IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Tuesday, May 15, 2012

At 2:12 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presiding.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.  We shall be led in prayer by Senator Francis N. Pangilinan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators.

THE CLERK OF COURT.  The Honorable Senator-Judges:  Angara; Arroyo; Cayetano, Allan Peter “Companero”; Cayetano, Pia; Defensor-Santiago; Drillon; Ejercito-Estrada; Escudero; Guingona; Honasan; Lacson; Lapid; Legarda; Marcos; Osmena; Pangilinan; Pimentel; Recto; Revilla; Sotto; Trillanes; Villar; the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  (Gavel)

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.

THE SEARGENT-AT ARMS.  All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  Hearing none, the May 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court is hereby approved.  (Gavel)

The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

THE SECRETARY.  Case No. 002-2011 in the matter of impeachment trial of honourable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we ask the respective parties or counsel to enter their appearances.

REP. TUPAS.  Mr. President, good afternoon.

For the House of Representatives prosecution panel, same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please, for the defense, the same appearance.  We are ready, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Noted.  (Gavel)  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, before the Business for the Day, I move to allow Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for a manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Iloilo has the floor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I have made a reservation for questioning the witness on the stand, but this is not the time.

This time is for me to make the following manifestation.  Yesterday, the Ombudsman’s PowerPoint presentation indicated that the defendant has 82 dollar accounts in the following bank branches:  BPI Acropolis Branch, 8; BPI Tandang Sora, 18; BPI Del Monte, Quezon City, 34; BPI Investment Corp., 1; PSB Caninta, 8; PSB Katipunan, 6; Allied Bank, 4; Deutsche Bank, 2; City Bank, 1.

Because of hi-tech banking practices today, any information about a bank account will depend upon the system adopted by a particular bank.

For example, the bank could follow the customer transaction system or the bank transaction system.  Hence, it could be possible that a single sum of money could be represented in a double entry.  One entry would be made in the credit column and another entry would be made in the debit column.  Although both entries could deal with one and the same amount of money.

Furthermore, a client could deposit and withdraw the same amount within a single day or within a few days of each other if he engages in dollar trading.  A client who maintains a foreign currency deposit is not required to acquire a license for this purpose.  However, to engage in dollar trading, two or three accounts are sufficient.  It would be unnecessary to maintain all of 82 accounts.

The standard practice in the banking community is to raise the bells and whistles when one client seeks to keep more than two or three accounts.  To allege that the defendant had, for example, 34 accounts in BPI Del Monte taxes the credulity of bankers.

Therefore, I humbly propose, if there is no objection from our colleagues, that the Senate President should subpoena the manager of all nine bank branches that I have just enumerated.  The most knowledgeable official about a person’s bank account is the branch manager.  The branch manager is required by law and by standard banking policy to seek and record details about the client.

Mr. President, for your consideration.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, if the other Members of the court would like to take that up, we may be able to take it up during the caucus on Monday, the motion of Senator Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let’s hold in abeyance the consideration of the motion of the Lady Senator from Iloilo and discuss it in our caucus on Monday, and then act on the motion.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the status of the hearing now?

SEN. SOTTO.  Now, we are ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the defense, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, I think, the cross examination …

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … by the prosecution has not been terminated.

SEN. SOTTO.  Correct, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The witness on the stand is the honorable Ombudsman, Your Honor, she begged to be excused from continuing with the cross examination, allegedly of being tired and fatigue, Your Honor.  And the chairman of the auditing office of the Republic took her place instead.  We objected to such kind of procedure because we do not know whose witness is this commissioner of the auditing office, Your Honor, and we were sustained by the courts.

So, agenda for today should go or should proceed with the cross examination of the honorable Ombudsman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is what I am leading to, counsel.  That is where I am going.  Precisely, I am asking the prosecution to continue with their cross examination of the Ombudsman because yesterday, the Ombudsman ended after she made a PowerPoint presentation, and then she wanted the PowerPoint presentation to be continued by the commissioner of the Commission on Audit, Ms. Heidi Mendoza.  But then, there was an objection and properly so by the defense, and so, the Chair dismissed the substitute presentor of the PowerPoint presentation because she was not presenting—continuing with the presentation of the PowerPoint presentation but rather, was testifying.  And truly, you raised the objection, “whose witness is this person on the witness stand?”  And that is why the Chair dismissed her, and so, we are at that point where the Ombudsman will have to continue her testimony and let the prosecution decide whether they will continue the cross examination.

So, may I now request the—someone to call the distinguished Ombudsman if she is in the court and bring her to the witness stand for the continuation of her cross examination by the prosecution.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  While we are waiting for the witness, Senator Pimentel was earlier asking if it would be proper for us to strike out the statements made by the auditor or the commissioner because it was irregular or let it remain in the records, Mr. President.

That is the question that was asked by Senator Pimentel.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, I was about to make that motion, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, when we dismissed the witness, what she stated on the record is not testimony in evidence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank your, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Thank you also for the clarification.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, if you want to make a proper motion, then let it be stricken off the record.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Considering the fact that the honorable commissioner of the general auditing officer of the country, Your Honor, was on the stand only to continue the alleged cross examination of the honorable Ombudsman, Your Honor, and since she is not a witness, neither for the prosecution or the defense, her testimony, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Not for cross examination to continue the PowerPoint presentation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was of the impression, Your Honor, that the PowerPoint presentation was already closed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, not yet.  The way I understood it—that the honorable Ombudsman was tired and she wanted someone to take over and continue with the PowerPoint presentation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Because the—what do you call that?  The tarpaulin has already been brought up.

SEN. SOTTO.  The screen.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If that is the case, Your Honor, I stand corrected, I have no objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But at any rate, so that the record will be clean and clear, may I request anyone here to make the proper motion to strike out the statement of the COA Commissioner.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Pimentel, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Thank you, Mr. President.  To be fair to the defense side, I move to strike out the testimony of Mrs. Heidi Mendoza who was irregularly presented yesterday.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.  Strike it out from the records.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, the court is now ready for the continuation of the cross-examination of the honourable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.  She is here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …Madam Ombudsman, will please bear with us.  We do not want to overburden you but you are familiar with our judicial procedures, Madam, and we have to continue, if the prosecution would want to continue their cross-examination.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Prosecution.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  With your permission, Mr. Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Proceed.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Good afternoon.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Would you want to continue with the PowerPoint presentation yesterday?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Sure, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The PowerPoint presentation yesterday.  With your permission, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  Are you asking that the PowerPoint presentation be continued.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  May I invite the attention of the parties, and of course, the Senator-Judges, to what appears on the screen which refers to summary of US inflows of covered transaction from April 14, 2003, to December 22, 2011.  The BPI Tandang Sora account number 8104 is $3,513,348.47; the BPI Tandang Sora account number 1842 is $516,130.47; the BPI also Tandang Sora account No. 5939 in the amount of $1,331,501.43.  Then the ABC or Allied Banking Corporation, Kamias account number 2676 in the amount of $2,940,850.58 and the subtotal is $8,301,830.95.  You add this to the miscellaneous accounts in the amount of $3,853,519,91 to bring a total of $12,155,350.86. on Account No. 8104 in 2007.

Let me explain that the total of $12 million plus a while ago was derived at by deducting the or totalling the inflows and totalling the outflows and it would appear that the outflows would be bigger than the inflows, which means the withdrawals would be bigger than the amount of inflows.

We used a conservative analysis where if there are double, triple or multiple entries of the same amount, we would exclude those from the dollar computation and would include only the last figure in the end of the cycle. For example, there is this mother deposit Account A, then, so much or the same amount on the same date is transferred to Account B. Then, again, on the same date, the same amount is transferred to another account, Account C. Then, finally, for the fourth entry, the same amount on the same date is transferred to Account E. So, it is only the last figure in the last account where the cycle stops that is included in the computation. And so, when we arrived at $12 million plus as transaction balance, we did not include the so many entries that appeared on the same date and as I said, we only included those figures that ended in the last end of the cycle.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    These are not—the $12 million plus mentioned for 2006 …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  For as of December 11, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes. Do you know?

THE OMBUDSMAN. These are transactional balances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The transactional balance …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    … that is not a yearly, an annual ending balance?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Your Honor. It comprehended the entire amount of transactions from —number of transactions from 2003 to December 2011.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    But there was no amount recorded regarding the actual balance remaining in the mother account as of the end of December 31, 2011?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It would be difficult to compute but we tried also to determine by, let us say, in 2011, the remaining—in 2008, yes, in 2008, there was a deposit of 768,733.96, this refers to the BS Bank Katipunan Bank and it was withdrawn only December 15, 2012, 2011, rather, I am sorry. and that yielded a balance of $769,681.71.  That is only with respect to one BS Bank Katipunan Account Branch No. 0191000373.  This is just one account.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Is there any record of any balance of this mother account as of the end of November 2011?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   December, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No.  The month,  the eleventh month of the year.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   We can presume this is a balance, Your Honor, because it moved only in December…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will put the question in another form.  What was the total amount withdrawn in the month of December from the mother account?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   December 2011, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.    Yes, 769,681.71 dollars.  So, we presume that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  769 thousand…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.    Yes, 681.71 dollars.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  So, we presume that your question there, Your Honor, if, what was the amount withdrawn in November 2011?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That was the amount withdrawn in the month of December.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that the…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  From the same account which was opened in October 31, 2008.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, proceed, you may continue, Madam.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes, Your Honor. I think we are now in account no. 81042007.  On July 9, 2007, there was a withdrawal from account no. 8104 in the amount of 295,665.42 dollars.   The succeeding month or in August 9, 2007, there was a deposit of 296,728.99 dollars.  Now, on July 19, 2007, there was a withdrawal of 20,000 dollars, and on August 23, 2007, there was a deposit from account no. 2693 to the mother account 8104.  On July 27, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of 100,000 dollars which was deposited in another account 2804.  And on August 31, 2007, there was a deposit of 100,494.69 dollars. On August 23, 2007, there was a withdrawal of  20,076.44 dollars to a different account 3183193.   And on September 3, 2007, there was a deposit to the mother account in the amount of 20,682.83 dollars.  On September 3, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of 40,082.93 dollars, and deposited to a new account.  And on March 3, 2008, from this new account was withdrawn the amount of 40,973.18 and deposited to the mother account.  On August 9, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of 296,728.99 and it was deposited into a new account 2987.  And on November 8, 2007, the amount of 299,937.86 dollars was withdrawn from this new account and returned to the mother account.  On July 31, 2007, the amount of 30,443.32 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account.  And on March 4, 2008, the amount of 133,547.67 was withdrawn from the new account and returned to the mother account.

On August 31, 2007, the amount of $100,494.69 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account.

And on February 29, 2008, from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $102,634.97 and deposited to the mother account.

On November 9, 2007, the amount of $299,937.86 was withdrawn and deposited to a new account.

On December 21, 2007, the amount of $50,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account.

And on January 25, 2008, the amount of $50,224.83 was withdrawn from the new account and returned to the mother account.  Next.

Still the same account, 8104, this is for 2008, on March 5, 2008, the amount of $30,300 was deposited to the mother account.

On April 17, 2008, the amount of $24,000 was deposited to the mother account.

And on July 31, 2008, the amount of $30,000 was deposited to the mother account.

On January 28, 2008, the amount of $50,224.83 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account.  And from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $51,167.70  on August 5, 2008 and it remained withdrawn.

On March 3, 2008, the amount of $143,608.15 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account and from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $144,947.79 on July 7, 2008.

On March 5, 2008, the amount $175,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account and from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $176,561.40 on July 9, 2007.

On April 17, 2008, the amount of $20,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account and from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $24,102.63 on June 26, 2008.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Madam Ombudsman, am I right  that the PowerPoint presentation you are reading from now, a hard copy was already sent to the Senate?  Have we furnished a copy of that report to the Senate?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I recall that the Senate on the closing hours of yesterday’s hearings expected us to deliver a hard copy and I think we did.  That was my instruction.

 

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  That being so perhaps…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Madam Ombudsman, that being so, perhaps it would be better if we will just mark the PowerPoint presentation in evidence and to dispense with your reading of the details because you might be overly taxed by that and I don’t think it’s necessary because the Senator-Judges can examine the contents of the report yourself.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m not clear with the manifestation made by the honourable counsel for the prosecution, Your Honor, which is the evidence sought to be marked, the representations made on the screen, the origin of this representations or what.  We wanted to be clear, Your Honor, before we go into further questioning the witness in connection with them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you agree.  If you want to use the document presented yesterday by the Ombudsman which is allegedly the report of AMLC as the document to be presented here as an exhibit.  But on the other hand, this PowerPoint presentation is now a part of the testimony of the Ombudsman.  And so, this court would be interested to have a copy of this document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The source of all this PowerPoint representation, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m just asking for a clarification.  I’m not objecting …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  These are actually culled, if I understand the Ombudsman correctly, culled from the records that she submitted yesterday and marked as an exhibit by the prosecution.  Am I correct in this, Your Honor?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was puzzled because the documents shown to the witness yesterday, we already marked, Your Honor.  So I was trying to clarify only.  I’m not objecting, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, the Ombudsman, my understanding of what happened was, the Ombudsman testified, and in the course of her testimony referred to a report of AMLC which became the basis of her letter, if I understood correctly, requiring the Chief Justice to reply in 72 hours.  And that was the subject of the examination in chief of the defense counsel whether the Ombudsman informed the Chief Justice about the $10 million deposit allegedly owned by him.  And at that point, the matter was resolved, and then the counsel closed his direct examination of the Ombudsman and the prosecution took over to cross-examine.  And at that point, they have marked, actually, the prosecution marked the alleged report of AMLC presented and testified to by the Ombudsman before this court.  And the honourable Ombudsman requested the permission of this court if she explain further the contents of that alleged report of AMLC by way of showing us a PowerPoint presentation of the movement of the moneys reflected in that report of AMLC.  Am I correct in this, Madam Ombudsman?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That’s the whole gist of the testimony of the Ombudsman.

