presiding Officer. In the appreciation of the evidence and during your summation. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I just brought that out, Your Honor, because I was about to move for the exclusion of that particular testimony, Your Honor, because it does not support the allegations of the Complaint in connection with the alleged violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. That is my point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. But, anyway, let it stay in the record since the admission of the witness will be carried or will have to be borne by the party that offered it. Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then, with that clarification, Your Honor, we submit. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor— Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much. Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. Just one more question from Sen. Miriam Santiago, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel, you are well aware that your present move is entirely unconventional by the standards of trial judges throughout the country. Normally, when you make several charges under a certain course of action or under a certain Article of Impeachment, then you want to present proof because otherwise the answer of the Defense will stay on the record. You will have your Complaint plus the Answer, there is equipoise; but they might present proof in defense on Article III. So the equipoise will be broken and then the balance of evidence will be in favor of the Defense. Of course, you are well aware of that. As I said, it is very unconventional. I just wonder as a Judge why you are wasting the time of the Court. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor—Your Honor please.

Of course, Your Honor, we have taken a look at this hard and long. We feel that on the strength alone of the evidence presented on the FASAP case, Your Honor, it is, as far as we are concerned, adequate, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is your privilege.

Representative Aggabao. And we want to abbreviate the proceedings, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, that is your privilege, of course.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

13
I just wanted to be clear.

Senator Defensor Santiago.

Now, I want to know, for Article III, have you made an offer of proof or are you making a tender of excluded evidence? Which one are you doing? Representative Aggabao. The words used by the Private Counsel, Your Honor, was “offer of excluded evidence.” I stand corrected—tender—“tender of excluded evidence”... Senator Defensor Santiago. You are making tender of excluded evidence. Representative Aggabao. ...Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. I will read Section 40 of Rule 132, “If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the Court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.” That is what the Rules of Court provide. Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Now, I want you to answer this question.

Since only the Impeachment Court, this Court and none other—not even the Supreme Court—can make a decision on an Impeachment Trial, what then is the purpose of your tender of excluded evidence? In normal trial practice, we make such tenders or make such offers of proof because we want it to be placed on record. And when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court will be in a position to state whether the trial court was wrong in its rulings or not. But since we are supreme as an Impeachment Court, the Supreme Court cannot substitute its judgment for our judgment with respect to the Impeachment Trial, what then is the purpose of this tender of excluded evidence? Representative Aggabao. Very respectfully, Your Honor, we were aware of that, Your Honor. We were not even sure, Your Honor, whether under the Rules that is allowed because as I said, and as you correctly pointed out, there is no appeal here for which the exclusion of evidence would have been raised as a correctible error. But we thought, Your Honor, that we have the evidence inserted in the records so that the entire Impeachment Body is afforded a second look, a chance—even if remotely— a chance to be able to review the evidence that should have been made by the witness who was excluded, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Well, that is in the far fringes of expectations, right? Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Because we have transcripts of stenographic notes in the form of our Senate Journal which are now verbatim just like in court. And we place a Journal on top of that everyday and it must now be about one foot high so the expectations could be too high for the purpose. I doubt very much if every senator will bother to go through the TSN or the transcript verbatim of the Journal. What I am saying is, the tender of excluded evidence seems to be an extraneous and unnecessary motion. But in the spirit of liberality, since the Rules of Court provide that the Rules should be construed with liberality, I have no objection.

14

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Aggabao. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Now, if Your Honor please, only in connection with this matter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court. There is a lot of difference between offer of evidence and tender of proof because under the particular rule of evidence mentioned by the Honorable Senator who had just spoken, Your Honor, it refers to a situation where a party had presented its evidence and it is closing its evidence. In this case, there is no closure yet to speak of. So this will not apply. The way I understood the manifestation with the gentleman representing the private prosecution yesterday, it is because there was an objection to the offer of the testimony and, therefore, he is merely making an offer of proof. And the situation cannot be covered or cannot be considered as falling within the ambit of offer of proof, Your Honor, because the situation contemplated in an offer of proof is something like this: The witness is on the stand; he is being examined by Counsel and there is an objection interposed and the objection was sustained. Therefore, he was prevented from answering the question. Then, in that case, the examining Counsel may offer or may tender an offer of proof, and that is by stating that if he is allowed—if the question is allowed, he would have elicited this kind of an answer, and only that. But as what the Court will note yesterday, practically several documents were mentioned. They were about to be marked upon motion but it was denied by the Court, Your Honor. And allegedly, they should be considered as evidence in this case. There is where I cannot affirm my concurrence or conformity, Your Honor, because it is violative of the rules of evidence, Your Honor. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. However liberal may the attitude be taken by this Honorable Court, I do not think that it will sustain the situation contemplated or brought about by the private Prosecutor yesterday, Your Honor. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. We take note of the position of the Defense. And as I said, let the manifestation stay in the records. It is not being offered yet. At the proper time, if I remember our Impeachment Rules, both parties will have one hour each, I think, to argue their case. Then, it is at that time where you will have to tackle this issue. And I assure you that we are well-informed about the rules of evidence. Mr. Cuevas. We just brought that into the attention of this Honorable Body, Your Honor, with the hope that we may not be construed as having waived our objection to this kind of a procedure, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We understand your position. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Aggabao. Your Honor. Having said that, Your Honor, the Prosecution is prepared to move to the next article which is Article VII, Your Honor, and we are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What happened to Article IV, Article V, Article VI? Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, to recall, Your Honor, the original order was—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

15

The Presiding Officer. Yes, you have given that order of proof. But are you also going to present evidence on Article IV, Article V, and Article VII? Representative Aggabao. May I turn over the floor to the lead prosecutor, Your Honor? Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Present your witness. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon. Representative Tupas. We filed a manifestation to that effect, Mr. President, I think on the second week of the trial and we stated the sequence of the Articles. So, first, is Article II, the SALN, non-disclosure of SALN. Then, Article III which is this case, the competence, integrity, probity and independence and Article VII, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer remembers that and that is why I just want to clarify whether the Prosecution will eventually present evidence on Article IV, V and VI? If you want to proceed, proceed on Article VII. Representative Tupas. Thank you so much, Mr. President. For Article VII, Mr. President, may we request that a member of the panel of prosecutors, Bayan Partylist, Nery Colmenares, be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from the Partylist, the Honorable Congressman Colmenares, has the floor. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. Magandang hapon po. The Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po naman. Representative Colmenares. Before we embark po on Article VII, may we be allowed po a brief manifestation just to give a road map or a brief sketch on how Article VII is going to present this case, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. Ang Prosekusyon po sa ilalim ng Article VII ay magpe-present ng ebidensya na magpapatunay ng mga sumusunod: Una, bumoto si Chief Justice Corona para agad-agarang ibigay ang hinihinging TRO ni Ginang Arroyo kahit wala namang life and death urgency na ibigay itong TRO. Pangalawa po, noong November 15, bumoto ang Korte Suprema na i-grant ang TRO pero dapat tuparin muna ang mga kondisyon bago ito maging effective bago makalipad si Ginang Arroyo. Ang ginawa ni Chief Justice Corona, binaliktad ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema at ginawang effective ‘yung TRO kahit hindi pa natupad ang mga kondisyon. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, at this juncture I hope we will be permitted to interrupt, Your Honor.

16
Representative Colmenares. Ang pangatlo po ay— The Presiding Officer. Just a minute.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Counsel, we will let him say because these are matters of his representation how he will develop his case. Anyway, the records of the case will show what happened. Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. Pangatlo po, ilahad namin na noong November 18, may desisyon na naman ang Korte Suprema na hindi na-comply ang isang kondisyon ng TRO kaya hindi po effective ito. Pero ang ginawa ni Chief Justice Corona, binaliktad na naman po ang desisyon at sinabi niyang effective ang TRO pending the compliance of the second condition. Pang apat po, in-extend niya ang office hours ng Korte Suprema. Maagaran niyang inisyu ang TRO kahit hindi pa nagbayad ng bond, kahit hindi pa nag-submit ng SPA. Panglima po, si Chief Justice Corona fed information through Midas Marquez that misled the public para i-distort ang desisyon. At panghuli po, panghuli, si Chief Justice Corona pinigilan ang pag-upload ng dissent ni Justice Sereno, bahagi ng kanyang pag-attempt na ma-distort ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema. The Presiding Justice. Iyan ba ay nasasaad sa record ng Korte Suprema? Representative Colmenares. Yes po. There was a dissent of the— The Presiding Officer. Hindi. Iyong sinabi ninyong lahat na iyon, naka-reflect doon sa mga records ng Korte Suprema? Representative Colmenares. Yes. Your Honor, we are going to present testimonial and documentary evidence to prove this po. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. And just to end na lang po, Your Honors, these acts among others, we will prove in Article VII. We will show that by his acts Chief Justice Corona betrayed public trust and he cannot therefore continue to remain in public office. The Presiding Officer. So, proceed. Representative Colmenares. And the last sentence na lang po is, na ang desisyon ni Chief Justice Corona was a conscious decision to favor former President Arroyo para makatakas siya sa mga kasong laban sa kanya. Thank you, Your Honor. That is just the brief manifestation. Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I knew I may be charged of discourtesy, Your Honor … The Presiding Officer. No. Go ahead.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

17

Mr. Cuevas. … but I cannot in conscience tolerate this kind of presenting evidence, Your Honor, because it appears that what he is trying to tell the Court are gospel truth, Your Honor. To our mind, it is a matter of evidence, Your Honor. Whatever he says— The Presiding Officer. That is why, Counsel, we are asking him to proceed. Those are his impressions, opinions. They are not evidence yet… Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. …But the words of a lawyer advocating for his client. And so, therefore, we will not take that as evidence. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, maybe the public will believe or not believe what he says. Then that is why we want to receive the evidence, so that we will see whether he is truthful in his manifestation. Representative Colmenares. Maraming salamat po, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Not that he is truthful. But whether, Your Honor, his manifestations are accurate and correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Representative Colmenares. If Your Honor please, it was a mere manifestation. And the Senate President said these are not evidence. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Proceed. Representative Colmenares. In fact, Your Honor please— The Presiding Officer. Stop this discussion. Just proceed with your evidence. Representative Colmenares. Okay, Your Honor. Thank you for that grant, Your Honor. So, we would like to call one of our Prosecutors, Your Honor, Deputy Speaker Raul Daza to present our first witness under Article VII, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I thought you are the one presenting? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, I was thinking that he will be— Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, I am the Lead Prosecutor of Article VII. Deputy Speaker Daza is the Lead Prosecutor of Article I. In our presentation of witnesses, Your Honor, we allow other panel members to handle and present the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. May we ask the Honorable Court to recognize Deputy Speaker Raul Daza, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Gentleman from Northern Samar, Congressman Raul Daza is recognized.

18
Representative Daza. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon. Representative Daza. Good afternoon, ladies— The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, Brod.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Daza. Good afternoon. Good afternoon to the distinguished Counsel. The Presiding Officer. He is also your fraternity brother. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Brod, including Brod Drilon and Angara. Representative Daza. Thank you. Mr. President, may we call our first witness to the stand, Sec. Leila De Lima of the Department of Justice. The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Secretary of Justice, if she is here, may now please take the witness stand, if she wishes, and be sworn in to testify in this Impeachment Trial? Representative Daza. I understand that she is in the holding room of the Impeachment Court. The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended for one minute. Mr. Cuevas. Long minute, Your Honor? The trial was suspended at 3:24 p.m. At 3:28 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. …Trial resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for the continuation of the Prosecution. The Clerk of Court. Madam Secretary, please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the Impeachment Proceedings? Ms. De Lima. Yes, I will. The Clerk of Court. So help you God. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Madam Secretary, will you please state your full name, your address and your present occupation. Ms. De Lima. Magandang hapon po. Ako po si Leila De Lima. Ako po iyong Kalihim ng Katarungan. The Presiding Officer. I think we can take judicial notice of that, the facts about the circumstances of our witness.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

19

Ms. De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Daza. Thank you, Mr. President. The testimony of this witness is offered to prove the partiality of the Defendant as Chief Justice and as a Member of the Supreme Court. 1. In the grant of a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, in the consolidated cases of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Hon. Leila De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, and Ricardo A. David Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 199034; and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, Ricardo Paras III in his capacity as Chief State Counsel of the Department of Justice, and Ricardo A. David Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 199046, in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; and 2. In distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in spite of the clear failure by the petitioners in these two cases to comply with all the conditions of the TRO. The Presiding Officer. So proceed, Counsel. Representative Daza. Ginang Kalihim, kailan pa po kayo nanungkulan sa inyong pagiging Kalihim ng Kagawaran ng Katarungan? Ms. De Lima. Naitalaga po ako sa posisyon na ito noong July 1, 2010. Representative Daza. Bilang Secretary of Justice, mangyari po bang sabihin ninyo sa Kagalang-galang na Hukumang ito ang mga mahahalaga ninyong tungkulin? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ang karamihan po ng mga katungkulan ng Kalihim ng Katarungan ay nakasaad sa Revised Administrative Code. Marami po iyan pero yung mga maitatawag po natin na parang core mandates or core functions ng Kalihim ng Katarungan ay yung imbestigasyon ng mga krimen at prosekusyon ng mga criminal offenders. At meron din po kami provision on the regulatory immigrations services at kaya nga po sa ilalim ng Department of Justice ay several po yung mga attached agencies na nandiyan nga po yung Bureau of Immigration at even yung—well, the National Prosecution Service po ay sakop ng Department of Justice. At isa pa hong function or authority ng Secretary of Justice ay yung pag-i-issue po nung mga tinatawag na hold departure orders and watchlist orders ayon sa isang circular. Representative Daza. Ito pong nabanggit ninyong tungkulin ninyo sa pagpapalabas ng tinatawag na hold departure orders, watchlist orders, ano ho ba ang batayan ng inyong tungkulin na ito? Ms. De Lima. Nandiyan po iyan sa Department Circular No. 41 which was issued around May 25, 2010. At bago po yung Department Circular No. 41 ay meron pa hong mga nauna pa na mga circular—Circular 17, if I am not mistaken po, it was issued sometime in 1999 or 1997; and then yung isa pa po ay yung Circular No. 18 in 2007. Yung Circular No. 41 po ay parang kinonsolidate (consolidate) lang po yung mga dati na mga regulasyon ukol sa pag-i-issue ng tinatawag na hold departure orders (HDOs) and watchlist orders (WLOs). Representative Daza. Sino po ba ang Kalihim ng Katarungan noong inilabas itong nabanggit ninyong Department Circular No. 41?

