Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano
Post Trial Ambush Interview
On Article 2 Ruling
Impeachment Hearing Day 6
January 25, 2012

Reporter: What's your assessment on today's hearing?

We're not allowed to talk on the merits, so I will not make an assessment on both groups. Instead, I will make an assessment on the impeachment court in general.

Nakita natin sa nangyari kanina matapos magtanong ni Sen. Recto na kung may kooperasyon sa parehong panig, pwedeng maging simple ang procedure at pwedeng lumabas ang lahat ng dapat lumabas.

Because of that, I appeal to both sides that while it's very important that we as senator-judges maintain impartiality, it is equally important that both sides do their best to elicit the truth, while protecting the advocacy and rights of each other.

Reporter: How do you draw the line between being impartial in getting the truth, and in being biased?

It's in the intention. If your intention is to help one side, then you're violating the political neutrality and impartiality required of us. But if your intention is to ask legitimate clarificatory questions and, incidentally, you aid one side, there's nothing wrong with that because that's our job. Because a judge cannot render a wise decision without being well-informed. Kailangan maintindihan ng lahat na tuwing tatayo kami doon, talagang may matutuwa, may magagalit. Bihira mangyayari na parehong panig matutulungan.

Halimbawa, 'yung tanong ko sa subpoena. Nagkataon na noon, ang humihingi ng subpoena ay ang prosecution. Paano kung ang depensa ang humingi ng subpoena? Pareho pa din ang magiging sagot ko doon. Pero iba ang matutulungan noon. Given that, I hope people will understand that sometimes, it is only incidental that we help one side.

Katulad ng ginawa ni Sen. Recto, hindi mahalaga kung sino ang natulungan. Naging klaro at napadali ang proseso. Kung nagkataon na ang naging sagot ni Commissioner Kim Henares ay pabor sa prosecution, o naging pabor sa depensa, hindi na natin masisisi si Sen. Recto. Ang mahalaga, legitimate ang tanong niya at incidental na lang kung sino ang natulungan.

Reporter: There has been calls for the inhibition of some senator-judges. What's your take on this?

If you look at it, we're not only called on to become neutral and impartial. We are also called to give justice. Pwede kang maging partial at neutral at huwag na lang magtanong para hindi isipin na may kinakampihan, pero kapag ganito, hindi naman lumabas ang totoo.

Mas pipiliin kong maakusahan na may kinikilingan dahil aktibo ang Korte at marami ang nagtatanong, at lumabas ang katotohanan, kaysa naman para lang sabihin na neutral, lahat na lang ay makikinig at tatahimik na lang. Watch the senator-judges closely, but keep in mind to give them a little leeway or benefit of the doubt.

Nakailang beses na akong naka-attend ng Supreme Court oral argument. Ganoon din ang tanong ng mga justices. Kung pakikinggan mo ang mga tanong nila, akala mo kapanig mo na, o talo ka na sa kaso. Magugulat ka pagdating sa desisyon, madalas iba sa inaasahan mo. Asking hard questions is a matter of style or a matter of eliciting facts.

Ang presentation of facts ngayon ay nasa prosecution pa lang. Pagdating sa depensa, may mga magtatanong din na akala ninyo nakapanig sa defense, pero sa totoo, clarification lang din.

Reporter: Si Sen. Miriam ay nagbibigay ng suhestiyon sa dapat maging basehan ng pagtanggap ng ebidensya. Ano po ba ang dapat maging basehan ng ebidensyang pwedeng ilabas?

Ang opinion ko ay base sa American jurisprudence. Katulad kay Sen. Miriam na quasi-judicial at quasi-political, o sui generis ang tingin sa korteng ito. But in the American jurisprudence, it says that the quantum of evidence is really left to the individual judges. Kasi, kahit magsabi ka na beyond reasonable doubt, o substantial evidence, o preponderance of evidence, ang magtitimbang nito sa katapusan ay ang senator-judge, at hindi mo makukwestyon 'yon.