And that’s why this Chair requested that this court be provided with a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and the defense also requested a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation, and thereafter, the prosecution also requested a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation.  So all of us requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Clarified, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor, please, the PowerPoint presentation …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  PowerPoint?  I’m sorry.  I’m not literate enough in these things, you know.  PowerPoint presentation.  Okay.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If, Your Honor, please, the PowerPoint presentation that has been made and is still being made by the honorable Ombudsman is entitled analysis of dollar account consisting of 25 slides.

I confirm with the clerk of court that the Senator judges have each been furnished with copies of this so-called analysis of dollar account, and the copy which has been handed to me by the honorable Ombudsman, each page bears the stamp certified true copy, deputy clerk of court of the impeachment proceedings and there are initials—there is one initial over each stamp of deputy clerk of court.

May we request that this be marked as Exhibit 11Y for the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Madam Ombudsman, you testified a few minutes ago in reply to the query of the presiding judge that $769,681 were withdrawn from an account of the
Chief Justice in the month of December 2011.  Do you confirm that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you advise us or tell us, how much was withdrawn from December 12 forward?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No more.  It did not go back anymore.  I mean, the data that was sourced no longer indicated—or that $769,000 plus went.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So, you won’t be able to tell if it was done on December 12.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  December 15.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  15.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I see.  So, that amount of $769,681 was withdrawn on December 15.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  You testified yesterday that there were significant accounts with respect to certain significant events, do you recall that, Madam Ombudsman?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you clarify what you meant by that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, what I meant was that there were significant deposits and withdrawals on significant events, when I say events, I am referring to let us say, 2004 election, 2007 election and during the period onset of the impeachment proceedings.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  For the election of 2004, Madam Ombudsman, which you consider to be a significant event, what was the corresponding significant figure?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Let me look at my codigo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Vague, Your Honor.  The question do not appear clear to us.  May we request for a reforming of the question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is vague about it?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There are various incidents mentioned in the question, Your Honor.  We would like to know what is the gist of the question, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will the good gentleman of the prosecution repeat the question so that we will understand the nature of the objection?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I ask, Mr. President, what were the significant periods pertaining to the significant events which the honorable Ombudsman mention.  What are the figures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She mentioned the—as events, the election of 2004.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  That is right, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then, the impeachment filed in this court.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor, And the elections in 2007

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then the election in 2007, yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, and I am just asking the witness when she said that there were significant amounts pertaining to a significant event, what are these amounts?  I think that is very clear, in fact, the witness has not said the question is vague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir, in May 12, there was a …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May 12, when?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  2014, no rather, 2004 there was a deposit of $500,000 at  the Bank of PI Acropolis.  On May 14, 2004, we are all talking of dollars, dollars spokening in other words.  On May 14, there was a deposit of $500,000.00 at the BPI …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I ask this question to clarify.  Just so, is there any showing who made the deposit into that deposit account?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  There is none, Your Honor.  Maybe it is only the banks which can determine the depositors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The records of the bank would show …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Maybe, maybe, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, are these deposit accounts interest-bearing deposits?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I suppose so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There must be a record of withholding of the 20% final tax.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The bank would be able to enlighten us on the matter because we don’t have documents to back up this record of transaction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, please go ahead.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  In 2007, on May 3, there was a deposit of $293,645.23 at the Bank of Philippine Islands in San Francisco Del Monte.  On May 3, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  By the way, do we know the exchange rate at that time, Madam?  If these are in dollars, what would be their equivalent accounts in pesos?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I don’t know, Your Honor, but I think at that time, the exchange rate was much higher than the present rate of exchange now.  All right, on May 3 there was a deposit at the BPI, again San Francisco Del Monte Branch, in the amount of $25,039.00.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you say that again, Madam, $25,250 …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, no, no.  Where are we?  On May 3, 2007, there was a deposit of $27,039.80 at the Bank of Philippine Islands, San Francisco Del Monte.  On May 3 again, there was a deposit of $134,603.28 again at the BPI San Francisco del Monte.  Again on May 3, there was a deposit of $63,345.61 at the BPI SFDM; and again on May 3, there was a deposit of $53,572.71 at the same bank BPI San Francisco del Monte.  Again, on May 5, still the same.  No, no, no.  It is not May 5.  Still the same May 3, there was a deposit of $15,083.83 at the BPI San Francisco Del Monte Branch, and that is all, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  How about for the December 2011 period, you already mentioned how much, $769,681.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  All right.  This is a conservative estimate of the total funds that were moved during the impeachment week.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Madam.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  On December 12, regular trust fund, contribution, placement, investment in the amount of $417,978.80.

On December 12 to 13, there was an encashment converted to pesos, 135,359.01.

On December 13, there was purchased of manager’s check, DD, TT in the amount of 388,771.22.

On December 13, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   What is that, dollar, peso?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  We are still speaking of dollars, Your Honor.  We did not touch on the peso account …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Okay.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  … because the subpoena limited the document that to be presented with respect to dollar accounts.

On December 13, still the same December 13, subtracted from Account No.  1588021386 reflected as debit memo, credit transaction is not provided, in the amount of 12,888.67 is reflected.

On December 15, securities were sold in the amount of $465,000.

On December 14, there was a debit memo from an account and it totals 72,029.33.

On December 15, there was a withdrawal from the same account $343,192.62.

On still December 15, there was an excess of credits, still on the same account, in the amount of 4,459.76.

In December 19, there was purchased of manager’s check, DD,TT in the amount of 487,998.09.

On December 19, there was excess of deposits in a different account in the amount of $22,998.09 and on December 20, there were debit memos from a different account in the amount of  $687,648.55, So, the total remittance in December—we add this to the outward remittance of US $350,000 would give a total of $3,388,322.14.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you tell us, Madam Ombudsman, which branches were involved in these withdrawals?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  This is allied bank, allied banking, ABC, just one bank. BPI.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  BPI and Allied Bank?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  And PS, Philippine Savings.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  This PS Bank, Allied Bank, and BPI?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   So, three banks?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  These withdrawals took place from December 12 to December 20?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  22.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  22.

I asked yesterday Commissioner Mendoza if they did a study of the peso accounts of the Chief Justice and you now are saying, he did not?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is actually a study of the peso accounts, but since the subpoena limited the production of documents bearing only dollar accounts, we just brought documents bearing on the dollar accounts.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So, you do not have with you, Madam, your records regarding the peso accounts or do you have them with you?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It is reflected in the same document that we sourced from the AMLAC.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

Do you have any summary of the highlight of the peso accounts?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I did not bring it with me, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you. Thank you. If Your Honor please, may we ask for leave for the Ombudsman to bring the data and the summaries of the peso accounts.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Are you going to make the Ombudsman your witness?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Just a reservation, Your Honor please. Just a reservation.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is now on cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are on cross-examination. Remember, you are on cross-examination.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Alright.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    And I think you know the rules if you want to convert the Ombudsman as your witness and require the presentation of documents, then, you have to do the necessary motions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I withdraw that, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, withdrawn.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May I proceed.

Madam witness, you earlier said that you received three complaints from Riza Baraquel-Hontiveros, Walden Bello, etc.  Do you confirm that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  After you see the complaint what did you do?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  First, when I received the first complaint, I evaluated it and I thought that, again, I said that yesterday, I would refer the complaints to the AMLC in light of my impression that some of the charges were within the jurisdiction of the AMLC.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  When you refer the matter for assistance of the AMLC, did you this in writing?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   Do you have a copy of that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I have.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May I see it, please.

For the record, the Madam Ombudsman has given me a letter dated 21 February 2012 under the letterhead of the Ombudsman apparently duly signed by Ombudsman herself addressed to Amando M. Quitangco, Jr., Chairman, Anti-Money Laundering Council.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Let me explain that.  That was the first letter I sent to the AMLC.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May we request that this be marked as—Madam, do you have a certified true copy?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be allowed to see the document being referred to, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Granted.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It is already certified.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  May I request that this certified Xerox copy of the said February 21, 2012 be marked as  exhibit 11-z.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Aside from this letter to the AMLC, you mentioned that you brought a second letter, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, that is right, Your Honor.  I wrote a letter on February 24, 2012.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Do you have a certified true copy of that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.    Yes, I have.  February 24, yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Witness has handed to counsel a letter dated February 24, 2012, likewise under the letterhead of the Office of the Ombudsman, signed by the Ombudsman, addressed to Amando M. Quitangco, Jr., Chairman, Anti-Money Laundering Council.   And there is a stamped “certified Xerox copy” of the original on file.  May we ask that this be marked as exhibit 12-a.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Winston, can you show a copy to them (defense).

Madam Ombudsman, may I ask, why did you write these letters to the AMLC?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, first, under Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act, I am authorized to seek the assistance of other government agencies.  Secondly, the Chief Justice himself authorized the Ombudsman in his SALN to determine from other government agencies any assets, any properties, liabilities, net worth or business interests from the time he joined the government up to the present and so that was the clincher.  I thought I should write a letter to the AMLC to seek help for any assistance or for any documents that have a bearing on the charges against the Chief Justice.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What information did you expect to obtain from the AMLC?  Why the AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, because if you read the complaint, there were some slanting about violation of Anti-Money Laundering Law and in light of the fact that there was also a charge of unexplained wealth, I thought that I probably could gather from the AMLC certain transactions.  You see, well, I’m sorry I will not add to that.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  As a former Justice of the Supreme Court and the present Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines, I presume that you’re fairly familiar with the law on AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, what particular aspect of the law were you asking me to be familiar with?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Could you tell us what is the basic responsibility or function of the AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Banks are supposed to report to the AMLC any transactions more than 500,000.  In other words, 500,000 plus.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Pesos?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Pesos, right.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Pesos.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, which is called a covered transaction.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Now, the banks are obligated to inform the AMLC about these covered transactions, P500,000 plus.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Aside from covered transactions of P500,000 and more, are there any other transactions under the AMLA Law which the banks are required to forward or send to the AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, suspicious transactions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What are suspicious transactions, Madam?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Well, let me read it from the law.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  “Suspicious transactions are transactions covered regardless of the amounts involve or any of the following circumstances exist:  No underlying illegal or trade obligation, the client is not properly identified, the amount involve is not commensurate the business or financial capacity to the client, etc.  Among other things  any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and on the client’s past transactions with the covered bank.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So under the law, the covered banks are required…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Covered transactions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  … covered transactions and suspicious transactions to the AMLC.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So the data and the information pertaining to the accounts come from the banks but are forwarded to the AMLC.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  That is supposed to be the case.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And what would this information include, would you know?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Suspicious transactions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Account number, the name.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, that’s right.  Check the date of the transactions, the nature of the transactions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  After you wrote the AMLC these two letters, was there any response to your letters by the AMLC?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, there was.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What was it, Madam?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  They forwarded to me  this 17-page document as well as the 4-page summary of the transactions.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I mentioned this yesterday, may I ask it again—there was an initial on each page…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  … of the report of the AMLC.  Do you recall or would you know whose initial that is?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  The one who was in charge of bank analysis and records analysis.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Would you know who are the members of the AMLC Council?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is provided for by law, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I’m asking the specific identification.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But that is not the question.  May the question be clarified, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Who are the present…

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.  Who are the present…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Reform the question.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  … council members?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.   Well, I think the Chair is Chairman Tetangco, the Governor of the Central Bank and members …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The objection would be sustained, Your Honor, and the witness continues to answer.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I’m sorry.  I didn’t hear it.  I’m sorry.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I already reformed the question.  What are the names of the present members of AMLC?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, I know.  Hindi ko alam.  The Central Bank Governor and the members are the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Tessie Herbosa, and the Insurance Commissioner.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you very much for that.  May I ask counsel to stop saying things while the witness is testifying.

(Unidentified man not on microphone – Someone’s been coaching the witness.)

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Who is coaching the witness?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  (Gavel)  What’s the problem?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Anyway, we were hearing that, Your Honor, but we do not want to pester the witness on the stand with whatever suspicion we may have.  We just kept quiet.  But we had been hearing, Your Honor, dictation from some …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I cannot be expected to remember everything that is here.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is not the point, Madam Ombudsman.  The question is whether there were really apparent coaching, Your Honor.  And we did not bring that into the open, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  They were not coaching me.  They were only reminding me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, anyway, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you’re not being coached, you’re only being reminded?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  These, as I said, I cannot be expected to know—remember everything, given the documents—the volume of paperwork that I …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyways, these are public officials.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They could come under the official notice of this court.  So, …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any doubt about the identities of these people?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No, Your Honor.  In fact, we even made the suggestion that the law specifically name them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Correct.  But the …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Does the law mention the name of Say Tetangco?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s not necessary for our purposes, Your Honor, …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  It is.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … because it is not an issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  (Gavel)  The law states the positions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Now, but I think the counsel, the gentleman from the prosecution is asking the identities of the present persons composing the Money Laundering Commission.  And that’s a proper question.

It does not hang your case.  It’s a question of who are the members of the Money Laundering Commission.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The present members, Your Honor, by names?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We have no objection …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Ombudsman may answer the question if she knows them.  (Gavel)

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I already answered, Your Honor, but I can repeat …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  It was already answered.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  The Chairman is the governor of the Central Bank, and the members are the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair, Teresita Herbosa or Teresa, and the Insurance Commissioner.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  Go ahead, please.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you.

