Press Release
March 2, 2012

SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER CAYETANO
First floor Manifestation During the 26th Day of the Impeachment Trial of the Chief Justice

Cayetano: 'No person or no branch of government can have
absolute immunity'

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Sen. Alan Peter S. Cayetano emphasized that NO PERSON OR BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

Cayetano cited the following cases:

In Re: Raul Gonzales

- One cannot file a disbarment case during the incumbency of a justice, nor can one file a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan of any offense which carries with it the removal from office.
- The remedy available is only impeachment, to be able to hold the Justice liable for his actions.

Neri Case

- In this matter, then Sec. Neri invoked executive privilege when asked questions involving conversations with PGMA on the NBN-ZTE deal.
- Senate believed that the 'Executive privilege cannot be used to excuse a crime,' and ruled Sec. Neri to be held in contempt (BUT SC decision upheld the invocation of executive privilege. The argument of Senate "to excuse a crime" is already concluding that GMA committed a crime)

Blue Ribbon Investigation on the AFP scam

- ASC: 'yun din po ang sinabi natin sa military noong sinabi na huwag imbestigahan si Gen. Garcia, huwag pag-usapan ang "pabaon", o ang mga nangyayari. But this actually strengthened the military and the reforms that came afterwards actually strengthened the institution.
- Involved the Blue Ribbon investigation of the AFP and the alleged "pabaon" of generals. o The Garcia hearing put into light the corruption, conversion and other anomalies in the AFP revealed by witnesses like retired Col. Rabuza.
- Processes like this impeachment trial that aims to hold people accountable should strengthen institutions, not destroy them.

Sen. Cayetano said: "Basically, Mr. President, ang sinasabi ko, with all of these immunities, ang takbuhan lang ng tao ay 'yung impeachment court. Pero kung ang magiging desisyon po ng Supreme Court is that every step of the way, whether pag-subpoena ng records o ng mga tao, etc., ay hindi pwedeng kunin, lalong napapalakas ang kanilang so-called immunity. Kaya saan ka tatakbo?"

ACTUAL MANIFESTATION

ASC: Mr. President, when Cong. Neri Colmenares yesterday brought up certain topics, I asked to be recognized today because I did some research on the immunities of the Supreme Court justices.

Because of this In Re: Raul Gonzales, which practically states that a membership in the Philippine Bar is a qualification to become a justice. One cannot file a disbarment case during the incumbency of a justice, nor can one file a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan of any offense which carries with it the removal from office. Meaning, the only way to address these issues of transparency and accountability of justices is through an impeachment court.

Only the President has immunity from suit for his term of six years. But since the justices retire at the age of 70 years old, they basically have a much longer time of immunity, in effect, having what some people term as "procedural immunity". I can see the point of this. You cannot see a situation where in a Supreme Court justice is being tried before the Sandiganbayan, and then the appeal will be before the Supreme Court.

At the same time, they passed a resolution, and to be fair to this Supreme Court, it was the previous members that made it very difficult, if not almost impossible for anyone to get a copy of the SALN.

Basically, Mr. President, ang sinasabi ko, with all of these immunities, ang takbuhan lang ng tao ay 'yung impeachment court.

Pero kung ang magiging desisyon po ng Supreme Court is that every step of the way, whether pag-subpoena ng records o ng mga tao, etc., ay hindi pwedeng kunin, lalong napapalakas ang kanilang so-called immunity. Kaya saan ka tatakbo?

Nagkakaroon tayo ng problema na parang which came first, the chicken or the egg? Kukunin mo ba ang ebidensya at kakasuhan mo ba muna siya bago ka dumating ng impeachment, o kapag nasa impeachment na at doon naman ay sasabihin nasaan ang ebidensya at magiging tehnical tayo.

Pero hindi mo naman sila pwedeng kunin na witness, hindi din pwedeng kunin ang records, samantalang malinaw na malinaw naman sa lahat ng court rulings abroad na ang judicial misconduct is one of the exceptions to opening up their records, regardless if the case is pending before them or not.

The Neri case, which dealt with executive privilege, very, very clear ang umpisa niyang statement. 'Executive privilege cannot be used to excuse a crime'. So I wanted to go into an academic discussion rather than a ruling on the points that we have already ruled upon, because of my concern that whatever we do here will set a precedent that will be basis in possible future impeachments. I do hope we will never have to go through this again with any of the other justices.

Tama po si Sen. Miriam, let's talk about the country and the future. Napakahalaga na ang integrity ng Supreme Court ay intact. Pero, Mr. President, 'yun din po ang sinabi natin sa military noong sinabi na huwag imbestigahan si Gen. Garcia, huwag pag-usapan ang "pabaon", o ang mga nangyayari. But this actually strengthened the military and the reforms that came afterwards actually strengthened the institution. So I think there are good intentions in asking the Supreme Court to release some of their records, or to make themselves subject to this impeachment court.

Let me just put on the record that some of the confusions is because of the name. Ang tawag po kasi natin ay Supreme Court. If we add "supreme" to the impeachment court, and call it the Supreme Impeachment Court, magkakaroon ng context nang kaunti. Kasi lahat po ng justices whether collectively o individually, is subject to the impeachment court because they are impeachable officers. Hindi natin pwedeng sabihin na kapantay natin sila. Sapagkat lahat ng dapat mag-submit sa jurisdiction ng court ay mas mababa sa korte.

But, Mr. President, this will go into a discussion of the difference between dealing with the Supreme Court itself, and members of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I was overtaken by some events and I think we agreed to talk about this in caucus instead.

I know it is a very sensitive issue, but let me just reserve some time after our caucus, or the appropriate time, Mr. President, to talk about how the impeachment court can balance these two very important interests.

One, which is the respect of a co-equal branch of the Senate, which is the judiciary, not a co-equal branch of the impeachment court.

Number two, Mr. President, the integrity of adjudicatory process of the Supreme Court, its record, its people, how to ensure that our justices and the independence of the Judiciary are protected. But at the same time, we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We all know that no person or no branch of government can have absolute immunity.

Mr. President, I just wanted to put this on record, and I prepared a legal study and some cases that we researched, but let me stop here and discuss it in the caucus and then maybe at the appropriate time, we can have a discussion. Just for the records, as I said, because this will be a precedent, and it will be very, very difficult to impeach an erring Supreme Court justice if these issues aren't resolved.

Thank you very much for this time, Mr. President.

News Latest News Feed