20

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. ‘Yan po ay ipinalabas nung aking predecessor—Acting Secretary Alberto Agra, kasi bago po iyan ako naging Kalihim. Representative Daza. Macapagal-Arroyo? Yun po ay noong kapanahunan nung dating pangulo, Gloria

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Sinabi ko po kanina, yung circular was issued May 25, 2010, bago ho nag-assume officially sa katungkulan si Presidente Benigno S. Aquino III, so bago rin po ako naging Kalihim. Representative Daza. Mr. President, request permission to approach the witness to identify an exhibit? The Presiding Officer. You may approach the witness. No problem. Representative Daza. Akin pong ipinakikita sa inyo ngayon ang isang exhibit, Exhibit “KKKKKKKKK,” which was marked this morning during the pre-marking. Ano pong kaugnayan nitong Exhibit “KKKKKKKKK” doon sa circular na inyong nabanggit? Ms. De Lima. Certified true copy po ito nung Circular No. 41 na binanggit ko po kanina. Representative Daza. Sa bawat pahina po nitong exhibit na ito ay may nakalagda sa taas ng pangalang Joel A. Ocay, OIC Records Section,” kilala po ba niyo itong lagdang ito? Ms. De Lima. Well, part ho siya ng Record Section ng departamento, although bihira ko hong makita iyong kanyang signature, pero kami po ang humingi nito sa kanya. So, pinirmahan ho ito sa harap ng aking staff. Mr. Cuevas. To save time— Representative Daza. Would the Defense Counsel— Mr. Cuevas. Yes. To save time, Your Honor, we are willing to admit that the document being identified by Madam Secretary is a faithful reproduction of Circular No. 41. Representative Daza. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Natatandaan po ba ninyo na sa ilalim nitong Circular No. 41, kung inyo pong natatandaan ay kayo ay nagpalabas ng isang watch list order na nauukol sa dating Pangulo at ang dating First Gentleman? Ms. De Lima. Opo, nagpalabas po ako ng a total of three (3) watch list orders against the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, although actually dalawa (2) lang po iyon because iyong unang watch list order issued August of 2011, ay in-amend po ng another watch list order issued sometime in September. At iyong pangatlo po ay another watch list order issued sometime in October, October 27. So, ito po ay mga watch list orders. Yong unang dalawa (2) na binanggit ko ay against the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, ‘yong pangatlo naman na binanggit ko against the former President and the former First Gentleman. Representative Daza. Bakit po kayo nagpalabas ng watch list orders na nauukol sa dating Pangulo? Ano po ang dahilan o mga dahilan?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

21

Ms. De Lima. Mayroon ho kasing mga mabibigat na kaso na nai-file sa Department of Justice. Ito po ‘yong plunder cases, tatlo (3) po ‘yong plunder cases against the former President, and mayroon naman po dalawa (2) na electoral sabotage cases against the former President and even against the former First Gentleman. Representative Daza. Kayo po ba ay nagsagawa ng isang listahan nitong mga cases na ito na inyong nabanggit? Ms. De Lima. Mayroon ho akong hiningi na parang matrix of these cases filed with the Department of Justice against the former President, pinagawa ko po iyon sa National Prosecution Service. In a matrix form ho ‘yan para mas madali po na makita. Mayroon po. Representative Daza. Request permission to approach the witness, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Akin pong pinakita sa inyo itong listahan, ang nakasulat po sa itaas ay “Status of cases filed with the Department of Justice against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,” ito ho ang tinutukoy mong listahan? Mr. Cuevas. Dated what? Representative Daza. As of October 27, 2011.

Mr. Cuevas. October 27. Thank you. Representative Daza. Yes, welcome. Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyong matrix na nanggaling po sa National Prosecution Service na prenipeyr (prepare) po ng aming Prosecutor General Claro Arellano. Representative Daza. Dito po sa ibaba nitong dokumentong ito na minarkahan kaninang umaga Exhibit “LLLLLLLLL” mayroon po ritong nakalagdang “Claro A. Arellano, Prosecutor General,” kilala po ba ninyo itong lagdang ito? Ms. De Lima. Opo, kilalang-kilala ko po ang pirma niya. Representative Daza. Okay. Would the Defense stipulate that— Mr. Cuevas. We will not only stipulate. We admit that the document being shown to the witness is a genuine document, Your Honor. Representative Daza. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. To save you the problem of authenticity. Representative Daza. Nasabi ninyo kanina kayo ay nagpalabas ng tinatawag na “Watch List Order.” Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali, ang sabi niyo ay dalawang order. At ipinakikita ko po sa inyo itong may nakasulat na “Watch List Order No. 2011-422” at “Watch List Order No. 2011-422” rin. Ito ba ang tinutukoy ninyong dalawang watch list orders at ito po ay kaninang minarkahan na Exhibits “MMMMMMMMM” at “MMMMMMMMM-1.” Ms. De Lima. Opo. Itong una pong dokumento na ipinapakita niyo sa akin ito po yung unang WLO—original WLO dated August 9 na aking ipinalabas po against the former President.

22

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ito naman pong pangalawang dokumento na ipinakita niyo sa akin is the amended order dated September 6. It is the amended WLO dated September 6 na ipinalabas ko rin po against the former President. Representative Daza. Would the Defense Counsel favor us with the same admission in respect to these two exhibits? Mr. Cuevas. Very willingly. Representative Daza. Thank you. Kanina pong umaga, mayroon din isang watch list order na minarkahang Exhibit “NNNNNNNNN” 2011-573. Akin pong ipinakikita ito sa inyo. Ito ba ay nakikilala niyo? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po yung pangatlong WLO at ito po ay ipinalabas ko against several na mga respondents. So, hindi lang ho ito against the former President. Mayroon din pong mga iba pang mga personalidad na kasama dito sa WLO. Sila po yung mga chinarge (charge) for electoral sabotage case. Now, kasama po diyan yung former First Gentleman; kasama yung former Comelec Chairman, et cetera. Representative Daza. The same admission. Mr. Cuevas. Admitted. Representative Daza. Thank you. Dahil po na ang ating dating Pangulo ay nakasama doon sa tatlong watch list orders na aking ipinakita sa inyo, mayroon po bang hakbangin na ginawa ang dating Pangulo na nauukol po dito sa mga watch orders na ito? Ms. De Lima. Humingi ho ng permiso yung dating Pangulo. Humingi ho siya nung tinatawag na “Allow Departure Order” sa akin dahil nga po mayroong watch list orders laban sa kanya. Kung natatandaan ko po yung unang request niya for the issuance of an allow departure order, pursuant to the provisions of Circular No. 41, ay ang petsa ho noon is October— September 21 at nasundan pa ho ng dalawa pang mga sulat reiterating yung request na kung puwede daw po payagan siya na makaalis ng bansa. Representative Daza. Again, may I approach the witness, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Please do so. And may I suggest that Counsel is free to approach the distinguished member of the Cabinet. Representative Daza. Thank you, Mr. President. Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo ang tatlong liham na kaninang umaga ay minarkahang Exhibits “OOOOOOOOO,” “PPPPPPPPP” at “QQQQQQQQQ.” Ito po ba ang mga sulat o liham na tinutukoy ninyo? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyong tatlong liham dated October 20, 21 and 24, na pirmado ho lahat ng dating Pangulo at mayroon nga po dito na—ito pong tatlo ay may mga attachments. Representative Daza. Okay. The same admission? Thank you. Bukod po doon sa tatlong liham na ipinakita ko sa inyo kanina, kayo po ba ay nakatanggap ng liham na nagbuhat sa manananggol ng dating Pangulo?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

23

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Natatandaan ko po na after the third letter requesting permission to travel abroad, nag-submit din po iyong isang abogado ng former President, if I am not mistaken, si Atty. Anacleto Diaz na basically inuulit din iyong request na payagan at may sinabmit (submit) po silang sort of final itinerary daw noong balak na pag-alis ng bansa. Representative Daza. Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo itong liham na nanggaling kay Atty. Anacleto Diaz na kaninang umaga ay namarkahang Exhibit “RRRRR.” Ito ho ba ang tinutukoy ninyong sulat na galing sa manananggol ng dating Pangulo? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyon na pirmado ni Atty. Anacleto Diaz at mayroon pong isang attachment, nakalagay “Itinerary” sa Part 1; and Part 2, “Persons Accompanying President GMA.” Representative Daza. Same admission? Same admission from the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Representative Daza. Thank you.

Pagkatapos po ninyong matanggap iyong mga liham na galing sa dating Pangulo at iyong ikaapat na liham na galing naman sa kanyang manananggol, ano po ba ang mga hakbang o hakbanging inyong ginawa ukol dito sa mga—ukol sa hiling ng dating Pangulong siya ay makapaglakbay sa ibayong dagat? Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang una ko pong ginawa ay in-evaluate ko po iyong mga sulat na iyan at nagpatulong din po ako kay Secretary Enrique Ona, ang ating Secretary of Health, para doon sa pag-iintindi noong mga nakakabit o naka-attach na medical abstract. Mayroon ho kasing isang medical abstract diyan na naka-attach sa isa sa mga tatlong letters po iyon. So, pina-explain ko po sa kanya kasi nga po iyong panguhaning dahilan na sinasabi ng dating Pangulo kung bakit kailangan daw po niya na makaalis ng bansa ay dahil nga daw po magpapagamot siya. So, para ho sa akin, importante hong malaman ko kung sapat po iyong dahilan na iyan, dahil nga po under Circular No. 41, bagama’t nga may WLO, anyone who is the subject of either an HDO or a WLO ay puwedeng humingi ng permiso na makaalis basta ba mayroong i-cite na exceptional reasons para makapag-issue po ang Secretary of Justice noong tinatawag na “Allow Departure Order” or ADO. Representative Daza. Ano po ang pinaghantungan ng inyong pakikipagsangguni sa Kalihim ng Department of Health? Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang kanya pong pananaw, ang kanya pong opinion—and we can say that he is an expert kasi nga po siya ang pangunahing government physician— ang sabi niya po, base doon sa medical abstract sa pagkaka-describe at saka binisita rin niya po si former President GMA sa kanyang tahanan sa Libis, ang kanyang opinyon is that, hindi po life-threatening iyong kondisyon ng dating Pangulo at wala rin pong medical necessity na kung anuman ang pangangailangan ng dating Pangulo ukol sa kanyang kalusugan, ‘yung kanyang complaint— nagpaopera ho kasi siya months ago— ay puwede daw hong matugunan dito sa ating bansa ng ating mga local doctors. Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, may it please the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I understand that these matters being dealt with now and the examination of the Honorable Secretary of Justice are matters pending before the Supreme Court on exactly the same

24

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

issue, validity and/or authority of the Secretary to issue this Hold Departure Order. I am worried that there may be a conflict of findings and conclusions between this Court and the Supreme Court, Your Honor. But if this Court desires, then I will just abide, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let us allow the Secretary to recite the facts for the consideration of this Court. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. We are aware that there is a pending case. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. And we have no assurance that the stand or the position of the Honorable Secretary will be reversed or will be sustained by the Honorable Supreme Court. That is my only worry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. Because in the event— The Presiding Officer. We will know the jurisdictional issues involved. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. Because in the event that there will be a pronouncement on the part of the Supreme Court that the authority in the issuance of the hold order is not valid and this Court may do otherwise, there may be a conflict of pronouncements, Your Honor. That is my apprehension, Your Honor, which I am now placing upon the table of his Honorable Court. Representative Daza. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. We are well aware about the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment and I think the Members of this Court are very intelligent enough to distinguish between the jurisdiction of this Court and the jurisdiction of the Judicial Department of government. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. Representative Daza. May I proceed, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Bukod po doon sa inyong pakikipagsangguni sa Kalihim ng Kalusugan o Secretary of Health, sa inyong mga hakbanging ginawa, tugon doon sa hiling ng dating Pangulo, meron pa po ba kayong ibang isinagawa? Ms. De Lima. Kasi nga po dahil kailangan kong ma-determine kung mayroong exceptional reason para payagan ‘yung dating Pangulo na makaalis, kailangan ko pong masiguro lahat. Masiguro ‘yung mga nakasabi ngang rason, at masiguro na hindi siya magiging flight risk. So kailangan ko po ma-analyze lahat, ma-evaluate lahat, attendant circumstances, hindi lang po ‘yung tungkol nga po sa kanyang kalusugan kundi iba pa po. Kasi nakatawag-pansin po sa akin ‘yung mga itinerary niya na nag-iba-iba po sila ng listahan ng mga bansa na pupuntahan daw po. So kailangan ko rin pong i-evaluate iyon na bakit ganon, paiba-iba ‘yung kanilang itinerary. Representative Daza. So ano po, ano po ang nagging resulta ng inyong evaluation tungkol doon sa itineraring iprinisinta ng dating Pangulo? Ms. De Lima. Nakita ko po na hindi naman lahat po ‘yung una nilang mga linagay na