So, under the AMLC, banks are mandated to forward data information regarding covered and suspicious transactions to the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Admitted, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is by law.  That’s a matter of …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  It’s a preliminary question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  That’s a matter of law.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I was just—Now, last night and up to this morning, Madam Ombudsman, the Chief Justice has been telling the media that the data information that was given to you by AMLC is a hoax, it’s a lantern of lies, it’s phoney.  What can you say about that?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  No basis, Your Honor.  There is no evidence on record showing that kind of statement from the part of the Chief Justice.  If there is, then he who alleges that there was should take the stand be cross-examined, Your Honor, to determine the accuracy and the veracity of the statement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the Ombudsman answer if she knows.  (Gavel)

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

What can you say about those charges by the Chief Justice?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If indeed he made those charges, what I can say is that they are just other lanterns of lies.  He says these are lantern of lies, these are lantern of lies as far as his statements are concerned because these documents were delivered to me by the Executive Director of the AMLC.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Who is the Executive Director of the AMLC.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It was answered yesterday.  It’s Vic Aquino.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Vic Aquino.  If your allegations regarding the accuracy and authenticity of these AMLC documents are being questioned, what would be the best evidence of the data and information regarding Chief Justice Corona’s accounts in the banks?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, this is …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Improper.  Improper, Your Honor.  Immaterial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you asking the opinion of the Ombudsman?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, that is why we objected on that ground, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of that question, counsel?

ATTY. BAUSTISTA.  I want to establish, Your Honor, that the best evidence would be the Chief Justice’ accounts.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is your opinion but …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And he refuses to open his accounts.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are objecting, Your Honor.  May we be heard in connection therewith, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sustained.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Your Honor.  The defense has questioned Madam Ombudsman, the validity and authority of the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to your actions on this investigation.  What can you say about that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You know, I think, I have already made myself clear.  I am mandated by the Constitution to investigate public officials, to determine whether their actions are inefficient, irregular, improper, and the like.

Second, there is the Ombudsman Law which echoes the constitutional provision to investigate and the Ombudsman Law, in fact, adds that the Ombudsman can prosecute.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Madam Witness.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  And on toop of that, of course, as I said earlier, the Chief Justice, in his statement of assets and liabilities had authorized me to seek the help of agencies including the BIR to determine whether there are properties, assets, liabilities, networth, business interests and like, from the time he joined the government as well as the interests of his family.  To me, that is a blanket authority for me to conduct investigation.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you.  You earlier mentioned that you created a panel …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  … to investigate the complaints.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Did you give any written order or resolution to empanel this investigation group?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Do you have a copy of that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I issued an order, yes.  Can I have the copy of the order.  Yes, yes, this is the copy of the order, it is Office Order No. 100 and it was issued by me on February 22, 2012.  I constituted a panel of investigators consisting of one Chair and five members.  I directed them to conduct fact-finding investigation on the complaint filed by Rissa Hontiveros, Roberto Alerosa, Gibby Gorres, Harvey Keh and Albert Concepcion against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for alleged numerous violations of the provisions of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, R.A. No. 9194, etcetera, and docketed as CPL no. so and so, and to submit its report.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The witness has handed to counsel an Office Order No. 100, series of 2012.  The letterhead of the Office of the Ombudsman, duly signed by the Ombudsman, and this is a certified true copy, the contents of which, which was read by the witness, may we ask that this be marked as Exhibit 12B.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Would you know if the panel did conduct and investigation?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Can you briefly tell us how they went about conducting the investigation?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, they subpoenaed certain officials of the government for documents that would have a bearing with the financial …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Offhand, what are these government agencies who were subpoenaed by the …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  The Supreme Court was subpoenaed.  I think, the clerk of court was subpoenaed to send a certified true copy of the statement of assets and liabilities of the Chief Justice.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  And what was the response of the …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, I think, up to now, the latest that I read was that it is still pending before the banc, in other words, they calendar the request in the calendar of the and to date, there is no compliance.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  So, the panel subpoenaed the Supreme Court for copies of the SALN of the Chief Justice and they did not comply.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Well, that is what the record shows at this time.  It also subpoenaed the head of the accounting for certificate of yearly compensation and allowances …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Of the Supreme Court.l

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Of the Supreme Court, but the head, a certain Ms. Holgado, refused to comply with the letter.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Was his refusal written down in the Supreme Court?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, it was documented.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Aside from the Supreme Court, who else …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, because the respondent was one time member, chair of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.  And the Electoral Tribunal complied.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Aside from the, you mentioned, the Supreme Court, the BIR, the panel …

THE OMBUSDMAN.  Yes, they asked also for some data from the BIR, but the BIR had not complied up to the moment.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Which other agencies did you …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  What did you ask from the House of Representatives …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  A certificate of allowances, compensation and bonuses that CJ Corona received while he was a member and/or chair of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   And was this subpoena followed?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, they did.  They complied.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  They complied.  Aside from the House of Representatives, who else did you subpoena?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The Secretary of the Philippine Senate.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  For what purpose, Madam Witness?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  For the purpose of requesting the statement of assets and liabilities of CJ Corona from 2002 to 2010, record, journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court dated January 25, 2012, January 26, 2012, and February 6, 2012.  Bank certifications dated February 7, 2012 from PS Bank Katipunan Branch pertaining to the balances of the peso accounts as of December 31, 2009.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel, what is the purpose of this line of questioning?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I am trying to establish, Your Honor, that the Ombudsman did not act arbitrarily, whimsically with respect to the complaints against the Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, actually, that is already answered.  The Ombudsman said they are conducting an inquiry about the Chief Justice so much so that they have written a letter to him to give an answer in 72 hours.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just one last point

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the point in belabouring this issue?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Just one last point, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Madam Ombudsman, you mentioned that you asked for the assistance of the COA?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is right, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Did the COA render a report in writing with respect to their findings?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  They came up with this preliminary report, and after then some discussions, after some explanations, after some analysis, they came up with this analysis, and I told them to put in visual form the findings, analysis.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Thank you very much, Madam Witness.  That is all for the cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Are you through with your cross?  Are you through?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is the defense ready to do a re-direct?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor, but may we request  a one-long-minute recess, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  One long minute recess.

It was 3:28 p.m.

At 3:58 p.m., the hearing was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.  Kindly inform the honourable Ombudsman to return to the witness stand so that we can proceed.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The trial is suspended.

It was 4:01 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL

At 4:03 the trial resumes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session resumes.  The defense may now proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Good afternoon, Justice Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I be allowed to continue, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, in these documents that were given us, Your Honor, I notice the number of the different accounts, but it is not indicated in there the nature of the accounts. For instance, Account No. 8104, may we know the nature of that account? Is it a saving account, a current account or time deposit?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It is not indicated, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is not indicated.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright. You are not in a position to tell us …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … the nature of this account?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Similarly, in other account, Account No. 0933, Account No. 0364, Account No. 1867, Account No. 1476, Account No. 0704, you also will not be in a position to this Honorable Court the nature of these accounts?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But is there, from your examination of the papers and records given to you for your consideration, is there any of these accounts that is a current account? You also …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  There is no indication there, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, you will not be able to tell the Court …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, if it is a checking account, or a savings account or a time deposit.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But you will agree with me that insofar as the checking account is concerned, although as you said that you are not trained in millions, but that is a small accounts, Your Honor.  The deposit in that particular account is evidenced by a deposit slip.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If you deposit…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Current account, yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, whether in cash or in check, correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And in withdrawal there is also a withdrawal slip signed by the depositor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   If you withdraw it either cash, then, it’s covered by a withdrawal slip.  If the withdrawal is by a check, then, you have the check.  That is proof that that amount was debited from the current account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.  And if it is a plain savings account or ordinary account, it is covered or the deposit is covered by a bankbook supplied by the bank.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Di na uso ngayon ang bankbook, Justice Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but I am not asking you about the uso.  It is still practiced.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   No, not all banks issue a passbook.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, if there is a passbook the passbook must be presented for purposes of deposit and withdrawal.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   But if you have a card where you can use it as cash when you purchase something, you just pin your number and that is already debited from your account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not going that far, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am only up to that extent where a withdrawal is made and the deposit from which the withdrawal is being made is an ordinary savings account or ordinary account.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.   Again, I qualify my answer, Justice Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If you withdraw it, you want cash, you have this withdrawal slip, or if you don’t need the withdrawal slip, you go to the ATM and just pin and pin and pin and then you’ll get a receipt.  Now,–o, are you coaching him?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  He is assisting, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Irrespective of whether you are a witness or you are a lawyer, that should apply to all participants in his drama.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I understand that even ordinary in cases a passbook is required.  You say it is no longer practiced?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I don’t think lately that has been a practice, unless, probably, you ask for a particular passbook.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am speaking from experience because they are the same passbook issued by China Bank, passbook issued by the—and before you can withdraw and deposit, a passbook must be presented.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, not with respect to the Bank of Philippine Islands.  If you withdraw, you just fill up a deposit slip and they keep the withdrawal slip, they keep it, they recorded it, they are all computerized now, Justice Cuevas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, you have…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Alright, assuming that we are still in that practice of having this passbook, what is your question, Your Honor?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Would you like me to be on the witness stand?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No.  That does not prevent me from seeking clarification from you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But you are not clarifying, you are asking me a question.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.    No, because you preface your question about this passbook thing.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  So I said I wanted clarification.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor, please, there is no pending question.  The honourable Ombudsman had already answered.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, the Ombudsman said she does not know whether the accounts were current account, savings account or whatever kind of account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, we have discussed that…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The fact is that there is a bank account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  And a transaction happened in the course of time in connection with that bank account.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I now go to another subject, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Again, in another page of this account 8104 year 2007, there are various account number.  Would you kindly go over them?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Are we looking at the same page, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, this is account–this is exhibit for the prosecution, Your Honor.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Okay, account no. 8104, 2007.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You are also in a position to inform us about the nature of this account.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I would not be able.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Now,…

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Answered already.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  If Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. BAUSTISTA.  Mr. Justice Cuevas, you are asking questions about Account No. 8104.  Are you admitting that these are the accounts of the Chief Justice?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Are you cross-examining me?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  No.  Because if you are not admitting that, there is no need to cross-examine…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is entirely out of order, Your Honor, unless you are the Presiding Judge, Your Honor, of the Senate committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Will you kindly address the Chair before you…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is procedural and more courteous, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel for the prosecution, allow the defense counsel to conduct the cross-examination.  If you have any objection, raise an objection but do not posit the question to him.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So ordered.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  I’m sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I think we better conduct this hearing in an orderly fashion.  We are all lawyers and we know the rules.  If you have any objection, raise an objection, state the reason for your objection so that this Chair can rule to allow or not to allow an answer.  All right, counsel for the defense, proceed.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Your Honor please, I respectfully object to the questions raised by the defense.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  On the ground of irrelevance because there has been no admission nor proof that the Chief Justice is admitting these to be his accounts.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no pending question anymore.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  There’s no…

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  There’s no admission, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  On the part of the Chief Justice.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But the Ombudsman was presented by the defense to testify here and the Ombudsman said that she received a report from AMLC to the effect that there is a bank deposit account bearing the name of Renato Corona and there were transactions in connection with it.  Are you denying that?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  No, Your Honor, but they are the ones denying that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  But what is the materiality of that question that you are raising?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the materiality?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  We withdraw the objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are confusing the issues here.  I think we better not do any misleading effort here because we are quite alert in this court.  Proceed, counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.    With the kind permission of the honourable court, again may I be permitted, Madam Ombudsman,  to kindly direct your attention to what appears in this PowerPoint presentation of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What page of the PowerPoint presentation were you referring to?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  It is there, Your Honor.  I am referring to that portion labelled Account 8104-2007.  I suppose that the account, that the number there mentioned is the account number and 2007 is the year.  Now, my question to you is…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is Account No. 8104-2007.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, my question to you now is, will you be kind enough to tell this honourable court the nature of the account namely, Account No. 2804, 2693, 2405, 4351, 7659, 3398, 2812, 2887, 3479 and 3193.  That is the question.  Would you be able to answer.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  No, Your Honor

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  You are not familiar with these numbers as numbers of abank account.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  They are supposed to be bank accounts?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Whether they are current, savings, I wouldn’t know.  It is not indicated in the data which I gathered.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Madam.  Now, may I know from you how these documents appearing in this PowerPoint presentation has been made and who authored the same?  Their office?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  My office with the assistance of the COA.  I asked them to visualize it because it would be easier to understand.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In other words, you are not personally involved in this?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I was personally involved.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  But in the drawing of the—how do you call it?  What’s the term?—in the putting of the arrows and the what look like ballons, they were the ones who pinned it in the computer.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  All right.  Thank you, Your Honor.

May we be informed as to the extent and nature of your participation.  Is it supervisory or actual?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Actual, supervisory and control.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In what sense was that actual, supervisory made?  Will you kindly let us know?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  They were personally present in the office.  So we went from one entry to another.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  And after that was done, they had to tell me that this is now reflected as wish in this, and that, and that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  And insofar as your office is concerned, where did these matters appearing in this Account No. 8104207 came from?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  They were lifted from the entries given by the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  And these entries that you mentioned awhile ago, they were not—Were they presented to you very formally by the AMLC?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It was forwarded to me by the AMLC.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So it was not filed with your office very formally with an attachment.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Because it is strictly confidential.  It was personally delivered to me.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  By whom?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  By Mr. Vic Aquino.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I noticed yesterday that you had a hard time reading the entries therein appearing …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That’s right because they are so minute.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That’s giving me the impression that appears to be the first time you have gone over these documents.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor,  As you will note in the copy I had, I had my annotations.  I had my markings.  And that’s why I asked the permission of the Senate if they could photocopy the clean copy of these documents.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is the farthest you have gone insofar as supervision or in the preparation of this PowerPoint presentation?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Farthest I have gone?  By?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I have asked you a very definite question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the purpose of this line of questioning, counsel?  Are you impeaching your witness?  Impugning her competence?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor, please, the court allowed us to introduce her as a hostile witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Being allowed to do so, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You can cross-examine—I know the rules.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is our purpose.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  It’s in front of me.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  That is the purpose, Your Honor.  We are trying to determine the veracity and the accuracy …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are testing the credibility of the witness?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  By way of impeachment, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, when you went over this tabulation furnished you by the AMLC people, you did not have a talk with anyone of them?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  With any of the?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  AMLC people.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  AMLC people.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  None.  In other words, that’s just given to you, there is no covering letter, …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  There was.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you assumed that this was the document …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  There was.  There was.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There was?  I see.  May we go over the covering letter?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Sure.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Going over this letter, it states, “We are furnishing you with the attached information for intelligent purposes only in connection with the investigation of the abovementioned complaint.”  Did you notice that?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I know that.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Will you kindly enlighten us to the scope of what is meant, if you know …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … of the intelligence purpose—of the mention in here of intelligence purposes only.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Let me see the letter, Chief.  When it says, strictly confidential, it says, the attached information for intelligence purposes, only in connection with the investigation of the above caption complaints, subject …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Meaning, information.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Information, yes, furnishing you the attached information for intelligence purposes, only in connection with the investigation of the attached, mentioned complaint.

The mentioned complaint was Risa Hontiveros, et. al vs. Chief Justice, Renato C. Corona.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In other words—may I continue now, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  You are doing a cross examination.  Do not keep asking permission from the Chair.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.  I was thinking that the Chair may have a question, that is why.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, no, no, go ahead.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.  In other words, it is definite and specific that this information being relayed to you was pursuant to this alleged complaint.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Of Risa Hontiveros.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Of Risa Hontiveros, et al against Chief Justice Corona.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mentioned is made in here of an investigation—is this investigation merely administrative or preliminary as it is understood?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Fact finding investigation or case build up.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is strictly confidential.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And it ought not to be known by anybody else outside of those connected officially with it.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right, meaning, only by people within your office are privileged to know this investigation.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Not all members of my staff knew about it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but those who should know about this are only those working with you in connection with this complaint.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, but I qualify that because I had difficulty analyzing the data, I had to engage the assistance of other government …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but my question to you is, the extent and scope, confidentiality mentioned in here refers to the fact that it should be known only to the members of your staff …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Who were assisting me in the investigation of this case.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Okay.  Now, If I go back to your letter to the Chief Justice, asking him to answer the alleged charges in there, you mentioned about serious misconduct in office—kindly go over the copy if you have it.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I am going over it right now, Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the question?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am referring, Your Honor, to a portion of the letter, addressed by the honorable Ombudsman to Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor.  And may I refer to you—the honorable Ombudsman to this particular portion, “while you may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings, this office has, as reflected earlier, the power and duty to investigate you for any serious misconduct in office for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.  It was on this account that this office conducted an initial evaluation of the complaint.

My question to you is, what meaning should be attached to this statement of you regarding the alleged commission of serious misconduct.?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Any conduct that is intentionally done which is not just, which is not proper, which is in violation of the law, that to me encompasses the phrase serious misconduct.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  In this connection, may I read to you a portion of a decision in several cases, more particulary in the case of of Salcedo vs. Inting  ruled by the honourable Supreme Court wherein it stated, “ A misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties.”  In other words, it is not any misfeasance, or malfeasance but it is an act violative of the rules and the law in connection with the performance of official duty.  Now, the addressee here is Chief Justice Corona, will you be kind enough to tell this honourable court what is the scope of that serious misconduct you are referring to in this letter.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It encompasses anything that violates the law.  In this case, he is charged to have accumulated wealth that is purportedly grossly disproportionate to his income.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I thought … I will not take issue with you there because the jurisprudence on the point placed on record, Your Honor, already.  Now, you were furnished with this report of the AMLA pursuant to your request, I hope you went over the same, and as you said many times.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, could you now affirm under oath that the contents of the said report are accurate, correct and in accordance with law, based on your examination.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Whether or not the contents of that report is accurate, correct or in accordance with law, I would not have known.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Because that was furnished to me by the AMLA.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, that is beyond your comprehension.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  What do you mean beyond my comprehension, I don’t understand it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Beyond my competence, yes, but not beyond my comprehension.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How did you understand the figures mentioned in there?  Were they accurate, were they correct?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The presumption is that, since I was given these documents, the presumption is that these are documents correctly reflected in the data of the AMLA.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What verification did you undertake, if you did, in connection with the accuracy of the figures therein stated.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I could not go directly to the bank to verify whether the data entered here are correct or not.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  How about any of your people or person under you, Madam Ombudsman, none conducted any inquiry?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  From the bank?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There were no inquiries as to whether these alleged withdrawals are covered by any withdrawal slip.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The deposit that you mentioned was not ascertained as to whether there were deposit slips covering the same.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  On the dates mentioned therein.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, apparently you give us the impression that, pardon the language, you swallowed hook, line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Again, I say, the presumption is that they would give to me correct information.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And that presumption was never verified by you.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I could not verify it.  I could not go to the bank.  I could not do that.  Remember, yesterday, you were talking about confidentiality of bank deposits?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  To which I retorted that are you admitting that these bank deposits exist?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, how could I make that?  I am the one propounding the question.  Are you cross-examining me?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I am reminding you about what transpired yesterday, Mr. Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I have not forgotten what transpired yesterday.  Precisely the basis of my additional direct questioning now, because you have people according to you who have assisted you in connection with the determination of the truth.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  In connection with the analysis.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Allow me to finish first.  If Your Honor please, may we request that the witness be reminded to allow me to finish.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Madam Ombudsman, let the counsel finish with his question.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I withdraw the former question.  In that analysis that you made, did you ask for the assistance of any people in your office to determine the truth of what appears in this report submitted to you by the AMLC people?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Your Honor, we are not allowed to determine the truth of what appears there.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I thought the purpose of the request or assistance is to be able to ascertain the truth of the matter ….

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Determine the existence.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Wait.   Allow me to finish.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Sorry.  Mea culpa.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you. Thank you.   I thought your purpose was to ask the assistance of the AMLA to enlighten you on what they have in connection with this complaint of the various complainants before you, right?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Let me read my letter to the AMLC.   My request was for the assistance of the AMLC  vis a vis the present investigation being conducted and by your office, by our office, rather, on account of the letter complaint of Rhiza Hontiveros, et al., by way of providing relevant information bearing on the financial transactions, if any, of the respondent and related transactions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And the reply that you received, was there any statement relative to the financial transactions, you were asking assistance?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  They furnished me a copy of the 17-page document and the four-page summary of transactions.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What transactions are your referring to, Madam Ombudsman?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Bank transactions, financial, to be more accurate.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  They are transactions involving deposits and withdrawals nothing more?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Not necessarily.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes. Were you able to ascertain whether this bank accounts reflected in the report are actually existing?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Again, I said earlier, how can I determine if they are actually existing when I cannot go to the bank?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not asking how you can determine that fact. I am asking you, did you determine or your office …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Already answered.  She said already that she did not go to the bank. She did not go to the records. She relied on the report of AMLC. And she presumed the veracity of the report of an agency authorized by law to handle this type of problem.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but were you able to ascertain whether there is any investigation conducted by the AMLC in connection …

ATTY. BAUTISTA.    May I object.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Allow me to finish and I will give you all the opportunity.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Madam Ombudsman, will you kindly allow him to finish so that …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Mr. Presiding Justice, it was he who talked.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.    Mea culpa.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I hope he is not appointed Ombudsman. It would be a conflict of authority already.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   I hope …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Who was talking?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.   I was the one, Your Honor. I am sorry.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You see. The Presiding Officer is getting confused. He cannot get who is talking. By the way, will you please object if you want to object, so that I will know that you are objecting to the question?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.    I was objecting, Your Honor please.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no question yet.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you kindly repeat your question?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I will if there is any because I do not recall making question. Based on your examination of the report given to you by the AMLC people, were you able to ascertain which of these accounts in your Power Presentation are still existing?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor please,

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Already answered.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.

THE OMBUDSMAN. No, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, as of today, based from your knowledge, the Court cannot deduce which of these—based from your testimony there could no conclusion or finding to be made by the Court which of these accounts allegedly still exist?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Objection, Your Honor, may I ..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the basis of the objection?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  The objection is based on the fact has repeatedly said that she has relied on presumptions of law specifically Rule 131 Section 2 and Section 44 of Rule 130.  Rule 130 Section 44 establishes the presumption that entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the Philippines or by a person in the performance of a duty enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.  Moreover, under Rule 131, Sec. 2, it is a conclusive presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.  And the witness has already answered that she has relied on those presumptions when she dealt with the information from the AMLC.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So that we finish this. Let the Ombudsman answers, she is a very intelligent witness.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your question Mr. Justice is that, whether I verify if these accounts…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Whether you came to know…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  …still exist.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  …which of these accounts still existing and whether they still contain deposits.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You said as of today?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At the time when you examine the record.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You stated as of today.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am not saying that.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, you said that, let’s go by the transcript of  stenographic notes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am withdrawing that.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES. Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I will ask you another question.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  So, no, the answer is no.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Thank you, too.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Re-cross.

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  Nothing, Your Honor, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No more re-cross?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  No more re-cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Thank you, Madam Ombudsman.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are through with our cross, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Just a minute, I just want to clarify.  Are the two panels through with the Ombudsman?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I am through with the redirect, Your Honor, and there is an announcement by my colleague here that he has no re-cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Precisely, I am asking you if you are through.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The defense is through, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  the defense is through with the witness.  How about the prosecution?

ATTY. BAUTISTA.  We are through, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.  Madam Ombudsman, thank you for bearing with us.

SEN. SOTTO.   Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago wishes to ask some questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The Gentle Lady from Iloilo…

SEN. SOTTO.  And Senators Guingona, Drilon, Legarda, Cayetano and Pangilinan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright, alright, the members of the impeachment court want to pose a questions, please go ahead.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  May I ask, Mr. President, if the Senate engineer can put on all the lights, thank you.  I will ask first a very simple question.  RA No 6770, the Ombudsman Act provides, and I read:  Section 22.  Investigatory Power—the Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted.  Question.  Under the law, Ms. Witness, as Ombudsman, you can investigate any serious misconduct allegedly committed by the Chief Justice.  Since an impeachment trial is now ongoing, the only purpose for your present investigation should be to file a verified complaint for impeachment by December this year.  Here is the question.  Do you intend if the defendant is acquitted to file a second complaint for impeachment this year?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, it is the House which determines whether on the basis of the date it receives…

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I am not asking about who decides, I am asking about a provision in the Ombudsman Act which provides Section 22, the Office of the Ombudsman shall have power to investigate…etc. for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted, that is your job.  So is that job being undertaken now by the Ombudsman with its present investigation?  Since there is no point of investigating, an impeachment trial is already ongoing.  Therefore, under Section 22, your sole purpose could only be to file a second complaint for impeachment after the one year ban provided by law.  Therefore, I am asking you a question, do you intend, if in this first impeachment trial, the defendant is acquitted, do you intend to file a second impeachment complaint against him after the one year ban?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Madam Senator, if the charges presently being investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman are not included in the impeachment charges, then, I don’t see any reason why there should be no chance to file another impeachment complaint.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I am sorry I don’t get the answer very correctly.  Is your answer a yes or a no?  Is that a yes?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  For the purpose of filing an impeachment complaint?

SEN. SANTIAGO.  That is right.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If that is warranted after the investigation, conclusion of the investigation.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, that is what the law says.  For the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.  If you think it is warranted then your only purpose will be to file a second impeachment complaint.  Isn’t that so?  Is that a fair question?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  If it’s warranted, we will.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  All right, thank you.  That is the only question.

So we are placing the defendant on notice that even if this court acquits him, he can expect a second impeachment complaint by December this year for that is what the law says.  The Ombudsman cannot investigate unless it is for the sole and only purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted.  You are so warned.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  May I be allowed to speak, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  That is for the Presiding Officer to…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    You may answer.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  To qualify, nothing will prevent the Ombudsman from filing forfeiture proceedings if warranted.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I take that as a yes,  I am a student of constitutional law.

Let me now go to certain questions of constitutional law.  This is going to be a little tedious but still it needs to be raised.  I am very intrigued by the world view of the Ombudsman on the relationship between a constitutional provision or provisions on the one hand and the provisions of laws passed by Congress on the other hand.  I have to start with the fundamental principle and I hope you will all forgive me that the Constitution is a written limitation of the powers of state.  It is not a written grant of state power for the fear always is that government might turn tyrannical against its own citizens.  In fact reflecting this fear, our Constitution specifically provides in the Declaration of Policy in Section 1, “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”  I draw from this background the conclusion that if there is any doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the rights of the citizen and against the powers of state.  With that preface, let me now proceed.

