Transcript of Interview of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile

On the decision of the Supreme Court reversing the 2nd Division's ruling on PAL

Q Tama po ba na naglabas ng decision ang Supreme Court na final and executory and then nag-entertain pa rin ng motion for temporary restraining order?

SP Yun yatang decision na una ay Division. Under the rules, pag yung kaso, one of the parties will debate it to the Supreme Court En Banc, then the En Banc can reverse the decision of the Division. That is what I understand.

Q Bakit may finality sir?

SP There are remedies for that. Kailangan pag-aralan yung rules of court. Ang intindi ko, tila yata defective yung decision nung second Division na kumuha nung kaso. That is my understanding, I have not studied the case very carefully.

Q Pero sabi po nung mga PAL employees parang letter lang yung pinadala ni Atty. Mendoza?

SP Well, if the Supreme Court will consider it as a pleading, pwede yun. The Supreme Court is the rule-making power, they can change the rules.

Q Hindi po ba parang unfair yun para sa mga PAL employees?

SP Any decision of the Supreme Court creates an unfairness. You cannot make both sides win. You have to make a decision based on equity--law, equity, and justice.

Q Sir, applicable din yun kahit na yung decision is manggagaling sa En Banc, hindi lang sa Division?

SP The highest organ of the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court itself, which is En Banc. Yung mga Division are only to expedite the disposition of other cases, but the entire court can reverse a Division.

Q Paano po kung ang decision is nanggaling po talaga sa En Banc?

SP Kung En Banc na, if it is filed on time, then they can change their mind. If the case is, they have seen points that were not seen under the original decision.

Q Hindi ba masama sa imahe ng Supreme Court na nagrelease sila ng decision na hindi pa...

SP Hindi ko alam kung ano ang circumstance. I do not know all the facts so I cannot give an opinion one way or the other. Mahirap yun na I will make a judgment and make a conclusion when I do not know all the facts. I have to study the details and the factual situation.

Q Pero yung ganung pagbabago-bago ng desisyon kahit may finality na yung En Banc?

SP Meron na bang final decision? En Banc ba yun?

Q Hindi po, division lang yun.

SP I am sure the members of the Court, being seasoned lawyers and seasoned juries, will not just throw out their own decision if there is no reason for it. You have to presume good faith. I do not presume malice on their part.

Q (unclear)

SP Kung yung Division, alam mo, mga tao lang yun. Even among the justices they differ among themselves, how to dispose a case. Palaging bihira yung unanimous decision. May mga iba ang paningin, dissenting opinion. Kung yung decision ng Division, I think there were five of them in that division, is brought into the En Banc composed of fifteen members including the Division that made the decision, the five members could be outvoted by the remaining members of the court. All you need is to get a majority of the court to get a decision. They also operate on a majority rule. Now, I do not know what happened in the Division, if it was a unanimous decision. Baka meron ding mga dissenters.

Q Kasi po ang impression ay may impluwensiya yung may-ari ng PAL?

SP Alam mo, yun ang sinasabi pero you have to know the facts. You cannot just presume because to say that, ibig sabihin nun that the Supreme Court is corrupted. As a lawyer I will not accept that. As a lawyer I must have faith in the rectitude of the members of the court. Magkamali man sila, I am sure that all of them will not be that insensitive. Especially, as lawyers we take an oath to follow a certain ethical conduct. You also have another ethical rule that applies to the members of the court.

On the case of Secretary Llamas

Q Makatarungan daw ba na bibigyan na papatawan siya ng penalty dahil dun sa kaso ng pagpapahuli ng high-powered firearm sa sasakyan niya?

SP Well, kung may basehan yung Department of Justice to file a case against him, why not? You have to study the facts. Ang nabasa ko kanina, those are licensed firearms and they have permit to carry, to be carried outside. Ngayon, kung yung mga baril na yun ay for security, mahirap naman siguro na si Sec. Llamas ang kakarga nung lahat nung baril na yun at pagkatapos may aatake sa kanya, idi-distribute niya dun sa kanyang security, di ba? Kailangan ibibigay niya sa security niya yun.

Q Pero kung wala si Llamas?

SP Kung yung mga yun were authorized by him to handle them, he is a Presidential Adviser, I am sure that they have the proper papers. Kagaya ko. May baril din ako. Yung mga sumasama sa akin, ibibigay ko sa kanya para habang nakatalikod ako titingnan niya ang likod ko. You have to be practical enough in approaching legal issues.

On GMA having medical treatment abroad.

SP Palagay ko kung kailangan, why not? Nung panahon namin, si Ninoy nga ay nakasakdal at meron ng desisyon sa kanya, at nung nangailangan siya ng medical treatment abroad, the government authorized him to leave the country.

Q Kahit may kaso siyang plunder?

SP Kahit na. Buhay ang pinaguusapan natin.

Q Paano kung sumama na rin si FG, pamilya, aalagaan? May matitira pa bang Arroyo sa atin?

SP Nasa gobyerno na yun to make the decision.

Q Kung papayagan sila, pwedeng bigyan ng condition?

SP Ako ang paningin ko, I don't think the former president will escape the country to avoid anything. She will probably face the charges herself.