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

25

bansa ay hindi naman dahil sa magpapagamot daw po ‘yung dating Pangulo. Mayroon ho kasama doon, like for example, ‘yung sa New York, U.S.A. at saka sa Geneva, Switzerland na nakalagay na rason—ito po ay nakita ko na lang doon sa travel authority po na naka-attach galing sa House of Representatives. Kasi hindi ho iyon linagay sa mga sulat ng dating Pantulo. Katulad po ‘yung nasa New York, ay mag-a-attend daw po ng komperensiya, ‘yung Clinton Global Initiative Meeting at ‘yung sa Munich—sa Geneva naman po ay tungkol naman sa komperensiya on the abolition of dealth penalty. So iniisip ko, kung ang kanyang paglabas sa pagpunta sa ibang bansa ay para makakuha ng—nakasabi kasi, the best medical treatment abroad—she would want, allegedly, to seek best medical treatment abroad, bakit ho kasama sa kanyang mga paiba-ibang mga itinerary iyong mga ganyang events or purposes? Representative Daza. Bukod po riyan, mayroon pa po ba kayong natuklasan o anumang nakarating sa inyong kaalaman na ukol sa inyong pagsisiyasat bagay dito sa kanyang hiling na makapaglakbay? Ms. De Lima. Sa totoo lang po, nagduda ho ako doon sa tunay na dahilan kung bakit gustong umalis ng bansa. So, bukod nga doon sa—ang pananaw ko po—sa aking analysis ay ginagawa lang dahilan iyong supposedly health reasons or medical reasons. Paiba-iba nga po iyong itinerary. And then, humihingi po kami noon ng kung sino ang mga kasama niya para makaalis ng bansa. Ang nakalagay po sa November 2, apat o lima lang na pangalan. Pero meron po kaming impormasyon na hindi lang pala ganoon—hindi lang pala apat o lima iyong balak niyang isama sa travel. Representative Daza. Puwede po ba ninyong masabi itong ulat o impormasyon na sa inyo ay dumating? Ms. De Lima. Ah—kung tatanungin ninyo po ako kung saan nanggaling ang impormasyon, hindi ko po puwedeng sabihin. Representative Daza. Pero iyong impormasyon o ulat, puwede ho ba ninyong ibunyag dito sa Kagalang-galang na Hukuman? Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang impormasyon po na natanggap namin is that hindi lang apat or lima sila na aalis, kundi katorse po. May mga pangalan po kami ng kung sino iyong mga isasama supposedly sa isang bansa. At noong tinitingnan ko nga po iyong mga pangalan noong mga kasama na hindi naman dinisclose (disclose) sa amin ay nagki-create ng agam-agam po sa akin na, “Ano kaya ito? Talaga bang magpapagamot lang, or mayroong ibang pakay, na baka hindi na bumalik?” Isa pong pangunahing ano ko po is she is a real flight risk dahil nga may nakasampa sa kanya—nakasampa against her na mga malalaki o mabibigat na kaso, like plunder and electoral sabotage. And at that time, malapit na pong matapos iyong joint DOJ-Comelec investigation into the electoral sabotage case. Representative Daza. Ito pong labing-apat na mga taong sa inyo ay nakarating na impormasyon ay ito ba ay mga doctor, mga nurse, mga taong may kinalaman sa kalusugan ng dating Pangulo? Ms. De Lima. Mayroon din pong personal nurse, mayroong aide, mayroong mga dati niyang empleyado, mayroon ding utility, mayroon din passport worker. So, nag-isip po ako, kung magpapagamot lang, bakit ho ganoon kadami at bakit may mga personalidad na kasama na kailangan ba sila sa pagpapagamot? Isa lang po iyan sa mga konsiderasyon noong aking hindi pagpayag na makaalis iyong dating Pangulo.

26

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Daza. Nang dahil po dito sa inyong pagsisiyasat, sa inyong paghingi ng sangguni sa mga taong nararapat hingan ng sangguni, at itong mga ulat na dumating sa inyong tanggapan, ano po ang inyong naging aksyon doon sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo na makapaglakbay? Ms. De Lima. Hindi ko po pinayagan. Dininay (deny) ko po iyong application for allow departure order for several reasons, including na po iyong mga nabanggit ko na. Representative Daza. Doon po sa inyong pagtanggi sa kanyang ifinayl (file) na request na tinatawag na ADO o application to depart order… Ms. De Lima. Allow departure order po. Representative Daza. Kayo ba ay gumawa ng isang sulat na kung saan ay doon po nilahad ninyo ang inyong pagtanggi sa kahilingan at ang mga dahilan kung bakit tinanggi ninyo? Ms. De Lima. Opo, nasa isang order po iyan dated November 8 na aking pinalabas. Representative Daza. Pinakikita ko po sa inyo ang isang Order na binubuo ng labing-isang pahina at ang petsa ay ika-8 ng Nobyembre 2011. Ito ho ba ang tinutukoy ninyong Order na inyong pinalabas, pagtanggi sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo? Ms. De Lima. Opo, ito po yun, Order dated November 8, 2011. Representative Daza. Doon po sa pahina ika-11 ay may lagda po rito, “Leila De Lima, Secretary.” Ito po ay lagda ninyo? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Representative Daza. Itong sulat na ito ay kanina minarkahang Exhibit “SSSSSSSSS.” At mangyari po bang dulutan kami ng Defense Counsel ng admission uli gaya nung dati? Mr. Cuevas. We have an alleged copy, Your Honor, but we have no time to verify the authenticity of this document, Your Honor. Representative Daza. But you admit that your copy is the same? Mr. Cuevas. That is the farthest we can go. We wanted to go farther but the situation does not allow us to do so. Representative Daza. Madam Secretary, dito po sa bawat pahinang ito ay may nakatimbreng “Certified True Copy” at may naka-lagdang “Joel I. Ocay, OIC, Records Section.” Ito ho ba si Mr. Ocay ang Records OIC ng Kagawaran ng Katarungan? Ms. De Lima. Katulad po ng sinabi ko po kanina, although hindi ako masyadong familiar sa pirma niya pero personnel nga po siya sa DOJ. Siya po ang OIC ng Records Section. At ito nga pong Order na ito, kilalang-kilala ko po ito kasi Order ko po ito. The Presiding Officer. Ano bang Order iyan, Madam Secretary? Representative Daza. Oho. Ms. De Lima. It is, Your Honor, the Order dated November 8, 2011, denying the request of the former President for an allow departure order.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

27

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Representative Daza. Pagkatapos na inyong tanggihan ang dating Pangulo na siya ay maglakbay sa ibayong dagat, mayroon po ba kayong natanggap na anumang Order na nagbuhat sa Korte Suprema ukol doon sa dalawang usaping nasa Korte Suprema? Mr. Cuevas. Very vague, Your Honor. We hate to object but to ask the question is very vague. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. She is intelligent enough to understand the question. Ms. De Lima. Okay. Sa pag-deny ko po nung Allow Departure Order by issuing the November 8, 2011 Order, ang alam ko po ay nag-file ng Supplemental Petition sa Korte Suprema yung dating Pangulo. Representative Daza. Ang nasabi po ninyo ngayon ay Supplemental Petition—okay— mangyari po bang ipaliwanag ninyo sa Hukuman bakit ang natanggap na ninyo ay Supplemental Petition pagkatapos ninyong tinanggihan ang kanyang kahilingang maglakbay? Ms. De Lima. Bago ho kasi pinalabas ko po yung aking November 8, 2011 Order, denying the Allow Departure Order, ay pumunta na po sa Korte Suprema yung dating Pangulo by filing a petition questioning the constitutionality of Department Circular No. 41 at saka yung WLO—WLOs po na na-issue ko. So, bago pa man pinalabas ko yung November 8, 2011 Order, pumunta na po sa Supreme Court yung dating Pangulo. At sa katunayan nag-file din po ng similar petition questioning the constitutionality of Department Circular No. 41 and the Watch List Order yung dating First Gentleman. Representative Daza. Liliwanagin ko po sa inyo. Samakatuwid, bago po ninyo inilabas yung pagtanggi sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo, meron nang dalawang usapin ang naisampa sa Korte Suprema? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Representative Daza. Ang isa ay usapin o kasong finayl (file) ng dating Pangulo at yung ikalawa ay isang asunto, kaso rin na isinampa ng dating First Gentleman, ganuon po ba? Ms. De Lima. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Doon ba sa dalawang kaso na iyon, Madam Secretary, ay may request for Temporary Restraining Order? Ms. De Lima. Opo, may prayer po pareho yung dalawang petitions. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Nasabi ninyo na doon sa dalawang usaping iyon ay humiling doon sa isa ang dating Pangulo, sa ikalawa ang dating First Gentleman ng Temporary Restraining Order. Ms. De Lima. Opo. Representative Daza. Nagkaroon po ba ng Temporary Restraining Order? Ms. De Lima. Meron po. Nagpalabas po ang Korte Suprema ng Temporary Restraining Order noong November 15, 2011.

28

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Ano yung tenor ng Temporary Restraining Order, Madam Secretary? Ano ang nire-restrain nila? Ms. De Lima. Restraining or enjoining the respondents, meaning ako po... The Presiding Officer. Oo. Ms. De Lima. …and BI Commissioner from implementing or enforcing… The Presiding Officer. The watch list? Ms. De Lima. …both the Circular No. 41 po and yung mga Watch List Orders. Representative Daza. Meron po ba kayong kopya nuong Temporary Restraining Order na inyong nabanggit? Ms. De Lima. marked po. Meron po. Puwede po—Your Honor, puwede pong—it was already pre-

Representative Daza. Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo ang isang Notice of Resolution ng Korte Suprema na ang petsa ay Nobyembre 15, 2011. Ito ho ba ang Temporary Restraining Order o TRO na inyong tinutukoy? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Temporary Restraining Order, yung pinaka- Resolution mismo ng majority at may mga naka-attach po na tatlong dissenting opinions. Representative Daza. Opo. The Presiding Officer. Meron bang taning yung Temporary Restraining Order na inisyu ng Korte Suprema diyan sa dalawang kaso na iyan, Madam Secretary? Ms. De Lima. Wala po. Ito po yung—This is the so-called indefinite TRO. The Presiding Officer. Open-ended yung… Ms. De Lima. Open-ended po. The Presiding Officer. …TRO? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

Representative Daza. I would like to make it of record that this Notice of Resolution was premarked this morning as “TTTTTTTTT” and attached to the Notice of Resolution was the Temporary Restraining Order itself in toto marked as Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT-1” and the attached dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno as Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT-2,” dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio as “TTTTTTTTT3,” and the dissenting opinion of Justice Reyes as “TTTTTTTTT-4.” Nung matanggap ninyo itong Notice of Resolution na nakamarkang Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT,” kalakip po yung mga ibang exhibits na nabanggit ko sa inyo? Ms. De Lima. Ang pagkakatanda ko po, nung natanggap ko yung kopya po nitong November 15, 2011 TRO, early morning of November 16, ay ang kasama lang niya po na nakaattach dito ay ‘yung dissenting opinion ni Justice Carpio. The Presiding Officer. ‘Yan bang kaso na ‘yan, ay ‘yan ‘yung ifinayl (file) ng dating Pangulo o ‘yung ifinayl (file) ng kanyang First Gentleman.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

29

Ms. De Lima. Consolidated cases po. The Presiding Officer. Ah, consolidated. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, among the dispositions in this Order is that the two (2) cases are being consolidated. So, aside from the TRO, there is also a decision to consolidate. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Ms. De Lima. So— Representative Daza. ‘Yun pong ibang dissenting opinions nung ibang justices, ‘yung dalawa, ‘yun ba’y natanggap ninyo pagkatapos na matanggap ninyo itong Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT”? Ms. De Lima. Opo. After November 16—let me just double check. Well, natanggap din po namin ‘yung copy ng dissenting opinion nung November 16 ‘yung copy ng dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno. And then ‘yung dissenting opinion ni Justice Carpio, eto po ‘yung nakakabit dun sa kopya ng November 15, 2011. Representative Daza. ‘Yung pong kay Justice Reyes na—? Ms. De Lima. Kay Justice Reyes, mas huli po. I think natanggap po namin ito November 17, the next day na po. Representative Daza. Salamat po. Ito pong Temporary Restraining Order na ang marka ay Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT-1,” hihilingin ko pa sa inyo para sa kaalaman ng Hukumang ito at para sa record, na kung puwede pong basahin ninyo yuong kondisyones, ‘yung the conditions under the TRO? Kayo na po ang bumasa. Ms. De Lima. Okay. Kagaya po nang nasabi niyo, it would appear from the tenor of this Temporary Restraining Order na isa po itong conditional TRO kasi meron pong tatlo na mga conditions na nilagay dito ‘yung Korte Suprema. Representative Daza. Ms. De Lima. Opo. Condition No. 1, “The petitioners shall post a cash bond of Two million (P2,000,000.00) pesos payable to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof. Failure to post the bond within the aforesaid period will result in the automatic lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order.” Two, “The petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence. The petitioners shall submit the name of the legal representative also within five (5) days from notice hereof.” And No. 3, “If there is a Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the place where they will be travelling, the petitioners shall inform said Embassy or Consulate by personal appearance or by phone of their whereabouts at all times.” The Presiding Officer. ‘Yung cash bond is for both petitioners? Ms. De Lima. Opo, Your Honor. Basahin po ninyo. Diyan po ninyo basahin sa TRO mismo.