First, I would like to recite the constitutional provisions of the powers of the Ombudsman which appear to be very plenary, infinite and wide ranging.  These are the provisions of the Constitution, Article XI and I will qualify them by saying that Congress passed a law called The Ombudsman Act of 1989 virtually copying the constitutional provision.  Under Section 13, the Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:    Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary the discharge of its responsibilities and to examine if necessary pertinent records and documents.  Section 33, Duty to render assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman.  Any officer or employee of any department, bureau or office, subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations and local governments when required by the Ombudsman, his deputy or the special prosecutor shall render assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman.  Finally, Section 15, paragraph 8, the powers of the Ombudsman.  Administer oath, etc., including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records.  These are the broad language employed by the Constitution and virtually copied in the law passed by Congress, the Ombudsman Act of 1989.  But in juxtaposition to these broad constitutional powers of the Ombudsman, we also have certain laws passed by Congress which includes naturally both the House and the Senate.  One of them is the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which provides, Section 8, Secrecy of foreign currency deposits.  All foreign currency deposits etc.  are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and except upon the written permission of the depositor in no instance shall such foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau, office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private.  That law is still existing, the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.  So we are faced with the question, how broad are the powers of the Ombudsman or should we adopt the world view or the mindset that the Ombudsman’s powers are unlimited as long as they are listed?  They are among the list that are borne in our Constitution.  I was citing the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

Now let me cite …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the Lady to wrap up where we have a rule, and my attention has been called.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  May I request for an extension of time, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Thank you.  That would be two plus two equals four minutes.

Let me go to the AMLA Act, it says in effect, because I’ve been asked to shorten my question.  I was trying to lay the background so that it would be all be clear.

In effect, under the AMLA Act, the AMLC or the council should first find probable cause, then it should file the complaint before the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman who shall then conduct the preliminary investigation of the case.  That is what the law says.

So, in effect, therefore, I will just go immediately to the question to follow the injunction.

Question:  It appears that you take the position that the power of the Ombudsman under the Constitution to request the AMLC for assistance and information should prevail over the procedure provided in the AMLA and over the decision of the Supreme Court.  I’m referring to the Eugenio Case where the Supreme Court said, “There is disfavour towards construing these exceptions in such a manner that would authorize unlimited discretion on the part of the government or of any party seeking to enforce those exceptions and enquiring to bank deposits.  If there are doubts in upholding absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved in favour of the former.

Is it your position, Madam, that the powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution override the provisions of the AMLA as passed by Congress and the Eugenio Case which I just quoted as decided by the Supreme Court?  That is the question, and then I’ll have a second one.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I just am abided—I must just abide by what the provisions of the Ombudsman Law provides.  Until the provision is declared unconstitutional, I must abide by it, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  So, can you please respond to this question?  You mean that your powers as enumerated in the Constitution override the laws passed by Congress such as AMLA Law, the Judicial Bank Secrecy Deposit Law, the Foreign Currency Deposit Law and even the case of Eugenio?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  May I invite your attention, Your Honor, to the AMLA Law, Section 3, Subsection b.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  If you could read it to me please.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I will.  “Covered transactions is a transaction in cash or other …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  I am familiar with that, since I’m under very limited time.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  All right.  Section 3-C …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  … 3-C, it say, “Monetary instrument refers to coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines or of any other country.”

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  So, what is the point of your answer?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  My point is that dollars are covered by the …

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  There is question about that.  The issue here is that under the AMLA Law, first, it is the Council must conduct a fact-finding system, and then, if it finds probable cause, refer the matter to you for preliminary investigation.  But you did not follow this procedure.

Plus, there is a provision in the same law that provides that you must first go, file a petition in court, and get a court order before AMLA can answer your question.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  That is the focus of my question.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor, but this applies only for cases involving money laundering.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  That is your position.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  That these provisions apply only to money laundering cases.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  So let me go to the next question.  Your position would logically lead to the conclusion that the bank accounts of any public officer can be offered opened on mere request by the Ombudsman without any court order.  But, let me place that question in context.  Under the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has no disciplinary authority over impeachable officials, Members of Congress and the Judiciary.

So let me repeat the question and then I will—because I’m under time constraints.

Are you of the opinion, therefore, that should somebody file a complaint against any of us Senators or Members of the House, you can just go straight to AMLA and ask for our records without going to the court or without waiting for probable cause to be found by the council itself?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That would depend on the complaint, Your Honor.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Yes, of course, it would depend on the complaint, but suppose, hypothetically, that you find that the complaint is warranted, is that your view that you can just act on your own …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It would depend on the nature of the complaint.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I know that but suppose that after all your own internal procedures, and you have made a decision that the complaint is worthy of further consideration, is it your considered opinion that, as in this case, you can just go direct to AMLC and not follow the procedures in the AMLC Law?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, again, I said, it would depend on the complaint.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Well, you are pudging your answer, Madam Witness.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, you said, it is—I said, it is …

SEN. SANTIAGO.  You are arguing with a Senator-Judge.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I am sorry, mea culpa.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  I accept the apology.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Noted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Guingona, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Bukidnon.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam Ombudsman, in the SALN of the Chief Justice in 2004, he enlisted P3,300,000 cash and investments.  In the SALN of 2005, he put in the same amount, P3,300,000.  Okay, I will be using as reference, Madam Ombudsman, the document that your furnished us.  Do you have it Madam?

Okay po.  Let us go to page 2, line 12345 from the top, page 2, line 12345 from the top.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Page 2 …

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes, Madam.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Line 12345.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Line 12345, the one that says in the account number column, 16874.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  FAO?

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  For the account of?

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes, and then it says, 16874, account number, you see it, Madam?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, I do.

SEN. GUINGONA.  I hope you can help me here because in accordance with this—if you look at the date, it says, on May 17, 2004, the Chief Justice purchased P27,933,000 worth of a placement in the Fil-Am Dollar Bond Incorporated, and the transaction code is BYMF.  Ang ibig sabihin po ng BYMF, buy mutual fund, bumili, bumili ng mutual fund.  Kailan bumili?  Bumili noong May 17, 2004.  Magkano?  P27.9 million, account no. 16874.

And then, let me invite you to page 4, page 4, line 1234 from the bottom naman.  Page 4, line 1234 from the bottom naman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  Yes, Sir.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Do you see it Madam?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I do.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Okay.  The same account number, 16874.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yes, Madam, but the date is different now.  The date now is April 6, if you take a look at the date, it says there, April 6, 2005, so that is 11 months after he purchased it, and the amount now has increased, P28 million point 377.  Again, it is from the Fil-Am Dollar Fund, but the code is different now, the code says SLMF.  The code of SLMF means sell mutual fund investment.

So, we have a situation, Madam, that he buys in 2004 May, P27 million worth of investment in the Fil-Am Dollar Fund, and 11 months later, in April, he sells, he gets back his placement plus interest, I suppose, is the amount increase, plus interest.  So, this is a placement of 28 million.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  These are pesos, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Pesos, Ma’am, because the transaction code says pesos.  If I may finish, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Thank you, Mr. President.  One year placement, from May 2004 to April 2005, P27 million.  Don’t you think, Ma’am, that that amount should have appeared in his SALN December 31, 2004?  The P27 million?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It should have, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yet it does not, Ma’am.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It does not.

SEN. GUIGONA.  Are you competent to enlighten me on that?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No.  The best evidence is the document.  It is not stated in his SALN.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Because in his SALN it is only 3.3 million.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  Yet, the document showed that he has a placement of P27 million.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That is right, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  And on December 31, 2004, that P27 million still existed and yet was not reported.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA.  In that case, Mr. President, since this is a mutual fund placement which is not a bank account, which is not covered by the Bank Secrecy Law, I respectfully move that we subpoena the documents from the Philam dollar fund, Mr. President.  I so move.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We will take that up in our caucus.

SEN. GUINGONA.   Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the Body?  Majority Floor Leader.  There is a motion.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we may take up the motion on Monday, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  During the caucus.  It is best that we do so instead of debating among ourselves openly, Mr. President.  So, with that, I would like to ask that Senator Drilon be recognized for the next Senator-Judge.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Iloilo has the floor.

SEN. DRILON.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Madam Ombudsman, as Ombudsman and former Justice of the Supreme Court, based on your knowledge, should the assets contained in the accounts marked as Exhibit 11 W’s be reported in the SALN of a public official?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, let me walk you through some of the accounts in order that we can see what the situation is.  Can I refer you to page 4 of Exhibit 11W.  Excuse me, Mr. President.  The clock keeps on moving and I am not speaking.  The clock keeps on ticking, I am not talking, so that removes time from me, Mr. President.  So, may it please that the Clerk be requested to …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Will you kindly …

SEN. DRILON.  Anyway, Mr. President, I have a pending question.  Can I refer you to page 4 of Exhibit 11W.  There is an account number there, 0141007129 which indicates a dollar deposit on January 14, 2005 in the amount of $57,000.00.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Your Honor, can I have the line so that I can easily spot it.

SEN. DRILON.  The seventh line from the top.  Do you confirm that?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, sir.

SEN. DRILON.  Can you use the microphone, Ma’am, please.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Mr. Senator, I confirm that there is a $57,000.00 entered here.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, on page 5 Madam Witness, on the 11th line from the top, again, an Account No. 0141007129, there appears to be a deposit through a credit memo on July 19, 2005 in the amount of 15,242.44, would you confirm that for the record?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. In other words, on this account alone, we added it and the two amounts deposited amount to 72,242.44 as of July 19, 2005.  Now, on page 10 of this document, the eighth line from the bottom …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Eighth line from the bottom.

SEN. DRILON.  On page 10.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  On page 9.

SEN. DRILON.  Page 10.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Page 10, I am sorry. Yes, line nine.

SEN. DRILON.  Alright. From the bottom.

I am sorry. Line 8, I am sorry, Your Honor.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Line 8.

SEN. DRILON.  From the bottom.  Yes.

THE OMBUDSMAN. Yes, I  …

SEN. DRILON. Okay.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I relate with you.

SEN. DRILON.  This is the same account 0141007129 wherein withdrawal of 89,059.35 was made on October 6, 2008. Do you confirm that, ma’am?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON.  And therefore, this indicates that on December 31, 2005, there was an amount of 72,242.44 which was in this account because it was withdrawn only on October 6, 2008, is that correct?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  Similarly, on December 31, 2006, the same amount should be on this account, 72,242.44 considering that it was not withdrawn until October 6, 2008, is that correct?  Please, use the microphone, Madam Witness.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  And finally, on December 31, 2007, the same amount of 72,242.44 should be appearing as the same was only withdrawn on October 6, 2008, is that correct?

THE OMBUDSMAN.    Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  And therefore, there was—would you now agree with me that there was a violation of the law requiring reporting of assets and liabilities and net worth if these amounts are not so reported?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Mr. Senator.

SEN. DRILON.  Now, in order to save time, can we just make some manifestation, Your onor Honor, as these are all based on the document, Exh. 11-W?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

SEN. DRILON.  We want to manifest on record that Account No. 0141007129, which is a PSBank account was admitted …

THE OMBUDSMAN. Cainta.

SEN. DRILON.  Sorry.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  PSBank Account Cainta.

SEN. DRILON.  Yes.  This is an account which has established on the record upon questioning of the presiding judge on the general manager of PSBank.  So this account is on record as existing.  Now, we manifest also that on page 8 of exhibit 11-W, there is an account indicated with the following numbers: 0141, 0169, 62.  On page 8, and there was a credit memo depositing the amount of 300,000 dollars on July 10, 2007.  On page 10 of the same document, there was an indication that this amount was withdrawn on August 5, 2008; and therefore, it is clear that on December 31, 2007, this amount was in account no. that we have manifested.  We have to manifest that per statement of assets and liabilities of the respondent, this was not reported, as the cash reported in the SALN is only 2.5 million for 2007.

Similar manifestations, Your Honor, are being made for account nos. 0141, 019678 in the amount of 455,210.07 dollars which, again, was existing as of December 31, 2008, but which is not in the SALN of the respondent.  Again, account nos. 0191, 0373 which appears on page 11 of exhibit 11-w, the amount of 768,733.96 dollars was deposited on October 31, 2008, and withdrawn only on December 15, 2011 as shown on page 11 and 16 of exhibit 11-w.  Therefore, it is clear while this amount was outstanding and in the bank account on December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.

Finally, on page 9 of exhibit 11-w under account nos. 0141, 017, 659, the amount of 299,937.86 dollars was deposited on November 9, 2007, and was withdrawn only on August 5, 2008, and was therefore in existence as of December 31, 2007.  That is all, Your Honor, thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Tthank you.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, may we recognize the minority leader, Senator Al Cayetano.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Senator Cayetano, Alan Peter of Taguig.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Magandang Hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer, good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Good afternoon, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Ma’m, when this impeachment process started, the President made a case that this is about corruption cleaning the country, cleaning the Judiciary, while the supporters of the Chief Justice was making a case that this is about judicial independence, and these are two valid issues not necessarily  in conflict with each other, and I think Ma’m, you are in the best position to help clarify some issues because you were one of the more respected justices of the Supreme Court and now, as Ombudsman, you are ask to prosecute and investigate graft cases.  So my question will be in line with what Senator Miriam, I was asking Ma’m, but before that, just some clarificatory questions regarding the AMLC submission to you Ma’m.