Ang mas mahalaga ay may malinaw na rules tayo sa presentation of evidence. Lumabas lahat ng ebidensya, walang ma-supress, at may basehan ang bawat isa sa magiging desisyon niya.

Para sa akin, theoretical ang burden of proof. Ang kailangan na alam natin ay 'yung mga rules na ginagamit ng bawat isa, ano ang kasama sa complaint, at ano ang mga ebidensyang ibinigay.

Reporter: Paki-explain po ang diskusyon kanina tungkol sa Article 2.

Ang Article 2 ay tungkol sa hindi pag-disclose ng SALN. Ang 2.2 at 2.3 ay nagsasabi na kung kulang o may hindi sinama sa SALN, ito ay impeachable. Malinaw sa aming lahat iyon.

Ang ruling namin ay hindi pwedeng patunayan ang ill-gotten wealth as a separate article dahil hindi kasama sa impeachment complaint ito. Ngunit kung ito ay bunsod o dahil sa may pinakita ka na property na hindi sinama sa SALN, at kung mapapakita na hindi ito suportado ng inyong income, may pumapasok na presumption sa batas na ito ay ill-gotten.

Hindi sa pagiging ill-gotten per se, o sa graft and corruption per se as ill-gotten wealth ito papasok. Mapupunta siya sa ilalim ng pagkakaroon ng properties na hindi sinama sa SALN at hindi suportado ng sweldo.

For now, we are setting aside the 2.4 to allow the prosecution to prove 2.2 and 2.3. We are not allowing them to prove a 2.4, which is a different matter. Ibig sabihin, kung mapatunayan nila na may mga properties, real or personal, na malalaki ang halaga at hindi suportado ng kinikita ni Chief Justice, sa ilalim ng batas, magkakaroon ng presumption na ito ay ill-gotten. It is only then that they can present their evidence on this, in connection with the SALN.

Ito na ang ruling at hindi na ito magbabago, maliban na lang kung may bago silang i-bring up na completely different matter. But as far as 2.4 is concerned, klaro na ang ruling namin at ang pwede lang humingi ng reconsideration diyan ay isang senator-judge. But so far, unanimous kami sa ruling.

That ruling was not only made by the presiding officer. This was the consensus of the senator-judges. Hindi iyon Drilon ammendment. Hindi iyon Drilon clarification. Clarification iyon ng buong impeachment court. Nagkaisa kami sa pananaw na iyon.

Reporter: Conditional po ba ang 2.4?

In a sense, conditional. But it's automatic.

Reporter: Ibig sabihin po ba na tama ang defense sa argument na wala na bale ang 2.4?

No. Because the prosecution can also prove that there are properties not included or declared in the SALN that are not supported by the Chief Justice's income.

Reporter: So once na makapag-present sila ng evidence, at proven, papasok na ang 2.4?

If you're going to show ill-gotten wealth per se, that's a different charge, and that's not allowed. But if you're going to show that a property was not declared and that the income does not support it, the law allows presumption of ill-gotten wealth. What we're saying is that we don't even have to decide on that now because that can happen by itself.

Pwede pa din ma-tackle, but not as ill-gotten wealth per se, but as a property that is not included in the SALN and is not supported by the income. It will be classified and presumed by law to be ill-gotten.

Reporter: May pagkakataon pa ba na mabaligtad ang ruling na yon?

Hindi na kailangang mabaligtad dahil automatic siyang mangyayari. Not in this case, but theoretically. Kung theoretically, ang SALN mo ay 10 million, pero may property kang binili na 20 million ang halaga, the law will presume that that is ill-gotten. The presumption can be overcome by evidence, in this example, pwede mong patunayan, halimbawa, na may mana ka pala na 10 million. Ang kasalanan mo noon ay non-disclosure at hindi 'yon ill-gotten.

Ipinasok pa din namin siya doon sa non-disclosure dahil ang ibig sabihin ng non-disclosure ay hindi ka nag-file, o nag-file ka nang hindi tama, o may tinago ka na hindi mo sinama doon.

Here, ill-gotten will be more of a description, rather than a separate crime of graft and corruption.