30

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Daza. Kelan po sa kauna-unahang panahon o petsa na dumating sa inyong kaalaman na merong TRO na ipinalabas ang ating Korte Suprema? Ms. De Lima. ‘Yung kopya po ng TRO natanggap namin sa DOJ umaga noong November 16. Meaning, the next day. Pero nung November 15 po ay napanood ko ‘yung presscon ng Court Administrator cum Chief PIO or spokesperson Midas Marquez. Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali it is between 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. of November 15 na merong press con at in-announce ni Atty. Midas Marquez na meron nga daw pong TRO na in-issue ang Korte Suprema doon sa dalawang consolidated cases. Representative Daza. Kung meron man, ano pa po bang in-announce o ipinatalastas ni Ginoong Marquez doon po sa conference? Ito po ba ay napanood ninyo sa television o sa radyo o naroon po ba kayo? Ms. De Lima. Wala po ako sa press con. Ang natatandaan ko po nasa Palasyo po ako noong oras na yun at meron ho akong pinanood—may monitor po doon at nakita ko yung portions. Hindi po lahat nung presscon—yung complete press con ni Atty. Midas Marquez. At inannounce nga po yan saka sinabi kung ano ang boto—eight (8)—to—five (5)—and parang natatandaan ko parang sinasabi na “immediately executory” na daw po yung TRO. The Presiding Officer. Yung boto nila ay eight (8)—to—five (5)? Ms. De Lima. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Walo ang pabor doon sa TRO… Ms. De Lima. In favor of the TRO. The Presiding Officer. Ms. De Lima. …at lima ang kontra?

Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yung mga kontra ang tinatawag na dissenters? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Ang kasama diyan si Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales? Ms. De Lima. Hindi po. Ombudsman na po—

The Presiding Officer. Ah wala na siya doon pala. Ms. De Lima. Justice Sereno po.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, Justice Sereno. Representative Daza. Liliwanagin ko lang. napanood niyo ito sa television? Ms. De Lima. Yung pag-announce— The Presiding Officer. By the way, Madam Secretary, sino yung tatlo na naging dissenter? Ms. De Lima. Justice Reyes—May I just po—so that sigurado po ako. Nakasabi po sa last paragraph ng TRO—ng order—ang nakalagay lang ho dito is, “Justices Antonio Carpio and Napanood niyo ho sa—nasulyapan niyo,

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

31

Bienvenido Reyes have reserved their right to submit their dissenting opinions.” Ang natatandaan ko po ang isa pang nag-dissent is Justice Mendoza and Bernabe, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Lima sila? Ms. De Lima. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Sino naman yung mga walong bumoto in favor? Ms. De Lima. Chief Justice Corona; Justices Brion, Abad, Velasco—so that is four—Justice Perez, Justice Bersamin, Justice— The Presiding Officer. Velasco? Ms. De Lima. Nabanggit ko na po si Justice Velasco, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Si Justice Peralta? Ms. De Lima. Opo, kasama rin po sa walo.

So let me restate again, Your Honor: Chief Justice Corona, Justice Brion, Justice Abad, Justice Velasco, Justice Perez, Justice Bersamin—Hindi po. Si Justice De Castro po wala. I think she was on leave—and Villarama, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Ilan ang hindi nag-participate doon sa kaso? Dalawa? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Justice De Castro who was on official business and Justice Del Castillo who was on official leave as of November 15. The Presiding Officer. So thirteen (13) justices participated? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Representative Daza. Dito po sa Exhibit “TTTTTTTTT” sa unang pahina mayroon po ritong timbre na sinasabi “Office of the Secretary, 16 November 2011, Department of Justice.” Ano po ba ang kahulugan nitong timbreng ito? Ms. De Lima. Ito po ay nagpapatunay kung kailan natanggap ng opisina po ng Kalihim ng Katarungan at saka iyong oras na naka-receive kami nung official copy nitong TRO. Representative Daza. Ano po naman ang naging tugon ninyo o hakbanging inyong ginawa pagkatapos ninyong matanggap itong TRO noong Nobyembre 16, 2011? Ms. De Lima. Nakipag-sangguni po ako sa Office of the Solicitor General and I told them to avail of an appropriate remedy at nung araw pong yun nung November 16, the Solicitor General prepared and filed an Urgent Motion to Reconsider and/or Lift the Temporary Restraining Order. Representative Daza. Isinagawa po ba ng Solicitor General? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ni-rush po iyong motion na yun because it was also filed, if I am not mistaken, I think in the afternoon of November 16. We received the TRO 8:25 as shown in that stamped portion, 8:25 in the morning of November 16 and the Motion was filed in the afternoon of November 16 po.

32

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Daza. Okay. Pagkatapos po nung Nobyembre 16, kayo po ba ay nakatanggap ng anumang order o notice buhat sa Korte Suprema? Ms. De Lima. Pagkatapos po ng November 16, kung natatandaan ko po, ang sumunod na nalaman namin at natanggap namin ay—is another Resolution, November 18. Mayroon uling another resolution na kung saan ay dinenay (deny) po iyong Motion for Reconsideration and/or Lift the TRO at pinapa-show cause po ako as Secretary of Justice sa hindi ko daw po pagsunod doon sa TRO. The Presiding Officer. Yun bang denial of Motion for Reconsideration na ipinayl (file) eh it was not subjected to arguments of the parties? Ms. De Lima. Wala po. Apparently, Your Honor, it was taken up in that session of November 18 because there was a Resolution dated November 18 na dinenay nga po iyong motion na yun and along with that—and in the same Resolution po ay nandun na rin po iyong Show Cause Order issued to me and certain other dispositions, kasama po doon iyong pinapa-comply iyong petitioners na mag-submit ng tamang compliance with respect— The Presiding Officer. Sino ang pumirna nung Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. De Lima. There is not—it was not signed by any of the Justices. It was the Resolution issued by the Clerk of Court. So it was not a signed resolution signed by the Justices. Katulad din po iyon nung November 15 TRO na it is the unsigned Resolution, and the one who actually issued it and signed is the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court En Banc, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Representative Daza. Babalikan ko lang po iyong—

The Presiding Officer. So yung Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration was done by the Supreme Court En Banc? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Representative Daza. Babalikan ko lang po iyong tanong ng Ginoong Pangulo.

Tinanong po kayo kanina kung nagkaroon ng hearing sa Korte Suprema ukol doon sa Motion for Reconsideration na pinayl (file) ng Solicitor General. Nagkaroon po ba ng hearing o hindi? Ms. De Lima. Wala po. Salamat po.

Representative Daza. Ms. De Lima.

Puwede ho bang magdagdag?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Madam Secretary, go ahead. Ms. De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor. Iyan nga po iyong pinakapunto nung mga nag-dissent doon sa November 15 TRO, sila Justices Carpio, Sereno and Reyes na dapat daw po binigyan muna ng pagkakataon ‘yung respondents, the government through the respondents, para ipaliwanag ‘yung pag-issue ng WLO at saka sa pagbawal sa dating Pangulo na umalis ng bansa. So, it was a TRO issued ex parte, lalo na na may mga observations si Justice Sereno na dapat hindi, you know, tinake (take) as gospel truth ‘yung mga alegasyon, ‘yung mga supposedly verified allegations in the Petition is less than

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

33

truthful, especially insofar as the issue of the actual state of health on the part of the former President. Lalo na ‘yung TRO kasi nakalagay, “Considering the right to life which is the highest right under the Bill of Rights or under the Constitution,” ganoon po ‘yung premise nung TRO, “right to life.” So, dapat dininig muna po ng Korte Suprema, meron ba talagang potential violation of the right to life? Meaning, na iyong kalagayan ba ng dating Pangulo, life threatening ho ba? So, iyon po, wala pong hearing. Representative Daza. May nabanggit kayo kaninang Order o Notice of Order na nagbuhat sa Korte Suprema na ipinalabas ng Korte Suprema noong Nobyembre 18, 2011. Pinakikita ko po sa inyo itong Notice of Resolution na kanina po ay minarkahang Exhibit “UUUUUUUUU,” ito ho ba ang tinutukoy ninyo na Order na nanggaling sa Mataas na Hukuman? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Representative Daza. Mangyari po bang basahin na ninyo dito sa Page 2 ‘yung paragraph c na nauukol sa Urgent Motion for Reconsideration? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Representative Daza. Ito po ay bagay dun sa katanungan kanina ng Ginoong Pangulo. Ms. De Lima. It says, as one of the dispositions of this Resolution, November 18, “Deny the Consolidated Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift Temporary Restraining Order dated November 16, 2011 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for public respondents Leila De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, Ricardo David Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, and Ricardo V. Paras III, in his capacity as Chief State Counsel.” Representative Daza. Thank you. Nabanggit ninyo na mayroong dissenting opinion si Justice Sereno ukol dito sa panibagong Order na ito na nanggaling sa Korte Suprema noong Nobyembre 18, 2011. Dito po, kalakip nitong exhibit ay Exhibit “UUUUUUUUU-1.” Eto po ba ‘yung tinutukoy ninyong dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno? Ms. De Lima. Opo, dito po sa November 18. So, aside from ‘yung dissenting opinion niya po sa November 15, which was the TRO, meron ho uling dissenting opinion si Justice Sereno dito sa November 18, 2011 tungkol nga po sa pag-deny ng TRO. At saka meron po siyang mga dinisclose (disclose) dito tungkol dun sa mga botohan na naganap sa Korte Suprema dun sa usapin ng TRO kung ano ang tunay na nature ng TRO, kung conditional ba o hindi. At ‘yung pangalawang tanong, na-suspend ba ‘yung efficacy or effectivity nung TRO dahil nga hindi nasunod ‘yung isa sa mga kundisyon nung TRO. Nakalagay po diyan ‘yung mga impormasyon. The Presiding Officer. Ano ba ‘yung kundisyon na hindi natupad? Ms. De Lima. Ang tinutukoy po dito ay ‘yung tungkol sa Condition No. 2. ‘Yung sa TRO po, ‘yung Condition No. 2 is about the appointment of a legal representative of both petitioners common to both petitioners with authority to receive legal summons and other processes of the court, more or less po ganoon ‘yung tono ng— The Presiding Officer. But the other conditions were complied? Ms. De Lima. ‘Yung first condition po, it would appear it was complied with, and this was also disclosed in a later dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno. Mga banda ho atang ala-sais ng November

34

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

15, the day that the TRO was issued doon ho nakapagbayad o nakapag-submit ng P2 million bond. Pero ‘yung number two, although meron pong sinabmit (submit) ‘yung abogado, if I am not mistaken, Attorney Topacio, na something which purports to be the Special Power of Attorney, defective ho, sabi, dahil imbis na ang sasabihin is, “With authority to receive legal summons,” ang nakasabi po doon sa Special Power of Attorney na sinabmit (submit) ni Attorney Topacio ay “To produce legal summons.” Kaya it was disclosed subsequently, especially in the dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio na walang compliance. And, in fact, sabi po sa dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno, by a vote of 7-6, ang ruling ng Korte is, there was no compliance with condition number two as of November 15 and even November 16 or succeeding days. Representative Daza. Babalikan ko po ang administrator ng Korte Suprema na nabanggit ninyo kanina, si Ginoong Midas Marquez. Noong Nobyembre 18 nung taong 2011, meron po ba kayong natatandaang anumang nakita sa telebisyon ukol sa—kay Ginoong Marquez? Ms. De Lima. Kailan po iyon? Ano pong date? Representative Daza. November 18, meron po ba? Ms. De Lima. Ah, opo, may press con na naman po si Ginoong Marquez nung November 18. I think it is an offshoot nuong pag-issue nga po nitong November 18, 2011. Representative Daza. Ano po ang mga sinabi ni Mr. Marquez doon sa press conference na, sa palagay ko, ang tinutukoy niyo na nakita ninyo sa telebisyon? Ms. De Lima. Hindi ko na po natatandaan lahat. Ang natatandaan ko lang po na medyo importante hong masabi— and this can be confirmed— ay ipinaliwanag niya na effective na daw po talaga ‘yung TRO. Wala siyang sinasabi na nagkaroon ng botohan. Na there was noncompliance with that condition, and ‘yung unang botohan ho ng Supreme Court, again, based on the disclosures of Justices Sereno and Carpio in their dissenting opinions ay, by 7-6, ang ano nila is that hindi na nila kailangan sabihin kung suspended ba talaga ‘yung TRO kasi clear naman daw po, or “It is common sense,” quoting one of the justices. Na it is common sense that it is understood that because the TRO is subject to certain conditions pending the compliance with those conditions, it cannot be considered as already effective. ‘Yung parang ang naging consensus nila, as disclosed by Justice Sereno, dahil malinaw naman po daw ‘yon that is fundamental na conditional, so, hindi na nila kailangang sabihin na it was deemed suspended. That was the first voting. Mahaba ho ang istorya, meron hong other… Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Okay, oo. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind indulgence of the Honorable… Representative Daza. I will ask the questions. I will ask questions. The Presiding Officer. You will ask the question na? Representative Daza. Yes, Sir, I will do that, I will ask questions. Mr. Cuevas. Because with due respect, Your Honor, it seems that the testimony of the witness now is beyond the purpose. This is practically amending, criticizing the decision of the Honorable Court. It has nothing to do with the alleged Impeachment Complaint against Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

