SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER CAYETANO
Post CJ Trial Day 26 Interview transcripts
Re: Asking Corona to testify + Immunities of Justices + Premature Surveys + Aguirre's Contemptuous Act + Using Electronic devices for efficient notes + Legal Issues

I. AMBUSH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

(ON ASKING CORONA TO TESTIFY)

ASC: Sa impeachment ni Pres. Clinton, malaking bagay sa buong bansa at mismo sa depensa ni Pres. Clinton na siya mismo sumagot sa ilang mga alegasyon laban sa kaniya. Of course, hearing it from the person himself is always a value but hindi naman natin pwedeng idikta sa depensa at kay Chief Justice kung paano nila dedepensahan ang sarili nila.

So there is no way that we can compel him to do so because under the Constitution, no person can be compelled to testify against himself, or to incriminate himself.

On the other hand, if a person wants to be a witness to his own defense and feels that he will not incriminate himself, but would actually prove his innocence, welcome din naman.

Itong mga kuro-kuro o mga opinion ng iba, kasi, puno't dulo nitong lahat o ang ugat nitong lahat ay ayaw naming magkamali.

Hindi dapat na ang isang Chief Justice na dapat tanggalin ay manatili, pero hindi din naman dapat na ang isang Chief Justice na dapat manatili ay tanggalin.

(A Sui Generis Miriam Defensor Santiago)

Reporter: Ano ang masasabi ninyo kay Sen. Miriam?

ASC: She's actually a very, very caring person. Ang nakikita ng mga tao kasi ay 'yung outer shell niya o 'yung style niya ay 'yung "fiery", "no holds barred", at "bring it on" kind of Miriam Defensor-Santiago. But to many of us here, she's like an ate or a mother and she's always very well researched.

Even her staff ay makikita mo na because of the level she demands not only of intellectual capacity, but also of readiness, makikita mo na palagi silang handa. Palagi siyang handa on these issues.

May kani-kaniya tayong style and kung sui generis ang impeachment court, sui generis din ang isang Miriam Defensor-Santiago. She's definitely an asset to the Senate, and an asset to our country.

II. PTV INTERVIEW

Reporter: Senator, clarify lang natin, tinatanong ng mga tao bakit si Enriqueta Vidal noong Article 2, napapunta at naibigay ang SALN? Bakit ngayon may cloak o bawal?

That's the point. Sabi nga do we leave it to the discretion of the court kung aming nila papayagan o hindi? Kaya nga paulit-ulit na sinasabi na pantay ang Senado at ang Supreme Court. Totoo 'yon. Pero ang Impeachment Court is not the Senate. The Senate composes the impeachment court, pero mas mataas ang Korte, hindi sa Supreme Court, pero sa mga miyembro ng Supreme Court.

Pwede mo bang sabihin na pwedeng i-impeach ang justices nandito sila, pero pantay lang ng court? Paano mo silang huhusgahan kung pantay lang sila? Ang Korte mo ay nandiyan and it can impose its orders sa Supreme Court. That's what I'm saying.

Pero tama naman si Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago at Sen. President Enrile na hindi pwedeng bara-bara tayo dahil hindi natin pwedeng brasuhin ang Korte o amingn ang sistema ng judiciary just because we want these documents. They were hoping na kapag nag-usap ang clerk of court ng impeachment court at 'yung clerk of court ng Supreme Court, magkakaroon ng some sort of compromise.

Halimbawa, security guard. Bakit hindi pwedeng mag-witness ang security guard? Kaya masisisi mo ba, halimbawa, si Sen. Pia kanina, sinabi niya, "sabi ninyo 'yung TRO lampas na sa oras sinerve, wala naman kayong witness." Hindi ko masisi na matanong ng isang senator-judge iyon.

Pero hindi ko din naman masisi ang prosecution sa sagot nila na "ayaw pong payagan na mag-witness siya." Kung ikaw naman ang security guard, at doon ka nagtatrabaho sa Supreme Court at sinabihan ka na huwag pumunta, pupunta ka ba? Paano kung alisisn ka sa trabaho? Ang hirap magkaroon ngayon sa ating bansa.

Maliban sa pinag-usapan kasi aming that we are going to talk about this in caucus that's why I stopped there, but I'm really searching for balance because this will be a precedent. In the future, titingnan ang rulings ng korte na ito at iyon ang ia-apply.

I'm hoping that we will have a clearer ruling.

III. GMA INTERVIEW

(On surveys on Impeachment Trial conducted prematurely)

ASC: It's not the survey itself, it's the content. What it is going to be used for? Is it scientific? 'Yan ang questions diyan.

Reporter: Kapag statistically tested like the SWS survey, all classes.

Yes. But again, it depends on the question bakit ipu-publish? Even the SWS and Pulse Asia, kung ilalabas nila ngayon at sasabihin na guilty or not guilty, eh isang side pa lang ang napapakinggan eh.

Reporter: So hindi po kayo agree talaga categorically?

