Press Release
May 30, 2017

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESSCON OF MINORITY SENATORS

Q: 'Yung move niyo to seek for a joint session, hindi ba 'yan maaapektuhan ng resolution ng majority expressing na they're supporting the declaration of Martial Law.

Drilon: As you are aware, we have filed also Resolution Number 390, which resolution calls for convening of Congress in joint session and deliberate on Proclamation 216. We note that Resolution 388 which expresses the sense of the Senate does not call for a joint session for which reason the minority cannot support Resolution 388 which is filed by fifteen senators.

Hontiveros: Dagdag po diyan, 'yung majority resolution nga ay silent sa joint session. Sinasabi lang nila na sinusuportahan lang nila ang declarasyon ng Martial Law at tingin nila, hindi kailangan i-revoke ang deklarasyon. Para sa 'min, 'yang mga puntong 'yan ay pwede at dapat lumabas sa joint session. Dagdag pa po 'dun sa tantiya namin, may mga bahagi ng majority resolution na pabor din sa joint session. At hinihikayat namin sila sumuporta sa aming resolusyon na nananawagan ng joint session. 'Yung pagtupad sa aming Constitutional obligation na timbangin ang deklarasyon ni Presidente at i-exercise 'yung check and balance powers namin bilang separate at co-equal branch of government.

Aquino: Siguro just to add ano, we're calling for the joint session because primarily it's a Constitutional requirement. Sa tingin po naming kinakailangan po ito base sa ating Konstitusyon. Pangalawa, the joint session provides a venue for the public to be able to hear for themselves 'yung mga rason at plano ng ating mga security managers regarding the declaration of Martial Law. Palagay po namin mahalaga na 'yung iba sa mga narinig namin kahapon, dapat po marinig din ng taong-bayan. The mechanism para magkaroon po ng paraan na 'yan is through the joint session. So we feel that it is important that the public is given that opportunity na kaharap po, through the representatives of the people which are your senators and congressmen makaharap po nila 'yung mga security managers para ma-explain 'yung mga rason, mga plano, and of course to get the commitment of the security managers which we in fairness received yesterday that they will abide by the Constitution, the rules of court, and the rule of law. Palagay ko po, 'yung narinig naming kahapong commitment from the Secretaries and the AFP that they will abide by the Constitution ay marinig din ng ating mGa kababayan through a joint session, in a transparent and public venue.

Q: But sir they are saying you can do it separately? Na House and Senate? Bakit daw kailangan pang joint?

Pangilinan: Dahil 'yun ang sinasabi ng Saligang Batas. Kasi ang sinasabi sa Saligang Batas ay joint session and both Houses voting jointly. At may Supreme Court ruling din, 'yung Fortun case na nagsasabi na as far as the joint session is concerned, it is automatic. To distinguish it from a case brought to the Supreme Court, which has to be initiated. In other words, 'yung joint session of Congress need not be initiated. It must be automatic. Precisely because napakatindi ng extra-ordinary powers ng Presidente sa Martial Law. Milyun-milyon ang apektado dahil nga sa dami nung saklaw nung proklamasyon, and therefore nararapat lamang na magkaroon ng official proceeding at mayroong public record sa pag-uusap dito sa Martial Law declaration na ito.

Q: May time pa ba sir considering na malapit na mag-adjourn?

Trillanes: Iqqualify ko lang ano, before we answer that. Itong pinag-uusapan natin ngayon na issue, ay hindi ito ibig sabihin ay kinokontra natin ang efforts ngayon sa Marawi. All of us, unanimous ang suporta sa AFP sa pagsugpo ng Maute. Let us be clear on that. We also recognize the gravity of the situation there. Ang kailangang pag-usapan lang is kung ito bang Martial Law in Mindanao ay kung ito ba 'yung proportionate response or 'yung tamang response dapat ng gobyerno. 'Yung AFP kasi, with or without Martial Law, susugpuin nila 'yung kalaban. At base doon sa briefing kahapon, talagang very very confident kami na kayang kaya ito ng AFP. So iyon ang pinag-uusapan. Ngayon itong joint session, aside sa mandato ito ng Konstitusyon, dito dapat being representatives of the people e machecheck natin 'yung powers ng Presidente. Alam mo sa akin personally, hindi ako nangangamba na mag-abuso ang AFP dahil professional na ang AFP ngayon. Nangangamba ako na mag-abuso si Duterte mismo.

Pangilinan: Dun lang sa tanong na may time pa ba? Although the legislative calendar ends Friday, technically a joint session of Congress to hear or to deliberate on the declaration of Martial Law is not bound or covered by the legislative calendar. It can go beyond that provided that it is agreed by both houses that there will be a specific... schedule to the assembly... to the joint session.