35

May I be permitted, Your Honor, to go into the Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor. “Respondent betrayed the public trust through partiality in granting a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of former …” Now this alone, the charge is that there was a—the guilty party, meaning Chief Justice Corona, issued a restraining order, Your Honor, in violation allegedly of any provision of law or culpable violation of the Constitution, Your Honor. But thus far, nothing had surfaced to this effect. What is being discussed, with due respect to the witness, Your Honor, are matters which are entirely irrelevant and impertinent. The Court can take judicial notice, Your Honor, of the nature of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. It is a collegiate court, there can be no restraining order on any decision that can come out without the majority participating therein, whether it is an en banc decision or merely a decision in division, Your Honor. We had been very tolerant in this matter, Your Honor, because we were quite at a loss as to the real purpose of the introduction of the Honorable Secretary in connection with these matters, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The understanding of the Presiding Officer is that the Secretary of Justice was introduced to narrate the history of the issuance of the TROs against—with respect to the enforcement of Circular No. 41? And the watch list orders. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And there was a TRO issued against her that is within her knowledge and that the dissenting opinion is a part of the record of that TRO. Correct? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But with due respect to the—may I? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. This is an Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor, against Chief Justice Corona. Under Paragraph 7, he is being impeached because allegedly he masterminded the granting of a Temporary Restraining Order. Up to this point, Your Honor, I see no testimony to that effect. What is being attacked now is the validity, the legality or the infirmity of— The Presiding Officer. Anyway we are intelligent enough to read Article VII and relate it to the testimony of the witness. So, Counsel, have faith in the … Mr. Cuevas. I have, I have more than— The Presiding Officer. … ability of these elected Senators to evaluate the evidence that are going to be presented here. Mr. Cuevas. I am only trying to exercise some sort of protection in favor of the client, of the Chief Justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I understand where you are coming from and we will be able to sift between what is knowledge and what is hearsay evidence. Mr. Cuevas. It is not merely—with the kind indulgence of the —

The Presiding Officer. We are not reviewing the decision the Supreme Court. We are just getting the narration of the witness with respect to her knowledge of what transpired with respect to the issuance of the TRO.

36

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I fully agree with that. There may be some infirmity, there may be some irregularity, but our centerpoint here is the alleged participation of the Honorable Justice Corona who is being impeached, Your Honor. That is my point—that is my point of objection. The Presiding Officer. Let us wait for the finality of the direct examination of the distinguished Secretary of Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. I was a little bit reluctant because the testimony is being adduced by the Honorable Secretary of Justice. I was once Secretary of Justice, I do not want to be placed in a position that she is now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, she is the witness called by the Prosecution and let us hear her. We realized that for herself, it was not the Respondent alone who issued the TRO, it was the Supreme Court En Banc. So we know this. You see, it is from the mouth of the Honorable Secretary of Justice. So proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. Sorry. Representative Daza. After you received—matapos po ninyong matanggap ‘yung notice at saka resolution ng Korte Suprema na ang petsa ay Nobyembre 18, 2011, mayroon po ba kayong natanggap, kung mayroon man kayong natanggap, na panibagong notice at resolution sa Korte Suprema tungkol po doon sa dalawang usapin nabanggit ninyo, ‘yung combined that were consolidated? Ms. De Lima. Mayroon pong several resolutions after the November 18. Kasi po, after the November 18 Resolution, nagkaroon po ng oral arguments at—noong November 22 po ‘yun. And then, mayroon uli, another one, November 24. And then, another oral arguments, December 1. And after each of those sessions, those oral arguments, nag-i-issue po ng resolution ang Supreme Court. Representative Daza. Okay. Tinutukoy— The Presiding Officer. And that resolution was issued by the Supreme Court En Banc? Ms. De Lima. En banc, Your Honor. But again, these are unsigned resolutions because they speak of pending incidents and not yet the decision on the merits. The Presiding Officer. But those en banc resolutions were issued after an argument by both parties before the Court? Ms. De Lima. Yes. But ‘yung mga resolutions po are just on certain incidents. Like, for example, reflecting or narrating the—what pleadings or what incidents were taken up in a particular hearing or session. The Presiding Officer. Not on the merits? Ms. De Lima. Not yet on the merits, Your Honor. As a matter of fact— The Presiding Officer. Actually, the case is not yet over? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. It is still pending?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

37

Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. These consolidated cases have been submitted already for resolution because both parties have filed their respective memoranda but no decision yet as of this moment, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Daza. May I proceed, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. Natatandaan po ba ninyo kung kayo ay nakatanggap, o kung nakatanggap man kayo, ng Notice of Resolution muli sa Korte Suprema ng ang petsa ay Disyembre 13, 2011? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Isa po ito sa mga later resolutions na natanggap namin, December 13, 2011 Resolution na may mga naka-attach uli na mga dissenting opinions. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the gentleman? Mr. Cuevas. We admit the existence of these resolutions, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All of those are public records. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They can be taken notice of by this Court. It is better for them to be presented here anyway so that we will not be asking the Supreme Court anymore for copies. Mr. Cuevas. We have no objections, so you can proceed. Representative Daza. You also—admission—admit? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Representative Daza. All right. Attached to Exhibit “VVVVVVVVV” is Exhibit—pre-marked Exhibit “VVVVVVVVV-1” which is the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Guerrero. Also admitted? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Representative Daza. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. Very willingly. The Presiding Officer. Is there any instance in this entire proceeding, Madam Secretary, that you know of where the Respondent acted alone in issuing a process or order of the Supreme Court? Ms. De Lima. If you are referring, Your Honors, to resolutions duly issued by the Court, there is none. The Presiding Officer. In the entire period that these petitions to restrain the Department of Justice in carrying out Circular No. 41 and the WLO, the Watch List Orders, up to now, is there any instance where the Respondent acted alone in issuing any order, any process or any resolution bearing on this particular issue? Ms. De Lima. The direct answer to that question, Your Honor, is “no.”

38
The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. De Lima. But may I—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, there has been no resolution, orders or processes coming from the Supreme Court which was issued alone by the Respondent, Chief Justice Corona, or an action on his own. But if I may refer you, Your Honors, to certain disclosures again in the dissenting opinions, particularly that of Justice Sereno, there is one or a couple of points there which, to me, is worth looking into. Like for example, number one is the order or the instruction of the Chief Justice through Justice Velasco not to promulgate the December 2 dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno. And the dissenting opinion pertains again to what was happening with respect to the voting of the members of the Supreme Court on the issue of the efficacy of the TRO. Medyo nagkagulo po sila dun. So, that is one po. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence— The Presiding Officer. May we request the Counsel to allow the Secretary of Justice to finish before you make— Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. I thought she is through with her statement. Ms. De Lima. Not yet, Your Honor. I was just citing one example. There is another example— Mr. Cuevas. I was about to interrupt, Your Honor, because the matters being dealt within the testimony are matters strictly of official confidence, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway... Mr. Cuevas. A public officer— The Presiding Officer. ...anyway, if she is going to be disciplined, let the Court— Mr. Cuevas. No. It is not a question of—if Your Honor please, I hope I will not be—it is not a question of disciplining the witness on the stand, Your Honor. It is a question of violating the rules of ethics insofar as matters learned in official confidence by an official, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes, but... Mr. Cuevas. And these are matters— The Presiding Officer. ...we are gathering the evidence here. Anyway, at the proper time when the turn of the Defense will present its evidence, you can controvert everything that the Secretary of Justice is stating here. Mr. Cuevas. Maybe we—

The Presiding Officer. These are open to question. Mr. Cuevas. Maybe...

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. ...maybe we will not go that far, Your Honor. Because we do not subscribe to

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

39

the pertinency, materiality and relevancy of the statement being adduced through the testimony of the Honorable Secretary in connection with the Impeachment Complaint. Not that I am discrediting her, but if the purpose is to support the Complaint, Your Honor, it is our humble submission that it is entirely irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial. The Presiding Officer. Well, we... Mr. Cuevas. True, there maybe— The Presiding Officer. ...we will allow the Secretary to continue with her statement. Anyway— Mr. Cuevas. These are matters learned in official confidence, Your Honor. And I was once there for almost— Ms. De Lima. No. Your Honor, thank you. The Presiding Officer. Well, so ordered, anyway. Ms. De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor. Before I cite the second example, may I just respond briefly? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. De Lima. What I am saying now is what I read from the dissenting opinions and other resolutions. So, this is not a disclosure of something that is confidential because these matters have been succinctly or explicitly revealed or disclosed by Justice Sereno in her dissenting opinion. And according to her, again in the dissenting opinion, no one from among the other members of the Supreme Court had come out to dispute the accuracy or the correctness of her revelations with respect to those processes, the goings-on in the voting. So, it is all a matter of record, Your Honors. I am just probably paraphrasing. The Presiding Officer. Are those statements that you made found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno that had been presented by the gentleman from the Prosecution? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. As a part of your examination by him? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. De Lima. It is part of her dissenting opinion dated December 13. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. De Lima. The second example po, Your Honor, is— Mr. Cuevas. Wala nang question. Ms. De Lima. Hindi po, pinapatuloy po. I am sorry.

The Presiding Officer. No, I said proceed. Please let the Secretary of Justice— Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor.

40
Ms. De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Madam Secretary, go ahead.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The second example, again as disclosed by Justice Sereno in her dissenting opinion and even by Justice Carpio, but maybe for the sake of accuracy, can I ask for a copy of those dissenting opinions? Representative Daza. With the permission of the Court, may we show the witness Exhibit “VVVVVVVVV-1”? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. We have already gone on record, Your Honor, as admitting all these documents, the main opinion together with the dissenting opinion. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, since you have admitted the accuracy of this document, whether the accuracy is something else, the Chair does not see any harm if the Secretary of Justice will read a portion of the document as a part of her testimony. So let her do so. Representative Daza. You may proceed again. The witness, Mr. President, is going over the document, previously marked, which she requested that she be allowed to read or review. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, I am reviewing po the dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for one minute while the Secretary is looking for the pertinent portion of the dissenting opinion. Representative Daza. Thank you, Your Honor. The trial was suspended at 4:54 p.m. At 4:59 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

Madam Secretary, you may continue to complete your statement. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, I finally found it. Doon po sa una kong sinabi na nagbigay ng instruction si Chief Justice Corona through Justice Velasco na huwag daw hong i-promulgate ‘yung October—the December 2 dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, it is found on Page 8 of— The Presiding Officer. Justice— Ms. De Lima. The dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno at may nakalagay nga ho dito— may I read this portion. This is according to Justice Sereno, “On the following Monday or on 5 December 2011, two members of my staff had a serious talk with Atty. Vidal.”, referring to the Clerk of Court, Your Honor. “She admitted that she could not tell my staff the real reason for the nonpromulgation of my opinion, that actually Justice Velasco gave her the instruction, as confirmed by the Chief Justice, that my opinion should not be promulgated.”

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

41

Isa lang po ‘yan na portion about that. ‘Yung pangalawa pong example, at dito po ‘yan ulit sa dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno, specifically Page 17 sa may matrix po. It says: “The Clerk of Court informs Justice Carpio that CJ Corona sent in his own handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution from Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice version is to be immediately promulgated. CJ Corona’s version is to the effect that petitioners have complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO and that it is in full force and effect.” Mayroon daw hong ganoong ipinarating sa Clerk of Court. At sinasabi po sa dissenting opinions of both Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio na hindi nga ho ‘yun ‘yung unang pinag-usapan nuong November 18. Nuong November 18, according also to the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, dated also November 18, ‘yung resulta daw po ng botohan, 7-6, is that they need not say or clarify na suspended ‘yung efficacy ng TRO dahil nga hindi pa nakapag-comply with Condition No. 1 because it is clear, it is common sense pero nung klinaripay (clarify) na po in the November 22 Resolution, parang iba na ‘yung naging laman. So that is why Justice Carpio was constrained to write to the Chief Justice and asked na i-hold in abeyance muna ‘yung November 22 clarificatory resolution because instead of clarifying what in fact transpired during the November 18 deliberations ay nagpalala pa daw ho, lalong naging— napasama pa dahil hindi naman daw ‘yun talaga ang tunay na intention. And it would appear from the narration of Justice Sereno na si Chief Justice po ang nagpasingit nung version na iyon. There are several portions po. Hindi ko ho kasi maaano lahat. But if you read very thoroughly this dissenting opinion, makikita ho natin ‘yung buong istorya. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Madam Secretary, for the information of the Chair, I would like to ask you this question: Were you present in the arguments done in the Supreme Court with respect to the issuance of the TROs and the succeeding resolutions of the Supreme Court? Ms. De Lima. During the oral arguments, I was present, Your Honor, November 22, November 24 and December 1 because this— The Presiding Officer. This was en banc session of the Supreme Court. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, oral arguments; open to the public. The Presiding Officer. Yes. And the respondents or the petitioners were represented and as well as the government. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Presiding Officer. And as normally done, did the members of the Court ask questions from the lawyers of the parties concerned? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, because precisely, it was oral arguments so after the oral arguments of both parties, they were subjected to questioning. The Presiding Officer. All the justices who participated, they propounded questions to the lawyers of the petitioners as well as the lawyers of the government. Ms. De Lima. As far as I can remember, there are sessions or there are oral arguments where all of them asked questions. There is one session that actually not all asked questions. The Presiding Officer. Did the Respondent Chief Justice Corona ask any question and if he did, from what panel? Was it a question propounded to the lawyers of the petitioner or to the government?

