Press Release
December 4, 2007

Transcript of interview with Senator Pia S. Cayetano - Senate PIMRO

Q: On the matter of Santiago vs. Trillanes, anong balak niyong gawin?

SPSC: The Constitution and the senate rules reiterate that any measure taken against a senator in terms of violations of ethical standards should be approved by two-thirds of the majority. Pero wala pa tayo doon eh, the resolution was just filed and I understand from the senate president that he would like to go into a caucus to discuss this and take action, if at all, in lieu of the pending court cases (against Sen. Trillanes). We don't want to have a conflict situation, we are co-equal bodies. To that extent, I would like to listen to the reactions of my colleagues to see how they would like to proceed. I am the chair of the committee on ethics but as chair naman, I have members and I would like to see the views of my colleagues. I am just waiting for the senate president when we could sit down and decide on how to act on this matter.

Q: Who are the members of the committee?

SPSC: We don't actually have a full membership yet. Kulang pa, that's another matter that has to be resolved. If you remember last year, the committee did not even meet.

Q: The senate president said that if he will have his way, he would rather take it up a month or so from now

SPSC: I understand that he also said that given that there's a pending case, hindi siya nagmamadali na unahin namin ito. What we always do in contentious issues is that we hold a caucus on these topics, and that's what I'll probably end up doing. I'll also take the lead of the senate president on this.

Q: Will you make Sen. Trillanes appear in the Ethics hearing?

SPSC: My understanding of due process is that it is required; that the person under investigation should be present. But how are we going to do that is a new issue altogether, that's why the need to go into caucus. It's very important because I don't think we could hold the hearing without our colleague having the right to defend himself. That is also a fundamental right of our colleague.

Q: Would it be better if the hearings are done in the Senate or his cell?

SPSC: From my understanding he is even restricted to receive visitors, so whether he comes here or we go there, ako naman as committee chair, I am willing to go where I have to. I think it's secondary. The question is: can he even participate in any manner? The very question that he himself is asking, which the court should decide.

Q: There's an impression that the senate is too kind or lenient on Sen. Trillanes...

SPSC: People have their prejudices, as chair I try to have an open mind. I try not to give statements without a full understanding of the facts.

Q: Can you throw out the resolution?

SPSC: Personally as chair, I don't do that. Even if a lot of resolutions come into my committee, I wouldn't like to just throw out. I may not hold a hearing but I will conduct by way of consultation with my colleagues, of experts in the field to determine if it should go into the second stage. That's also possible, its not that there's no action, but the action may not necessarily be a hearing, the action may be a caucus.

Q: Personally, sa tingin n'yo, meron po bang chance ang resolution?....

SPSC: Yan ang ayokong sagutin. As chair I feel it is important for me to be impartial. Just like in any court, I am very cautious when we conduct investigative hearings, may evidence requirement 'yan where you're supposed to make a judgment which the ethics committee is bound to do if we decide to hear it.

Q: Based on our interviews, ang may gusto lang na ma-process si Trillanes are Miriam and Kiko, pero the rest, ayaw. It is really impossible to get the two-thirds vote? Will that however affect your judgement kahit sa committee level lang maka-forward?

SPSC: Sometimes, it is also important to go through the process. On the other hand, if the end result of the process is disciplinary action, and as you've said it is next to impossible to get two-thirds, then like I said, there are a lot of ways to tackle this, whether we go through the hearing or settle it in caucus. So all that really depends on the sentiments of my colleagues, if they want to send a strong message about certain things, they may go through the hearing and come up with a committee report. I'll leave it at that, I have to sit down with my future members.

Q: Waste of time daw kasi...

SPSC: To that extent as committee chair, yun din ang feeling ko. Kung hindi natin makukuha yung vote, we have to analyze why we should go through the process. What would the purpose be? And for that reason, I would listen to my colleagues, may purpose bang ituloy ito, kung alam naman nating hindi. At the end of the day, you go through the hearing so the people can appreciate the evidence and make a decision. That may lead some people to say let's go through the process.

Q: So you would go into a compromise....

SPSC: Of course, always naman. In a democratic system, compromise is always an option.

Q: Kasama po ba si Sen. Santiago sa caucus?

SPSC: As chair I'd like to get the views of all our colleagues. Kung wala siya, I could talk to her later, we will play it as it comes along. I would consult her, I have high respect for Sen. Santiago.

Q: What if Sen. Trillanes files a counter-complaint against Miriam?

SPSC: Anyone may file a complaint. I doubt if Sen. Trillanes would do that. But having said that, kung maraming naka-file sa ethics we have to look at it and decide if it goes though hearing or not.

Q: At the end of the day, it is a numbers game and baka ma-throw out nga...

SPSC: We'll hear it when we are in caucus to hear the sentiments of our colleagues.

Q: Would you invite Sen. Trillanes in the hearing?

SPSC: If there would be a committee hearing, it is his fundamental right to defend his action. Of course he will be invited, it is his right to be there to explain his action.

Q: (Regarding the treatment of the media)

SPSC: On the handcuffing of media, and they being shepherded to a bus, that is tantamount to prior restraint...(the law) prohibits any executive or police power to interfere with media coverage and press freedom unless there is a clear and present danger. In this case media already willingly took the risk of being there in the crossfire, and yet they were pulled out of the situation and to me, to that extent, prevented them from further covering the activity. That may certainly amount to prior restraint.

At this point where ABS-CBN was required to provide a copy of their tapes, I believe this is a deprivation of private property which is protected under the Bill of Rights. And in this case, because it is media, there is more than one right being protected here, freedom of the press and freedom to secure one's property. Under our Constitution, only a court of law can issue an order to confiscate that property for evidence purposes. This cannot be done by an investigative body.

News Latest News Feed