Press Release
February 24, 2012

SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER CAYETANO
Manifestation during the 23rd day of the impeachment trial
of the Chief Justice

Re: Clarificatory Questions regarding Article 7 & call to invite justices

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Sen. Alan Peter S. Cayetano asked the witness as well as the prosecution to clarify the following points:

1. Regarding the testimonies of Sec. Leila De Lima, ASC asked if anyone with first-hand information of the internal deliberation of the Supreme Court approach her and inform her that there was alleged Judicial misconduct in the proceedings which led to a decision favoring the TRO to the WLO issued by the DoJ or did she only base her testimonies to Justice Sereno's dissenting opinion.

- De Lima declined to answer and invoked Executive privilege

ASC: "Doon lang po ba sa dissenting opinion nabuo ang inyong opinion na may nagmaneobra dito, as alleged, o mayroon din po bang nakaabot sa inyo, whether diretso o naipasa na kwento about what happened and how they deliberated on it?"

2. When asked a similar question, the prosecution stated that they received numerous information on the matter but their primary basis for the allegation was the dissenting opinion.

- Colmenares explained that besides the news that came out after the TRO was issued, they have not been given any first-hand knowledge or information on what happened in the deliberation.
- Colmenares explained that it is not essential to go to the issue because the records can be looked at.

3. In order to 'paint the bigger picture' and determine if there was indeed Judicial misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice to influence his fellow Justices in favoring the TRO, ASC said that it is possible to invite (not subpoena) the SC Justices, at least one from the majority opinion and one from the minority opinion, or Supreme Court employees to testify so that the Impeachment Court's decision will not merely rely on Sec. De Lima's testimonies or the information stated in the dissenting opinions.

- ASC: "Ayaw kong magkamali sa impeachment trial na ito. Gusto ko sana, kung mayroong nakapagsabi sa inyo, madala sana dito sa witness stand, justice man siya o empleyado ng korte. Para deretsahan na nating malaman kung ano ang buong istorya na ito."
- ASC: "You can call some of the justices and ask them kung payag ba sila na magtestigo sa impeachment trial tungkol sa dissenting opinion para maipaliwanag ninyo sa senator-judges ito."
- ASC: "I'm not saying that it is not enough. I'm just saying that you want clear and convincing, you want proof beyond reasonable doubt, etc, let's have the kind of witnesses here that can paint the whole picture."

ACTUAL MANIFESTATION

ASC: Magandang hapon po, Mr. Senate Presdient at sa ating mga colleagues. May mga katanungan na clarificatory lang po ako sa ating witness, sa ating butihing Justice Secretary.

Good afternoon, Ma'am.

Justice secretary de Lima greets Sen. Cayetano.

The presiding officer suspends the proceeding upon the request of prosecution.

ASC:  ... shall not be disclosed to outright party, except if being required...or as authorized by the court. Section 2 po 'yan, Rule 10, SC internal rules.

Ma'am, sabi po ninyo kanina nabasa ninyo 'yung kay Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio na dissenting opinions. Hindi po ba nag-discuss din si Justice Carpio na pati 'yung nangyari sa loob ng deliberation ay pwede din nilang ilagay at hindi ito violation ng confidentiality. Maaari nilang ilagay sa dissenting opinion.

Secretary de Lima agrees and adds that Justice Sereno has said that it has been happening for so long.

ASC: And you were pointing out awhile ago na 'yung substance o 'yung ratio decidendi, o 'yung reason for the decision, hindi 'yon ang kinukwestyon mo. Ang kinukwestyon ninyo dito ay 'yung peculiar instances or acts that would lead to a belief of partiality that you saw in the dissenting opinion.

De Lima agrees.

ASC: Except that since kayo ang nag-testify, may discussion kanina tungkol sa hearsay dahil hindi po isang justice ng Supreme Court ang nandoon para mag-testify, at hindi natin hawak ang records nila. So far, am I correct?

De Lima agrees.

ASC: Naaalala po ba ninyo noong private lawyer pa kayo, o noong nasa Commission on Human Rights pa kayo, malaking issue po 'yung kay Secretary Neri? Kasi sinabi daw na may two hundred ka diyan, allegedly ni dating chairman Abalos, at sinabi daw sa pangulo, at tinatanong namin dito noon kung ano ang sagot sa kaniya ng pangulo.

Ang nangyari, they ran to the Supreme Court and claimed executive privilege. In-uphold ito ng Court at sinabi na ang deliberations from the president and other high-ranking officials, mayroon 'yang executive privilege.

Similar po 'yan sa privilege ng justices. Kapag sila ang nagdi-discuss, may privilege sila, judicial or executive, or deliberative, whatever you call it, may confidentiality po 'yan.

De Lima agreed.

ASC: Kami po, kapag nagco-caucus, ganoon din, may confidentiality. May exceptions po ba itong confidentiality na ito?

The point of this case is that may partiality dito. Na hindi punto 'yung hindi ninyo gusto ang desisyon. Ang punto dito kasi, kung tama ang pagkaintindi ko, may nagmaneobra dito. Kung hindi lang ninyo gusto ang desisyon, wala tayong i-i-impeach o wala tayong pag-uusapan sa impeachment court.

People lose cases everyday and you win some, you lose some, you just have to argue your case. Pero kung ang tingin ninyo ay may illegal o immoral na ginawa kaya mali ang desisyon, hindi dahil mali lang siya, kung hindi dahil may ginawang mali. It falls under the grounds for impeachment, in this case, betrayal of public trust.

'Yon po nag tinatanong ko kahapon kay Cong. Daza.

Ang problema po, parang nabo-box in tayo because of this confidentiality.

So I'd like to understand before we go on caucus on Monday your stand as the secretary of justice, not only as Madame Leila or Atty. Leila de Lima.

Sa discussions po kasi halimbawa, sa Neri case, malinaw na sinabi ng Supreme Court na kapag ginagamit ang executive privilege to discuss a crime or to hide a crime, or to commit a crime, that's the exception, hindi po ba?

De Lima agrees.

ASC: In the case of the deliberations of the judiciary, mayroon din po bang exceptions?

De Lima said that based on the provision cited by Sen. Cayetano, it seemed that there was none, but as has been discussed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno, there is if the issue is having something to do with the accuracy of the things talked about or voted on.

ASC: But does that exception only apply to her and the justices or to any one of us? Pwede ba nilang ilantad, o through the dissenting opinion lang?

De Lima said it is with any one.

ASC: Let me follow up on that later on.

'Yung Neri case po kaya, would you think, as the secretary of justice, applicable din if a crime is being committed or being discussed--halimbawa, whether it's the president, or the judiciary, may executive session, nag-uusap, pinag-uusapan bribery. Sasabihin ng isa, "O, bibigyan tayo ng ganitong milyon, hati-hatiin natin."

'Yung isa ba sa kanila pwedeng pumunta sa inyo at magsumbong at sabihin "hindi naman ito covered ng judicial o executive privilege, o legislative privilege kasi pinag-uusapan na dito krimen."

De Lima agrees it is outside the privilege.

ASC: Justice Sereno also cited 'yung case na Williams vs Mercer. Ang sabi dito, "The privilege of judicial communications, however, is not absolute and must yield if significant interest outweighs a judge interest in confidentiality.

For example, the demonstrated need for evidence in a criminal prosecution, or in an investigation of judicial misconduct warrants an intrusion into the confidential judicial communications."

Ito po bang impeachment is a form of investigation into judicial misconduct kapag justice ng Supreme Court ang ating nililitis?

De Lima agrees.

ASC: So you will think that this falls into that exception?

De Lima agrees.

ASC: So if a justice or an employee of the Supreme Court comes to you and says, "Ma'am, may impormasyon ako," kasi kayo ang secretary of justice eh. Natural na kayo ang sumbungan. Sinabi "Ma'am, confidential man iyon, krimen ito." O kaya "mali ito o immoral", or whatever. Kung may misconduct, normal na may magsumbong sa inyo?

De Lima agrees.

ASC: Ma'am, alter-ego kayo ng president, hindi po ba? All cabinet secretaries are alter-egos of the president. And in your case, you're the alter-ego as far as the Department of Justice is concerned.

De Lima agrees.