42

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. If I remember correctly, although I am not quite sure, Your Honor, I was sure that he asked a question propounded to the Office of the Solicitor General with respect to the issue on the constitutionality of Circular No. 41 and WLO. I am not sure though whether he propounded questions, the Chief Justice, propounded questions on the— The Presiding Officer. If you recall, how extensive was his questioning of the Solicitor General? Ms. De Lima. By the Chief Justice? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. De Lima. A few minutes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. A few minutes. How about the others, other justices? Ms. De Lima. There were extensive oral arguments by some but not all. The Presiding Officer. How about the dissenting Justices? They also questioned the lawyer representing the petitioners? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And also the government? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So all of them were asking questions including the Chief Justice? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Representative Daza. May I resume, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed, Counsel. Representative Daza. Ginang Kalihim, ibabalik ko po kayo doon sa Nobyembre 15 na kung saan mga bandang ala-una, alas-dos sabi niyo nakita niyo sa telebisyon na nagkaroon ng press con si Mr. Marquez at doon ay sa kauna-unahang panahon, nalaman niyo na mayroon palang TRO na inilalabas ang Korte Suprema. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, as announced. Representative Daza. Noong pagkatapos nakita niyo, napakinggan ito sa telebisyon, natatandaan po ba ninyo, kung mayroon kayong natatandaan, na anumang pangyayaring nakapagbigay sa inyo ng problema na nauukol sa Department of Justice? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Kung if you are referring po sa November 15, noong in-announce nga po ni Ginoong Midas Marquez iyong issuance ng TRO. Pero as of November 15, wala po kaming natanggap pang kopya ay nagtangka po na umalis iyong former President Macapagal-Arroyo and former First Gentleman. Pumunta po sila sa airport mga banda hong alas-otso at sinasabi nga na aalis sila dahil nakakuha po daw sila ng TRO. Representative Daza. Ano po ang nangyari sa airport? Ms. De Lima. Pinigilan po sila ng BI or Bureau of Immigration personnel. Actually, noong nandoon na po iyong grupo ng dating Pangulo, may mga kasama rin po siyang mga abogado,

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

43

ay tinawag po sa akin kung ano daw po ang gagawin dahil nga po nagpupumilit na aalis sila noong gabi na iyon. Representative Daza. Ano po ang inyong tugon doon sa nagtanong? Ang nagtanong po ba sa inyo ang Immigration sa airport? Ms. De Lima. Opo. If I am not mistaken, it was the Executive Director of BI ang humingi ng guidance, Executive Director Eric Dimaculangan. Representative Daza. Ano po ang inyong tugon? Ms. De Lima. Ang sabi ko po, “Hindi pa natin natatanggap ‘yung official copy nuong TRO. So hindi pa iyan binding sa atin.” So sabi ko po, “Hindi pa puwede natin paalisin dahil hindi pa binding sa atin iyan.” At noong in-announce nga po, I supposedly made conditions but hindi ko po alam iyon as of the evening of November 15 kung nagkaroon na po ng compliance iyong mga petitioners doon sa mga kundisyon na nakalagay sa TRO. Representative Daza. Noong gabi noong Nobyembre 15, mayroon ba kayong natatandaan, kung may natatandaan kayong hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari doon sa gusali ng Department of Justice? Ms. De Lima. Wala po ako noong November 15, because—katulad po nung sinabi ko, nasa Palasyo po ako. Nasa Malacañang po ako around after lunch of November 15. At hindi na nga po ako nakabalik lalo na nung nalaman na po sa TV, sa news, na may TRO. Kaya nagpulongpulong po kami doon sa Palasyo. At ang natatandaan ko rin po, I also conducted my own—I had a press con at the Palace, na I had to state or announce the position of government, na dahil nga po as of that very moment—that was about late afternoon, 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.—wala pa pong natanggap ang DOJ o yung OSG ng official copy. Because under the law, under the rules, ang announcement po through media or press con is not one of the modes of service and, therefore, it cannot be considered as effective. Representative Daza. Napansin ko po kanina nung sumasagot kayo sa mga itinatanong ng Kagalang-galang na Pangulo eh binabasa ninyo yung dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno, yun pong Exhibit “VVVVVVVVV-1.” Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ngayon ay, pagkatapos ninyong mabasa noon ang Exhibit “VVVVVVVVV-1”, yung dissenting opinion na binasa ninyo uli kanina, ano po ang inyong reaction sa inyong nabasa? Ms. De Lima. Lubha ho akong nabahala. Kasi itong December 13 pong Resolution na ito at yung mga dissenting opinions, natanggap lang ho namin ito, December 21. At sa unang pagkakataon, doon ho namin nalaman kung ano yung mga pangyayari, kaganapan sa loob ng Supreme Court ukol doon sa botohan ng tungkol doon sa issue ng “Effective na ba yung TRO?” So, masyado po akong nabahala na may mga iregularidad at meron hong mga—yung mga aspeto hong mga nabanggit ko kanina, kagagawan po ng Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. Meron lang akong tanong, Madam Secretary. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Kung yung mga kundisyones ng TRO na ipinababa ng Korte Suprema ay natupad sa inyong paniniwala, ang Department of Justice would have complied, di ba? Ms. De Lima. Ganito po yon. I beg your indulgence, Your Honor, but…

44
The Presiding Officer. Yes.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. …I think it is not as simple as that. I mean, the answer—I cannot just directly answer that. Okay. Yung pangunahin hong dahilan kung bakit hindi ho namin sinunod yung TRO as of November 15, lalo na nung gabi na nagtangkang umalis yung dating Pangulo, ay dahil nga po wala pang official copy. And then nakita ho natin, as announced, na may mga kundisyon. Now, sinabi ko rin po na—nagulat ho nga kasi kami doon sa TRO because hindi ho namin expected na mag-i-issue ng TRO, na bibigyan muna dapat kami ng pagkakataon na i-explain kung bakit ayaw naming payagan yung dating Pangulo na makaalis ng bansa. So ang sabi ko, “We have to file a Motion for Reconsideration para maintindihan ng Korte Suprema yung mga naging dahilan kung bakit ayaw nating payagan yung dating Pangulo.” So sa pananaw ko po, pending the disposition or the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration which was eventually denied by the Supreme Court on November 18, ay dapat po hindi na muna irecognize yung TRO. Yun po ang naging position ko. The Presiding Officer. I will put it this way so that I just want to clear all of these vague portions of this whole thing. I am asking a hypothetical question. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If the TRO was served on the Department of Justice, being a necessary party, and if the conditions when the TRO was served had already been complied, would the Department of Justice have respected the TRO? Ms. De Lima. Maybe and maybe not. Your Honor, ang pananaw ko po kasi is that iyong TRO po ay improper in the sense that a TRO, we know it, Your Honor, that it is supposed to preserve the status quo pending the disposition of the merits of the main petition. It is supposed to prevent something or to prevent the issues involved in the main petition from being moot and academic or rendered ineffectual. Now what was the effect of the issuance of the TRO, conditional or not? It had the effect of rendering the disposition of the main petition, well, illusory or ineffectual because it is as if you granted already the petition. Because the main issue really is: Should we allow the former President to leave the country despite the pendency of these big cases against her? So nuong pinayagan na po ng Korte Suprema na makaalis, ano pa ho ba ang pag-uusapan natin? Parang na-preempt na iyong magiging desisyon ng Korte Suprema. To me, Your Honors, in all honesty and based on my understanding of the law and the rules, hindi po iyan ang function or office ng TRO. The Presiding Officer. You would have taken the steps to ask for a Motion for Reconsideration… Ms. De Lima. Exactly. The Presiding Officer. …in order to really re-argue the necessity for a TRO and its effect? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. That is why I immediately directed or requested the Office of the Solicitor General to file the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration which, as I said earlier, was denied in the subsequent session in November 18. Dinenay (deny) po iyong aming Motion for Reconsideration, but on November 18 po tamang-tama po nagkaroon na ng Resolution iyong COMELEC doon sa electoral sabotage case at ito ay finayl (file) sa RTC Pasay at na-raffle noong bandang tanghali po siguro iyon or after lunch noong—No, no, before lunch, noontime of November

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

45

18 at nai-raffle kay Judge Mupas at noong mga bandang hapon po ay nakapagpalabas na si Judge Mupas ng Warrant of Arrest and, therefore, naging moot and academic po iyong usapin ng TRO doon sa consolidated cases before the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. But outside of all of this narrated information drawn from the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, did the Chief Justice alone or in combination with other members of the court acted alone in trying to enforce the TRO? Ms. De Lima. I would not have the information or I am not at all privy and aside from those circumstances that reflected in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, Your Honor, ay hindi ko na po iyon alam. I am not in a position to answer that. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your candor. The gentleman from Cavite. Representative Daza. Mr. President, with due respect— The Presiding Officer. Are you through? By the way, are you through, Your Honor? Representative Daza. I will just put on record— The Presiding Officer. Let us let the Prosecution to finish first. Representative Daza. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I am sorry, I thought everything is over. Representative Daza. There is no problem, Mr. President. I just would like to put on record that I have no further questions from the Secretary of Justice. Maraming Salamat po. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Daza. I have no more questions. The Presiding Officer. You have no more questions? Representative Daza. For now I have no more questions. We are closing the direct examination on the witness. The Presiding Officer. You are closing the direct? Representative Daza. Yes, that is correct, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. May I recognize now the gentleman from Cavite? Senator Revilla. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Madam Secretary, pakiulit nga po ulit kung kelan niyo in-issue itong WLO? Ms. De Lima. Tatlo po yung in-issue ko—August, September and October. Yung pinakahuli po ay October 27. Senator Revilla. Meron ho bang humiling para ma-issue niyo ang WLO na ‘to?

46

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. Wala po, I did it motu proprio pursuant to the provisions of Circular No. 41. Senator Revilla. So wala pong umorder from Malacañang para ilabas niyo ‘tong WLO na ito? Ms. De Lima. Wala po. Senator Revilla. Ayon po sa inyo, ang nagbigay sa inyo ng kapangyarihan ay ang Circular No. 41 na pinirmahan ni Secretary Agra, tama po ba? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. So ang circular ay gawa din ng DOJ? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, na pirmado o in-issue ni former Secretary Agra. Senator Revilla. Hindi ito batas? Ms. De Lima. Circular po. Senator Revilla. Circular? Ms. De Lima. It has the force and effect of law. Senator Revilla. So malinaw hindi po ito batas? Ms. De Lima. Hindi po batas but is an administrative issuance which has the force and effect of law. Senator Revilla. Okay. I just want put it on record, Madam. Kailan niyo po ulit natanggap ang TRO ng Korte Suprema? Ms. De Lima. Nuong umaga po ng November 16, specifically at 8:25 in the morning. Senator Revilla. So kung nakatanggap kayo ng kopya ng TRO nung araw na yun, papayagan niyo po ba siyang umalis, ang dating Pangulo? Ms. De Lima. Hindi pa po dahil nga po conditional yung TRO. Senator Revilla. Ayon po sa ilang report natin, nagpadala po ang Korte Suprema ng kopya sa inyo nung araw na iyon pero hindi po ito tinanggap ng inyong opisina, tama po ba? Ms. De Lima. Wala na ho kasing tatanggap. Senator Revilla. Wala na pong tatanggap? Ms. De Lima. Opo. Senator Revilla. Anong oras pong dumating sa opisina ninyo? Ms. De Lima. Based po dun sa records namin at sa affidavit nung security guard na nandun pa ho, kasi wala na po yung mga staff ko, is about six something in the evening—6:20, 6:25. Senator Revilla. So wala na po kayo doon sa Korte Suprema? Ms. De Lima. Hindi po sa—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

47

Senator Revilla. I mean, doon sa inyo sa DOJ office, I mean. Ms. De Lima. Wala po ako because after lunch nga po nasa Palasyo po ako, hindi na po ako bumalik. Senator Revilla. Nasa Palasyo na kayo. Ms. De Lima. And kung natatandaan ko po, from the Palace, I came here at the Senate dahil may budget hearing po kami nun. Senator Revilla. Nasa Palasyo po kayo. Sino po ang kasama niyo sa Palasyo during that time? Ms. De Lima. Pumunta po ako sa opisina ni Pangulo dahil nga po ay inaabangan namin yung magiging developments nung session ng Supreme Court nuong umaga dahil balita naman po na ite-take up yung mga petitions nuong araw na yun, November 15. Kaya nga po nung nag-press con si Spokesperson Midas Marquez ay nasa Palasyo po ako. And aside from that, meron pa ho kaming mga ibang mga pinag-usapan. Senator Revilla. Sa palagay niyo ba kung nakaalis po ang ating dating Pangulong Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, sa tingin niyo po ba siya ay babalik o hindi na? Ms. De Lima. Yung paniniwala ko po, base sa aking masusing evaluation nung mga circumstances at tsaka sa mga impormasyon na nakakalap po namin at in-analyze ko po, mukhang hindi na po. Senator Revilla. So sa tingin niyo talagang hindi na siya babalik? Ms. De Lima. Hindi naman po ako 100 percent na magiging sigurado diyan because hindi ko naman po talaga tunay na mababasa— Senator Revilla. So hindi niyo po kinonsider (consider) na talagang siya ay may sakit? Ako po ay walang kinikilingan. I just want to know kung ano po talaga ‘yong katotohanan. Ms. De Lima. Kinonsider ko po ‘yun. Senator Revilla. Okay. Ms. De Lima. Pero ang crucial po doon is ‘yung kalagayan niya. Gaano po ba kalala? Kasi kung malala talaga, kung nakumbinsi po ako—sa totoo lang po, kung nakumbinsi ako na talagang kailangan niya ng emergency treatment abroad at hindi matutugunan dito sa atin na talagang life-threatening, siguro po pinayagan ko po. Hindi po siguro ako nag dalawang-isip. Senator Revilla. So, sa tingin niyo, hindi siya life-threatening. Ms. De Lima. Hindi po, in-explain po sa akin ‘yun ni Secretary Ona. Senator Revilla. Pag naging appointee ba ni PGMA, malaki bang posibilidad na kumiling ito pabor sa kanya? Ms. De Lima. Depende ho sa tao. Senator Revilla. Depende? Ms. De Lima. Yes.