Hontiveros: Kaya 'yun po 'yung urgency 'nung minority resolution. Dahil kung sa sesyon nitong kasalukuyang session, hanggang bukas. So habang sitting in session kami, pinipilit naming mula sa minorya na mag-joint session ang Senado at saka ang House. At may precedent po 'yan. 'Yung 2009 na deklarasyon ng Martial Law ni dating Pangulong Macapagal-Arroyo, ito mismong Senado kasama ng House noon, nag-joint session. At marami po silang took to the floor to put on record, 'yung iba po sa kanila miyembro pa rin ng Senado ngayon, myembro ng mayorya, pinut on record po nila na Consitutional duty na mag-joint session-na magseset ito ng importanteng precedent para sa mga susunod na posibleng magdeklara ng Martial Law. So walang dahilan na iibahin ang prinsipyo na tatayuan ng Senado ngayon. Kaya mamaya ay igigiit po namin ang aming minority resolution na dapat magdaos ng joint session. At sa tingin ko po, walang ibang panahon para gawin iyon habang naka-upo pa kami kundi bukas.

Q: (inaudible)

Hontiveros: Na-appeciate ko po ang briefing na ibinigay po sa aming lahat sa Senado ng Armed Forces kahapon hanggang kagabi. At gaya ng sinabi ni Sen. Sonny patuloy naming inaappreciate din 'yung kabayanihan ng ating mga sundalo at pulis na sumusugpo ng Maute sa Marawi. Pero 'yung briefing pa rin ay hindi pa rin na-exhaust or na-settle 'yung mga grave concerns at mga tanong. Isa na po iyan kung kinailangan po ba talaga ng Martial Law. Gaya ng sinabi rin kanina na mismong ang mga nagbriefing sa amin ang umamin na kaya nilang sugpuin ang Maute sa Marawi kahit na walang Martial Law. Nga lang, nakapag-desisyon na si Presidente. Obligado silang mag-implementa. So all the more importante na icheck and balance namin iyon mula sa Kongreso.

Q: May nagsabi po na without Martial Law they can........

A (Hontiveros): Kung tama po 'yong ala-ala ko, si Secretary Lorenzana ang nagsabi nun pero siya din po ang nag affirm na dahil nagdesisyon na si President, hindi muna dumaan sa calling out of powers of the President, hindi muna sinuspende lamang 'yung privilege of the writ of habeas corpus pero dumiretso na agad sa martial law ay obligado na silang i-implementa ito. All the more na kailangan mag joint session.

Q:You mentioned po na President before, kung hindi ba talaga kailangan ni President na mag-martial law....

A (Trillanes): When asked the security official said, hindi sila 'yung nag rekumenda.

Q: Sir kailangan ba talaga siyang i-rekumenda kasi sinasabi ng authority naman ng President....

A (Drilon): All of you asked these questions really points to the need of open joint session where the hearing can be done para po sa transparency. At yesterday, first it was a closed-door briefing of course we sought the permission of caucus and everybody agreed mainly of those mentioned were mainly contained in the report. Well, there is one particular issue which Senator Trillanes last mentioned the question was asked pointedly by Senator Trillanes: Can we contain the Maute without the martial law? The answer of Sec. Lorenzana was "Yes, we can."

A (B.Aquino): In fairness to those who presented yesterday, napanatag naman ang loob namin na kaya talaga ng AFP na masugpo 'iyong problemang ito, and with that I would say as much, we were comforted by their presentation and that their assurance na within the next few days, within the week, they should be able to bring Marawi and Lanao del Sur to normalcy. That was a commitment. And they've said that already in press briefings. Now ang tanong dyan is pag natapos na ang bakbakan at bumalik na sa normalcy ang Marawi at Lanao del Sur, kailangan pa ba ang martial law? Kasi by the time that we have this joint session, if our colleagues will agree, maybe by that time tapos na po ang fire-fighting na nangyayari. Maybe it would already be the time to lift the declaration of martial law. And mahalaga na malaman din iyon ng taong bayan. We also yesterday talked about a lot of misinformation going around. Whether it's social media or traditional media, paminsan minsa po mali-mali talaga ang balitang umiikot. Sometimes sinasadya sometimes hindi naman po sinasadya. But there's a lot of information going around na mali. And the joint session I think will address that. Ma-aaddress po 'yung concern na 'yun, na minsan may fake news, may misinformation na umiikot, again sometimes sinasadya sometimes hindi. But to hear it straight from our security managers, palagay ko po importante 'yun sa taong bayan na marinig mismo nila. And that they can propose questions through their representatives. Who were the Congressmen and Senators.

