You are on page 1of 38


Republic of the Philippines

Pasay City

Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Wednesday, February 29, 2012

AT 2:16 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Pia S. Cayetano. Senator Cayetano (P). Let us put ourselves in the presence of the Lord. We offer up this prayer through a poem which is entitled True Justice: Enthroned upon the mighty truth, Within the confines of the laws, True Justice seeth not the man, But only hears his cause. Unconscious of his creed or race, She cannot see but only weighs; For Justice with unbandaged eyes, Would be oppression in disguise. This is a poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar. Our God and Father in heaven, as we go through the difficult and sometimes painful process of finding out the truth in relation to the issues at hand, we humbly ask for the gift of extraordinary wisdom to enable us to distinguish between conflicting issues and claims, to do what is right by Your standards and by the standards of our laws, always remaining faithful to the oath we took as Senator-Judges. We would also like to say a special prayer for the bar examinees. May those who successfully passed the Bar exam be true vanguards of the law. And this we pray in Jesus Name. Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will now call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading:


Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... The Senate President .........................................................................

Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present* Present Present Present Present* Present

The Presiding Officer. With 20 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. Senator Sotto. Proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 28, 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 28, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. Please call the case, Madam Clerk of Court.
*Arrived after the roll call


The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Appearances. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. For the Prosecution, Mr. President. Representative Primicias-Agabas. Good afternoon, Your Honors. For the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives, same appearance. And we are ready, Your Honors. Senator Sotto. For the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are ready also. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Before the Business of the Day yesterday, the Minority Leader was asking for the floor. So may we recognize the Minority Leader, Sen. Alan Cayetano, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Minority Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, yesterday when Congressman Neri Colmenares brought up certain topics, I asked to be recognized today because I did some research dwelling on the immunities of Supreme Court Justices because of this In Re: Raul Gonzales which practically states that, a member of the Philippine Barthat it is a qualification to become a Justice that you have to be a member of the Philippine Bar and you cannot file a disbarment case during the incumbency of a Justice nor can you file a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan of any offense which carries with it the removal from office. Meaning, the only way to address issues of transparency and accountability to Justices is through an Impeachment Court. The President has an immunity from suit for his term of six years only but since the Justices retire at the age of 70 years old, they basically have a much longer time of immunity, in effect, because of what some people term procedural immunity. And I see the point of this. You cannot see a situation wherein a Supreme Court Justice is being tried before the Sandiganbayan and then the appeal will be before the Supreme Court and, at the same time, they pass a resolution. And to be fair to the Supreme Court, it was the previous members that basically made it very difficult, if not almost impossible, for anyone to get a copy of the SALN.


And so basically, Mr. President, ang sinasabi ko po, with all of these immunities, ang takbuhan lang ng tao po yung Impeachment Court. Pero kung ang magiging desisyon po ng Supreme Court is that every step of the way, whether pagsu-subpoena ng kanilang records o ng mga tao, et cetera, ay hindi puwedeng kunin, lalong nai-strengthen yung kanilang so-called immunity. So saan ka tatakbo? Parang may problema tayo: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Kukunin mo ba yung ebidensya at kakasuhan mo ba muna siya bago ka dumating ng Impeachment? Or pag nasa Impeachment na, sasabihin, Nasaan ang ebidensya? Magiging technical tayo. And hindi mo naman puwede silang kunin na witness; hindi mo puwedeng kunin yung records. Samantalang malinaw na malinaw naman sa lahat ng court rulings abroad na ang judicial misconduct is one of the exceptions to opening up their records, regardless if the case is pending before them or not. The Neri Case which dealt with Executive Privilege, very, very clear yung umpisa niyang statement, Executive privilege cannot be used to excuse a crime. So I wanted to go into a discussion, Mr. President, an academic discussion rather than a ruling on the points that we have already ruled upon because of my concern that whatever we do here will set a precedent, na magiging basehan ito ng future impeachment. I hope we will never have to go through this again with any of the other justices. I do know that wetama po si Senator Miriam, let us talk about the country, let us talk about the future. Napakahalaga na yung integrity ng Supreme Court intact. Pero, Mr. President, yun din po ang sinabi kasi natin sa militar nung sinabi nating huwag imbestigahansinasabi nilang huwag imbestigahan si General Garcia; huwag pag-usapan ang pabaon, huwag pag-usapan ang mga nangyayari. But this actually strengthened the military, and the reforms that came afterwards actually strengthened the military. So I think there are good intentions in asking the Supreme Court to release some of their records or to make themselves subject to this Impeachment Court. Let me just put on the record, Mr. President, that some of the confusion is because of the name. Ang tawag po kasi natin, Supreme Court. If we put the name Supreme Impeachment Court, magkakaroon ng context nang konti kasi lahat po ng Justices, whether collectively or individually, are subject to the Impeachment Court because they are impeachable officers. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin na pantay natin sila sapagkat lahat ng dapat magsa-submit sa jurisdiction ng Court ay mas mababa sa Korte. But, Mr. President, this will go into a discussion of the difference between dealing with the Supreme Court itself and Members of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, Mr. President, I was overtaken by some events and I think we agreed to talk about this in caucus instead. I know it is a very sensitive issue but let me just reserve some time after our caucus or at the appropriate time, Mr. President, to talk about how the Impeachment Court can balance these two very important interests: one, which is the respect of a coequal branch of the Senate which is the Judiciary not a coequal branch of the Impeachment Court; No. 2, Mr. President, is the integrity of the adjudicatory process of the Supreme Court and to record its peoplehow to ensure that ang Justices natin ay protektado at hindi sila yung yuyugyog o sila ang kinakasuhan or yung independence ng Judiciary, napaka-importante yon. But at the same time, we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And alam po natin that there can be no person or no branch of government that can have absolute immunity. So, Mr. President, I just wanted to put these on record and I prepared a legal study and some cases that we researched. But let me stop here, Mr. President, and discuss it in the caucus and then


maybe at the appropriate time, we can have a discussion just for the records as I said because this will be a precedent. And it will be very, very difficult to impeach an erring Supreme Court Justice if these issues are not resolved. Thank you very much for this time, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Pia Cayetano is seeking to be recognized. And while she is preparing for that, I just called the attention of the Clerk of Court to page 54 of the Journal wherein the last line is acknowledged to the Senate President or the Presiding Officer, but this is Senator Drilon. Just to make the proper correction. Typographic error, most probably. Anyway, for the record. So, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, on Monday, February 27, the Prosecution offered as evidence the testimony of one of their witness, Edmond Llosala. And in the Journal of said date, it states, among many others, the purpose of why his testimony was offered. I will quote, To prove that Respondent Corona using his administrative powers as the Supreme Court Chief Justice extended office hours so that the TRO condition can be fulfilled by GMA and thus allow GMA and then First Gentleman to leave. I was very interested in this allegation and was looking forward to the presentation of evidence on this matter, Mr. President. But let me move forward. Yesterday, Senator Loren stood up and she asked for clarification because she did not recall that there was any testimony given by any witness to prove that in fact the office hours were extended. So, I was intently listening to the query and to the response given to Senator Legarda. I refer to page 37 of our Journal wherein the statement or should I say the testimony of the Prosecution, I refer to Attorney Parreo, refers to certain times. There was 1:30, three oclock and 4:30. Mr. President, I would like to put on record that the statements of Counsel on the time that certain activities to please have absolutely no bearing on this Impeachment Court. It will be recalled that it was Counsel who testified on those times, and I would like to know if Counsel has now offered himself as the witness. Has Counsel taken an oath, perhaps when I stood out for a few minutes? I just do not want people, whether non-lawyers or the millions of Filipinos who are watching, to be confused because there was no evidence that I can see in the record and that I have witnessed with my own eyes on the witness stand. Having said that, Mr. President, I refer back to the query of Sen. Loren Legarda. And in fact, page 37 of the Journal will bear out her concern that the only reference to time provided by Counsel, not by the witness, if I may emphasize again, was 1:30, 2:30, three oclock and 4:30 p.m. Mr. President, I mentioned this becauseI belabor this point because they used our time. We spent so many minutes trying not to fall asleep watching that video. So, if there is no testimony that will accompany that video, can we please be more conscious of this? Or if the one who will testify on the video will be the lawyer, then please take the witness stand so that we do not waste the time of


Counsel, our researchers, our people in trying to understand what is evidence that we must use in deciding this case. This becomes even more relevant because the Prosecution has rested. So, I leave this point, Mr. President. I do not require a response. But if the Prosecution cares to respond, I am more than happy. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Chair would like to state for the record that the personal statements of the lawyers representing either side of the adversarial proceeding are not evidence. They are just plain statement, manifestation. And they will not be taken into account as proof of anything, except that they said it. Anybody who wants to respond to the lady Senator from Taguig? From the Prosecution side. Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, the statement of the Senator is well taken. Actually, the intention of the video is part of the building block of the presentation of the Prosecution. However, in light of yesterdays development, Your Honor, that we can no longer present the other witnesses, like the process server, which we would have wanted to prove the extension of office hours, we cannot go further on that, Your Honor. But thank you for thatI think the Senator did not want us to responddoes not need a response, but, yes, we clarify that it is part of the building block, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Only statements given under oath by somebody sitting on the witness stand is evidence. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we now proceed to the Business for the Day? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Sotto. And this is the continuation of the cross-examination of Witness Mr. Danny Piedad of ABS-CBN by the Defense. So may we call on the Witness, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. You may call now the Witness who is going to be subjected to crossexamination under the same oath. Let him take the stand. Mr. Parreo. Atty. Al Parreo, Your Honor, for the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of Atty. Al Parreo? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, I am just going to befor the presentation offor the crossexamination, Your Honor, I will be for the Prosecution, Your Honor. For the cross-examination of the Defense. I am really here, Your Honor, to The Presiding Officer. You know, to me as a Presiding Officer, I am confused about these things. Do you have to designate somebody to stand up to attend to the Witness for cross-examination? Anyone of you can stand up to object.


Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. It is just that he was the one who conducted the direct, Your Honor, so The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Parreo. May we call the Witness, Danny Piedad. The Presiding Officer. And before we proceed, may I suggest, gentlemen on both sides, you are putting this Court in a very serious predicament because you already make pronouncement about the weight and the quantum of the evidence that you have presented for your side. No one can be sure of the outcome of this case even if you have presented your evidence. We will wait for the completion of the entire trial until a judgment can be pronounced. Those who practised law extensively are not sure of their case until the entire case is over. So please do not make sweeping statements outside that may befuddle or confuse the people or convince them na panalo na kayo. Wala pang panalo dito. Huwag kayong maniniguro. Bakapagkatapos sasabihin ninyo Natalo kami dahil iyong mga Senador nasuhulan at dahil malakas iyong aming kaso. Hindi ganoon ang paglilitis. So, I hope you will take this advice because we have to be truthful to our people. Okay? So, proceed. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Mr. Piedad. Magandang hapon po sa inyo. Mr. Piedad. Good afternoon po. Mr. Cuevas. Noong binabasa ko iyong transcript ng inyong testimony, napag-alaman ko na kayo ay taga-ABS-CBN. Mr. Piedad. Tama po. Mr. Cuevas. At naroon kayo bilang photographer for almost 11 years, tama ho ba? Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Nagsimula po kayo ngmagkano ang inyong sweldo? Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, that specific question is not material to the direct examination. The Presiding Officer. He is under cross. He is not under direct. The cross-examiner is testing this Witness. Proceed. May answer. Mr. Piedad. Nung nag-start ako nung 2001 na cameraman, per hour po kami noon, so pumapatak lang po ng P54 per hour. Mr. Cuevas. Magkano po? Mr. Piedad. Fifty-four pesos po per hour.


Mr. Cuevas. Magkano po yun isang buwan ang inyong suweldo nuong panahon na yun? Mr. Piedad. Ah, depende po sa ano, sa dami ng oras na ipinasok namin. Mr. Cuevas. Yes but, more or less, magkano po ang sinasahod ninyo? Mr. Piedad. Sa isang buwan ho puwede hong pumalo ng mga P18,000. Mr. Cuevas. Isang buwan? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. At yan eh nadagdagan nang nadagdagan Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. samantalang kayo ay tumatagal sa inyong serbisyo bilang cameraman. Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Nang kayo ay tumestigo dito nuong nakaraang araw, magkano na po ang suweldo ninyo bilang photographer? Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may I just make a quick objection on the question, Your Honor? Because it might affect such and any confidential matters regarding the circumstances of the Witness when he is asked on questions regarding salary. The Presiding Officer. What confidential matter? Mr. Parreo. He is asked about what his salary is, Your Honor, it might affect the The Presiding Officer. What is the confidentiality on a salary of the Witness? Mr. Parreo. Only if the Witness is willing to answer, Your Honor. But, if he is not, I would like to presume that he does not want to divulge his salary, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Is that incriminating? May we be allowed to know, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The Witness may answer. Mr. Piedad. Thirty-five thousand a month. Mr. Cuevas. At kasama po ninyo diyan sa pagiging photographer ng ABS-CBN si kagalanggalang na photographer Llosala? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Yung tumestigo dito kamakailan sa panig ng Prosecution, tama ho ba yun? Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Magkasama kayo sa isang dibisyon o sa isang larangan na saklaw ng ABS-CBN? Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama. Mr. Cuevas. Meronnatatandaan ko po alinsunod sa inyong deklarasyon na nuong Nobyembre 15, 2011 eh assigned kayo sa isang mission para saksihan o kunan ng video ang magaganap daw sa isang department ng gobyerno, yung DepartmentMMDA, tama ho ba ako?


Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. And that was mga anong oras po noon? Mr. Piedad. Nung morning po ng November 15, ang assignment namin about the cancellation ng mga bus franchise so ang regional assignment namin that morning is to cover the DOTC and MMDA in the afternoon. Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay mga anong oras noon? Mr. Piedad. Morning po kami nagpunta ng DOTC and then afternoon na po sa MMDA. Mr. Cuevas. So mga? Mr. Piedad. Mga 2:00 po. Mr. Cuevas. Two oclock? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Sino po ang nag-assign sa inyo? Yun ho bay boluntaryong ginawa ninyo o merong assignment kayo buhat sa nakatataas sa inyo? Mr. Piedad. Ang usual routine po noon eh Mr. Cuevas. Iyong araw lang na yun ang tanong ko sa iyo. Mr. Piedad. Opo. Nautusan po yung reporter ko na mag-cover nung istorya na yun sa bus franchise po. Mr. Cuevas. Sino po yung reporter ninyo na yon? Mr. Piedad. Si Ms. Zen Hernandez po. Mr. Cuevas. At inutusan naman kayo nitong Ms. Hernandez na maging isang photographer doon sa mangyayari sa MMDA nuong araw na yun? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Tama ho bang sabihin ko na yun eh mga alas onse hanggang alas-dos ng hapon? Mr. Piedad. Puwede po. Mr. Cuevas. Puwede. Kasama ninyo doon si Mr. Leotilla Leocilla? Mr. Piedad. Llosala po. Mr. Cuevas. Llosala. Mr. Piedad. Ay, hindi po. Mr. Cuevas. Hiwalay kayo? Mr. Piedad. Hiwalay po kami ng assignment. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi kayo nagkita nung araw na yun? Mr. Piedad. Hindi po.



Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, meron kayong binanggit sa inyong deklarasyon, direct examination na nasa airport naman kayo nung bandang hapon nung araw na yun, Nobyembre 15, 2011, tama ho ba yun? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. All right. At nandoon kayo sa inyong sariling kagustuhan o assignment, o dahil sa assignment ninyo? Mr. Piedad. Ah, nasabi ko po doon sa unang statement ko napunta po kami doon dahil nakipag-appointment po kami kay Chairman Tolentino ng MMDA na doon na lang kami magambush interview dahil aalis siya ng bansa. So, kaya po kami napunta doon. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po ninyo sinasagot ang tanong ko sa inyo. Kayo bay nandoon sa airport Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. doon sa mga oras na binanggit ninyo sapagkat boluntaryo kayong nagpunta roon o sumusunod kayo sa utos ng isang nakatataas sa inyo? Mr. Piedad. Sumusunod lang po sa utos nung reporter. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang utos sa inyo ng reporter? Puwede ho bang malaman ng Kagalanggalang na Hukuman na ito? Mr. Piedad. Ang pagkakasabi niya sa akin si Chairman Tolentino po ay pupunta ng airport so doon na po namin siya i-interbyuhin kaya po kami nandun. Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid po ang inyong misyon ay para interbyuhin si Kagalang-galang na Chairman Tolentino. Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Wala pong kinalaman yon sa pag-alis ng Kagalang-galang na GMA? Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po. Mr. Cuevas. Eh meron kayong in-identify ditong video tungkol doon sa pag-alis ng Kagalang-galang na GMA, tama ho ba iyon? Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Paano po nangyari na ang inyong assignment eh para makunan ng video iyong pag-alis ni Chairman Tolentino at napasama si Kagalang-galang na GMA sa inyong video? Mr. Piedad. After po naming mag-interview sa airport kay Chairman Tolentino, nag-stay po kami doon sa airport dahil meron na hong ENG van na naka-stand by doon. Ito po iyong nagtatransmit ng mga materials namin since iyong oras po eh wala na, kumbaga kakapusin na po kami ng oras para mag-back to base para sa materials ng unang istorya namin, ay nag-feed na po kami ng materials. Habang naghihintay po kami ng feeding ng materials, suddenly iyong reporter ko sinabihan ako, Baka mag-stay tayo dito. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang kinalaman ng pag-alis ng Kagalang-galang na GMA doon sa inyong takdang pakikipagtagpo kay Chairman Tolentino?



Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas.

Wala po. May kinalaman ho ba?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So hindi ninyo alam kung aalis nga o hindi ang Kagalang-galang na GMA? Mr. Piedad. Wala po kaming kinalaman.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Anong oras po iyon nang sabihin ninyong aalis? Mr. Piedad. Natatandaan ko po mga around 4:00 to 4:30 po. Sinabi ng reporter ko sa akin na may info daw po na aalis si CGMA. Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid, kung walang sinabi sa inyo iyong reporter ninyo, wala kayong maipahahayag sa Kagalang-galang na Hukumang ito tungkol sa pag-alis diumano ng Kagalanggalang na GMA? Mr. Piedad. Opo, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Piedad. Tama po iyon? Tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Kilala ba ninyo si Kagalang-galang na GMA o sa pangalan lang? Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Piedad. Sa pangalan po at saka sa mukha po. Hindi ninyo siya nakausap kahit kailan? Hindi po kahit kailan.

Mr. Cuevas. Noong araw na kinunan ninyo ng video, tama ho ba ang aking palagay na hindi ninyo nakadaupang palad o nakausap man lang kahit saglit ang Kagalang-galang? Mr. Piedad. Hindi po, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Piedad. All right. Alam ba ninyo kung saan siya pupunta noon? Wala po akong alam. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung bakit siya nasa airport nung oras na iyon? Wala rin po kaming idea.

Mr. Cuevas. Ang nalalaman lamang ninyo na pinagtapat ninyo sa Kagalang-galang na Hukuman na iyong diumano merongaalis ang Kagalang-galang na GMA, tama ho ba iyon? Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Eh ano po ang kinalaman ng pag-alis ni GMA sa inyong pagiging assigned doon sa airport, wala? Wala pong kinalaman? Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas. Wala po kaming idea nun. O aksidente lang ang pagkakaroon ninyo?

Mr. Piedad. Sabi kasi ng reporter ko na Mr. Cuevas. Hindi kayosige po, I am sorry. Mr. Piedad.


Sabi kasi ng reporter ko mag-stand by lang kami dun. Iyon lang po ang

Mr. Cuevas. Iyon lang ang dahilan kaya nagkaroon kayo ng pagkakataon na makunan ng video ang alleged na pag-alis ni Kagalang-galang na GMA? Mr. Piedad. Opo, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Alinsunod po sa inyong deklarasyon na aking natunghayan dito sa record, mga alas-nueve na ng gabi nun, tama ho ba? Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi pa naman po, mga 8:30 po to 9:00, ganun po. Kaya nga. Alas-otso y medya hanggang alas-nueve ng gabi?