48

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Senator Revilla. Di po ba kayo ay naging appointee rin ni dating Pangulong Arroyo? Ms. De Lima. Exactly, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. Ano pong position niyo? Ms. De Lima. I was appointed as the Chair of the Commission on Human Rights. Senator Revilla. Commission on Human Rights. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Revilla. At hindi niyo rin po pinagsisihan ‘yun, hindi po ba? Ms. De Lima. Hindi po. Siguro naman— Senator Revilla. Dahil maganda ang inyong performance during that time, I know, and up to now. Okay. Mr. President, that is all. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The Floor Leader. The gentleman from Taguig and Pateros, you have the floor. Senator Cayetano (A). Good afternoon, Mr. President. May ask some clarificatory questions to the Prosecution, to any one in their team? I will ask my question first, tapos, bahala na po kayo kung sinong gustong sumagot. Magandang hapon po sa inyo. Representative Daza. Magandang hapon po, Ginoong Senador. Senator Cayetano (A). Together with many of our colleagues here—Senator Lacson, Senator Guingona, Senator Escudero—and some of my colleagues who are sitting—former colleagues who are sitting behind you, and some who are in government now, we really took a stand to hold the former President Arroyo accountable for her actions during her term and until now, ‘no. So, I do not think issue sa amin ‘yon. You have some of the people—Congressman Colmenares here was one of them—who drafted the Impeachment Complaint, who helped us during that time. I think hindi issue na many, many Filipinos want her held accountable and does not want her to escape. But I would like you to help me draw the line or katulad nung tanong po ni Senator Pimentel dati sa inyo, ‘yung legal theory. Puwede niyo po bang ipaliwanag sa amin, sa Korte and for my own clarification, ano po ang difference ng isang erroneous na decision lang ng Supreme Court o sabihin natin hindi tayo nag a-agree. Di ba, kung tama ‘yung decision nila, wala tayong paguusapan? Pero kung mali o erroneous, bakit erroneous? Hindi tayo agree sa kanilang—tingin natin mali ang decision nila o tingin natin irregular ang pag-issue ng TRO, whatever. When is it simply erroneous? And because they are the Supreme Court, we just have to follow. And when does it become an impeachable offense? I would like that clarified because ang dami pong nagtatanong na—that. And secondly po, in the answer of the Defense, sabi nga nila, “collegial body ‘yan, eh.” So, why single out the CJ when ang nag-decide nito ay grupo? Please try to clarify that.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

49

Representative Daza. I will do the best I can. Well, firstly, the Chief Justice has been known as a primus inter pares. But if you look at the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court and we have filed our memorandum on that per Order of the Presiding Officer, it is obvious that he wields a tremendous influence over the other members of the Court. I would like to start from that assumption—from that premise that he has broad powers, not only over the Courts, but over the members of the Court. Now, given that, as stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, certain actions of the Chief Justice have in our view gone beyond that line, from honest mistake to an impeachable offense amounting to betrayal of trust. Among other things, as stated in that dissenting opinion, one, there was an agreement within the— in the deliberations of the Supreme Court that the ponente, Justice Velasco, was to consult with Justice Corona on the issue of whether or not the TRO had taken effect. In other words, whether the conditions were what we call— Senator Cayetano (A). I am sorry to interrupt you but I want to be fair with the Defense because—are you going to present witnesses on that or it is just the DOJ Secretary? Representative Daza. No. We have already marked the dissenting opinion. Senator Cayetano (A). The Dissenting Opinion. So, in other words, Sir, what you are saying is that the partiality makes it different. If it is simply an erroneous decision but they were impartial, it is not impeachable. Representative Daza. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). But the partiality amounted to betrayal of public trust. Representative Daza. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Number two, Sir, I see from your Complaint it says, “In order to give them a chance to escape.” So, are you going to present witnesses or are you also going to rely on some documents to show that, in fact, that was the motive of the Chief Justice to allow her to escape. Representative Daza. We do not have any document to show clearly that the conduct or the actuations of the Respondent, the Chief Justice, were calculated for the purpose. But certain acts that are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno would lend someone to the belief or the conclusion that all of these acts pieced together were synchronized in any manner as to enable or to give the former First Lady sic and her husband the opportunity to escape. Senator Cayetano (A). And then third, Sir, “Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO,” and this is what the good Justice Secretary is testifying on. So, do I get it right? What you are saying ho, kung ordinaryo yung desisyon, walang conspiracy, walang influence ang kahit sino, walang partiality, kahit hindi kayo agree, hindi impeachable yon. Representative Daza. Tama po. Senator Cayetano (A). Kasi ang dali po kasing humusga dito dahil unpopular si Presidente Arroyo, eh. Could you imagine if she was very popular and 90 percent of the people wanted her

50

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

to leave, would we be having this impeachment proceeding? So, as Senator-Judges, we have to make that legal distinction na hindi kami puwede kung anong popular lang, doon po kami. So Iam trying to find out … Representative Daza. Hindi po. Senator Cayetano (A). … what makes it betrayal of public trust. So, what you are saying is, number one, it is the partiality that which you will show with the dissenting opinion and the testimony of this witness. Representative Daza. That is correct. Senator Cayetano (A). And then yun pong distorting and yun pong giving a chance to escape are conclusions based on the actions and on the partiality. Representative Daza. Hindi. Yung distortion po ipinaliwanag yan, eh. Maliwanag po yan sa dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno. Yung botohan ay isang halimbawa. Senator Cayetano (A). Opo. Mayroon po yun sa dissenting opinion pero may sagot din po kasi ang Defense sa kanilang answer, eh. And kung iku-compare namin— Halimbawa po ‘no, kahapon nag-decide ang Senate President na hindi tatanggapin ang ebidensiya tungkol doon sa free tickets. Collegial body po kami, eh. Wala po sa amin tumayo even if some of us may have disagreed or agreed. And of course, the Senate President has a lot of influence on us. Although pare-pareho kaming senador, he is the Senate President. But do you file a case only against him and not the whole Senate? Yun po ang sinasabi nung Defense that we want clarified because marami din pong tanong. So, are you saying that there was a conspiracy here and the leader of the conspiracy is the Chief Justice kasi siya ang nag-influence sa iba? So, are we also going to hold the others accountable? Kasi ang nag-issue ho ng TRO yung majority. Mr. President, just a 30-second extension. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. I will give you two (2) minutes. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Sir. Binabalikan ko lang. Klaro po sa akin na yung partiality at yung sinabi mong dalawa. But yung question ko po, ang mali ba sa pag-issue ng TRO ay yung Chief Justice lang ho ba o lahat ng Justice na pumirma? Representative Daza. Maaari pong iyong Justice din pero sa ngayon po ang ating ipinaglilitis dito ay ang Chief Justice. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay.

Representative Daza. Sapagkat iyon pong mga nakasulat sa dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno ay iyong mga ginawa o the acts done by the Chief Justice were apart from certain acts which were together with the other Justices. Senator Cayetano (A). The reason, Sir— Representative Daza. There were certain acts that were resolved, that were so clear—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

51

Senator Cayetano (A). And you have outlined that and in your submission— Representative Daza. Yes, yes. Senator Cayetano (A). …you will outline that. But the reason it is so important to us, Sir… Representative Daza. Ang sabi nga nila—

Senator Cayetano (A). …is because some of these cases including the show cause, including this TRO, including the FASAP case, these are pending with the Supreme Court. So, maraming nagtatanong. So, kung hindi mo gusto ang desisyon at marami kang kaibigan na congressman, puwede bang ang gawin mo appeal via impeachment ’no? Meaning, file-an mo ng impeachment, i-discuss natin iyong kaso dito. On the other hand, wala ngang appeal sa Supreme Court. Your only remedy against Supreme Court Justices if they betray the public trust is to go to Impeachment Court. So, I also agree that we can call some of them here or we can look at the documents, et cetera. But I want the Defense, the Prosecution to show us very clearly ‘no, what makes it different. What makes it different when it is an ordinary case na erroneous na dapat hindi pasukan ng Impeachment and when it has reached the point that the only redress of our people to deal with the actions of certain Justices or maybe a division or one of them is to go into Impeachment process. You have answered some of the questions but I think that is so important because ang dami pong nagsasabi na “Eh, ongoing iyang cases na iyan eh, bakit ninyo dini-discuss?” and everything. Representative Daza. You know, Mr. Senator, there will be time for us to put all together… Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Representative Daza. …the bits and pieces of evidence in order that we could present a clear picture of the partiality which in our theory is betrayal of public trust. When we come to the summation, hopefully— Senator Cayetano (A). I will patiently wait for that, Sir and— Representative Daza. Because the bits of evidence will have to be put together. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Representative Daza. We cannot take one act—question one act of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice in isolation. Senator Cayetano (A). Well, Sir, I appreciate your answer. Nalinawagan po ako nang kaunti. I was hoping kasi na ipe-present ninyo iyong “excessive entanglement” kasi tingin ko nakakabit iyon dito eh. Kasi kung ipapakita mo gaano kalapit kay Presidente Arroyo ang Chief Justice and then ang kasunod kung ano. But since hindi ninyo na pinresent (present) iyon pero hindi naman kayo nag-flip-flop ‘no. Nag-decide lang kayo na huwag i-present iyon. That is why medyo pinangunahan ko lang nang kaunti kasi we have a tendency na kung saan-saan napupunta minsan—important issues ‘no dito. That is why I stood up to clarify this. And also concerns ng Defense ito eh. Ilang beses na nilang tinanong na ongoing iyong case eh and we have to be careful after this Impeachment, we still have to give all respect to the Supreme Court. But let me stop there, Sir. Representative Daza. Just a last word—

52
Senator Cayetano (A). Yes.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Representative Daza. With the indulgence of the Presiding Officer, Senate President, hindi na po namin kailangang ipakita kung gaano kalapit si Ginang Corona sa dating Pangulo. May mga katibayan po kami, documentary pa na magpapakita, ipapagtibay kung gaano kalapit mismo si Chief Justice Corona. Senator Cayetano (A). But Sir, we cannot take judicial notice of closeness of the Chief Justice kay President Arroyo. And kanina po sinabi ng kasama ninyo dito na hindi na ninyo ipe-present iyong “excessive entanglement.” So, ako, pag nag-review ako ng files nito bago ako gumawa ng desisyon, hindi ko puwedeng tingnan ang allegation ninyo lang. Representative Daza. Hindi. Ang sinasabi ko po, mayroon kaming ebidensiya… Senator Cayetano (A). Na ipe-present ninyo po? Representative Daza. …na ipapakita kung gaano kalapit… Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Representative Daza. …mismo si Chief Justice Corona sa dating Pangulo. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay, if you are going to present that, then I will wait for that. Representative Daza. Yes, yes. Senator Cayetano (A). But I was just saying, kanina po kasi ang understanding ko iyong “excessive entanglement,” kung tawagin ninyo, ay hindi na ipapakita. But of course, even if he is very, very close, normal naman na ia-appoint ng Presidente iyong close sa kanya. Hindi normal na yung ia-appoint ng Presidente yung kalaban niya. So, you still have to show a link that that closeness led to partiality. On that point, Mr. President, thank you for the extension and may I take this opportunity also to thank the Senate President and Senator Gringo for what they did in 1986 because it is February 22 today and we have not forgotten, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, but that is in the past. We are looking towards the future. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before we are overtaken by— The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. Before we are overtaken by the lateness of the hour, may we start with the cross-examination, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel may cross—the witness. Mr. Cuevas. Okay, Your Honor. Just a couple of questions, Your Honor… The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. …on the assumption that we will be granted to continue tomorrow’s hearing, Your Honor.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

53

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. Ms. De Lima. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. It is nice to see you around. Ms. De Lima. Same here. Mr. Cuevas. Now once upon a time, this representation was also a Secretary of Justice, the department you are now handling. And I have gone over the powers and prerogatives of the Secretary pursuant to the Administrative Code that you have mentioned. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. I did not see in there any power or function granted to the Secretary to review, much less, reverse any decision of the Supreme Court. Do you agree with me? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, definitely not. No such power. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And this is because of the hierarchy in our government setup, is it not? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Insofar as the Judicial Department is concerned, the head is the Supreme Court and on top of that is the Chief Justice. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Now, do you know of any branch of the government that can go deep by way of constitutional function into examining the decisions or orders of the Supreme Court? Ms. De Lima. None in the—well, if we are talking about decisions of the Supreme Court, then it is only the Supreme Court. Mr. Cuevas. So there is no governmental function or machinery that can dig deeper into the wisdom, validity and correctness or constitutionality of any decision of the Supreme Court? Ms. De Lima. Yes, in the exercise of its judicial review. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, is there any function allotted to the Executive Department whereby it can review, even in a minor sense, the decision or orders of the Honorable Supreme Court? Ms. De Lima. Reviewing the decisions and orders of the Supreme Court, also none, because the Supreme Court is— Mr. Cuevas. And then you must agree with me that this is embodied in several decisions already like the Borromeo, the Malabang vs. Court of Appeals case whereby a party litigant lost his case in Negros, went to the Court of Appeals, the decision was also in favor of his opponent, went to the Supreme Court and it was denied. Filed a motion for consideration, the motion is denied, so what he did was to go to the Office of the President and filed an administrative case against the members of the Supreme Court. And that was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Do you recall that case?