ASC: So let me ask you a very sensitive question, and you can pause for a minute. Doon lang po ba sa dissenting opinion nabuo ang inyong opinion na may nagmaneobra dito, as alleged, o mayroon din po bang nakaabot sa inyo, whether diretso o naipasa na kwento about what happened and how they deliberated on it?

De Lima declined to answer the question on the ground of executive privilege.

ASC: So there is a possibility na nabuo ang inyong impormasyon, o nabuo ang inyong paniniwala, pati ng prosecution, hindi lamang dahil sa pagbabasa nito, kung hindi may nakapagsumbong din? I'm not saying na nangyari, but is it possible na may nagsumbong din sa inyo, whether first hand or second hand information tungkol sa nangyari doon sa loob ng deliberation?

De Lima declined to answer.

ASC: May I ask anyone from the prosecution? Because this is an impeachment case, so pwede din po na may pumunta din sa inyo na taga-court. Can I ask you the same question?

Rep. Colmenares of the prosecution said they may have information but stressed that they don't need information.

The Presiding officer asked if the prosecution has information.

Rep. Colmenares said that they have been receiving a lot of information via LBC, text, or mail, and that they do not know if they were true or not.

ASC: Pero ang tanong ko, Congressman, aking kaibigan, ay 'yung reliability nito. Huwag na 'yung 'little lady' o 'big congressman' o 'very tall congressman'. Tutal lampas na ang ash Wednesday, kaya huwag na si Cong. Banal ang pag-usapan natin.

Ang tinutukoy ko, anyone who has first hand knowledge ng nangyari sa Supreme Court. Kasi kami mismo ang dami naming naririnig na chismis. Ganito daw ang nangyari sa maneobra, nagmi-meeting daw 'yung ganito, ganyan, ayaw ko sabihin dito.

But I was listening to the defense counsel, and I was listening to Sen. Miriam and the Senate President, 'yung sinasabi nila, ito 'yung dissenting opinion, pero mayroong ibang opinion na sinasabi iba ang nangyari.

Gusto kong malaman kasi sa tingin ko hindi ninyo ifa-file itong impeachment at hindi ninyo ipapasok ang ground na ito nang wala kayong mas solid na basehan na credible na nagsabi sa inyo kung ano ang nangyari doon.

Colmenares explained that besides the news that came out after the TRO was issued, they have not been given any first-hand knowledge or information on what happened in the deliberation. Colmenares explained that it is not essential to go to the issue because the records can be looked at.

ASC: Don't worry, doon sa tanong ko kahapon, maraming nasagot ngayon at loud and clear ang mga circumstances, 'yung mga pinakita na alleged irregularities, loud and clear po 'yan today.

Ang katanungan ko po, at sana i-consult ninyo ang mga kasama ninyo. I don't think it's a violation if a justice or an employee comes to you and says this is an impeachment case. Judicial misconduct is an exception.

Can you consult them and ask kung mayroon bang justice o mataas ang katungkulan sa Supreme Court na nagbigay sa inyo ng reliable information that you depended upon it para tumindi ang belief ninyo na may maneobra sa TRO na ito?

Colmenares said no justice came to them.

ASC: I understand. The reason I asked is may statement ang presidente na kapag hindi na-impeach, 'yung kaniyang paghabol sa korupsyon, 'yung kaniyang laban sa dating pangulo at sa mga korup ay maaapektuhan dahil ganito ang palaging mangyayari.

I don't know if that's true or not. If it's true, obviously, hindi gagalaw ang Supreme Court ngayon na may impeachment. After 'yan. If it's true, it's unfair to them. But I think it is relevant to us to know whether you have that information.

Let me stop there and can you consult your team?

Colmenares said he is being signalled by his team that they did not talk to any justice.

ASC: Humingi kasi kayo ng subpoena na ipatawag ang mga justices at 'yung records nila. Hindi naman ninyo siguro hihingin iyon nang wala kayong kahit kaunting knowledge man lang kung ano ang sasabihin nila o kung ano ang nandoon. Hindi naman ako naniniwalang tatawagin ninyo tapos pagdating dito ang sasabihin nila baligtad.

Colmenares said that it is clear in the dissenting opinion.

ASC: So ang basehan ninyo ng paghingi ng subpoena ay ang dissenting opinion? So you want them to elaborate on that?

Colmenares said they are also interested in hearing the concurring opinions.

ASC: Malinaw na malinaw iyon. In fact, kasing linaw iyon ng mga sinabi ng Secretary of Justice. Pwede maging secretary of justice. Pero ang pinupunto nga po kasi kanina ng defense at ng ibang senador, 'yon po ay personal knowledge ng sumulat. Pero 'yung nagte-testify po ngayon, hindi iyon ang personal knowledge niya. She was basing that on her reading and you are basing that on your reading of that. Ang tinatanong ko ay kung may diretsong nagsabi sa inyo.

Ayaw kong magkamali sa impeachment trial na ito. Gusto ko sana, kung mayroong nakapagsabi sa inyo, madala sana dito sa witness stand, justice man siya o empleyado ng korte. Para deretsahan na nating malaman kung ano ang buong istorya na ito.

I will leave you this one question which I also asked Rep. Daza yesterday, and I saw you standing behind him, 'yung sinasabing the CJ exerted influence, it's hard to draw the line. When are you exerting influence, and when are you just being an advocate?

Halimbawa, sa caucus sa Monday, kung kukumbinsihin ko nang kukumbinsihin ang mga kasama ko na payagan ang subpoena, o sabihin ko na payag ako sa sinabi ni Sen. Trillanes, is that influencing na minamaneobra ko na 'yung ibang senador, o is that just advocating? Because you expect the justices to precisely advocate their stand. That's why nanalo ang majority, because someone was more persuasive than the others.

Ang gist ko sa sinabi ninyo kahapon, hindi ito ordinaryong advocacy. May pagmamaneobra dito, o crossing the line.

Sa tingin ko po, mas makikita natin 'yan kung malalaman natin. At hindi siguro mabubuo ang impormasyon ng presidente. The good secretary declined to answer my question awhile ago. So I guess she does not confirm nor deny.

Ganoon din sa pangulo. Ang pangulo kasi is allowed to receive information from the military, the intelligence, or his alter ego, that he does not have to share. It's covered by the executive privilege.

I think that would be very relevant information here.

But I don't want to go in circles because I think I've made my point there. At the end of the day, ang magiging desisyon pa rin namin ay kung impeachable ba dahil partial at minaneobra ito, o normal lang ito na 'yon ang akala talaga ng Chief Justice na ayon sa batas at kinumbinsi lang niya o siya ang nakumbinsi lang din.

The prosecution agreed and explained that they have two charges, one of which says that the Chief Justice alone could have orchestrated the whole thing.

ASC: Counsel, it's just unfair to the defense. Kasi, halimbawa, sinabi mo, he alone can extend it, maglagay kayo ng witness na magpapatunay noon para i-assert 'yon. Kasi baka naman sabihin ng may opisinang ganoon siya ang nag-decide.

Let me just stop there to be fair to the defense.

I wanted to say this because Sen. Lacson is here. Isa siya sa advocates ng whistleblower's act. Sa Pilipinas kasi, kung sino ang nagsumbong, siya pa minsan ang kawawa. Siya pa ang nakakasuhan. This doesn't only happen to lower-level employees. Halimbawa, kung ang Supreme Court justice ay pumunta dito, baka pagtulungan din siya ng iba.

I think the Supreme Court is also watching us. Hindi man kami nag-issue ng subpoena sa kanila, they can come here voluntarily, hindi po ba?

You can call some of the justices and ask them kung payag ba sila na magtestigo sa impeachment trial tungkol sa inyong dissenting opinion para maipaliwanag ninyo sa senator-judges ito. And of course, tingnan po ninyo ang Secretary of justice, hindi ko pinilit na sagutin niya ang tanong na 'yon and I think she will say that we're fair to her.

It will really help us decide, one way or the other, rather than just relying on the dissenting opinion.

I'm not saying that it is not enough. I'm just saying that you want clear and convincing, you want proof beyond reasonable doubt, etc, let's have the kind of witnesses here that can paint the whole picture.

Thank you, Mr. President.

News Latest News Feed