Mr. Piedad. Opo. Mr. Cuevas. Mr. Piedad. Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam kung bakit siya aalis? Wala po akong alam. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung ano ang dahilan ng kanyang pag-alis?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi rin po. Mr. Cuevas. That will bemaraming salamat po. That is all with the Witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Any redirect? Mr. Parreo. No redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Witness is discharged. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, as manifested during yesterdays trial, the Prosecution will no longer present evidence with respect to Articles I, VIII, IV, V and VI of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment. But it reserves its right to present evidence on the dollar accounts of Chief Justice Corona. The Presiding Officer. Only on Article II? Senator Sotto. Yes. May we now call on the Prosecution, may we know the pleasure, Mr. President? Before we do that, I am sorry, I withdraw that request, Mr. President, and ask that Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentle Lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, yesterday we were struck by a thunderbolt. All of a sudden, the Prosecution stood up and said, We have eight Articles of the Impeachment but we are no longer presenting or withdrawing at least five of those articles leaving us with only three Articles of Impeachment.



In my entire career as an RTC judge of Quezon City, I have never seen a lawyer in a civil case which is, in this instance, parallel to the Impeachment Trial withdraw any cause of action that he told the Court he would present evidence on. That has never been done. An Impeachment Trial is like a civil trial and like a criminal trial. An RTC judge has jurisdiction over all kinds of trials: civil, criminal, and special proceedings. I have never heard, apart from my own individual experience, I have never heard of a civil case where there are several causes of action where the lawyer suddenly says to the judge, I am sorry, Your Honor, I made a mistake. I now want to withdraw or drop more than half of my causes of action. This is unprecedented. That is why I feel obliged as Senator-Judge to enter into the record my very serious concern about this development. Counsel, you please take a seat. Number 1. Early in this trial I asked both Counsel, both panels to tell, Please tell the Court how many witnesses you will present and how many pieces of evidence you expect to authenticate by the testimony of your respective witnesses. Both panels submitted their so-called Compliance. That is to say, when a judge issues an order and you comply with the order, you file a piece of paper called Compliance and then you attach whatever it is that the court wanted to see or hear or to read. There is a Compliance, dated 27 January 2012, filed by the House of Representatives, where the Order of the Court was, List down all your testimonial and documentary evidence, on my instigation, and I have this copy of the Compliance by the House of Representatives. Number 1, Article I. Partiality to Mrs. Arroyo in Supreme Court decisions; Testimonial evidence, six witnesses; Documentary evidence as appropriate, is a long list of documents that these six witnesses were supposed to authenticate. Article IV. Irregularities in the issuance of the status quo ante order on the Impeachment proceedings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Testimonial evidence said the Prosecution Panel, seven witnesses plus the corresponding list of documentary evidence to be presented to those seven witnesses. Article V. Gerrymandering in the creation of 16 new cities and the declaration of Dinagat Island as a province. Testimonial evidence, three witnesses. I am quoting the Prosecution Panel documentary evidence and list of cases. Article VI. Allegedly improper investigation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillos plagiarism case. Testimonial evidence, two witnesses; documentary evidence, as listed. Article VIII. Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary. Testimonial Evidence, seven witnesses. All these witnesses are listed here. What their names are, what their addresses are and what is the purpose of their proposed testimony plus, of course, the documentary evidence to be authenticated by these witnesses. So, House of Representatives, January, tells us in the Impeachment Court, We will present these witnesses. We will also prove and authenticateand produce into evidence an authenticate documentary evidence. Now, all of a sudden, it is only MarchJanuary, February, March, all of a sudden, there is a complete turnaround. Ni ha, ni ho, wala. Basta sabihin lang niya, Ayaw na namin magprisinta ng ebidensya.



Ngayon, this is a very serious concern to me as a lawyer and as a former judge. Una, naglalaronagbibiro ba kayo? In writing ang Compliance ninyo. Sabi ninyo, We will present so many witnesses, so many documentary pieces of evidence. Pagkatapos ngayon sabihin ninyo, without explanation, Our case is very strong, we no longer want to present evidence on these causes of action. You are prejudging the case. What are you doing, conducting trial by publicity? Let me remind you, an Impeachment Trial is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. But let me place this in context. In its quasi-political aspect, an Impeachment trial is not to be decided by the reading public or the viewing public or by any of the public that we are addressing. It is true that the Constitution provides, Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. But Sovereignty resides in the people is a term of art in law. Meaning to say, it is a special code, it has a special meaning. It is not being used in its ordinary meaning. When the Constitution says, Sovereignty resides in the people, what are we talking about? All 98 million Filipinos or all 65 million registered voters, a majority of registered voters or surveying firms or which surveying firms are you referring to? Referenda by certain NGOs, referenda and surveys in certain campuses? No. This is not a direct democracy and we are not in Athens. The people are not going to decide this case. It is the High Court of Impeachment, this Senate, and the Senate alone that will decide this case. We are going to hold ourselves immaculate of all the propaganda that you are distributing abroad. Meaning to say, outside of this Courtroom mag-propagandize kayo sa gusto ninyo. Walang epekto iyan. Ngayon, as I said, hindi ito direct democracy. Representative democracy ito. We, the Impeachment Court, are the representatives of the people. We have been chosen by the Constitution to exercise the sovereign powers on the sovereign people in making a decision on the Impeachment Trial. Kaya igalang naman ninyo kami. When I heard this news yesterday, I felt like creeping back into bed and adopting a fetal position which is the normal reaction of any sane person when he is faced with a world that is crumbling around him. I no longer know what universe I am in. Because I have spent five years of my miserable adult life in trial court day after day after day hearing civil, criminal cases and special proceedings, but I have never seen this done to a judge before. Ngayon, first point of concern was the compliance of the House of Representatives telling us that they were going to present such witnesses and such documents under these Articles, but now they are being withdrawn or being dropped. At the outset, my request is Prosecution files the written motion as directed by the Senate President. Will you please verify. Are you withdrawing the Articles or are you just waiving the right to present evidence on them? There is a difference. If you are withdrawing the Articles, then you have to amend your Complaint. Because under the Rules of Court, you have to amend your Complaint to conform to the presentation of evidence. Hindi pala kayo mag-ebidensiya, ay bakit niyo lilistahan iyan? On the other hand, if you are completely just waiving the right to present evidence, then you give the Defense the right to present evidence even if you have already waived your own right. Just because you waived your own right does not mean you can waive it for the other side. You have already in effect raised suspicions in the mind of a reasonable person about the moral position of the Chief Justice. Of course, they have a right to present evidence to dispel those suspicions raised by your own Complaint. Kaya pakiliwanag lang. Kayo ba ay sinasabi ninyo sa amin ayaw na namin itong Articles of Impeachment at balewala na, pakibasura na o nandidiyan pa rin iyan sa aming Complaint pero ayaw na naming magbigay ng ebidensya.



Will you please make a distinction between those two because each of those optionals have their own peculiar circumstances in law? Ngayon, nagbasa na ako ng mga sinabi ninyo noong Enero lamang. Marso pa lang ngayon, nagpalit na kayo ng isip. I am very much concerned that this might constitute unethical behavior. In trial court, we have also a term of art calledwhich is sometimes used and it normally runs to frivolous and sham. Frivolous and sham is not to be taken in its ordinary meaning. It is also to be taken in its technical meaning and this is the technical meaning of a frivolous claim. A frivolous claim in legal term refers to a lawsuit or motion in lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, to delay or to embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or in fact. Ngayon, let me remind you, Prosecutors of the Prosecution Panel, of your Code of Professional Responsibility. Kung abogado kayo, Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Nang sinabi ninyo sa Compliance ninyo na magpi-prisinta kayo ng ebidensya at ang bawat testigo ay maglalabas ng mga dokumento niya, were you in good faith? Because now you turn around and say you do not want to do that. Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. You have been misleading the Court. There are some Senator-Judges who, as a matter of personal discipline, read well ahead of the two panels. So if you present a Complaint with us for impeachment with eight Articlesthere are some lawyers among us who will read for all eight Articles. That is what the law calls frivolous when you later say, I do not want to present evidence on eight. I only want to present evidence on five. Plus, let me remind you, gentlemen, the Lawyers Oath, I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; I will not wittingly or unwillingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same. Cases Prieto v. Corpuz, 2006, No person should be penalized for exercising the right to litigate. This right, however, must be exercised in good faith. Must be exercised in good faith. I am very concerned that the Prosecution has been in bad faith all along. Kung anu-ano ang mga pinagsasabi niyo sa media. Bakit hindi kayo mag-official manifestation dito? Manalo na kami. Mayroon na kaming proof beyond reasonable doubt. Good grief! That is contempt of Court. It is already saying us in the face and it is about to bite our nose. And you expect me to be part of a Court that just says nothing about it. You are engaging, gentlemen, in a public discourse on the merits of your case. You are not supposed to say that at all. Ang yayabang ng mga nagsasalita ng ganyan, ang ... [stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer] naman! Oh my goodness! Ang [striken off the record by order of the Presideng Officer] is a ground for contempt of Court. Another case, Philippine British Company v. De Los Angeles, 1975, By failing to substantiate his serious charges when called upon to do so, a lawyer may not only show his dubious motive, therefore, but the falsity of the charges as well, which merits disciplinary action against him.



Ay pero ang tatanda na ninyo eh! Eh, Lista kayo sa amin, naka-robe kami at lahat. We look like a convention ... takers everyday coming here in these robes. You are supposed to grant us full and high respect. You cannot give us a list and then after a few months, say, Oh, I am sorry but I have decided to change this list. You cannot do that to a Court that you respect. Again, the Code of Personal Responsibility, Canon 12A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Case Pepsi Cola Products v. Court of Appeals, 1998, As officers of the Court, lawyers are of responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. Hindi ito pulitika, gentlemen. We are not in politics where we are free to hire character assassins and do all manner of dirty tricks. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Itigil na ninyo yan. Yun ang problema niyo eh, mahilig kayo sa ganyan eh. You are very fond of the occult arts. As officers of the Court, lawyers have responsibility to assist the proper administration of the due justice. They do not discharge their duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the Judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the fact and the law should advise them when a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of the law or their client by commencing litigations that, for sheer lack of merit, do not deserve the attention of the Court. That is what the Supreme Court speaking in all those cases. Were you aware of these decided cases when you decided on your own to make that manifestation yesterday? That is my second point. The first point is, you filed a Compliance and you listed, according to the instruction of this Court, your list of witnesses and documentary evidence for every article. And now you turn around and say, Oh, no! We decidedchanged our mind. That can be a very expensive change of mind. Second point of concern that might be unethical behavior, I have never seen such a parody of justice in my entire adult life in the Judiciary. May I remind you, for those of you who have been talking to your character assassins, I have been awarded as a Judicial Judge for Excellence in Trial Work, not only by the TOYM of the Jaycees, the TOWNS of the Lions but many other NGOs who I may no longer enumerate. Kaya siguro may alam akong kaunti tungkol sa batas. Huwag ninyo kaming ginaganyan-ganyan. Last and most important. I may not be able to help it if the Members of the Impeachment Court will engage in the judicial and legal presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Kayo mismo ang nagdala nito ah. You called up this disputable presumption when the Defendant refused to give his consent to the opening of his dollar accounts. You said evidence adverseevidence suppressed is evidence adverse. Kung ayaw mong magprisinta ng ebidensiya, ibig sabihin kung walang ebidensiya pandagdag, na may itinatago ka. Iyon ang sabi ninyo sa Chief Justice. Eh ngayon, ngayon naman ang ginagawa ninyo, sinabi ninyo eight (8) Articles of Impeachment ninyo. Ngayon ayaw na ninyong maglabas ng ebidensiya ninyo sa five (5) of those Articles. Then let me invoke the disputable presumption against you. The Rules of Court provide disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.