54

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. Well, I do not exactly recall that case. But the principle involved I am familiar with. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And there was a dictum in there stating that there is no authority or governmental setup in our system of government. Not even the Office of the President can review, much less, reverse any decision of the Supreme Court. Am I right? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor, in the exercise of the Supreme Court review. Mr. Cuevas. You recognize that? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. In the governmental setup, necessarily the Supreme Court is higher than any of the departments of the Executive Department. Ms. De Lima. The Judiciary, the Supreme Court, is a coequal branch. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, insofar as the departments are concerned. Right? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. But how—I am referring to the other Cabinet of the President or the departments under the President. Are they coequal? Is that what you wanted to tell us? Ms. De Lima. Well, the departments of the Executive offices under the Office of the President, they all form part of the Executive Department. Mr. Cuevas. Correct. Ms. De Lima. So they have the Executive Department, all executive officers have their respective powers and prerogatives in the exercise of the executive power, and the Executive Branch of government happens to be a coequal branch of government. Mr. Cuevas. And in the distribution of powers under the Constitution, it is not the Cabinet member or the department officials that are on level with the Judiciary, is it not? It is the President or the Chief Executive. Ms. De Lima. The officers under the Executive Department or specifically the Cabinet secretaries, they are considered the alter egos of the President. Mr. Cuevas. Right. Now, if that is so, why could there be a dispute relative to the validity of the Resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court in connection with the issuance of Hold Order by a Secretary of the President? Ms. De Lima. There is an issue because of the propriety of the TRO. As I explained earlier— responding to the question of the Honorable Presiding Officer—we are questioning the propriety of the TRO because it violates, or it went against or goes against the very essence of a TRO. Mr. Cuevas. And after your challenge against the TRO had been resolved, is there any alternative left to any member of the Cabinet to disobey the order or ruling of the Supreme Court irrespective of the nobility of purpose on the part of the Secretary? Ms. De Lima. Yes. Well, if there is a final ruling on the issue of the validity of the TRO, then we will have no choice but to adhere to the TRO because that would be a final ruling of the Supreme Court, and we cannot reverse the Supreme Court on that matter.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

55

Mr. Cuevas. I understand that in this case, there was a ruling already insofar as the TRO is concerned, is it not? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. That was November 18. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And that had never been amended, much less repealed or revoked as of this time, is it not? Ms. De Lima. No, Your Honor, because it denied precisely the Motion to Lift and/or Motion for Reconsideration of the November 15, 2011 TRO. Mr. Cuevas. And the Motion to Lift was denied. Ms. De Lima. The Motion to Lift was denied in the Resolution of November 18. Mr. Cuevas. And it means—to us, it means, therefore, that the TRO stands as it is. Ms. De Lima. As of November 18, it was not yet clear because of the dispute on the exact interpretation, the import of the TRO, whether it was already considered effective on account of the non-compliance by petitioners with Condition No. 2. Nalaman po natin— Mr. Cuevas. Is that—I am sorry, I am sorry, Madam Secretary. Go ahead, please. Ms. De Lima. Opo. As of November 18, hindi pa ho klaro iyon na effective na iyong TRO. Wala pa nga ho silang pinalabas na any confirmation, any order, any ruling na, yes, there had been compliance already with the conditions of the TRO. Sa pagkakaalam ko po, kailangan ng separate order or any clarification from the Supreme Court doon sa compliance. And it is only when there has been a confirmation of the full compliance with the conditions na puwede na nating sabihin na naging effective na po iyong TRO. Mr. Cuevas. I know that you have been a practitioner of note before entering the government, is that right? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And you must have been continuously in appellate practice. Ms. De Lima. Well, I have some exposure to appellate practice. I— Mr. Cuevas. And you knew that the Supreme Court acts en banc and also in division. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And the decisions of the Supreme Court whether en banc or in division must be a majority decision. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. In its entirety, it is the responsibility of all the Members who participated therein, not a particular member, not even solely by the ponente. Ms. De Lima. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, in this particular instance, there is a statement in here—and may I be allowed to read it for your benefit: “Respondent betrayed public trust through his partiality in granting a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.”

56

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

My understanding of this particular Impeachment Article is that it was the Honorable Chief Justice Corona who issued the Restraining Order, is that correct? Or do you agree with that based on the allegation of this Impeachment Complaint? Ms. De Lima. Well, as crafted, it seems to be the connotation but it is actually referring to the TRO as issued. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. And that particular TRO issued was not solely issued only by the Chief Justice. In fact, he has no participation in the issuance thereof. Ms. De Lima. Well, he concurred in the issuance of the TRO because he was one of the eight (8) members who voted in favor of the issuance of the TRO on November 15. Mr. Cuevas. Why—could you give us an explanation as to why the charges were merely leveled against the Chief Justice, notwithstanding the fact that there would have been no TRO had there been no concurrence of the majority of the Court? Ms. De Lima. Well, there was an—well, the allegation is with respect to partiality. Now, betrayal of public trust because of the partiality on the part of the Respondent in issuing the TRO which had the effect of aiding the former President to leave the country and escape prosecution—escape— Mr. Cuevas. No, I have not gone that far yet. My only question is, since this TRO, according to you, was granted by the Supreme Court acting en banc and there were eight (8) Justices who participated therein—in fact, there is an allegation that the rest of the other members of the Supreme Court conspired and confederated with the Chief Justice in issuing this TRO, do you subscribe to that view or may we hear your comment in connection therewith? Representative Daza. Objection, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of— Representative Daza. There is no admission. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of the objection? Representative Daza. Yes. The question is predicated on the claim that there is conspiracy among the Justices—yes. Mr. Cuevas. Well, a while ago—Your Honor, please— Representative Daza. I object to that because there is no such allegation… Mr. Cuevas. I am not saying it— Representative Daza. … in the complaint of conspiracy, nor is there any statement by the witness that there was conspiracy. Mr. Cuevas. I have not gone that far, Your Honor. I just predicated my question on your admission to the clarificatory questions made by the Honorable Senator a while ago that the eight (8) or the other Members conspired with the Chief Justice that enabled the Chief Justice to issue this alleged or questionable Restraining Order. Representative Daza. So, the question, Mr. President, I understand therefore that the question is hypothetical. In other words—

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

57

Mr. Cuevas. Oh, no. Representative Daza. Because there is no admission of conspiracy here. Mr. Cuevas. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. The question is, did the Counsel for—the member of the Prosecution asserted that the Respondent conspired with other members of the Court to issue the TRO, is that… Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. … asserted. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Now, I— The Presiding Officer. It was asserted by whom? Mr. Cuevas. By the Honorable Congressman Daza. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us appeal to the record to be fair. Mr. Cuevas. There was a question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Stenographer, will you kindly check the questioning by the gentleman from Samar to find out whether he used the word “conspired” or “conspiracy”? So in order to be fair, all these things are recorded so— Mr. Cuevas. I will just withdraw the question if the Court so allows, Your Honor, so that we can move a little further. I will reform the question. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. All right. The Presiding Officer. You withdraw and reform your question. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Now, there is also mention in here that the actuation of the Honorable Justice Corona was in order to give the former President the opportunity to escape prosecution. Ms. De Lima. That is in the Article, Article VII. Oo. Mr. Cuevas. Do you subscribe to that—to the statement appearing in here? Or you have doubts also? Ms. De Lima. I subscribe to that allegation. Mr. Cuevas. All right. In other words, there is really the desire on the part of Justice Corona to allow the escape of GMA? Ms. De Lima. From my own appreciation of what happened, the developments, actions of what I read in their opinions, et cetera, yes. Mr. Cuevas. So, this is not based on your personal opinion?

58

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Ms. De Lima. My own observations based on, again, as I said my appreciation of the attendant facts and circumstances and based on the pleadings, the orders, the disclosures, revelations in the dissenting opinion and, Your Honors, also because—well, when—in fact in the issuance itself of the TRO, so it was November 15, and then we were given only very limited period to file a comment, only in three (3) days, due on November 18. And then they set oral arguments for November 22. That is not common, Sir. Normally, the respondents are given a period of ten (10) days to file a Comment and then after which if the Court so desires, will set the case… Mr. Cuevas. So whenever… Ms. De Lima. ... for oral arguments. Now, very limited period and then immediately, oral arguments for November 22. Now, if they intended to get the Comment from us in just—in three (3) days and they intended to hear us out in that oral arguments on November 22, why issue the TRO on November 15? Mr. Cuevas. So that is your conclusion? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. On the basis, according to you, of the documents you have read? Ms. De Lima. Documents and my understanding, and I am a student of law. Mr. Cuevas. Would you say that there was conspiracy among the members of the Supreme Court that enables the grant of the restraining order? Conspiracy is a positive act and the liability of one is the liability of all. That is why I ask this question. Why is the Impeachment Complaint only gravitate or centers on the Chief Justice excluding the other conspirators? Ms. De Lima. Because—

Mr. Cuevas. You have the evidence? Representative Daza. Mr. President. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Daza. I object to the question as argumentative. The Presiding Officer. No, let the witness—let the Secretary of Justice answer. It is not argumentative. He is just asking whether she knows, as a matter of fact, that there was conspiracy. Ms. De Lima. If the question is demanding for a categorical answer on my part— Mr. Cuevas. Certainly, yes. Ms. De Lima. Conspiracy? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. De Lima. Well, the conspiracy because they issued the questionable TRO. Well, the Chief Justice is only one vote, of course, when it comes to decisions. But there are other things, there are other functions and duties and powers of the Chief Justice as primus inter pares. Mr. Cuevas. But that is not my question to you, Madam Secretary. My question to you is, this restraining order would not have come into effect were it not for the fact that the majority of the Court en banc decided to grant the same, am I right?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

59

Ms. De Lima.

Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. It could not have been possible by the signature merely of Chief Justice Corona, is it not? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. And since the actual result is there was a restraining order issued by the Court, the responsibility is supposed to be shouldered by all the signatories to that Resolution granting the restraining order or you have a different view? Ms. De Lima. If you talk only about the voting and the position with respect to the propriety of the TRO with eight (8) of them concurring that—you know, TRO at that time was proper in their view or in their—that is their position as the majority. Then, yes. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. I noticed that you have laid very heavy an emphasis on the dissenting opinion. Is this your ordinary approach to cases that you have been handling? Ms. De Lima. No, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Because my opinion is what controls is the majority decision? Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. No, Sir, that is not my usual appreciation. Mr. Cuevas. This is a special one only? Ms. De Lima. Well, because of the peculiar circumstances. Mr. Cuevas. And there is no other case which you have treated in the same manner where you laid heavy an emphasis on the dissenting opinion? Ms. De Lima. There may have been a few when I was still— Mr. Cuevas. But you cannot recall anymore? Ms. De Lima. No more. When I was still a practitioner, but… Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Ms. De Lima. …I believe that the dissenting opinions… Mr. Cuevas. I request, Your Honor, to be allowed to— Ms. De Lima. …have more merit. Mr. Cuevas. It is already six o’clock. I do not want to touch on the— The Presiding Officer. What is your pleasure? Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. I am sorry. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense Counsel? Mr. Cuevas. I request, Your Honor, that I be allowed to continue with my cross in tomorrow’s hearing because of time.

60
The Presiding Officer. Yes. Is there any objection?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. And then besides, the Secretary had been on the witness stand for almost two hours. Representative Daza. No objection from the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Request granted. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Therefore, we will continue with the— The Presiding Officer. May we respectfully request the Honorable Chief Justice— Secretary of Justice of the Republic… [Laughter] Mr. Cuevas. No vacancy yet in the Office of the Chief Justice. Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President— The Presiding Officer. ...to come back tomorrow to answer questions from the Defense. Representative Daza. Mr. President, may I request that two (2) witnesses that we subpoenaed and were here today be directed to appear again tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. All those witnesses that were subpoenaed upon request of the Prosecution to testify today and who were not able to testify are ordered to come back tomorrow at two in the afternoon when we continue with the trial of this Impeachment Case. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, we will continue tomorrow with the cross-examination by the Defense and then thereafter a number of Members of the Court would like to ask questions, particularly Senators Ping Lacson, Pimentel, and Estrada, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. So with that, Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at Arms will now 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. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move to adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Thursday, February 23, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none; the trial is hereby adjourned until 2:00 p.m. of Thursday, February 23, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful