Transcript of Interpellation Senator Risa Hontiveros during the Commission on Appointments committee hearing on the ad interim appointment of Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin
November 23, 2022

Q: Magandang umaga po, ES (Executive Secretary). Just a few policy questions. During the committee hearings regarding the Sugar Fiasco, it was apparent that the officers involved had conflicting claims and interpretations as regards to what had transpired when SO4 was signed by reason of miscommunication among the officials involved. Ano po ang gagawin ninyong iba para maiwasan yung ganitong sitwasyon na mangyari ulit ever again?

A: Tingin ko po sa mga nangyari ay talagang miscommunication and since we came to this position, we made sure that this will never happen again by requiring complete staff work ordinarily, and complete staff work at that time might have avoided this confusion and miscommunication.

Right now we do not anymore tolerate a lack of coordination that happened here, and imposed on everyone to assume or presume that the President already approved a certain act until and unless me or my senior deputy Executive Secretary have signified the approval. This is to avoid the unnecessary presumptuous action taken in that fiasco.

Q: Salamat po. Bukod sa mga nabanggit ninyo, mayroon po bang mga rules at saka procedure in place pagdating sa official communications particular sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng mga video conferencing platforms, mga e-mails, mga phone calls at sms messages?

A: Actually we have instituted this documentation process where the respective handlers of each communication is given primary responsibility for ensuring that the communication is given to the proper office via proper channels. Because that is the only way to ensure the accountability in the handling of important communications like these. Right now that is being strictly enforced in our jurisdiction.

Q: Salamat po ES. Last dito sa sugar fiasco, ano ang kaisipan ninyo sa papel ng Presidente, ES at heads of government agencies pagdating sa urgent matters o urgent concerns in the future na kailanganin yung mga state officials natin ay kumilos with a sense of urgency?

A: Sa ngayon po, ang ginagawa namin from our end ay we immediately communicate to the office of the President, to the President himself through the undersecretary who is with the President as his Chief of Staff, and the President always responds very quickly as soon as he gets notice of the issue or the matter that is being referred.

We have yet to see an example of a delay because the undersecretary who is at the same time the Chief of Staff is situated physically near the private office of the President so the communication is faster and more reliable now.

Q: Salamat po ES. So pagdating doon sa mga urgent matter, at concerns na maaaring mangyari in the future requiring those state officials to act with a sense of urgency wala po akong narinig na pagbabago sa mga papel nila, but mas yung mga rules and procedures that you put in place para facilitate ang mga iyon, tama po ba ako?

A: If the matter is something that the Executive Secretary or anyone else in my office could act upon without bothering the President with, we immediately act on the matter. But if the matter requires presidential approval or presidential information before any movement can be done or action can be taken, we quickly relay to the Office of the President or the President himself.

Q: Salamat po. Para sa huling paksa ko po, under presidential privilege. Under U.S. jurisprudence, the term "executive privilege" is commonly defined as the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his or her possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government.

In the Philippines, "Executive Privilege" has been interpreted to mean that cabinet secretaries cannot appear before Congress without the express consent of the President.

The Supreme Court has also held that a "President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications."

Thus, in the Philippines it seems that "executive privilege" covers certain classes of information and not certain classes of persons, such as cabinet secretaries or flag officers of the AFP.

Sa opinion po ng ES, ano pong mga klase ng impormasyon ang dapat macover ng executive privilege at ano pong ang dapat maexclude?

A: Sa aking tingin po, karanasan at batay sa jurisprudence, ang deliberative aspect of the official or executive action will have to be kept strictly confidential, because these are the parts of the informational data that should be protected.

We have this so-called principle of state secrets and I think that is applicable to all offices of the government, not only to the executive. Where a particular information is material to the decision-making process, we protect that material from disclosure, especially if it involves national security. Otherwise, we have this Freedom of Information Act, which we respect, and given the highest respect in the executive branch.

Q: Salamat po. Huli sa paksang ito, para lang linawin, yung impormasyon na nirequest ay maka-embarass sa Presidente pero hindi naman siya otherwise concerned sa national security o public order, covered po ba iyon ng executive privilege?

A: Let me give a relative answer not in the sense that there is a general answer for that, but because we have to protect the privacy of the President in greater part. If there is an embarrassing information, we have to first consider (audio lost).. the matter may be disclosures wherever they may be needed, we may...(audio lost)

Q: You have been Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines. That carries with it a lot of symbolism. Would you say na yung pagtanggap ng position na tumatanggap ng kautusan o instruction mula sa Presidente nang - at least sa perception ng public- nang walang pagtatanong, sasabihin niyo po ba na yang pagtanggap ng position na ito ay dinidiminish ang judiciary bilang institution? Hindi po ba nito mababahiran yung prinsipyo ng checks and balances sa tatlong co-equal branches ng gobyerno?

A: Magandang tanong po iyan. Marami pong nagsabi sa akin noong ako ay tumanggap nitong pwesto na ako'y nademote daw. Hindi naman po siguro dahil wala na po ako sa hudikatura noong tinanggap ko itong position na ito. Sa akin po, yung pagiging Executive Secretary ay hindi po pagbabago ng buhay, kasi po ako'y isang ordinary citizen, chairman lang ako ng GSIS at that time when i was given this very, very signal honor of finally becoming the Executive Secretary which I never aspired for.

But to answer your question, Maam, there is no violation of any checks and balances or any other thing because my personality at the time that I accepted this position was no longer the personality of a judge. I may have that training and experience, which I will find to be very useful in the discharge of my present position, but I do not see it conflicting with the demands of this present position.

Q: Salamat po, ES. Sana, Mr. Chairman, appreciate lang ni ES kung gaano pinapahalagahan ng mga mamamayan, hindi lang naming mga mambabatas, na naging CJ ang isang tao. At yung simbolismong iyon, parang yung sinasabi sa mga pari, na sa imahinasyon ng publiko, once a CJ, always a CJ, sa public imagination atsaka memory. Kaya nga po yung binanggit kong simbolismo.

Kahit ngayon nasa executive na si ES at kailangan magbigay ng ganitong sagot sa ganitong klaseng tanong, sana ay ikabit at the back of his mind or at the bottom of his heart, yung ganyang pagpapahalaga ng mamamayan na sila ay naging CJ minsan sa ating kasaysayan, na nasa puso ng tanong na ito. Maraming salamat po, ES, at daghang salamat, Mr. Chairman.

A: Makakatiyak po kayo na ganyan nga po ang mangyayari during my time. Thank you.