(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Oh ngayon, ano kaya ang ibig sabihin ng kalidad na iyan? In People v. Padrigone, 2002 case decided by the Supreme Court, the Court said: This rule that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply if: (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. Iyong ebidensiya ba ninyo inilista ninyo sa Compliance ninyo, ay puwede ninyong ibigay doon sa Defense? That is the only exception. Another exception. The suppression was not willful. Willful ito kasi kusa niyong ayaw ninyo eh. Wala namang supervening factor that prevents you from presenting your evidence. That you already said to us in January, We are going to present. (c) It is merely corroborative or cumulative. This does not apply because when you file an Impeachment Complaint, you have different Articles of Impeachment which are separate from and independent of each other. So none of these Articles of Impeachment, just like causes of action on civil case, are said to be cumulative or corroborative. Cumulative means you already produced evidence in the form of one witness and you just want to add, let us say, ten (10) more witnesses to completely repeat what that other witness said. That is corroborative. Kaya kung corroborative lang ang witness mo, puwedeng hindi mo na iprisinta. Ito naman, hindi corroborative eh because they are separate and distinct Articles of Impeachment. And letter (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Kaya iyong Defendant sa bank accounts niya, ayaw niyang magbigay ng consent niya. But we cannot apply this presumption to him because the suppression is the exercise of his privilege. That is a privilege given to any person who opens a dollar bank account. The law provides confidentiality is absolute except only when the depositor is giving his consent. Ngayon ito, kaiba itong inyong kaso na ito. Wala kayong privilege eh. When you file an Article of Impeachment or a cause of action, it is not only your right to present evidence, it is also your duty. It is not a privilege that you can just waive at will. That is not what the law means. The suppression is exercise of a privilege. You have no such privilege to bother the Court. Cases People v. Melosantos, 1995. The prosecution evidence must at all times be competent and admissible to sustain its stand. The prosecution cannot rely on an imaginary person charging a serious offense without extending to the accused the benefit of confronting his accuser. In default of a satisfactory premise for a non-presentation of crucial witness if ineluctably follows that disputable presumption that evidence deliberately withheld would be adverse if produced remains undisturbed. May tinatago kayo ah. Takot ba kayo? Ngayon sinasabi ninyo, Panalo na kami dito sa tatlo. Kami ang magde-desisyon niyan, hindi kayo. Ang yayabang ninyo. Maaga pa. What are you, conducting trial by publicity? Is that what you are trying to do? We will not be swayed. The entire capacity for tsunami waves by Manila Bay can fall over this Impeachment Court and we will not be affected by what you say in public or what your chosen public brings back to you, particularly if they have been paid to do so. Please do not try these little dirty tricks on us. We are all old people here. Tumanda na tayong lahat sa pulitika. Huwag niyo kaming ginaganyan ha. Kamukha nung survey just as I predicted. Aba! May balita kanina sa isang diyaryo na ang survey daw sa UP, 500 ang respondents atlike 75 percent of them said, No, we no longer trust the Chief Justice. Kayong mga UP kayo dapat kayo i-kick out immediately. If you are true actual persons, you should be kicked out immediately because you do not deserve to be in UP. And the people who machinated the publication of that press release should likewise be kicked out of UP. If they are enrolled in the



rolls of the University as alumni, they should be permanently erased from the rolls as a perpetual shame on the University. Biro mo, may survey daw sila na 500 katao sa UP nagsabi na ang Chief Justice, so far because of the Prosecution evidence, can no longer be trusted. Eh, ang taas-taas pa naman ng pagtingin ng tao sa UP pagkatapos limangdaan lang out of, let us say, 50 million all over the Philippines and it is not even conducted on scientific basis, it is not conducted by any of those reliable survey firms that have already been proven in their forecast for election results. Kanya-kanya lang sila. Grabe! My goodness me! If I were the symbol of UP standing there, naked, called the Oblation, I would immediately throw away my fig leaf. [Laughter] Huwag na tayong magtago-tago pa. Eh, kagaguhan lang naman pala ang pinapag-aralan sa UP kung ganyan. I cannot imagine a survey where 500 high IQ people will say, We have already lost trust in the Chief Justice because we have already heard the evidence from the Prosecution although we admit that the Defense has not yet presented its case. Grabe naman. Sino namang PR firm ang nag-isip nito? Sabihin lang ninyo at hanapin ko iyon. You are playing games. I was not born yesterday. I was born a long time ago and I am about to die. I want to leave a legacy that at least, when presented with this anomaly in trial technique, I rose to condemn it. We will be studied generation from now by other senators faced with other impeachment cases and I do not want the records to reveal that we have allowed this development to pass by uncommented on. This is a travesty. Una sabi niyo, Ah, malakas na malakas ang ebidensiya namin kasi eight ang krimen niya, eight ang Articles of Impeachment namin. Bilangin mo, walo iyan. Pagkatapos ngayon dalawang buwan pa lang, Ah, wala na. Tatlo na lang sa lima. Kasi tama na iyon, eh. Panalo na kami. Waah! I request the Secretariat should record in our Journal that I have said, Waah! [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. Silence. Silence, please. Silence. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Osmea is asking what is the spelling of Waah? [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. That is an expression. [Laughter] Senator Sotto. Mr. President, again, may we call on the Prosecution to find out what is the pleasure concerning the manifestation that they made yesterday? Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, sir. Your Honor, Mr. President, as was The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the distinguished gentleman from Iloilo? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, as was manifested yesterday by the Prosecution that after the cross-examination conducted by the Defense, we are terminating the presentation of our evidence. The Presiding Officer. Are you notaccording to the newspapers this morning, the Prosecution intends to present the Honorable Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. And I also read in the newspapers that in the Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc, I think it was yesterday, the Supreme Court En Banc left it to the discretion of the good Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to appear here voluntarily for the Prosecution. And I remember that one of the panel of Prosecutors, I think it was Congressman Colmenares, informed the Court that he wrote Justice Sereno to appear here for the Prosecution, and I think the Court is entitled to know whether you are still goingyou still intend to present Justice Sereno.



Representative Tupas. Your Honor, a letter-invitation, as suggested by this Honorable Tribunal, was delivered personally to the Office of Justice Sereno last Monday for her to appear before this Honorable Tribunal tomorrow, that is a Thursday. The Presiding Officer. Tomorrow? Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. But we have not yet received any formal communication or reply from the lady Justice of the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. Incidentally, I raised this question because I am interested to know your real position. Because yesterday you already terminated, according to you, to the records, your presentation of evidence on Article III and Article VII that you have retained among the three Articles of Impeachment, out of eight Articles of Impeachment covered by your pleading known as Articles of Impeachment. And I asked you very definitely whether you are really going to stop presenting anymore witnesses on these two Articles and you said, Yes. That is my recollection. Except that you reserved the right of the Prosecution to present evidence on Article II. And I understood that. I was of the mind that you were referring to the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court regarding the foreign currency deposit. Representative Tupas. That is correct, Mr. President. We reserved that right yesterday. The Presiding Officer. So, will you clarify really the position of the Prosecution? Representative Tupas. After yesterday, Mr. President, the Prosecution met and we discussed about the pending invitation to Justice Sereno. That is why today we would like to make that manifestation that the Prosecution is trying to get in touch with the Honorable Lady Justice of the Supreme Court if she is indeed willing to testify. And that if we may be given time within the week, we will communicate to the Honorable Tribunal if the lady Justice would be willing to testify. Which means, Your Honor, that we would like to reserve our right to present her if she is willing. The Presiding Officer. So you are not really closing your evidence; it is open. Representative Tupas. We are, Your Honor. We are already terminating the presentation of evidence with the two reservations. No. 1 The Presiding Officer. You cannot make any reservation if you areyou cannot close your evidence if you still have to present witnesses. The proper thing to do is to ask for continuance. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Mr. Cuevas. Yesterday, I thought we were agreed together with the Honorable Court, Your Honor, that the enumerated Impeachment Articles, Your Honor, that were not touched upon will be considered as abandoned or dismissed. The Presiding Officer. That is true. As far as Article I, Article IV, V, VI and VIIIfive. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is already effectively withdrawn. Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. That is clear. I clarified that yesterday.


Mr. Cuevas. And we were merely discussing, Your Honor, the modality or the means by which the same could be effected. There were some suggestions that a mere notice will be more than enough. We were of the impression that a Motion to Dismiss is necessary because there is already an Answer filed and, in fact, there has been trial going on. So that matter of how to dismiss the four (4) Impeachment Articles, Your Honor, will be effected is left to the discretion of the Prosecution, Your Honor. But now comes another development, Your Honor, with this lot of reservations and so on. Calling Justice Sereno to the stand may be is another turning back from the original position that was manifested by the Chief Prosecutor before this Honorable Court, Your Honor. We just invite the attention of the Court on that matter, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yesterday, I clarified and I think the records of these proceedings will bear me out whetherthere is no question about the five (5) Articles withdrawn. That is clear in the record. And it was also clear to this Presiding Officer that the Prosecution was terminating the presentation of its evidence with respect to Article III and Article VII. In fact, in the case of Article III, they did not only manifest that they were terminating the presentation of evidence. They cut down the allegation. They retained only in Article III, flip-flopping. But as far as the entanglement of the Defendant with the former President Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as well as talking to litigants as a basis of their charge that he did not follow the stringent requirement of probity, integrity, competence and independence, they have already also withdrawn that. They have also decided to take that out and do not present any evidence on it. But they made a reservation only with respect to Article II. And that is because there is a pending case and understandably, the Court was aware of that because there is a pending case in the Supreme Court whether impeachment is an implied exception to the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits. So I would like to be clarified. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we are sticking to our earlier manifestation that we are presentingwe are terminating the presentation of our evidence subject to one reservation and that is the reservation with respect to the dollar accounts of the Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. Only, only? Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And you are not going to ask Justice Sereno anymore to come to this Court? Representative Tupas. No more, no more. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Tupas. I just want to make a manifestation that, yesterday, my math was wrong. With respect to the documents that we have marked so far, 166 documents for Article II, 16 documents for Article III and 65 documents for Article VII. The total, I said yesterday, was 390 documentary evidence, but it was just 247. So 247 documents, Your Honor. And also, Mr. President, what we manifested and what we stated even outside of this Honorable Tribunal with respect to the termination of the presentation of evidence was that, we felt that we have already presented a strong case. The Presiding Officer. All right.