Ma’m you talked about fresh funds and you said that fresh fund amounted to about 10 to 12 million dollars, and then, commissioner Haydee Mendoza talked aboutk—I don’t know how she categorized those funds but she said total inflow and outflow of around, if I ‘m not mistaken, $28 million, ma’am.  But just to clarify, ma’am, for the public is listening and for the Senator-Judges, in your study did you narrow down how much—how do we put it in layman’s term, ma’am—magkano pong pera at a certain point of time na sure tayo nasa loob ng account?  So not taking into consideration yong nilabas at pinasok ulit.  So meaning if you say today or on that date, let’s say what was the largest amount, ma’am, made?  For example, ma’am, Senator Lacson  made his own computation and he said noong nag-withdraw si Chief Justice 3 million plus except that lampas na ng date na covered ng impeachment yon dahil December 2011.  We’re only talking about SALN until December 31, 2010.  Would you have a computation, ma’am, or a figure of how much in dollars he would have had at any certain point of time?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.  Dollar influx from April 14, 2003 to December 22, 2011 amounting to $12,155,530.86.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ma’am, when you say inflow, does this include what was taken out and then put it back in?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, that’s inflow, they come in.  Outflow would be they go out.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.  What I wanted to clarify, ma’am, without having to do the computation by myself is, like Senator Lacson in his computation, he said on December 2011, he computed a total of 3 million that was withdrawn by the Chief Justice.  Meaning that he had at least $3 million  at that time.  So, ma’am, before that 2011 with regard to the report of the AMLC, was your team able to extrapolate or to analyze how much money not taking into consideration what came in or came out or not re-adding what came in again or went out at a certain point in time.  Meaning, ma’am, magkano po ang total dollars nya at one point in time?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I think that would be difficult, Your Honor, at one point in time.  It will depend on the time, let’s say, 2003, 2004.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  No.  At any point in time, the most number of dollars, ma’am.  My point is coming from the Chief Justice is saying that mali and the report was dinagdagan or added.  I don’t want to speak for him but he’s making it appear na malayo sa $12 million ang pera nya doon.  Para bang nag-double counting.  So did your office have any findings?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  We made sure that there would be no double counting, Mr. Senator.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Yes.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Because indeed in the data, there are second or triple or quadruple entries which are of the  same amount which are transacted on the same day but let’s say, $100,000 is deposited to that side then it’s taken out it goes to that side then it goes on the same day, that same amount goes out in another account.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ma’am, let me try to clarify.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Then it goes to this account but it ends there.  So that is the one included in the computation.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So that’s what you meant, ma’am, by fresh funds.  Meaning, it was there at that point in time.  So at any point in time, he had $12 million.  Is that a correct understanding?  Meaning, ma’am, how much did he own?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Covered transactions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually the question seeks to elicit a statement about the float.  You see there was a bank deposit account made and there were withdrawals, there were deposits.  At any given time, this money is put in different investment accounts.  That is what is normally called in the investment field as the float of the depositor.  So that will be the function of the people who will analyze this whole thing, how much at any given time was the float of the respondent if he had any float, of investment, and all of these are assets that ought have been included in the SALN.

So, proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I think the Senate President asked it more clearly.  So, if I may use the word, how much was the float at …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I’m sorry, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Ma’am, I think the Senate President put it more clearly, magkano po yung float at one point in time or any point in time …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  You want to know how much was the …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  .. how much was the money of—in dollars?  I want to know if your office made an analysis.  I understand that ang binigay po sa inyo ay transactions.  Hindi binigay sa inyo kung magkano ang pera nya at a certain point in time.  So, was the analysis, together with the COA …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  At one time, there was a withdrawal in the amount of 1,797,722.54.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.  Second question, Ma’am, the AMLC only gave this 17-page.  Did they give you the balances at the end of the year of the …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And they cannot give that to you?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  We never asked for it, Your Honor.  And I think they have to analyze it.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  For the purposes of the impeachment court, we agreed in caucus that we will be looking at the balances on December 31 of every relevant year when he was in government.  That’s why if this can be given to us, it would make it much easier for us.

Man’am, that’s my last question regarding the actual amounts.  But just go to the issues brought up by Senator Miriam, Ma’am, let me first tell you where we’re coming from.  After the 2007 election, as Blue Ribbon Committee Chair, we had several investigations:  the ZTE, the fertilizer scam, the swine scam, the gift-giving in Malacañang, cash gift-giving, and every time we had a hearing, the AMLC, and it was the same Executive Director Aquino would tell us that he cannot give us any information, and he could not give us any information about the accounts because he needed a court order to do so.  And we told him, is there any way that you can give it?  He did not mention that simply by the Ombudsman requesting them, then the Ombudsman could have these records.

Having said that, we also had hearings where the former Ombdusman, and she was being criticized, I don’t know if it was because of her name being named Mercy, she was being criticized of being so merciful that she was being criticized of not investigating impeachable officers while advocates like Riza Hontiveros, Joel Villanueva and other Party-List groups, we’re saying, you can investigate but not file the cases.

So, one question, Ma’am.  What is the present mindset or view of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding Supreme Court Justices?  You can investigate very clearly under Section 22, if it leads to an impeachment.  That’s clear, right, Ma’am?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Now, can you investigate for a criminal case but stop at the investigation and not file the case?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I think the perissology of the law is that if an impeachable officer is being faulted for a criminal law, the law says, for a criminal offense, the law says that you have to wait for the termination of the—or the retirement or the resignation or the termination of service before you can file a criminal case.  That’s what the law says.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  And as a former Supreme Court Justice, that’s important for judicial independence because you do not want losing litigant or people who want to pressure the courts to go to the DOJ or the Ombudsman and ask them to investigate Justices while this is going on, right?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, the question is, Ma’am, it seems like there’s a new interpretation to interpret the waiver in the—and if I may be allowed to read it, the waiver in the SALN which states that, “I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his authorized representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate agencies including the Bureau of Internal Revenue such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interest and financial connections to include those of my spouse and married children below 18 of age living with me in my household covering previous years to include the year I first assumed the office in government.” In this case, it was signed by Chief Justice Renato Corona, and I assume, all government officials, pumipirma din Madam, ano.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Kaya ko po sinasabing bagong interpretation kasi dati, iyong mga previous Ombudsman, Madam, BIR lang ang tinitingnan o ibang agencies pero iyong AMLC, hindi nila kinukunan at sinasabing confidential kasi iyong bank accounts.  To prove my point, for the last 20 years, if you look at the congressional archives, napakaraming bills dito, one of them ay kay Senator Lacson to amend either the Bank Secrecy Law, to exclude public officials, or I think, Senator Escudero, myself, we are working on bills that will amend the SALN form to include waiver sa bank accounts, and if you remember, ito iyong challenge ko kay First Gentleman dati, I will sign a waiver sa bank account ko, mag-sign din kayo ng waiver ng Presidente Arroyo sa bank account niyo.  But with the present interpretation now of your leadership, don’t get me wrong, Madam, I agree with it.  I agree in progressive way of fighting graft and corruption, but I just want to assure the public that there will be balance and safeguards here.

So, Madam, can I clarify, so, the interpretation now of the Office of the Ombudsman is because of this waiver taken together with your powers under the Constitution, you can simply write to AMLC and ask them for information about their bank transactions and it will be given to you.  Is that correct, Madam?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Mr. Senator.  To me, that is a consent.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  That is a consent.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  On the part of a tax filer.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, no need to …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is allowing the Ombudsman to—sorry for interrupting Madam.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  So, no need Madam to amend the Bank Secrecy Law or the SALN Law because all the Ombudsman has to do is write them, and all the AMLC on the other hand is be very progressive, that if a public official is depositing more money than what is in his SALN, they can consider it as suspicious transaction even if it is below P500,000, they can make a report and give it to you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Mr. Senator, that is a debatable issue.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Okay.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I’d rather not give my opinion.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  I am sorry about that Madam.  Where I am going to is this, there has been a lot of talk, especially in the media, even among Senators about the balance here that we want an administration that goes after graft and corruption but not only against past administration or against their enemies.

So, I guess, what I am driving at is that with this interpretation, which again, I support, will the Office of the Ombudsman have a protocol, wherein, as you said awhile ago, when the nature of the complaint calls for AMLC to give you information, will it be an SOP, regardless if it is a foe or an ally of the present administration.  I asked this, Madam with—your record has been sterling in the Supreme Court, and I am talking about all future Ombudsman and the policy of the Office of the Ombudsman.  So, meaning, Madam, whether if it is the fertilizer scam, whether it is the ZTE, past administration or let us say, two weeks from now, there is suddenly a scandal with one of the departments and one of the Usecs is being alleged to deposit P50 million in his bank account as a lagay from ganyan.  Will this now be a practice of the Office of the Ombudsman to write the AMLC and ask them to give you the information.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  As long as there are leads that indeed, these charges are meritorious, then, we will certainly do that, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Madam, just as last line of question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  May I request the Gentleman to wrap-up.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Sir, may I be allowed one last.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, proceed.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  If you read, Madam, the AMLC Law, as you said, it is maybe—we should ask the—I should ask the executive director of AMLC because what you …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That is right.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  … simply did is to ask him for it and they give it to you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Ask for data …

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  For the data, Madam.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  … bearing the financial transactions and related transactions.

SEN. CAYETANO (A.).  Which is within your powers, and they did give it to you, but when we asked him, maybe he did not understand or he did not think that—to suggest that we course it through the Office of the Ombudsman—the thing, Madam, is that there are prohibitions in law, including for example, the Bank Secrecy.  So, for example, Madam, I signed a waiver in my SALN, but of course, I still have my constitutional rights.  So, for example, if you ask the PNP for—or the NBI for help to do some investigation in my office, that does not mean that the police can enter my office without a warrant and they cannot say, I have a waiver that you signed in your SALN, and it was given to the Ombudsman because I still have the right against unreasonable searches and there is no probable cause, no warrant. Is that correct Ma’am?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, sir.

SEN. CAYETANO.  So, in the same way, Ma’am, where do we draw the line, what information the AMLC can give the Office of the Ombudsman?  When is it unreasonable for them?  Because in the past, they have always interpreted Supreme Court decision to say that when it is a covered transaction, they cannot look into it yet until there is a predicate crime, until there is probable cause, and until AMLC is unanimous, the three officials into investigating.  And in the past, they have interpreted giving information as an investigation report rather than just data.  I think, Ma’am, that is the uneasiness in the balance between giving you all the powers to go after grafters and after corrupt public officials.  On the other hand, making sure that the power is not abused—well not abused, Ma’am, but …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the indulgence of the Gentleman, these issues are not cogent to the impeachment process.  This is not in aid of legislation.  We are trying a case of impeachment.  So, if we want to amend the laws in order to adopt certain policies, we will have to take that up as a legislative body.  But we must concentrate, focus our attention, to the matter at hand.  And that is the impeachment case before us.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Thank you, Mr. President, for that reminder.  Because what I was going to is that if this is a product of an illegal search, then this is not admissible.  But if it is covered by the waiver, then it is admissible.  But I would agree with you, Your Honor, that it is partially not included.  But I think it is of grave national importance because …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We have to bear in mind, with your indulgence, that the witness was subpoenaed at the behest of the defense and she was here primarily as witness for the defense.  Although they qualified her as a hostile witness.  And so the defense is bound by the revelations of the witness during the direct-examination as well as during the cross-examination.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I know the Ombudsman to be only hostile to grafters and corrupt people in government.  But I just wanted these issues ventilated so that we would know when we analyze the evidence.  But secondly, I just thought, Mr. President, in my view, that this is of grave national and political importance for our country because this is the first impeachment in how many decades.  But anyway, I will stop there, Mr. President, because my time is up, but may I solicit a view from the Ombudsman.  Ma’am, where do we draw the line between it is just data or it is—so what can the AMLC give you and what can they not give you?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  The question should be addressed to the AMLC.  Because we give them copies of complaints and if they determine that the request of the Ombudsman is in order, then they do that.  If they don’t, then they will write the Ombudsman, signing the reasons why they cannot give the data, financial data or related transactions …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, the Rules of Evidence governed in these proceedings, not in the case of inquiries in aid of legislation.  And evidence is admissible if not excluded by the Rules of Evidence or by a statute, particular and expressed provision of a statute.  There is none.  In the Bank Secrecy Law that says that evidence illegally obtained in violation of those bank secrecy laws are excluded evidence in any proceeding.

SEN. CAYETANO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I agree and thank you for the opportunity to just come up to elaborate on all of these issues.  But since we will be taking up the amendments to the AMLC Law, anyway, I will address my question to it.  Thank you, Madam.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Legarda earlier reserved but she has withdrawn because her questions had been posed already.  So, may we recognize Senator Francis Pangilinan instead.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Pampanga.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Just one question and then a manifestation, Mr. President.  The question is to the Madam Ombudsman.

Just very quickly, without this waiver signed by the Chief Justice, would you have been able to request for these reports from the AMLC?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I would have, Your Honor, just the same.  Under the Ombudsman Law, it allows me, and even under the Constitution, to request assistance from agencies in connection with the discharge of my mandate.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, even without the waiver, the documents would have been accessible to the Ombudsman?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes.  It would have been accessible, but whether or not the AMLC would have provided me is a different story.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  My question therefore is, and I don’t know if it is your office or the AMLC would be able to answer this. Was the waiver the basis of the AMLC for turning over the documents to your office?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  They did not cite any waiver, any reason for giving the documents to me because in my letter, I said, in connection with the charges that have to do with the violation of the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Money Laundering Act, the Forfeiture proceedings, then, that was the reason why—that was the basis of our request for financial transactions and related transactions.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  So, …

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Whether they based it on the Ombudsman Law or on the SALN Authority given to the Ombudsman, the existence of other properties, I really don’t know.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  The reason I raised that question is that, Madam Witness, is that during your examination, direct examination, I  am not sure anymore whether  it was in the direct examination or cross-examination and the record will bear me out, you mentioned this waiver of right in explaining the answers. May we therefore be enlightened as to how valuable is this waiver with respect to your work in this respect?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It is very valuable, Your Honor, because it authorizes me. In other words, the consent is there. There should be no doubt that he authorizes me to look into his assets and properties.

