Excerpts of Senator Risa Hontiveros' interventions
Senate probe on anomalies related to People's Initiative campaign
February 13, 2024

Senator Risa Hontiveros (SRH): To what the chair has said, kahit lahat po ng kandidato, kasama tayo, pagkatapos ng bawat eleksyon, ay nagsusumite po tayo ng SOCE natin, and yung People's Initiative if properly implemented, at yun nga po yung tinatanong ng ating imbestigasyon, ay isang katulad din na constitutional process na dapat ay may transparency at accountability yung nagsasagawa nito, particular sa advertisements na wala nagtanong kay Mr. Onate, sila mismo ang nagsabi na it cost P55 million.

So I would still insist doon sa request ng Minority Leader ko na pinangako naman ni Mr. Onate noong araw na iyon 2 weeks ago na isumite yung impormasyon. Perhaps, Madam Chair, on the advice of our legal, if the Chair could explore the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.

Sen. Imee Marcos: Since we have not received the requested documents, the truth is the subpoena has been issued by this committee on its volition and I assume your lawyers are in receipt of the subpoena requiring the following documents: 1) the actual cost of printing the signature forms as mentioned earlier, aforementioned as well are 2) the list of donors and friends of Mr. Onate, 3) the proof of payment of donors' tax and finally, the invoice and official receipt for the advertisement "Edsapwera."

- -

SRH: It's alright, thank you, Madam Chair. Itanong ko lang kay Mr. Onate kasi sabi nila, nag-withdraw kayo ng higit 27.5 million pesos para i-reimburse yung mga ibang donors nyo na ayon yung pangalanan sa komite. A little more than 27.5 million pesos. Magkano exactly ang minidraw nyo?

PIRMA Convenor Noel Oñate: I think I withdrew 28 million.

SRH: Kailan nyo po binidraw yung 28 million?

Oñate: Last week.

SRH: Anong araw po last week? At saang bangko po ninyo i-binidraw yung 28 million?

Oñate:I think the withdrawal slips have been submitted to the committee, Your Honor.

SRH: So since sinabit nyo po sa komite, can you tell the committee verbally this time, anong withdrawal slip ang sinubmit niyo, nang aling bangko, on which day last week for the amount of 28 million pesos?

Oñate: Tatlong galing po yun sa tatlong account ko sa February 8 po. I withdrew the money from my personal bank accounts from three banks.

SRH: February 8 from which banks po?

Oñate: BDO, BPI, and Union Bank.

SRH: And yung tatlong withdrawal slips po ay nagtutotal na 28 million pesos?

Oñate: Yes, Your Honor.

Hontiveros: Can we ask the ComSec, Madam? Chair, to confirm that, that those were the three withdrawal slips from BDO, BPI, and Union Bank?

Oñate:U nion Bank, yeah.

SRH: Yes, totaling 28 million pesos on February 8?

Marcos: Yes, we are providing the members with copies.

Committee Secretary: Annex A, 6 million from BPI. Annex C, cash, 3 million from...

Also from BPI. Annex D, 9 million from BDO.

SRH: So, 6 million, 3 million, and 9 million, totaling 18 million.

Marcos: May Union Bank pa, di ba? , Annex B, 10 million. Yes, Secretary, please.

Committee Secretary: Annex B, 10 million from Union Bank.

SRH: So, now, totaling 28 million, Madam Chair.So, the arithmetic tallies correctly, pero kulang pa rin yung impormasyon na hiningi ng komite two weeks ago to know who these donors were. And I think that's an issue, an important issue that remains unresolved, Madam Chair, and must be answered by the resource person before this investigation is concluded. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Oñate: Yes, for additional information of the committee, our contributors were also invoking their right to privacy.

Senator Nancy Binay: Madam Chair, ang sa akin lang, Mr. Onate, nung pumasok sila sa ganitong advocacy, hindi pa dapat ready na sila and proud to say na ipinaglalaban nila itong charter change, itong people's initiative.

So, parang nakakagulat na all of a sudden, parang hindi na sila naniniwala dun sa advocacy na pinondohan nila. Parang ganoon na ho yung dumadating. So, kumbaga parang nabawasan na yung supporter nyo pagdating dito sa people's initiative.

Oñate: Naniniwala po sila, pero concerned po sila sa kanilang privacy at security.

SRH: Madam Chair, bakit po sila concerned sa kanilang security? Ano bang banta sa security?

Oñate: Because I think right now, there is a little bit of a controversy. There are anti-people's initiative. There are pro-people's initiative. They just didn't want to get into this way. So, they decided that they didn't want their names revealed. - -

SRH: So, Mr. Oñate, handa po ba kayong bayaran yung donor's tax nung buong 55 million pesos na yan? Oñate: Well, you know, I just want the committee to know that I have been a political operator for the past 30 plus years. SRH: Mr. Agnate, wag na po natin...

Oñate: I will come to that. I will come to that. Let me explain. SRH: No, Mr. Oñate. Do not please argue with the members of the committee. Ang tinatanong ko lang po, kasi sabi kanina ni Atty. Avisado, you are requesting for more time.

Actually po, nabigyan na po kayo ng dalawang linggo eh, kalahating buwan nitong komite para humingi ng simpleng mga impormasyon.

Ngayon, we are giving you the benefit of the doubt na totoong sinasabi ninyo na ibinayad nyo na lang yung kalahati ng 55 million pesos.

Oñate:That is correct.

SRH: Gusto po kong sundin, Madam Chair, yung line of questioning ni Senator Nancy. So kung yung tax due, one month later, ay ngayon sinasalo niyo na lahat, handa po ba kayong bayaran yung buong donor's tax ng 55 million pesos at the rate of 6%?

PIRMA Counsel Alex Avisado: Madam Chair, if I may, that is a legal question and..

SRH: No, Madam Chair. And I was asking Mr. Oñate, not the good attorney. It is not a legal question. So it is a matter of fact. Facts po yung tinatanong ng komite eh.

Iniiba-iba nyo yung mga sequence of events, or yung events na nag-transpire. We are giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Tinatanong ko lang po, a non-legal question, kung handa si Mr. Oñate, bayaran ang 6% donor's tax sa 55 million pesos dun sa ad na iyan, Madam Chair.

Avisado: Yes, ma'am. Before he can answer, may we ask also, with all due respect to the BIR official, if the contribution was returned, is there still a taxable transaction? If there is, then Mr. Agnate will pay for it. But if there's none, baka wala na rin po. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Binay: Actually, question lang ha. Kasi di ba, on record, it's your law office who's the client of the network. Tama po ba? Kasi kayo yung nag-place ng ad eh.

Avisado: Yes, ma'am. We place the ad.

Binay: So technically, the burden to pay BIR is also with your law office. Tama ba BIR?

Avisado: It depends po. Kung anong tax ang babayaran?

BIR representative Atty Ralbert Tibayan: Since donation po siya, donor. Dapat si donor po yung nagbayad po.

Binay: Actually, magulo nga yung transaction eh. Kasi parang nakakuha ng pera si Mr. Agnate, binigay niya sa law office.

Marcos: Hindi, binigay daw in cash. If I'm correct, kaya ako nalilito sa narration of events, Senator Binay, nung una tayo nagtagpo, ang sabi sa hearing, dinala yung 55 million ni Mr. Oñate kay Greg Garcia.

Diretso. Wala pang abogado nun. Kaya lang, hindi mabuo ng pirma at ni Mr. Agnate yung documentary requirements. Kaya, ang Gana Law Office ang siyang nagpirma at nagbigay ng documentary requirements. Tama po ba yun? That's according to the transcript, Atty. Avisado.

Binay: Madam Chair, I would assume yung OR ng network, e nakapangalan po sa law office.

Avisado: Yes, Madam Chair. What happened was, we engaged the services of Mr. Greg Garcia. He is a... an advertising guru. If you want to sell a product, we have a campaign. We engaged him. And then, kami ho yung client ni Mr. Garcia.

Binay: Pero, Atty. Avisado, pinag-uusapan lang ho natin yung dokumento. You submitted to the committee a billing statement. Kayo yung client eh. Wala naman ho nakasulat na Greg Garcia dito.

- -

SRH: Agyamanak, Madam Chair. I'd like to follow up on the line of questioning opened by the Chair, at pati po yung pagbanggit ni Chair Garcia nung mga rules na yan, yung panel na iyan, and related, actually, larger issues.

Chair Garcia, we've talked about the case of Santiago v. Comelec at length, in which the Court ruled that RA 6735 was inadequate as an enabling law for people's initiative.

That same year, 1997 also, the Court issued a resolution in the case of PIRMA v Comelec. That case arose because PIRMA filed a petition for people's initiative. But Comelec, following the clear ruling in Santiago, dismissed the petition of PIRMA.

Ibig sabihin po, naintindihan at tinatanggap ng Comelec ang kahulugan ng Santiago ruling.

The case of Lambino naman po in 2006 arose because Comelec, again, denied the petition for people's initiative, "for lack of an enabling law, governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution." And the Comelec itself cited Santiago.

Clearly, in the past, Comelec had an institutional history of respecting the Supreme Court and upholding the Santiago ruling.

Narinig natin mismo, gaya ng nabanggit ni Chair, mismong sina Justice Carpio at Justice Azcuna, iba man ang opinion nila sa sufficiency ng RA 6735, wala pong kwestyon, walang kwestyon sa mismong desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Walang enabling law. At dahil dito, walang jurisdiction.

Sinabi na mismo ng Comelec noon, walang jurisdiction ang Comelec sa PI. Pero, noong 2020, biglang nag-issue ang Comelec ng sarili niyang rules. Yung rules na binanggit po ng Chair. So, I am curious, Madam Chair, about what happened in 2020? Would you know, Chair Garcia, what prompted that turnaround in Comelec's interpretation of Santiago and the issuance of Resolution No. 10-650?

COMELEC chairperson George Garcia: Madam Chair, with all due respect, wala rin pong alam ang inyong lingkod kung ano nangyari noong 2020. But before the PIRMA petition, before the Santiago versus Comelec case,there was this Comelec Resolution No. 2300. Yun po yung implementing rules and regulations in relation to RA 6735. But however, hindi po yun na-resolved ng ating kagalanggalang na Korte Suprema.

Here comes now Comelec Resolution 7796. After po yun, ng Santiago case. And then, after po ng Comelec Resolution 7796, nagkaroon nga po ng Comelec Resolution 10650, which was actually the resolution that we, in the meantime, suspended the implementation of.

Doon po sa dalawang cases na yun po, Madam Chair, Your Honors, yun sa unang kaso ng Santiago versus Comelec, there was a petition filed. But which petition, according to the Supreme Court, should be dismissed, simply because there is no enabling law, Republic Act 6735.

Marcos: That's correct, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, huwag na natin pagpilitan na ayos yung batas at ayos yung resolution ng Comelec. Pagkat ang liwa-liwanag, yung Santiago pa rin ang prevailing. Ba't ayaw natin sumunod doon? Ganun lang kasimple yun. In no way does Lambino amend or repeal ang nangyari doon sa Santiago.

Bakit sa pinagpipilitan ng Comelec na meron kayong karapatan at kapangyarihan, magsariling sikap at gumawa ng batas? Hindi naman po pwede yun.

You have the breadth and majesty of a Constitutional Commission's rule-making power, but you do not have legislative power.

Garcia: We fully agree, Madam Chair, and that's the reason why we suspended the implementation of 10650,because of the issue as to whether 10650 is really or was issued in 2020 in accordance with our rule-making power, in accordance with an enabling law.

Marcos: As we speak today, Mr. Chairman, yung Resolution 10650, susundan ba ninyo o wala na yan?

Garcia: Well, in the meantime, Your Honor, it's subject to the review of our panel because of the issues that were raised in this proceeding, Madam Chair. And one of the issues really was whether or not there was an enabling law. And it's very clear during the previous hearings, Madam Chair.

Marcos: So dapat, huwag na natin pangunahan yung totoong law-making body.

Dapat ang Congress ang maglabas ng batas kung saan yung patakaran na nagsasaayos nung tamang proseso ng PI ay nakatakda. Huwag naman pangunahan na kagad ng COMELEC, dahil hindi nga sapat yung batas. Paulit-ulit na sinabi sa atin yun. Yes, Senator Risa.

SRH: Salamat, Madam Chair. At kahit po kasi yung pag-issue ng Resolution 10650, Chair, reflection po yun na nagbago ang tingin ng COMELEC dun sa mga sinabi ng or in-issue ng mga desisyon ng Korte Suprema.

Kanina, Madam Chair, sinabi ng Chair Garcia na wala silang alam dun sa turnaround ng interpretasyon ng COMELEC sa Santiago. Wala silang alam dun sa pag-issue ng 10650. Bakit po wala kayong alam dun sa turnaround na yun, Chair?

Garcia: Madam Chair, dahil yung... Yung inyong lingkod po was not yet at the Commission in 2020.

SRH: Kung ganun po, what about mga signatory sa COMELEC Resolution 10650? Commissioners Marlon S. Casquejo at Socorro B. Inting. Pwede ko po ba silang tanungin, Madam Chair, what prompted that turnaround from the institutional memory and position of the COMELEC? Garcia: Madam Chair, Commissioner Marlon Casquejo and Commissioner Socorro Inting po are... They are not around.

SRH: Why are they not around, Madam Chair? I understand, Chair, they were invited and I thought they had confirmed attendance.

Garcia: They are attending the observation mission po sa Indonesia for the Indonesian presidential election, Madam Chair. Senator Risa Hontiveros

Ah, okay. Dahil napaka-importante din po nitong ating investigasyon, posible ba within the space of this morning or day's hearing, Madam Chair, maimbita si na Commissioner Casquejo at Inting?

Kahit online sa ating embahada o konsulado sa Indonesia, kahit sagutin itong isang, pero palagay ko po, Madam Chair, importanteng tanong na ito.

Kasi ano eh, parang may history na ang COMELEC, nirerespeto ang disisyon ng Supreme Court sa usaping ito, pero biglang nung 2020, nag-160 degree turn, tapos nakapag-issue nga ng 10650.

Garcia: Yes, Madam Chair, we are going to immediately communicate to the two commissioners.

Just in case po na wala lang, hindi sila umaaten sa isang event in Indonesia. We will definitely inform the committee regarding the request of the Honorable Senator.

SRH: Maraming salamat po, Chair. Thank you very much. Yes, Madam Chair.

- -

SRH: Agyamanak, Madam Chair. Sinabi niyo po nung nandito kayo noong unang hearing na ang daming issues sa fake P.I. na ito, at hindi niyo alam pano i-aaddress. Klarong-klaro ang dahilan- kulang ang enabling law at inamin niyo mismo na kulang din ang rules niyo kaya niyo sinuspend yung pagapply noon, yung paggamit noon.

So tama po ba, Mr. Garcia, na walang batas para habulin yung mga bumibili ng pirma para sa people's initiative?

Garcia: Yes, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, yes. During our last hearing, before the hearing in Davao, the Comelec said that if we are going to read the Omnibus Election Code po, lumalabas po, Madam Chair, na wala pa po tayong pumapasok na election period. At dahil po wala pang election period, wala pa po yung kapangyarihan ng Comelec to punish for violation of election law.

Ngayon po, ang pinakamalapit po na nakikita natin na violation, kung sakaling gumamit ng public fund ay ang Republic Act 3019 ng ating pong Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; ang Republic Act 6730 o yung Ethical Standard for Government Officials and Employees; ang Revised Penal Code, yung pong ating malversation of public funds, and such other provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.

At maaari po, kung sakaling magkakaroon ng legislation, maisama po na maging kapangyarihan ng Comelec, yung mga mga pag-punish naman ng acts committed katulad po dito sa People's Initiative. Because there is a principle in law that there is no crime if there is no law punishing it. Ang tawag po natin doon ay nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. An act cannot be punished if there is no law. Yun po yung hinihintay po ng Commission on Election. Hindi po nakasama, Madam Chair, yung paghingi o pagkuha ng signatures in a PIRMA petition.

SRH: O yung pagkuha ng mga pirma in a PI for monetary consideration, yung pagbayad para dito o pagbili ng pirma ng ating mga mamamayan.

Garcia: Tama po kayo, Madam Chair.

SRH: And yung sinabi nyo nga po, Chair, na kung may maipasa na ang legislature. So, sinasabi nyo po na yun nga mismo ang trabaho namin sa legislature, gumawa ng batas,

na susundin naman o ipatutupad naman ng isang constitutional body tulad ng Comelec.

Garcia: Tama po, Madam Chair. At yun po yung kadahilanan kung bakit mukhang kakailanganin din po ng amendment talaga ng Republic Act 6735.

SRH: Salamat, Chair. At kung gano'n, yung trabaho namin, gumawa ng batas na kayo ang magpapatupad. So, ang trabaho niyo naman, ng Comelec, is to administer and enforce election laws. Not at any time to create them out of thin air.

Garcia: Tama po, Madam Chair. At yun po yung kadahilanan kung bakit yung mga kakulangan sa aming guidelines ay hindi namin basta pwedeng ilagay, kahit pa sabihin natin for specificity purposes, sapagkat we cannot rise above the source. So, dapat po muna merong batas na magpapatupad, na ipapatupad po ng Commission on Election.

SRH: So, ang isang lupon ng guidelines ng Comelec ay hindi katumbas ng isang batas. Sabi nyo nga po, guidelines cannot rise above their source. Isang batas. Lalo na kung wala pang source. Kung wala pang sapat na batas na, sabi nyo nga po, kami po sa lehislatura ang maglilikha noon.

Garcia: Tama po kayo, Madam Chair. Yan po yung kadahilanan at yung puno't dulo ng suspension ng Commission ng rules at lahat ng proceedings patungkol sa People's Initiative.

SRH: Salamat po. At sa mga ganong pananalita na "puno't dulo."

Sa Lambino vs. Comelec naman po, the Court reiterated this following statement: "It is a fundamental principle that a Constitution can only be revised or amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument itself. And that any attempt to revise a Constitution in a manner other than the one provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as extra-constitutional and revolutionary." Sang-ayon po ba kayo dito?

Garcia: Ay, opo, Madam Chair. At in fact po, noong sa nacite nyo po ng Lambino versus Comelec at Santiago versus Comelec, yung dalawang petitions po na yun, nagkaroon na po ng formal petitions sa Comelec.

Sa kasalukuyang po talaga, Madam Chair, bago po kami nag-suspend in all fairness to the Commission, wala pa pong kahit isang formal na petisyon na nakafile sa Commission on Elections. Therefore po, kung sakali lang po dumating sana noon, bago kami nag-suspend yung formal na petisyon, tsaka po namin i-a-apply lahat yung napag-usapan natin dito po sa pagdinig ng Komite ng Senado po.

SRH: At kung nangyari po yun, Chair, na may formal petition na nakarating sa inyo bago niyo sinuspinde yung application ng rules o guidelines. Still, would you agree and today, before this committee, would you agree that public officers and government instrumentalities should exercise only those powers and functions granted them by law?

Garcia: Madam Chair, Your Honors, although I do not want to bind the other members of the Commission, but as far as this representation is concerned, when the Committee determines sufficiency and substance, then the determination of sufficiency may come to the determination as to whether 6735 is the valid enabling law in accordance with Article 17, Section 2 of the Constitution.

SRH: Pero, sabi nyo po, you don't want to bind the other members of the Commission. Pero, kayo po yung Chair. So, kayo po yung, kumbaga, pinaka-authoritative voice na papanggigan namin.

Kung isa lang nga ng miyembro ng Comilec ang pwede namin itanong sa ganitong hearing, kayo po talaga bilang Chair. And, I hope I'm not sensing a bit of a stepping back dun sa mga nauna nyo ng very definitive at satisfactory statements. Yung sinabi nyo, yung may, yung may pass on the form and substance. Eh kasasabi niyo nga po, wala pong sufficient na batas from which guidelines, valid guidelines, may emanate from, from the Comelec.

Garcia: Tama po kay Madam Chair. At, in fact, kinakailangang reviewhin namin mabuti. Ano ba talaga yung eksaktong sinabi sa Santiago? Ano ba talaga ang dahilan sa Lambino? Bakit despite the Santiago, and despite the Lambino, nag-promulgate pa rin ang Commission at that time ng Comelec Resolution 10650?

So, we, by finding the reason why, Madam Chair, and that will lead to the conclusion, we are now siding with the pronouncement that RA 6735 may indeed be an inadequate law. And therefore, our guidelines may likewise be inadequate and therefore, even null and void, so to speak, simply because there is no IRR, there is no law, so to speak, Madam Chair.

SRH: There is no law. It's not just so to speak. Or, there is no sufficient law. I'm glad to hear, Madam Chair, the Chair concurring with the decisions of the Supreme Court. I didn't know that there was anything higher than the Supreme Court, not even the Comelec, sa ganitong mga usapin po. Kaya, hindi ko rin maaintindihan bakit kailangang aralin ulit yung Santiago when even Lambino did not revisit Santiago or kung bakit kailangang i-revisit ang Lambino.

Okay na po sana yung mga naunang sinabi ng good chair na tama lang na sinuspinde yung application ng guidelines dahil nga po, as the Chair also said herself at the beginning of this hearing, the continuation of this hearing, na nagsa-stand po ang Santiago, nagsa-stand po ang, ang Lambino.

As a last question at this point in time, Madam Chair, sa Chair, tama po ba, Mr. Chair, na imposible nang mag-conduct ng plebiscite ang Comelec dahil gaya ng sinabi nyo nung nakaraang hearing, wala nang oras o panahon, walang budget at walang administrative capacity, lalo na at malapit na ang 2025 elections?

Garcia: Tama po kayo, Madam Chair. Ang binanggit po namin, yung period lang na pwede sana ay October of this year. Pero dahil nasa nakasuspend ang rules, nakasuspend ang proceedings at nagkakaroon ng ganitong klaseng pagdinig, mukha po yung buong, yung mismong October lang na yun which will be the period of filing of the certificates of candidacy para sa national and local elections, ay hindi na rin kakayanin. Lalo po namin hindi kakayanin ang November at saka December. At lalo po hindi namin kakayanin ang buong year ng 2025 to conduct a plebiscite.

Marcos: Ay, maraming maraming salamat sa ating mahal na chairman ng Comelec. Natuklasan na natin ang dahilan kung bakit nagmamadali. Ayun.

SRH: Yun na nga po, Madam Chair. Natuklasan din. At kung sabi po ng good Chair, hindi nila kakayanin ang isang plebiscito sa October, Nobyembre, Disyembre, taong 2025. Lalo hindi kakayanin ang mas maaga na yun yata ang timeline sana ng ilang mga grupo na nagbabalak nitong pekeng Or even sooner than October 2024. Maraming salamat, Chair Garcia. Yes, Madam Chair.

- -

Marcos: Papaano yung mga taong niloko, yung gusto ngayon iwithdraw yung kanilang signature, eh hindi naman pumapayag yung Comelec at wala namang patakaran, these will be the people you will file a petition for. You will be their lawyer correct? It's in the form, its what you have. Sagot mo lahat?

Atty. Anthony Abad: Yes Ma'am.

Marcos: Including yung fraud? Yung panunuhol, yung pera ng gobyerno na ginamit? Kaya mo lahat?

Abad: Ma'am I did not join this to engage in fraud, and in improper behavior.

Senator Bato Dela Rosa: Yun na nga eh. Tinatanong ka namin kung pananagutan mo yan. Nangyari na nga eh. Ang daming nagtestify na ganoon ang nangyari sa field. Pananagutan mo yan?

Abad: I will address it.

Dela Rosa: You will face them?

Abad: Yes.

Dela Rosa: And just say sorry to them?

SRH: About that point raised by Senator Dela Rosa. I mean, sorry na lang ba? Sorry na lang ba? Just a manifestation, Madam Chair.

After three hearings of our committee na napakalabo ng isang tanong - bakit? Ang daming advocates, pero wala ni isa sa kanila ang nakasagot ano yung purpose ng proposal to "vote jointly." Sorry na lang ba, Madam Chair?