Hindi ako agree na ilalabas sa publiko, unless may malaki kang disclaimer na "please remember that only one side has presented." It's a question of fairness. What are you going to use it for? If you're going to use it to influence the court, or shape public opinion, you're not doing the country a favour by doing it that way. Because you're deceiving the people.

Si Eba at Adan nga kinain na ang mansanas, ang unang tanong pa ng Panginoon, "Bakit kayo nagtatago? Ano ang ginawa ninyo?" That's what due process is about. It's hearing before we condemn.

Ang point lang naman ni Sen. Miriam ay nakita na niya noong ina-announce na ito na gagamitin for PR purposes at mukhang it will be unfair to the people.

IV. INTERVIEW WITH ANC

(On Aguirre's contemptuous act: 'no excuse for such an act')

ASC: Magandang hapon. Naunahan ko lang ang cameraman ng ANC pero nakunan din naman niya. The thing is, Senator Kiko has a journal where he takes notes so I wanted to associate the names and the faces so I usually take notes using this device. But I really found it peculiar that one of the counsels was covering his ears.

So I really thought in the start it was more of a habit. So I asked Sen. Jinggoy and Sen. Pia kung nakatakip ba talaga siya ng tenga on purpose and they noticed that he took it off after Sen. Miriam was done speaking.

Similarly, we witnessed something similar to this with the defense when they had their presscon. But you saw how they acted in front of the court. They apologized and say that they didn't mean any offense. So we exercised restraint (in dealing with them).

Pero kanina nung tinawag siya, instead of apologizing, even if we say he was trying to explain, it was like he was really taunting the court, taunting Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. It was like he wanted to lecture to her.

So even if he talks that way or some people talk that way, there is no excuse to act that way before the court. I think it was just the court really putting things in order. We don't want this to happen again.

(Possible penalty: 'listen to Miriam' ; 'We're not punishing him for how he felt but for what he did')

Linda Jumilla: Anong magiging penalty kaya? Of course you will discuss this.

Senator Pia read the penalties available sa rules of court and supposedly suppletory yun. Senator Koko was here a while ago and also gave his opinion. Kung ako tatanungin kahit one day ikulong amin sa Senado. I-on yung TV sa video ng ANC na panay si Senator Miriam paulit-ulit pero bawal siyang magtakip ng tenga.

Seriously, we're just trying to show that seryoso itong impeachment na ito and yung respect sa bawat korte, sa abugado, sa judge ay dapat andiyan. But I really can't think of a penalty to teach him a lesson because he was really defiant.

He couldn't see that hindi siya pinupunish because of how he felt, he was being punished because of his gesture, dahil sa sinabi niya at paghamon niya sa korte. Maybe the best punishment for him is for full 24 hours pakinggan si Senator Miriam.

(No public official or branch of gov't has absolute immunity)

Linda Jumilla: In any case senator, nagkaroon kayo ng manifestation kanina in light of the decision of the prosecution to drop some of the articles and to terminate the presentation of evidence. Sinasabi mo bang moot aming or do you still want some kind of a rule on how to treat however the Supreme Court wants to stop action from the impeachment court?

We go back to before Day 1. I think lahat kayo nagbabantay amin at yung statement na nasabi ko na the Senate is also on trial. So Day 1, 2, 3 nung nagsstart kaming magtanong there were always comments na nagiging fair ba kayo at anong ebidensiya ang naipasok na o anong hindi.

Pinagsabihan ang defense at prosecution na huwag kayong parang boksingero na pagkatapos yung tenth round nakataas na yung kamay pareho na parang may propaganda kung sinong panalo na. Kasi baka iba ang desisyon ng korte at iba ang desisyon ng mamamayan.

For me, it goes back to that. Senator Pia asked kanina, "Sabi niyo sa pleadings niyo past office hours na, kaya parang minaniobra ng Supreme Court yung TRO, bakit hindi kayo nagpresent ng evidence?" Ang sabi ni Cong. Colmenares kasi hindi pinayagan ng Supreme Court.

So I'm just concerned that there cannot be any persons in government or any department that is above the law. But to be fair to the Supreme Court , we understand that they have to protect themselves and the integrity of the court, the adjucatory process.

Naiintindihan ko na may mga rulings sila na di mo pwedeng ipa-disbar or hindi mo pwedeng kasuhan sa Sandiganbayan ang isang justice, kaya kinakailangan ng impeachment.

Pero ang problema, pagdating naman natin sa impeachment court, ayaw nila na may magtestify na empleyado nila at ayaw naman nilang buksan ang records when very clear that the exception is judicial privilege. Parang kay Presidente Arroyo, yung executive privilege at kiniclaim din ni Presidente Aquino yan sa FOI bill. I-respect pa rin natin yung executive privilege, klaro yun.

(Possible Exception to Judiciary Privilege is Judicial Misconduct)

Pero sa executive privilege, very very clear yung exception na when you are hiding a crime or there is a crime being perpetrated, hindi pwede ang executive privilege. So sa judiciary naman, pag judicial misconduct, same thing.