A (Trillanes): I-aadd ko lang just to be clear. Dahil part nung fake news na 'yun ay ni-lilink daw ako, si Senator Bam, 'yung Magdalo, Congressman Elejano, LP sa Maute. So tinanong namin directly si Sec Lorenzana kung meron silang credible information about it sa intelligence. Sabi niya, wala daw katotohanan 'yun at nare-receive daw nila ang ganung information at hindi daw nila pinansin, hindi daw totoo 'yun. So just to be clear.

A (B.Aquino): Even ako, not even just that. But even 'yung reports sa violence that's happening. 'yung facilities na kinuha o hindi kinuha. Kung may na-behead o hindi na-behead marami ho talagang misinformation na umiikot. And it's important that we hear it straight from security managers po natin kung ano talaga ang nangyayari on the ground. And again, the best venue for that is would be joint session such that it was already in our constitution. Nakalagay po 'yung mekanismo. At ang pagtulak po namin nito ay para matupad kung ano ang nakalagay sa ating constitution.

Q: Sir, given 'yung sinabi ng security officials na hindi nga nila ni-recommend and, na kaya nga nilang i-defeat even without martial law. Is the Minority inclined to receive the revocation or both the revocation in the martial law. If ever man......

A(Drilon): Let's not jump into that. We asked for a joint session. You don't ... all these news under oath. That's a difference. We will be hearing testimonies under oath. We don't want to jump into any conclusion at this point.

Q: Ano po ba 'yung implication kapag hindi nag joint session? Si Congressman Edsel Lagman he mentioned .... of duty daw na possible maging subject of petitions eventually. Ano po ba 'yung mga implications?

A(Pangilinan): Well, I would like to think that we are not fulfilling our role and our duty in the constitution. And, whether there are administrative sanctions, hindi ko pa napag-aaralan 'yon. Pero merong political consequences 'yon, obviously as public leaders we will have to answer our voters as to whether or not we are fulfilling our duties as mandated under the constitution. And as we have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. Sa ganung klaseng paraan, masasabi kong meron talagang kakulangan na hindi namin itinulak o hindi namin ipinatupad ang aming mga tungkulin sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas at Oath of Office.

A(Drilon): Pag hindi mangyari yan, then with more reason that the Supreme Court would have to rule on this issue. Because under the constitution, the Supreme Court... the petition can be filed in the Supreme Court raising an issue the factual basis of martial law. And the Supreme Court must decide on that within 30 days from the filing of the petition. This constitutional provision is the result of the situation during 1972 martial law when the court refused to review the factual basis of martial law declaration because it was a political question. Now this constitution specifically mandates the Supreme Court to rule on the factual basis of the declaration within 30 days by the time the petition was filed.

A(Hontiveros): Ang isinusulong po namin sa minorya ay magkaroon ng joint session. Nakakahiya nga na kailangan pa naming mag file ng resolution para lang gawin namin ng buong Kongreso ang aming trabaho. At kung ang lumabas sa joint session ay hindi lang yung magandang guidelines na mayroon ang DND at AFP na itinataguyod pa rin nila ang 1987 constituiton kasama ang lahat ng safeguards para sa civil liberties. Kahit sa ilalim ng martial law. Kung hindi mapanatag ang loob namin sa loob ng joint session na yan na laman ng minority resolution. Mapanatag ang loob namin sa sinasabi ni Presidente na pwede pa ring mag search, pwede pa ring mang aresto ng walang warrant, mang rape ng mga tatlo aaminin kong akin 'yan. Pag hindi ma-settle 'yun mga lumalabas na mistulang policy pronouncements ni Presidente tungkol sa kanyang martial law ay hindi ko makita ang sarili ko na sinusportahan ang deklarasyon. At kung ang choice lamang ay ang pag suporta sa deklarasyon o pag-revoke sa deklarasyon pag it comes to a vote, boboto ako sa revocation.

Q: Just in case na ibasura yung panawagan para sa joint session, willing kayong mag initiate kayo ng petition sa Supreme Court, minority?

A(Pangilinan): Well napag-usapan initially 'yan, hindi pa namin nafa-finalize. Bukas kami, pero tingnan natin ang resulta nitong debate.

Q: Nabanggit niyo ang joint session sa ilang mga kasama ninyo sa majority, Na-invite 'nyo ba sila in the first place to support the resolution.

A(Hontiveros): Noong dina-draft po namin 'yung minority resolution na ngayon Senate Resolution 390, nag reach out po kami sa ilang miyembro ng majority na nag sabi noong una palang na idineklara ni Presidente na nagsabing ina-anticipate nila ang joint session, at handa silang bumoto tungkol sa deklarasyon. Ayon sa pag appreciate naming lahat ng ulat ni Presidente. So nag reach out po kami sa kanila. Kaya nga po sinabi ko kanina, sa tantya namin na may miyembro ng mayorya na kabilang sa majority resolution, na kanila talagang tingin sinusuportahan nila yung deklarasyon. Tingin nila hindi kailangang i-revoke. Pero gusto pa din nilang gawin ang proseso ng joint resolution na puno't dulo ng minority resolution namin.

Q: Mga ilang po sila?

A(Pangilinan): Isa, dalawa, tatlo, apat, lima, anim, pito.....

A(Hontiveros): Oo, mga pito.

Q: Sir bakit may tigil? ......

A(Trillanes): 'Yung sakin lang, it's the pressure of the majority. Pero just going back doon sa point mo regarding 'yung dereliction of duty. Palagay ko kapag hindi talaga natuloy itong joint session, kung merong mag fa-file sa Ombudsman sa dereliction of duty, ang mananagot dito would be the Speaker of the House, Senate President at those who openly expressed their opinion na hindi kailangan ng joint session.

A(Pangilinan): Baka ayaw nilang madikit sa minority at maging biktima sila ng fake news.

Q: Ang argumento ho kasi nila mag jo-joint session lang kung ang .... is to revoke. At hindi naman po'yun ang gusto ng House and Senate. It would be a futile exercise lang po if mag jo-joint session.

Pangilinan: First, how will you establish that sense until you convene?

Q: Resolution?

Pangilinan: Precisely but that is the Senate and the House separately discussing it. Number one. Number two, what if somebody wants to revoke in a joint session? How would he now or she make the vote known or make the intention known if we don't convene? O 'di wala? Ibig sabihin wala ng boses ang minority. This is anti-democratic. For an institution like Congress not to convene the joint session to deliberate precisely what is a very serious, extra-ordinary power of the Executive Department. So basically that. We have to convene. Even if it's ministerial, 'di ba? Assuming for the sake of argument talagang 101% bobotong pabor, we still have to convene, there still has to be a public proceeding, and there still has to be a record of the proceeding, because well, we are doing official acts and this is mandated by the Constitution.

Aquino: Well if I may add, 'di tayo pwede mag-shortcut. 'Yung mga shortcut sa bansa natin 'yun 'yung nagdudulot ng masasamang bagay. Ayaw nating magshortcut 'yung AFP. Ayaw nating magshortcut 'yung PNP. Bakit tayo magshshortcut? 'Di ba? For the sake of "eh kasi 'yun na rin 'yun eh." 'Di ba? Hindi naman pwede 'yon. And our position is that this is part of our constitutional mandate, gawin natin. 'Yung isang hindi napag-uusapan is the benefit to the public. Mahalaga sa aming palagay that a session like that, which is open to the public, and transparent, and under oath 'yung mga security managers, mahalaga na mapatupad 'yun para sa publiko. Again, precisely dahil marami ngang misinformation ngayon. Maraming magkakasalungat at contradictory statements na nagaganap. Kailangan natin 'yan for the public. And ayaw naming pangunahan kung ano 'yung magiging resulta. Because the result at this point is secondary to the process na kailangang tuparin because it is part of our Constitutional mandate.

Pangilinan: Just very quickly. It is not only mandated in the Constitution. It is also mandated because of legislative precedent. And it is also mandated because the Supreme Court has ruled na ang joint session of Congress to hear and to deliberate on a Martial Law declaration is automatic. So tatlo na ho 'yun na basis para kinakailangang iconvene ang joint session.

Hontiveros: Saka interesante po kapag binasa niyo po ang proceedings ng 1986 Constitutional Commission, nagkaroon pa sila ng diskusyon noon kung kailangan ba 2/3 ng Senate at House voting jointly, o simpleng majority lang para aprubahan o i-revoke ang deklarasyon ng Martial Law. Nagkasundo sila kahit simple majority na lang kasi inaanticipate nila na baka 'yung mga enemies of the state, nandun 'yun sa transcript of records ng Con Comm of 1986, baka raw po 'yung enemies of the State ay pipigilin 'yung mga Senador at mga kinatawan na makapag-convene in joint session sitting together para magdeliberate. So mayroon ganung sense of urgency na kung isang kritikal na sitwasyon, at least hindi idedemand na 2/3 ang magdesisyon sa deklarasyon ng Presidente, sapat na 'yung simple majority sitting jointly, convening jointly.

Q: What do we expect later in the session? Magbobotohan...

Drilon: The resolution of the minority is in the calendar. The resolution signed by 15 senators is not in the calendar. Expressing the sense of the Senate.

Q: Do you have the numbers?

Drilon: We'll see. When it's called for a vote.

News Latest News Feed