Representative Tupas. And even outside this Honorable Tribunal, Mr. President, we are saying that it is really up to the Tribunal to decide, to appreciate, and we are just stating our advocacy without prejudging the outcome of the resolution because we have high respect to this Honorable Tribunal. We just want that to go on record, those statements, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. We accept that explanation. Now, what is your pleasure? When are you going to make your offer of evidence, especially documentary evidence? Representative Tupas. Yes, documentary. We are now requesting the Honorable Tribunal, through the Honorable Presiding Officer, to give us, the Prosecution, until Friday this week. That is two (2) days from today within which to The Presiding Officer. Three (3) days. Representative Tupas. Yes, to file our written formal offer of documentary evidence. The Presiding Officer. Yes, and list them down. Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. And then we will also give the Defense enough time to go over it, with copy furnished. Representative Tupas. We will do that, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, if it is not asking too much, a five-day period within which to signify our objection and/or conformity to the offer that will be made? The Presiding Officer. All right. That is a reasonable request. So when you file your pleading to formally offer your testimonial and documentary evidence to this Court in writing, send a copy to the Defense and the Defense will have five (5) days from receipt of your formal offer in writing to file their objection to your documentary evidence. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we will submit our offer of documentary evidence on Friday this week, that is two (2) days from today. And we understand that the Senate has set a caucus also on Monday. Probably it will be reasonable, Mr. President, to ask the Defense to submit it also, if not two (2) days, three (3) days. For us, we will submit it two (2) days from today. And if I may finish, in fact, there is already a submission of the suppression of evidence with respect to Article II and 166 documents pertain to Article II. So, we are just suggesting, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. You know, Counseljust a minute. You know, for the Prosecution, all you have to do actually is to list these documents in some pieces of paper and list them down. But the Defense, to be fair to them, they will have to analyze what those documents are and to state their objections for their admissibility. So five (5) days is a reasonable time. Representative Tupas. We submit, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.


The Presiding Officer. Now, when will the Defense start its presentation of its evidence in chief? Mr. Cuevas. We will await the ruling of this Court, Your Honor, after the order is made relative to the admissibility of the offered evidence, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To expedite the proceedings, would it not be possible to start the presentation of the testimonial or whatever evidence the Defense would make, then we will deal with the objections of the Defense on the offered evidence of the Prosecution? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we wanted to do that and by way of accommodating the Court in order that the general public may not have the impression that we are delaying the proceedings in this case, Your Honor. But there are so many things that may come up, Your Honor, in our observation, opposition as against the admissibility of these documents, Your Honor. Insofar as the Prosecution is concerned, these evidences are with them. They have examined it, they have made a formal offer of the same. But insofar as the Defense is concerned, Your Honor, we have to analyze. It is not enough that they are listed as being offered. We have to analyze what is the purpose of the offer. They may be admitted on certain grounds, Your Honor, but decidedly they may not be admitted in consonance with the purpose for which they are offered. That is our position, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, if we may? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. Sir, we are constrained to object to that proposal because if we will submit our The Presiding Officer. What proposal? Representative Tupas. The proposal of the The Presiding Officer. Of the Chair? Of the Chair? Representative Tupas. No, no, no. It is not the Chairs proposal but the proposal of the Defense to submit or to present their evidence only after the ruling of the Senate on the admissibility, if I may finish. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is the most Representative Tupas. Yes. If I can. I am Mr. Cuevas. Go ahead. I am sorry. Representative Tupas. I have the floor. Thank you. Because if that is so, Mr. President, we ask for two (2) days to submit our formal offer of evidence and that will be Friday. And the Chair gave five (5) days to the Defense. And if you count that, it would



be Wednesday. And from tomorrow until Wednesday, if we will follow the proposal, there will be no hearing and to us it is a waste of time of this Honorable Court, Mr. President. That is the position of the Prosecution. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, many a time we have been over-liberal and magnanimous to the Prosecution, Your Honor. They come here, no evidence, no witness, the setting is postponed, Your Honor. And we had never been heard to complain, Your Honor. We had been very accommodating. Now, if they wanted a very strict application of the Rules, we will meet them head on, Your Honor. There are various evidence here presented, documentary at that. If they are overruled and they are rejected, why are we going to touch them at the presentation of our evidence, Your Honor? On the other hand, there is even a motion filed by us to suppress and/or to delete from the records, Your Honor, the documentary evidence consisting of bank records which we feel are in violation of the rule on regarding privacy pursuant to Republic Act 1405. Why will we be deprived simply because you wanted us to go the way you wanted to? There is nothing that the Prosecution can impose upon this Defense, Your Honor. We have never been unreasonable. Representative Tupas. I just have to respond to that. There is a statement Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but Representative Tupas. with respect to the Prosecution not being prepared, to the Prosecution not ready, and to me that is uncalled for, to us. I just want to put on record, Mr. President Mr. Cuevas. I will stick on the record of making that statement, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. It is okay, if you stick on the record. But, Mr. President, we want to put on record that that is unfair, inaccurate statement. And we submit to the discretion of our Honorable Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer. All right. This Court cannot control the Prosecution as well as the Defense regarding their presentation of their respective positions on this Impeachment Trial. The Defense is entitled to a reasonable time to prepare and assemble their evidence in order to present it orderly before this Court. So, how many days after do you need to prepare for trial for the presentation of your defense? Mr. Cuevas. We have left that to the discretion of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. If after a ruling had been made, we are so ordered to present our evidence any time, we will, Your Honor. We will abide very willingly. The Presiding Officer. We will work fast to make rulings on the offered evidence by the Prosecution, so be ready. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Be ready. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Including the motion of the Defense to exclude certain Mr. Cuevas. Bank documents, Your Honor.



The Presiding Officer. documentary the bank documents that floated around. So, that is understood that you will file your written offer of your evidence formally to this Court not later than Friday. Representative Tupas. We will do that, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. And then from the time you notify the Defense the filing of your written offer of your evidence to this Court, then they will have five (5) days alsonot more than five (5) days, inextensible, to submit their objections. So ordered. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we inquire when will be the hearing if that is the case, Your Honor? Can we set, at least, a tentative date so that we can also prepare, Mr. President? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. May we give the other Members of the Court a chance to decide on this on Monday, Mr. President, during the caucus The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. to answer that particular question? The Presiding Officer. I suggest that both sides must be ready everyday for trial. Because I am sure that you have prepared this case very well on your part. So that there is no need to appear being taken by surprise because we are going to call the case for trial at any given date. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, yes, we are ready everyday. But may we be clarified if we have a hearing on Monday, if that is the case? Senator Sotto. Wala. Representative Tupas. Because they were given five (5) days which will end on Wednesday, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Yes. Representative Tupas. Just for the clarification of the Prosecution, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Well, Mr. President, at the rate things are going, I do not think we will have a trial on Monday. Representative Tupas. So, when will be the earliest, at least, a tentative The Presiding Officer. March 12, according to the Clerk of Court. Representative Tupas. March 12, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. March 12. March 12, next Monday.



Representative Tupas. Because Wednesday is a 7, I suppose. Wednesday, Your Honor, is March 7. Tama? Senator Sotto. We will be ruling on the offer on or about March 8 which is a Thursday. And that is the reason why Monday is the most practical date, March 12. Representative Tupas. We submit, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. So, the next trial date will be at two oclock of March 12 two oclock in the afternoon of March 12. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in the meantime, there is a question on whether the Defense will be presenting their evidence already on March 12, Mr. President. They should be ready. You should be ready to present on March 12. Yes, they are. May we recognize Senator Escudero, Mr. President, and then Senator Santiago, then Cayetano? Or Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, we recognize first. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you, Senator Escudero. The Prosecution will be making an offer of evidence and then it will rest. What all these means is that, after it makes its formal offer of evidence, the Prosecution will then lie down in front of that first table, face down on the floor and assume a planking position, to go rigid there. That is called planking because tapos ka na. Para ka nang namatay. Huwag ka nang nagsasalita pa, tapos ka na, eh. Ngayon lang ako nakarinig na, We are resting our case. We are making a formal offer. We are resting our case with a reservation. Pag sinabi mong resting your case, tapos ka na. That is an oxymoron to say that you are resting and yet you will come alive at a certain point at your pleasure. That cannot be done. Hindi ka ba nag-trial notebook? Alam mo naman na gusto mo pala magprisinta ng isang testigo, eh, bakit hindi mo tinanong noon pa? Ganun yun. To be able to deserve your appearance fee, you have to prepare for every appearance in court. Eh, ngayon patayin mo kami ng testigo mo. Masyado ka namang masuwerte sa buhay. Hindi ginagawa iyan in law practice ah. Ngayon lang ako nakarinig ngngayon lang ako nakakarinig nitong mga milagro na ito. Maybe it is correct, climate change has already changed everybodys heads because I feel like I have just been confronted by a sink hole. I have never heard this concept before in trial court. At hanapbuhay ko yunaraw-araw yun. Sari-saring sinungaling naririnig ko. Yun ang hanapbuhay ng judge eh. Maupo ka dun alas-otso y medya hanggang alas-dose y medya, makinig ka ng sinungaling na parehong grupo. Kaya magdesisyon kami sa Impeachment Court. If you are going to be allowed to rest but without your reservation or if you want to file a motion for everything to be suspended while we wait for the pleasure of your witness which is unheard of in Court. It is an oxymoron to say you, Your Honor, we presentwe will make a formal offer then we will rest which is pursuant to the Rules of Court but we will rest with the reservation that you will call on our witness when she is ready and all of you honorable men and women, ladies and gentlemen of the Impeachment Court, have to wait for her pleasure and the pleasure of the Prosecution. That, in effect, is what you are asking us to do. Bakit hindi niyo inihanda yan nung Enero? Eh, kung yun palang testigo ninyokayo naman, oo, nagbibiro kayo. You got to be joking!