SEN. PANGILINAN.  Because I would think to be able to reconcile this Republic Act 6426, the confidentiality of that consent, written consent, in fact, is necessary and I would like to think that this would suffice as written consent  but not to the banks because this is, of course, government agency in that respect. I’d like to correct that. Mr. President, thank you, Madam Witness.

The other, Mr. President, is just a manifestation. In pursuing the earlier point raised by Senator Guingona, there is another item that we noticed and therefore, we will discuss—we hope to be able to discuss this during the caucus, but just for the record, there is an account of Account No. 11505 and the amount on 2003, October 2003, there was a deposit of 12 million, again, this is a Philam Fund and then, there was a BYMF in 2004, 521,000 and then, another, BYSLMS, I believe, this is a sale, 11505 on 2005, 10 million, so, this is another account that is not a deposit, and, therefore, during our caucus on Monday, we may discuss the subpoena requested.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes, may we recognize Senator Gregg Honasan.

SEN. HONASAN.  Madam Ombudsman, good afternoon.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Good afternoon.

SEN. HONASAN.  I am not the one to educate you about the Philippine Constitution, but let me share it with you just the same.  Art. III of the Bill of Rights Section 1, the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. Although, this is a political process, my interpretation, my understanding is that the law should be applied equally to all those who are similarly situated. And as a Senator-Judge, I would like to have a peace of mind that the Chief of Justice is not being single out here. So, let me ask if you know, Madam Ombudsman, how many cases are now pending with the Ombudsman?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Cases against officials and…

SEN. HONASAN.  Opo.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  let me just look at my record.

SEN. HONASAN.  Yes, Ma’m.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Complaints as far as 2011 is concerned…

SEN. HONASAN.  Yes, Ma’m.  Ma’m, to abbreviate, I only have two minutes, just one big crown figure, total number of cases.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Are you referring to high profile cases?

SEN. HONASAN.  Everything, mga ilan po?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  We are still preparing this for the State-of-the-Nation address of the President.

SEN. HONASAN.  Pero marami po.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Definitely, I inherited a lot, thousands, tens of thousands.

SEN. HONASAN.  I am happy with that answer.  Has the Office of the Ombudsman also requested the assistance of the AMLC in relation to other cases pending with the Office of the Ombudsman particularly those involving ill-gotten wealth related graft cases.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, as far as the case against the Chief Justice is concerned, if I recall it correctly, that is the first that has come through me during my incumbency.  I did not go over the records of pending cases if they involved  unexplained wealth, and if the assistance of the AMLC was solicited.

SEN. HONASAN.  Thank you, Madam Ombudsman.  In fact, that would be my next question.  How many times has AMLC assistance in requested even under your watch.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  How is that, I am sorry.

SEN. HONASAN.  Under your watch, Ma’m, how many times has AMLC assistance in request then?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I don’t recall if the assistance respecting the fertilizer scam case involved the assistance of the AMLC.   If I, on my incumbency, was sought, but I remember that the assistance of AMLC was sought.  Because you see the fertilizer scam cases came in trickles, they are by the hundreds and so even when I was not yet there, the cases were filed and when I am already in the office, the cases keep coming.

SEN. HONASAN.  Opo.  Maybe this last question is redundant, but, how many times has the AMLC turned over bank account data to the Ombudsman, since the creation of the AMLC in 2001?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I did not get statistics on that matter, Your Honor.

SEN. HONASAN.  Opo.  My point really, Madam Ombudsman, is, for us, since this is work in progress in terms of jurisprudence, even in terms of impeachment processes, that this should not be considered a template for future…

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Definitely not, Your Honor, it is only when there are leads, there are strong leads and after an initial evaluation, we determine that further help can be source from other agencies in order for us to determine whether we would go ahead with the conduct of a further investigation that we would seek the help of the AMLC, because I know that the AMLC is usually stingy in giving records of transactions, financial transactions.

SEN. HONASAN.  Ma’m, thank you so much for your patience, thank you, Mr. President.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  thank you.

SEN. HONASAN.  Mr. President, Senator Pia Cayetano wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Taguig.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we change it to Senator Lacson, Mr. President.  We have three more reservations, Senators Pia Cayetao, Escudero, and Estrada.

SEN. LACSON.  Thank you, Mr. President.

It is only because my name was mentioned by Senator Cayetano and my computation.  So, yes, indeed, I was taking note when the Ombdusman was testifying particularly on withdrawals from September 12-22, and, as per her testimony, the total amount withdrawn on those dates was 3,388,323,01 for dollars.  I google check or google search the exchange rate in December of 2011.  It was at P43.64 to a dollar so at any given time, this was the question of Senator Cayetano, at a given time, particularly or specifically as of December 22, 2011, the Chief Justice had a total amount of P147,866,400.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Floating around.

SEN. LACSON.  More or less, give or take, Mr. President.  So around P147,866,400 all in dollar accounts.  We are not talking of peso accounts here, Mr. President.  So where he put that money I do not know, the Ombudsman doesn’t know only he knows.  That’s all, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.  Next.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pia Cayetano now, Mr. President.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you, Mr. President.

I think I only have two points to raise.  My first point I address to the Body.  I think I would like to perhaps discuss this in caucus.  I’d like to raise the point as to how we treat the evidence presented by Her Honor, the Ombudsman, and in connection with the PowerPoint presentation given that the Ombudsman herself has cited Section 22 of the Ombudsman Law which  states her power to investigate for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted.  So given the huge values involved in the presentation, I think we need to discuss how this will be treated because if in fact  the investigation was done in connection with a future verified complaint, then how are we as Senator-Judges suppose to appreciate that in this impeachment court.  I will not offer a suggestion for now  but I would like the Majority Floor Leader to note that perhaps we should, well, I would like this to be discussed in caucus.  And then the second point…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, as I said, the situation is this—the Ombudsman did not come here voluntarily to testify.  She was presented as a witness by one of the sides involved in this proceeding.  And if I remember correctly my rules of procedure and rules of evidence in the principles of trial, he who produces a witness must be bound by the testimony of the witness whether favourable or adverse to him.  So that’s the situation.  Even  a legal source evidence represented by one of the parties and not objected to is admissible.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  His Honor’s position is noted and for that matter though I would like to hear the views of my other colleagues in caucus on Monday.  And then I’ll just go to my second point and I address this to the Ombudsman.  Again, Her Honor, mentioned her investigatory powers under Sections 15 and 22 of the Ombudsman Law and I would like to seek her opinion on how we reconcile this with a long line of cases by the Supreme Court interpreting Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution.  Section 6 states that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.  And in connection with that constitutional provision, there are a line of cases and I will quickly read a few provisions of these cases.  In Judge Fuentes versus the Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court said that it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative actions against them if they commit any violations of the law of the land.  It further states in another case, Judge Caoitis versus Ombudsman, the Ombudsman cannot dictate to and bind the court to its findings at a case before it.  Does or does not have the administrative implication to do so is to deprive the court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives.  Madam Ombudsman, I fully support the powers of the Ombudsman.  In fact, I was one who raised my concerns and my frustrations over the previous Ombudsman’s failure to investigate many offenses of impeachable officials.  But I would just like to seek Your Honor’s position on this because, again, we are ground-breaking, we are paving the way for—we are setting precedence for future impeachment proceedings and, has Your Honor had the opportunity to look at this so that we can, you know, this will not be an issue today or in the future with respect to investigations of Justices themselves.

Because, technically, let me just finish my statement, I’m sorry.  If I look at the cases carefully, it would appear that the Ombudsman would have to refer these cases to the Supreme Court, and for the Supreme Court to determine or give the go signal for the clearance.  So, it seems to be a circuitous way of going about the investigation.  But that seems to be the inclination of the Supreme Court including a 2011 case, if I’m not mistaken, which involve retired Supreme Court Justices.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

In the case you mentioned, Your Honor, in the cases you mentioned, those are administrative in nature.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  So, the Supreme Court said that if the complaint, even if it were clothed with the nature of a criminal case but it appears to be administrative in nature, then the Supreme Court being …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Having administrative supervision …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  … administrative supervision and control over officials and employees of the Supreme Court, then it should properly take cognizance thereof.

Now, respecting your mention of a 2011 case—no, a recent case, rather—involving, I think you’re referring to then retired and still retired Chief Justice Davide and Alice Austria Martinez, …

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Actually, I have not read the case itself.  It was given …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  This case was filed by Oliver Lozano.  He was assailing their decision in a particular land case.  and the Supreme Court said that the ultimate intention of the complainant was to modify or set aside their decision and they cannot do that.

So, eventually, of course, the Ombudsman dismissed the case, and while the dismissal rendered the case before the Supreme Court moot and academic, the Supreme Court took time to lecture on the Ombudsman why it should not have taken jurisdiction on the case, in the first place, because it was sought to question the way the Justices rendered their decision.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  I understand.  So, in other words, Her Honor is basically confirming that in that case, what the Supreme Court laid down was the guidelines.  And basically, that was if the case is filed in connection with pending cases cannot be used to overturn those decisions.  But we make a distinction.  I assume that what Her Honor is saying, we make a distinction that if a case is an impeachment case, for example in this particular case, which Her Honor would pursue following reports on impeachable offenses, then that would not fall under the Supreme Court’s administrative function …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  It would not.

SEN. CAYETANO (P.).  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Magandang hapon po, Ginang Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Magandang hapon rin, Ginoong Senador.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Alam kong pagod na pagod na kayo at apat na oras na ho kayong nandito, nguni’t iiklian ko na po ang aking pagtatanong.  Isang tanong lang naman, actually.

Unang-una, ako po’y—nais ko pong ipamahagi sa inyo na ako po ay hangang-hanga sa inyo at malaki po ang aking respeto sa inyo sapagka’t dati ho kayong Mahistrado ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng ating bansa.

Nguni’t paminsan-minsan ay naglalaro sa aking isipan na baka nagagamit po yung AMLC o mismong ang inyong tanggapan sa mga tao o sa mga pulitikong kritikal sa administrasyong ito.  Sana naman po, if you can give us the assurance that your office will not be used to get back at the political opponents of the administration.  Sapagkat halimbawa, mayroon pong Senador dito, mayroong Congressman na bumatikos, halimbawa, kay Pangulong Noynoy, utusan kayo ng Malacañang, “Uy, tingnan mo iyong mga records niya sa bangko, gamitin mo iyong AMLC para ipitin itong Senador o Congressman na ito, possible hong mangyari.  Sana huwag naman hong mangyari na balikan o gamitin iyong Office of the Ombudsman o iyong AMLC para balikan iyong mga kritikal o iyong mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa kasalukuyang gobyerno.  Can you assure us of that, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Mr. President, Mr. Senator, rather, I will not jeopardize my 40 years of government service, spotless, I am immodest to say that by allowing to be a tool of anyone in order to get back at certain persons against whom that anyone who is sore at.  I will assure you that.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Kaya nga po ako hangang hanga sa inyo, Ginang Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Marami pong salamat, Ginoo.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Isang katanungan na lang po, kasi kanina, tinanong po ni Senator Honasan kung hininga ninyo iyong assistance ng AMLC dito sa kaso ni Chief Justice Corona, tama po ba?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Yes, all right.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Tama po.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Kasi mayroon akong kilalang isang high profile na kaso na respondent, alam ko, mayroon ho yatang complaint sa inyong tanggapan, tatanungin ko lang ho sana kung—if you sought the assistance of the AMLC regarding the case of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I think, on the contrary, it was they, who furnished us.  I do not know if it was on account of a previous request—he is the head of the field investigation office.  Can you please enlighten us.

SEN. ESTRADA.  No, no.  I think, he is not …

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Assistant Ombudsman Famon says, there is no request neither is there a transmittal.

SEN. ESTRADA.  But there is a complaint against her.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  There is.  There are several, Your Honor.  In fact, I have dismissed one or two complaints against her.

SEN. ESTRADA.  What is the nature of the complaint?  Is it about graft and corruption?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, the bottomline always is graft and corruption.  But …

SEN. ESTRADA.  Did you not seek the assistance of the AMLC?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Well, first, Mr. Senator, the procedure in the office is, we evaluate the case, there is this case build-up.  If after case build-up, we believe that the President or any respondent for that matter should be subjected to preliminary investigation, then, we seek assistance of other offices in order to–otherwise, if on the face of the complaint and on the basis of the document submitted and on the basis of preliminary investigation, we—preliminary evaluation, rather, I am sorry, we find that there is no reason to go on, we dismiss it motu propio.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you very much, Madam Ombudsman.  That is all, Mr. President.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Francis Escudero.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Sorsogon.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, distinguished Majority Floor Leader.

Magandang gabi po, Madam Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Magandang gabi po, Ginoong Senator.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Alam ko po pagod na rin po kayo.  Nabanggit po ni Senator Santiago kanina na anumang imbestigasyon ninyo ay may kinalaman dapat o kaugnay ng isang balaking impeachment complaint kung saka-sakali ng Kamara de Representantes.  Pwede ko po bang matanong, may na-submit na po ba kayo sa House of Representatives na report o ulat kaugnay sa mga bank accounts at deposits na ito ni Chief Justice Corona.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Last Friday, I sent an investigative report.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Can you kindly furnish us with a copy of the same if that would be possible.  Ang layunin ko po dito, Madam Ombudsman, baka ho mas maliwanag at mas klaro iyong paglalathala doon para mas maintindihan po namin iyong mga dokumento na inihayag ninyo.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Second, Mr. President, while we are waiting for that.  Nabanggit ninyo po kanina at natuwa ako actually sa nabanggit ninyo na hindi lamang iyong waiver ang inaasahan ninyo, pero sa pananaw at palagay ninyo, may kapangyarihan ang Office of the Ombudsman na magtanong sa mga ahensya ng pamahalaan kaugnay ..