Halimbawa, may dalawang justice nagusap at sabi na may ibibigay natin so amin yung desisyon natin. Pumalag yung isa at nagfile ng impeachment. Tapos sasabihin ng korte na hindi pwedeng ilabas ito at hindi mo na man pwedeng kasuhan sa Ombudsman.

Ang amingnt 6 years lang na hindi pwedeng kasuhan. Pero ang mga justices hanggang 70 years old. Paano kung 50 or 60 years old palang yung justice, you mean we have to wait 10-20 years (para makasuhan) and all the while andiyan pa rin siya?

I just wanted some sort of balance. How do you uphold the integrity and the respect for the Supreme Court and on the other hand, how do you hold them accountable?

And that's a whole other discussion. I wanted to have that discussion and Senator Drilon said na pwede bang sa caucus nalang. So yung ni-raise ko na mga cases, doon ko ibbring up sa caucus. I don't know if it will become moot. Depende pa sa magiging ruling sa dollar account and I don't know what will happen.

Masama lang kasi kung ang rule natin is absolutely hindi pwedeng gawin yun because it will basically kills grounds for impeachment for many offenses in the Supreme Court na hindi naman dapat. I don't think they want that.

(Cayetano uses a Samsung Tablet to take notes efficiently)

Tony Velasquez: This is a techie question. What tablet are you using?

This is the old 7-inch Samsung tablet. Because si Senator Kiko may journal, he kept on writing on it. And I said, mukhang mas efficient yan kaysa sa the staff giving me memos everyday. But I have a problem remembering faces and what they said so I take a snapshot at tsaka ako magnnotes sa sinabi. Nakuha lang talaga yung attention ko nung naka-ganoon kanina yung private prosecutor.

(Balancing legal issues related to Supreme Court rulings)

Karen Davila: On a more serious legal question. Senator, what will the impeachment court do given that it had issued a subpoena on the two process servers and the Supreme Court decided not to waive its judicial privilege? In other words, it decided not to follow the subpoena issued by the impeachment court. I've always said that this sets a precedent in the future impeachment cases to come.

Remember, kung pwede ko lang ibalik tanaw yung sinabi ni Senate President Enrile. Sabi niya basta yung matter of how we conduct the trial or the decision we give, hindi kami tatanggap ng kahit na anong TRO at kahit anong ruling from the Supreme Court. In that sense, we are supreme.

Pero sabi niya, yung mga interlocutory orders ay case by case. So yung nauna yung sa dollar account. After that kasi, sunod-sunod yung mga orders na to. Yung order nila na yung mga records ng court ay hindi ibibigay lahat. Pero nung tiningnan aming, sa tingin aming substantial compliance kasi mayroon naman silang mga records na pinayagang ibigay sa amin.

Noong lumabas naman yung subpoena sa process servers doon ako nabahala. Doon ko sinabi na which came first, the chicken or the egg? Kailangan ba may ebidensiya ka muna bago ka magfile sa impeachment court or kailangan ba magfile ka muna bago ang ebidensiya, pagdating mo naman sa impeachment court sasabihin hearsay yan kasi wala ka naman doon sa loob ng discussion.

Pag sinabi mo naman na ippresent mo yung justice o yung record, sasabihin naman di pwede. So it might be giving them a sort of immunity na in a sense impenetrable na. That's why that's my concern.

That's why naalangan ako when I stood up yesterday and asked if I can just make a manifestation tomorrow. But then sinabi naman si Senator Drilon na paguusapan natin sa caucus. So I'll still bring it up sa Tuesday. We have to maintain the balance and the integrity of the institution because we want to course our order.

But yung judicial restraint, two sides yan Pwedeng kami lang lagi ang nagrrestrain. Dapat may restraint din ang Supreme Court sa mga order na to. So kailangan may balance sa dalawa.

('First the Crown, and now the Castle')

Karen Davila: They've always said that this particular impeachment trial will serve as a precedent in the years to come and it could be used by whoever is the respondent or the prosecution. Then we'll say that the impeachment court in 2012 issued a subpoena and the Supreme Court decided against it and that was that.

I agree 100%. That's what we were saying in the House of Representatives regarding the Davide case. We hope for our country, for the justices ay wala nang mangyaring ganito ulit. But we have to keep the doors open when it comes to accountability and transparency.

Ngayon, nababalitaan natin na mayroon nang impeachment case brewing kay Justice del Castillo. I don't know why it was first Corona then del Castillo. First the crown and then the castle. But this early, di pa umaabot sa impeachment court ay sinasabi na na hindi crime ang plagiarism.

So can you imagine if we cannot get the records and then ang charge mo ay plagiarism, anong paguusapan sa impeachment court? Hindi theoretical lang or academic lang yung tanong niyo kanina. It's a very pragmatic or practical matter that we have to deal with also.

I'll be okay with the present rule but I don't want it to be an absolute rule. Yung sasabihin nating case-to-case and in this particular case, pumayag kaming di kunin yung records kasi mayroon na aming substantial na ibinigay, I'm comfortable with that.

But if you say absolutely that the Supreme Court has the absolute rule-making power and they can refuse to give it, nakikita ko diyan is in-e-erode yung power ng impeachment court.