Pagkatapos, it will take us so much time to make our offer of evidence. Waah! For the second time. Waah! Round two. [Laughter] Kasi basahin mo lang ang Senate Journal, nandiyan ang verbatim na offer mo of evidence. Every time you present a witness, you say, I offer her for the purpose of this and that and we will authenticate certain documents with her testimony. Nandiyan yan. Di kopyahin mo lang sa Senate Journal. Ano ang problema mo? Have you ever been in trial court? If so, can you please make way to somebody who has been in trial court before? That is not a big deal. Andiyan na yan sa Senate Journal, kopyahin mo lang yun. And besides, you should have had a trial notebook kung saan ililista mo yun dahil alam mo na aabot tayo sa puntong ito. Ngayon, ang gusto ninyo mag-antay kami. Bakit napakais it going to tax your I.Q. so much that you need until Friday to make this? Dapat araw-araw ginagawa iyan ng secretary mo or ng clerk mo. It is all a question of just instructing her. Kopyahin mo ang Senate Journal, ano ba ang pinag-offer namin kanina at para pag formal offer na, handa na tayo? In trial court, we do not even wait. We do not even wait for a period of time for the party to make a formal offer. Pagkatapos ng bista ngayon, bukas sasabihin ng Judge, O, mag-offer ka na. Dahil ginagawa mo yan throughout the course of the trial. What is the big deal about this? It is highly clerical. You are only going to murmur there, Here is our witnesswe offer the testimony of this witness, letter (a) for the purpose of so and so and These were the documents marked during her testimony so and so. Eh, we will be spending the whole half-day doing that kind of thing. So, this means only that either you do not know your Rules of Court or you are expecting or hoping for miracles to happen. Korte de milagrosos ito. You are waiting for a miracle to happen. Trabaho mo iyan eh. Habang the trial is going on, lilistahin mo kung anong mga ebidensiya mo. Basahin mo ang Senate Journal. Araw-araw yannandidiyan yan eh. Pagkatapos itong arte pa ninyo. Pag nag-objection ang the other side, sasabihin ka, I make an offer of proof, Your Honor, or we make a tender of excluded evidence. You do that so that the appellate court can see the records and can determine if the ruling of the trial judge was correct or not. But there is no court higher than the Impeachment Court. That is the express language of the Constitution. The Senate, as an Impeachment Court, tries and decides. So, there is no point making an offer of proof or a tender of excluded evidence because no one is going to read those documents. I already implied that before but now I am saying it explicitly for full understanding of what is involved here. These are clerical. These are ministerial functions. Bakit ang dami nahindi bale kung ang Defense mag-make siya ng motion dahil ngayon pa lang niya naintindihan having placed these things in context kung dapat ipa-admit yun o hindi. Nag-o-object na nga siya noon. Pagkatapos, hindi pahindi pa iyon. Alam naman natin, Gentlemen of both panels, that the general rule is, In case of doubt admit the evidence. Ganoon naman iyon eh. Kaya let us not make a big deal out of these offers. Every time a witness is presented, one of you stands up then he says, If the Honorable Court will please, we offer this testimony by Mr. X and we will mark the following documents for the purpose of. Nag-recite na kamo niyan noon tapos uulitin pa ninyo? Eh iyon lang eh parang hirap na hirap na kayo. Ay, susmaryosep. Where are your neurons? Where are your synopses? Your brains are very, very dark. You know, when you use our brains, the electrical impulses from one neuron jump to another neuron that is called a brain activity or a brainwave. Ngayon kung may brainwave ka, lahat ng utak mo kumikislap. It is entirely lighted. Ngayon kung madilim na madilim ang utak mo, your neurons are not working. You are flatline. Meaning to say, hindi ba, kung buhay pa ang pasyente, naka-jump up and down iyong kanyang recording instrument? Pero kung namatay na, nag-flatline na. O iyon ang nangyari sa inyo, nagpa-flatline na kayo. I am, please, appealing to you. Can you please prepare on the Rules of Court? I am very underwhelmed by all these debate about how many days to give. Dapat ngayon pa lang handa na kayo. Waah! Part 2.



Senator Sotto. Senator Escudero, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Escudero, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, ilang paglilinaw lang po kaugnay sa mga naganap kahapon at ngayon. May I address some questions to the Chief Prosecutor or any of the lawyers for the Prosecution? Your Honor, kahapon tinanong kayo ng Presiding Officer kung wini-withdraw ba ninyo iyong Articles of Impeachment, particularly I, IV, V, VI and VIII. And the Presiding Officer asked you to submit a manifestation or motion to that effect. May we know if that is forthcoming? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. We have already a draft of our Manifestation and we will file it by Friday, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. To clarify, Mr. Presiding Officer, Your Honor. Iba ho iyong withdraw sa hindi na kayo magpi-prisenta ng ebidensiya. Ang sinabi ninyo ho sa records kahapon, you are dropping it, you are withdrawing it, you are no longer presenting evidence at some point, you said that. May I know which one is it? The difference, Mr. President, Your Honor, is if you are withdrawing it, that means hindi namin pagbobotohan iyong walo (8), tatlo (3) lang ang pagbobotohan namin. If you are merely not presenting evidence, nothing bars the Defense from presenting evidence on all eight (8) and we will have to vote on all eight (8). May I know your intentions? Representative Tupas. With that clarification, yesterday we said that we are withdrawing the other Articles, namely: Articles VIII, I, IV, V, VI and we will file a Manifestation to that effect. Senator Escudero. So you are withdrawing it? Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Meaning, your intention is parang wala na iyon doon sa Complaint? Representative Tupas. That is correct. Senator Escudero. Given that answer, Mr. Presiding Officer, I have more questions to ask. One, that is, in effect, amending the Complaint by withdrawing certain allegations, in this case, Articles The Presiding Officer. Effectively, actually, they are waiving already the five (5) Articles of Impeachment, in effect, abandoning it, if you want to use Senator Escudero. Mr. President, if I may. That was what Congressman Aggabao said with respect to Article III, that they are standing on the testimony of their lone witness, that they will no longer present evidence on the matter, and that they are solely relying on the allegations of their Complaint insofar as Article III is concerned plus the testimony of the witness. In this case, it is not a mere abandonment. It is a withdrawal because, Mr. President, Your Honor, the issues have been joined with eight (8) Articles already. Now, there is a manner and procedure by which a complaint or pleadings can be amended and in this case, since the issues have been joined by leave of Court.



So again, may I clarify? So is it withdrawal of the five (5) so we would not have to vote on the five (5) anymore? Representative Tupas. That is the position of the Prosecution, no need to vote on the five (5) other Articles. The Presiding Officer. That is clear. Representative Tupas. And our position, Mr. President, is that there is no amendment to the Complaint. We are simply waiving our right to present evidence and, in effect, abandoning. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, Your Honor Representative Tupas. But with respect The Presiding Officer. You are not only waiving a right to present evidence, you have no more right to present evidence. Representative Tupas. Yes. We have no more right. We are abandoning it. The Presiding Officer. Yes, abandon. Senator Escudero. Abandoning, surrendering, withdrawing, dropping. Mr. President, may I know againthis is for future impeachment processes, I hope it will not come anytime soondid the Prosecutors consult with the Complainants of the case? Because this is a substantial amendment with respect to the Articles of Impeachment. And I heard the good gentleman yesterday when he was interviewed, he said he consulted with the Speaker of the House. May I knowbecause the Prosecutors, the 11-man Prosecution panel merely represent the 188 Complainants. In other jurisdictions, even a mere postponement of trial, the Prosecutors consult the House, and they passed a resolution to that effect. May I know if there is such a procedure taken or undertaken by the panel of Prosecutors? Representative Tupas. If it is a formal consultation with 188 signatories, we did not. We consulted, for the record, the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader and we were given full discretion, blanket authority on how to present the case. It is a prosecutorial discretion. We were given that discretion and now we are waiving our right with respect to the five (5) others and we are sticking, as the Senate President puts it, we will risewe will stand or fall on the three Articles, namely: Articles III, VII, and especially II. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I do not wish to debate nor argue with the distinguished Chief Prosecutor, only to place on record that the withdrawal of Articles of Impeachment is a substantial decision and, to my mind, this is not merely prosecutorial discretion. Perhaps what evidence to present, which witness to present, is prosecutorial discretion. But the eight (8) Articles were verified by 188 Congressmen. They swore that they had personal knowledge or based on documents that they read it and that they are therefore accusing the Chief Justice of all eight acts and/or omissions. My fear, Mr. President, Your Honor, is while the Chief Prosecutor considers this as a mere dropping, withdrawal but it would still constitute, in effect, an amendment of the Complaint which might present several other complications that we might not be prepared to encounter and face given the problems we have been seeing in connection with this trial. I just hope that that can be clarified in your motion and manifestation that you will file, Your Honors, so that everything we do here can be used as a good precedent for future impeachment cases and students of the law. Thank you, Mr. President.



Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we will clarify that in our notice/manifestation and we would like to thank Sen. Chiz Escudero. The Presiding Officer. May I suggest to the Prosecutors to make a very simple, clear and absolute statementwithdrawing or abandoning, whatever term or semantical terminology you will use to describe what you are doing without any further consideration including presentation of any iota of evidence on this withdrawn Articles of Impeachment. Senator Sotto. Mr. President The Presiding Officer. No, I just want to know the reaction of Representative Tupas. We will do that, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Tupas. We will make it very, very clear. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize, Sen. Alan Cayetano? The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, kanina po nabanggit ng Chief Prosecutor, ni Congressman Tupas, na sayang yung time ng Court kasi kung matagal pa yung hearing. Well-taken po yun. But I just like to put on the record, hindi masasayang ang time kasi aside from giving the Defense a fair chance to go over the submissions of the Prosecution, ang daming problema ng bansa eh, kagabi lang tumataas na naman ang presyo ng langis, di ba? So, may mga committee hearings naman na puwede kaming gawin at saka yung sa session. You know, from problem sa economy, problema sa agrikultura. Name it, we have it and we will be dealing with that. Ang question ko po: Will the Prosecution be needing time or will they still reply kapagkaif and when the Prosecutionthe Defense submits some objectionsyou will submit on Friday, tama po ba? Tapos sila Wednesday. So do you need time na sagutin pa iyon? Representative Tupas. Hindi na po. Pag na-submit naming nang Friday iyon and we will submit it. Kung may opposition, then we will submit it for resolution na. Senator Cayetano (A). Because we are assuming na sa Thursday, makakapag-decide na po kami para mag-trial na ng Monday. But there is a big possibility na kung marami pong ibi-bring up ang Depensa, kung 247 documents iyan eh matinding-matinding review at saka pag-uusap pa ang gagawin namin. So I just wanted to know whether submitted niyo na as far as you are concerned kung ano ang ibibigay ninyo sa Friday, then we will deal with their objections. And then the Court will make the decision. Representative Tupas. Tama po iyon, Mr President. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Okay. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes Representative Farias. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Sur.

Senator Sotto. And then is Senator Recto.


Representative Farias. May we request, Mr. Presidentthere was a statement here earlier made by the good lady here from Iloilo referring to the Prosecution as gago. Baka naman po puwedeng matanggal iyon dahil baka hindi naman po maganda sa posterity natin na nababasa po iyon na natawag po kami na Senator Defensor Santiago. No objection, Mr. President. Representative Farias. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Strike the term g-a-g-o from the record. (Laughter) Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Ralph Recto. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Batangas. Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, just a clarification. I heard earlier that we come back on March 12. Is that correct, Mr. President? That means for one (1) week, next week, there is no session? The Presiding Officer. We will resume the trial of this Impeachment Case on March 12 at two oclock in the afternoon. Senator Recto. That is right. And that would mean, Mr. President, that we would have two (2) session weeks left until March 23. Looking at the schedule of the Impeachment Court as well and that of the Senate and the House of Representatives, we come back on May 7, if I am not mistaken. And I have heard from the Defense that they intendthey need something like five (5) or six (6) weeks to present their evidence in behalf of the Defense. The Presiding Officer. We cannot deny them that. Senator Recto. Yes, I am not denying them that, Mr. President. I have seen the schedule of this Impeachment Court. And looking at that, then it is possible that we will not be through by June 7, Mr. President. Because we only have four (4) session weeks left when we get back on May 7. So, if we come back on March 12, we only have six (6) session weeks left, Mr. President. Is it correct to hear from the Defense that you would need something like six (6) session weeks? Mr. Cuevas. I have not estimated yet, Your Honor, because that will depend on the developments after the striking out or the abandonment of the four (4) Impeachment Articles, Your Honorfive (5), I am sorryfive (5). Senator Recto. I only mention this, Mr. President, for the consideration of the Impeachment Court with regard to our schedule as well so that all of us will know what is in store. So thank you, Mr. President.



Mr. Cuevas. Thank you also. The Presiding Officer. All right. The lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, this is just a follow-through on the concern raised by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and Sen. Chiz Escudero on the withdrawal of the five (5) Articles. Mr. President, I direct the attention of the Prosecution to our Rules of Court which has suppletory effect on this Impeachment proceedings. Rule X on Amended and Supplemental Pleadings clearly states that Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation. And this can only be done subject to Section 2 and Section 3 wherein Section 2 states that An amendment is a matter of right before a responsive pleading is filed. We all know that the responsive pleading has been filed and, therefore, in Section 3, that comes into effect which states that The amendments can only be made with leave of Court except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. This refers to civil proceedings. If we will look at the Rules on Criminal Proceeding, then I will make reference to Rule 110, Section 14 which states, Amendment or Substitution. A complaint or information may be amended in form or in substance without leave of court at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court. So in both cases, Mr. President, whether you consider this Impeachment Proceeding as close to a civil proceeding or close to a criminal proceeding, both require leave of court. So, I sincerely suggest and request that the Prosecution takes this into consideration when they file the appropriate manifestation or clarification next week. Thank you very much. The Presiding Officer. Well, I just want to state this for the record and for the consideration of the members of this Court as well as the two (2) panels of lawyers representing both sides of this Impeachment Trial. While we are a Court of Record, we are not really strictly a Court that maintains a record for purposes of appeal because there is no appeal in this case. And so, therefore, we are blazing a new trail. Though the rules that were mentioned, in my humble opinion, are not applicable to this particular proceeding, because there is no assignment of errors to be thought about for the future, because there is no appeal lying in the decision of this Court, either we pronounce the Respondent guilty or we say he is not guilty, and either side, no appeal lying. The end of the matter will be the verdict of this Court. Unlike in an ordinary civil proceeding, civil case, or in a criminal case, if the Defendant is convicted, he can appeal to the higher court and assign reviewable errors of the lower court. Or in a civil case, whoever loses in the civil case can appeal the case and assign reviewable errors in his appellate pleading. In this case, there is no appeal. So, whatever we say with respect to the evidence, with respect to the admissibility of evidence, ends there. They are recorded for reference purposes. But the verdict will be rendered by this Court on the basis of the appreciation, final and ultimate appreciation of each of the members of the Senate sitting as judges, jurors in thisthat is why I called it jurors because each one of us will form a judgment of this case of the Respondent. Once the judgment is rendered, we count the number of votes that will vote in favor of acquittal as well as the number of votes that will be in favor of pronouncement of guilt; and if it is guilt, whether we attain the two-thirds vote which is an absolute sixteen (16) of all the members of the Senate. So, all of these discussions are for our own guidance. But since there is no reversible error in this proceeding because there is no appeal, we will take the bull by the horn when we reach the bridge, so to speak.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President


Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. We understood the position of the Honorable Presiding Judge, Your Honor. But there seemed to be some plausibility on the statement made by the Honorable Senator Pia and Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Your Honor. Because what is involved in their articulation, Your Honor, postulation are merely Rules of Procedure, Your Honor, not on the validity of whatever judgment this Court may render after trial on the merits. The issue that was posed a while ago is what mode must be taken, must be followed in connection with the non-discussion anymore or non-taking into consideration of Impeachment Articles I, IV, V, and VIfive Articles, Your Honor. Tere is yetwe have not yet reached that stage, Your Honor, where a judgment on the merits have been rendered. So the way I understood it, because there is no definite rule insofar as this kind of eventuality is concerned provided for under the Rules of the Senate, Your Honor, then there is no harm adopting the Rules of Procedure enshrined under our Rules of Court. I fully agree, Your Honor, to the effect that if there is already an answer, meaning, an adverse pleading, then a mere statement on record or an oral manifestation will not be enough for the dismissal or disposition of those abandoned Articles of Impeachment because the law requires, per procedure, Your Honor, that it must be subject to a motion and approval. A motion is not enough, Your Honor. Even a mere notice is not enough, in my assessment. The Presiding Officer. But precisely I made it clear that there will be no evidence being presented on those Articles. And second, there will be no judgment on the pleading. If you remember, I asked the question from the Prosecution yesterday. But I will not begrudge and take it away from the Defense to use whatever material evidence they have with respect to Article I, Article IV, Article V, Article VI, Article VIII to be used for the defense of the Respondent in meeting the assertions and the evidence presented to prove those assertions as far as Article II, Articles III and VII are concerned. In other words, you have the advantage. You have a great advantage. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. We are fully appreciable of the gesture on the part of this Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is why I warned the Prosecution that this is a fatal error that you are committing if you do not watch out. And I do not have to teach pleading and practice here. But you think about it. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. One final member. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, please. The Presiding Officer. Sen. Jinggoy Estrada has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Maraming salamat, Ginoong Pangulo. Isang katanungan lang po kay Congressman Tupas.



Doon po sa winidraw (withdraw) niyong limang Articles of Impeachment, iyan ba ang ibig sabihin niyan ay hindi niyo na ho ipa-file iyan next year kung saka-sakaling maabsuwelto si Chief Justice Corona? Representative Tupas. Mahirap ho na tanong iyan, Ginoong Pangulo, dahil wala ho tayong control doon sa ibang members of the House. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Representative Tupas. So hindi ko ibig sabihin hindi ko po masagot iyong katanungan ni Sen. Jinggoy Estrada ng categorical. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Puwede hong malaman iyong pangalan nung isang prosecutor dun yung naka-amerikana na itim? Yes. Representative Tupas. Si Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre II. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I understand he is a private prosecutor. Representative Tupas. Yes, sir. May he be recognized, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ginoong Aguirre, kanina ho nung nagsasalita si Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, mulat sapul nung tumayo si Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago hanggang natapos si Senadora Santiago, ay nakalagay po ang inyong kamay sa inyong tenga at para bagang ayaw ninyo siyang pakinggan. Mr. Aguirre. Totoo po iyan. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yan po ay isang kabastusan dito po sa isang Miyembro ng Hukom na ito. Kung kayo naman po ang nagsasalita at kami naman po ay gumanun, [gesturing to cover the ears] ano ho ang inyong mararamdaman? Mr. Aguirre. Alam niyo po totoo po iyon sapagkat nasasaktan na yung tenga ko. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Alam niyo Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, point of order. The Presiding Officer. What is the point of order? Senator Defensor Santiago. I charge this private prosecutor with contempt of this Impeachment Court. I have the evidence right here taken in a video by Sen. Alan Cayetano. And to say, nasasaktan ang tenga ko, should have been cause for you to walk out of this courtroom, with permission of the Court. But you cannot make those contemptuous gestures in front of a judge and get away with it. I submit, Mr. President, that this should be taken up The Presiding Officer. To be fair, I will give the Counsel a chance to explain himself. Mr. Aguirre. Your Honor, kasi po sinasabi ng Kagalang-galang na Hukom na ngayon lang daw po nangyari na ang isang Complaint ay wini-withdraw ng Prosecution or ng sinuman. Pero yan po ay natural po yan sa court practice. Nangyayari po iyan araw-araw na nagwi-withdraw ang isang abogado ng kanyang complaint or ng part ng complaint, nag-a-amend. But the fact, Your Honor please, that this is the first time that I experienced, in my 40 years of practice na ang isang judge ay nagle-lecture sa mga abogado. Hindi po ata tama yung mga ganun, eh. Nakaka