THE OMBUDSMAN.  I am sorry I did not get the set of your …

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Yes, Ma’am, just submit us the documents, Ma’am, hindi na ho ako magtatanong.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Actually, I sent one to the Speaker.  I directed also the submission of these document to the Senate but yesterday I did not report to the office and this morning I did not have occasion to check if the Senate has been furnished a copy of this investigation report.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Kindly just furnish us, Ma’am, even after this hearing.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Sure.  We will do that.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Salamat ho.  Ma’am, kaugnay po nang nabanggit kanina ni Senator Pangilinan at iyong sagot ninyo na hindi niyo kailangan ang waiver naman talaga para magtanong sa mga ahensya ng pamahalaan, kaugnay sa transaksyon ng sinumang opisyal na iniimbestigahan ninyo, in fact, I filed even a further bill in the Senate na nagsasabing hindi lamang waiver pabor sa inyo pero waiver na po ng secrecy of bank deposits kasama ng SALN, kung ito ay mapapagtibay ng Kongreso, but my question, Ma’am is this, the waiver contained in the SALN pertains to past years including the year that the person submitting the SALN assumed office.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, sir.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Actually, nagulat lang ako sa ginawa ng AMLC.  Hindi ko po kayo pinipintasan.  Bakit po ang isinubmit ng AMLC ninyo ay umabot hanggang sa mga transaksyon tungkol sa 2011, 2010 at 2012?  Kung ang basehan po ng paghingi o pagbigay, hindi ko po kayo pipintasan, uulitin ko, kung ang basehan ng pagbigay ng AMLC ay iyong waiver, hindi po ba ang dapat basehan noon 2010 SALN tungkol sa 2009 transactions dahil hanggang December 31, 2009 po iyon.  Kaya ang tatanungin ko po, naibigay na po ba sa inyo ng Chief Justice iyong kanyang SALN para sa taong 2011?  May kopya na po ba kayo, Ma’am?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Senator.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  But it would be submitted to you.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  It is submitted with the Supreme Court.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Hindi po nabibigyan ang Ombudsman?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Never.  We don’t have any.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, ina-assume ninyo lamang po na malamang nag-submit siya or magsa-submit siya for the waiver for the subsequent years.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Your Honor please, the purposes of this investigation is not only for purposes of determining whether he reported this in his SALN but for purposes of determining whether he has unexplained wealth.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  I am nearing to that, Ma’am, also actually.  Yes, Ma’am, but in general, my query is, iyong poder ho ba ng AMLC, sa palagay ninyo at pananaw, ay sumasaklaw sa mga taong sumunod pa doon sa waiver na sinumite?  Clearly, walang waiver base sa anumang SALN na finayl kaugnay ng anumang transaksyon sa 2012 dahil iyong waiver po para doon ipa-file pa ho namin kung saka-sakali next year.  On the forfeiture case or potential forfeiture case for violation of the Anti-Graft Law or unexplained wealth, that is my next question, Ma’am, how are we to your mind, given, not only that you are the present Ombudsman, but a former Justice of the Court, how are we to evaluate this evidence aside from the usual presumption of regularity of the performance of one’s duties on the part of AMLC given that the document you presented to us was prepared and done by AMLC?  Would there be a need, which I will be bringing up in caucus as well, but can I get your thoughts on this, will there be a need for us to call AMLC to testify on these documents that you presented, that you had no part insofar as preparing, insofar as the preparation is concerned?  I am referring to the 17-page transactions submitted by AMLC, Ma’am?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  That should be the decision of the Senate whether it finds necessary to summon the AMLC and ask questions respecting the documents that it submitted to me.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  And one final query, Ma’am, insofar as similar documents that you may be obtaining from AMLC, assuming hindi po impeachment, what would be the probative value of that and how would you use that?

Kunwari po may isang opisyal na iniimbistigahan. Hiniling ninyo muli sa AMLC, “pahingi ng dokumento tungkol sa mga transactions sa bangkong ito.”  Since we cannot get the evidence directly from the bank, how would you treat this particular piece of evidence from AMLC?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Well, Senator, we sourced this for purposes of case(?inaudible) . We were only investigating

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, not necessarily to be actually presented in the actual pending case, if at all, before the Sandiganbayan?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Your Honor, because a case is filed before the Sandiganbayan, a preliminary investigation is conducted and the respondent is given opportunity to answer what these documents are all about and if he will say that this is has been as stated, bloated or a hoax, then, it would be the investigating officer who may determine if the claim is meritorious or if the claim is validated are the testimony—by testimonial evidence or by documentary evidence.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  So, for investigative purposes lang?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes. That is the reason why we asked for this fact-finding and initial investigation purposes.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Thank you very much, ma’am.  That is all, Mr. President.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, I move to suspend for one minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  One-minute suspension

It was 6:01 p.m.

Session resumed at 6;05 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, we have two final members of the court who want to make a manifestation and a question, Senator Loren Legarda and Senator Koko Pimentel.  May we call on the witness just to wind up, Mr. President.

Mr. President, inasmuch as the witness is now back, may we recognize Senator Koko Pimentel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Maraming salamat po, Mr. President.  Madam Ombudsman, good evening po.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Good evening po.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Madam Ombudsman, you had a hand in the preparation of the PowerPoint presentation, tama po ba iyon?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Senator.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  That is so you were competent to testify on the presentation and the manner of presentation.

THE OMBUDSMAN.  Yes, Senator.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But you did not have a hand in the making of 17-page AMLC report submitted to your office, tama po, Ma’m?

THE OMBUDSMAN.  No, Mr. Senator.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But did you observe extreme care when you were preparing the PowerPoint in the sense that did you exclude the accounts not under the name Renato Corona, Renato Coronado Corona which are included in the 17-page AMLC report?  I noticed some.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, like Allied Bank.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, ma’am.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, and there is zero.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Zero and X, yes, ma’am, but there are amounts, substantial amounts.  Were these omitted from the…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  I think they were included because the presumption is that Allied Bank was doing services for Renato Corona.  In other words, this is from the Deutsche Bank, how do you pronounce that.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, ma’am.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  And then there must have been a remittance and it was handled by Allied Bank.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, ma’am.  But from the face of the report, you could not get that story.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, that’s right.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  That is Allied Bank doing the service for Renato Corona.  That is not obvious on the face of the report.  But my question, ma’am, is did you exclude all of these accounts?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Those were included.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Included.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.  And there is, Your Honor, there is the transaction code there.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, ma’am, for example, page 11, the name first column, Allied Banking Corporation.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Right.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  The amount involved is $167,000.  The institution named is Deutsche Bank AG.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, Allied Bank, HUI.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, but why would we now attribute this to Renato Corona?  Because on the face of the report…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Because that’s it, Your Honor.  We thought that it  came from  Deutsche Bank and course through Allied Bank.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, ma’am.  But we just made the conclusion that it must have involved Renato Corona.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, yes, yes.  But whether that’s conclusive or not is beyond my knowledge.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But at least we know that.  It was…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, there is another one.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  There is Bank of Philippine Islands, there is even a PS Bank and there is even on page 12, there is a zero and an X and the account number is zero and the other one has around 15 zeros.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Opo. And malalaki pong halaga ito, $471,000 plus.  Actually there is even one entry where there is a peso amount and there is a dollar amount.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Did you notice that, did you also include that, Madam Ombudsman?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  No.  What prevailed was pesos.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  That is on page 16, line number 5, PS Bank is the name and there is a peso amount and at the same time there is an FX amount.  So parang double entry na po.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  This is a peso amount.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  There’s a peso amount, P6,091,155.45.  In the FX amount there is $135,359.01.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  We did not input it in the computation because it is very clear that it is not denominated as a peso account.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  No, but that’s, Madam Ombudsman, that is the only entry which has both, it has entries in the peso column and then a dollar column so it must have been a special transaction.  You put peso value to it and a dollar value to it.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Yes, this is sourced from Metropolitan Bank and TCO, New York.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, Madam Ombudsman, the important concept I think that you extracted from the 17-page AMLC report is the what you call the fresh deposits, what you would believe would be the core dollar ownership of Renato Corona.  And at what amount did you put this, Madam Ombudsman?

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Approximately $12 million.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  I’ll just finish my questions.  $12 million.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Approximately.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But given the fact that you know we may have made mistakes or its just an approximation…

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  We cannot rule that out.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  We may have included non-Renato Corona accounts, can you give us, more or less, your allowance for error.

JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES.  Margin of errors.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Plus or minus how many million dollars po. Or minus how many million dollars.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  11, 10, but it could not be lower than 10.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So the estimate of the Office of the Ombudsman is that the fresh deposits would be somewhere 10 million to 12 million dollars?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  That would be all.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Finally, Senator Loren Legards, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle Lady from Antique and the Republic of the Philippines.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you, Mr. President.

These are not questions and just points to summarize the two whole days of presentations of the Ombudsman.  And just to make sure that I understood things correctly, so will the distinguished Ombudsman yield to just three points of very simple clarification?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  First, it was made clear in your PowerPoint presentation that the respondent, the Chief Justice, has transactions amounting to at least $10 million between 2003 to 2011.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Transactional balance.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  In US dollars.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Based on documents furnished by the AMLC to the Office of the Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  But, however, unverified by the Office of the Ombudsman because you cannot contact the banks for such clarification necessary.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Second point would be, in the same span of time from 2003 to 2011, there have been at least $12 million worth of fresh deposits in various accounts of the respondent.  Is that correct?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  That was our observation, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Your observation, yes.  Then, again, in answer to Senator Pimentel, it could be more or less 11 or 12, 10, 11, but not less than $10 million of fresh deposits.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That’s our observation, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And when you say fresh deposits, Madam Ombudsman, that would mean not coming from other accounts of the same person but from other sources into his present account.  Is that correct?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Fresh deposits, deposits that were not returned to where they originated.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  They were not placements made and then returned to the same placements.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  They were not returned to the same account.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  So these were fresh deposits from sources other than his already existing accounts.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  How’s that again?

SEN. LEGARDA.  These were fresh deposits from other sources other than those already existing under his name.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes.  In other words, they did not return to the same mother account where they probably originated and then they went around circuitous and then never returned there.  So we call that fresh deposits.  I want to clarify that.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by fresh deposits.

When you say therefore that it was fresh deposits, does it mean that at any one time, he could have had at least $10 million in various accounts?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes.  So, I make it clear that at any one time, the respondent could have had at least US$10 million in any of the 82 accounts presented in your PowerPoint presentation.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  That could be a total of all the account.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Of all the accounts in a series of transactions in a span of 8 years, or at any one time he could have had US$10 million?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Up to 2011, I think the date had given.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  In transactions or at any one time, Madam Ombudsman?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Total transactions balance would be different from the account balance.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Account balance.  Yes.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  I am referring now to account balance.  I understand, as I premised earlier, the transaction accounts.  And then I asked about fresh deposits.  Now I ask, at the most conservative estimate at any one time, based on your transaction and fresh deposit balances, what could have been, at a very conservative estimate, the balance that the Chief Justice, the respondent, could have had at any one time?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  We were not able to determine that, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Okay.  I understand.  Yes.  Now, not relating to the first three questions and clarifications I made, I just wanted to clarify your answer to the Senator-Judges that based on the constitutional mandate of the Ombdusman and based on the Ombudsman Law which governs you and your office, the Ombudsman may seek assistance from the AMLC to open any account of any person who is being investigated without a predicate crime as stipulated in the AMLA Law.  Is my understanding correct?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Your Honor, if we believe that the charges elevated to us …

SEN. LEGARDA.  Can you kindly speak in microphone.  Thank you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  If we believe that the charges to us call for information from the AMLC, yes.  Then, in the course of our fact finding investigation, we would probably tap the services of the AMLC.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Yes, of course, which you did in this instance.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, we did.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Even without the predicate crime, the Ombudsman, because of its constitutional mandate, asked the AMLC to present bank accounts of the respondent.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  And based on your knowledge, is this the first and only time that the Office of the Ombudsman did so or were there other instance in the past when the AMLC had furnished bank accounts to the Office of the Ombudsman without the provision of a predicate crime?

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Not under my watch, Your Honor.  I don’t …

SEN. LEGARDA.  To your knowledge, you would not know.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  I would not …

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thank you.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Thank you too.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we discharge the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Honorable Ombudsman is discharged.

OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Thank you.  And thank you for bearing with us.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I have been informed by …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Next witness.

SEN. SOTTO.  I have been informed, Mr. President by the defense that they would rather call the next witness tomorrow if it is the pleasure of the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you still have to present the three other witnesses?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And with the kind indulgence of this honorable court, may we be permitted to present them tomorrow.  We are already tired also, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.  So, you are asking for a …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A continuance for tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … continuance until tomorrow.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, may I ask the Sgt.-at-Arms to make an announcement.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sgt.-at-Arms is directed to make …

THE SGT-AT-ARMS.  Please all rise.  All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the session hall.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, May 16, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Any objection?  (Silence)  Hearing none, this hearing is adjourned until two o’clock of May 16, 2012.

It was. 6:22 p.m.

 

2 responses to “IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s