Senator Ejercito Estrada. Eh, bakit hindi ho kayo tumayo nung nagsasalita si Senadora Miriam para mag-object? Mr. Aguirre. Hindi po akowala po akong karapatang mag-object sapagkat kailangan pong i-recognize muna ako ng Kagalang-galang na Impeachment Court na ito upang masabi ko kung anong nasasaloob ko. Pero nang nandito na po ako ngayon, di sasabihin ko po ang nasasaloob ko. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, I reiterate my motion to cite for contempt by the Impeachment Court. Not by me, but by the Impeachment Court. Imagine if all the lawyers did that in front of the Impeachment Court, if one of the Senator-Judges took the forum to express his opinions. Kasi salungat sa gusto mo kaya ayaw mong pakinggan. Eh, kung ayaw mong pakinggan, eh di umalis ka sa Korte. Mr. Aguirre. Aalis na nga po sana ako, eh. Kaya lang Senator Defensor Santiago. Granted, if that is in the form of a motion. Nanghahamon ka, ah. Mr. Aguirre. Aalis na po ako. Senator Defensor Santiago. Dito ako nakaupo, eh, gaganyan ka sa akin. And it is on video. The Presiding Officer. May I suggest that let us be calm in this proceeding and deal with one another in a fashion that will not create an impression before the people that we are not following the right norms. Please explain yourself. Mr. Aguirre. May I say something, Mr. President. Kung nakasakit man po yung isang aktuwasyon ko po, I really did it purposely because totoo naman po na talagang shrill ang voice na nasasaktan ang tenga ko, eh. Ang kuwan ko lamang po ay dapat po lamang na kahit ang mga Senador ay mga Judges at kami ay mga hamak lamang na Prosecutor dito, ang pinakaimportante po sa isang tao ay respeto. Kung nagde-demand ka ng respeto, dapat respetuhin mo din itong mga abogadong ito Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President Mr. Aguirre. sapagkat yung human dignity wala pong kasingwala pong katulad yan. Senator Defensor Santiago. Now, he is lecturing me. The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for several minutes. The trial was suspended at 4:10 p.m. The trial was resumed at 4:29 p.m. The Presiding Officer. Trial is resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Pia Cayetano? Go ahead.



The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, a number of Bar examinees passed the Bar exams today and they look upon this Impeachment Court as a shining example, I would like to think, of what the law practice is supposed to be like. Mr. President, every Bar examinee knows that utmost respect is due the judge as soon as a lawyer walks into his courtroom, in fact, even outside the courtroom. A lawyer may disagree with the court, Your Honor, but he is not, he is never allowed to display such arrogance and disrespect towards the court. Mr. President, the Rules are very clear. Section 1 under Rule 71 states, Direct Contempt Punishable Summarily. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect towards the court may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding P2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding ten days or both, if it be a regional trial court or a court of equivalent or higher rank or a fine not exceeding P200 or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day or both if it be a lower court. Mr. President, I second the motion of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago to hold the lawyer in contempt. We will hold under advisement the actual and the appropriate penalty for this contemptuous act. I so submit, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. May I Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, if I may also add, in the meantime, I move that he be excluded from this Impeachment Trial Court. The Presiding Officer. Is the Counsel for the Prosecution still present in the Courtroom? Representative Tupas. He is not anymore inside the Courtroom, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. This Presiding Officer, before he makes a ruling, would like to say something. If you remember, at the beginning of our proceedings, I made an opening statement and I requested everybody, especially the lawyers on both sides, because I know that it is not far-fetched that things like this would come before us considering the passions, the heat, the intensity of emotions that will arise in the course of this proceeding. And, indeed, today, we have witnessed a direct indication of a disrespect by a member of the Bar to this Court. And while in all my years of trial and professional practice I have appeared before many of our stern judges in this countryand many of them were very sternwe were taught to practice a professional behavior of utmost control and respect to the dignity of the court before whom we appeared. And I must say that I cannot tolerate any disrespect of this Court and to any member of this Court as a Presiding Officer. Maybe my fellow lawyers will think of me as an old head in this profession, a traditionalist, but that is the norm that I have learned from my first year in the College of Law of the University of the Philippines all the way to the time that I entered public service at the height of my active law practice. And so, indeed, there is a ground Representative Farias. Mr. President



The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. May I request the lawyer not to interrupt this Court. Representative Farias. I am sorry, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Please sit down, Mr. Counsel. There must be an order in a courtroom. You can rise after the Presiding Officer in the Court has spoken. Now, there is a motion to cite a member of the Prosecution Panel for contempt, and that Motion is duly seconded, and it cannot be set aside. And, indeed, the person concerned was given a chance to explain what he did and why he did it. And he openly admitted in Court that he did it purposely because he felt offended. And so, therefore, it was a sign of his disrespect to a member of this Court. And that cannot be allowed to pass. And it must be dealt with according to the rules applicable in this particular circumstance. And, so therefore, what is the pleasure of this Court? I am not the Court, I want the pleasure of this Court. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I have seconded the Motion of the Honorable Miriam Defensor Santiago, and I believe our colleagues are all supporting this Motion, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Any objection to the Motion? [Silence] Hearing noneIs there anyone in the Prosecution that would like to make a statement? Representative Farias. Yes, Mr. President. Precisely I wanted to rise earlier, and I am sorry for the interruption because, on behalf of the Prosecution, we would like to express our regrets for what happened to the Honorable Court, especially to the lady from Iloilo, for what happened. The private Prosecutor is under our control so we feel that we have to express our regrets, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Prosecution panel, like the provincial or city fiscal, any prosecution service from the government, is always in control of the case of the government against an accused. A private prosecutor cannot do anything without the control of the Prosecution panel. And it was your responsibility to see to it that the private prosecutors that you bring into this courtroom to assist you in the prosecution of this Impeachment Trial will carry themselves according to the norms of the profession, and the conduct that they ought to practice inside a courtroom. So, given your apology, will accept it but, nonetheless, we will enforce respect to this Court. And so, if there is no objection to the Motion of the lady Senator from Iloilo, and seconded by the lady Senator from Taguig, the gentleman who is a memberprivate member of the Prosecution panel is hereby cited for contempt and the penalty that will be meted by this Court against him will be taken up in a caucus by this Court next week. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. Representative Farias. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. From here on, all concerned must take note of this. We will no longer tolerate a misbehavior like this. If you want to participate in this proceeding, you are welcome, but if you do not believe in the dignity of this Court or its jurisdiction over you, if you think that you are better than usor, as lawyers, you are better than us, well, you are entitled to your opinion, but we will enforce the Rules of Procedures that are applicable in a court like this. So ordered. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.



Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Related to that, I move that the caucus of the Senate as an Impeachment Court be moved on Tuesday at 12 noon. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the motion of the Floor Leader is approved. Senator Sotto. Also, Mr. President, may I move that the Senate Legislative Session, which is scheduled on Tuesday at nine oclock in the morning, be moved to three oclock in the afternoon on that same day, Tuesday. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] Senator Sotto. After the caucus, Mr. President, on Tuesday. The Presiding Officer. The Chair hears none, the motion of the Floor Leader in moving the Legislative Session of the Senate in the morning to the afternoon of Tuesday is approved. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, acting on the request of the Prosecution, a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum was issued to Atty. Harry Roque The Presiding Officer. To? Senator Sotto. Atty. Harry Roque of the U.P. Law Center on February 27. Yesterday the Prosecution filed a motion to withdraw the subpoena issued to Attorney Roque, for the information of the Court. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Also, may we place on record the explanation of vote of Sen. Francis Pangilinan on the resolution of the Impeachment Court of the issuance of subpoena to the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I so move that it be placed on recordthe explanation of vote be placed on record. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Explanation of Vote on the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum Et Duces Tecum to Members of the Supreme Court by Senator Pangilinan. There are two points that I would like to underscore in my separate concurring opinion. First, while we believe that Supreme Court justices and records may be subpoenaed given the nature of the Impeachment Court and, more importantly, the fact that the Chief Justice and his official acts are in question, we also believe that that such a subpoena may be issued only after the Prosecution shows that it has exerted all effort to secure evidence and witnesses but now have no other choice to prove their case but to issue a subpoena. Did the Prosecution invite or request that this document be made available to them? Was there a written request for the justices to appear and testify for the Prosecution? Was this denied? Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the subject matter of their testimonies and considering that they delve into internal matters, this court must tread very carefully and must grant such compulsory processes with the Supreme Court with caution. The subpoena must be issued only as a last recourse, after all measures to obtain evidence have been undertaken.



Second, there are many ways by which the confidentiality of the internal debates of the Supreme Court, as well as the documents, can be presented in the impeachment court. The impeachment court may choose to suspend the rules and go into executive session to hear the testimonies of the justices, among other things. Since the present impeachment trial involves no less than the Chief Justice, who is being accused of wrongful acts and misconduct in connection with his official duties as a Chief Justice, quite naturally evidence of such acts will have to delve into official documents, however confidential they may be. This court ought to exercise restraint, but it must be able to fulfill its mandate that is, to seek the truth in these proceedings. While the dependence of our governments branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. Chief Justice Marshall in United States vs. Burr1 said that subpoena duces tecum could be issued to the President. Separation of powers does not mean that the branches ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over acts of each other. As such, it can act as a check upon abuses of power or instances of serious misconduct by the judicial as well as executive officials vulnerable to impeachment. The principle of separation of powers should focus on the extent to which it prevents a branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of Clinton vs. Jones2 that the doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three coequal branches of our government. [O]ursystem imposes upon the branches a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence the absence of which `would preclude the establishment of a national capable of governing itself effectively. All told, and given the ultra-sensitive nature of the subject matter of the testimonies covered by the subpoena in question, the Prosecution should have first established that all means necessary had been undertaken to try and secure witnesses and evidence to prove their case and that having failed to do so, they may now seek the intervention of this court to assist them in doing so. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make an announcement? The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-At-Arms may now make an announcement. The Sergeant-At-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. March 12, 2012. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two oclock of Monday,

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the trial of this Impeachment Case against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be adjourned until two oclock in the afternoon of Monday, March 12, 2012. It was 4:41 p.m.
_____________________________ 1 2

25 Fed. Cas. 30 (No. 14, 692d) (C.C.D.VA. 1807).

WILLIAN JEFFERSON CLINTON vs. PAULA CORBIN JONES, U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Stevens (May 27, 1997)

You might also like