IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Monday, February 27, 2012

 At 2:16 p.m., the hearing was called to order with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.  We shall be led in prayer by Senator Joker Arroyo.)

(Prayer by Senator Arroyo)

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There being 17 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum.  Majority Floor Leader.

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Sergeant-At-Arms will now make the proclamation.

SGT-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 February 23, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court and consider the same as approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  (Silence)  There being none,  the February 23, 2012 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court,  is hereby approved.  The Secretary will now please call the case.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL.  Case No. 002-2011  IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.  CORONA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Appearances.   Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  For the prosecution.

REP. FARIÑAS.  Good afternoon, Mr. President, and the honorable Members of the Senate, sitting in impeachment, same appearances for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Noted.

Defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the defense, Your Honor.  The same appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Noted.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President, before the Business for the Day, there is a pending motion from Senator Trillanes for the service of written interrogatories on Supreme Court Associate Justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno. The issues were discussed earlier during the caucus, so may we ask the Senate President to make the ruling.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The motion of the Gentleman from Caloocan and Bicol to use the remedy of written interrogatories to get the testimony of the Honorable Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of the Supreme Court has been withdrawn.

Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, last Thursday we received the letter from the Supreme Court, Clerk of Court, requesting that Mr. Erick Borlongan and Mr. Christopher Dollente be excused from testifying as they will be asked to testify on cases which are pending before the Supreme Court, we agreed that this would also be taken up in the caucus.   I believe we have discussed it fully in the caucus, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Chair has instructed the Clerk of this Court to take this up directly with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court so that we will not take any action that may affect the check and balance and separation of powers in the government.  So Ordered.

SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

REP. COLMENARES.   Mr. Presiding Officer, magandang hapon po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Gentleman from the prosecution.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you.  May we be allowed to make a short manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Please, go ahead.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you.

Last week po, February 20, Monday, pumunta po dito dalawang officers ng  Korte Suprema upon the subpoena of the Senate President for them to appear here  and everyday thereafter until discharged, dumating po si Mr. Borlongan at si Mr. Dollente.  Noong nandoon po sila sa holding room, nakausap sila ng Secretariat natin. And there are two strange things that happened here po. Una, when they filled up the logbook, ang sinabi nila actually, kahit sila ang nag-serve ng TRO noong gabing iyon, actually, ang isa pala ay security guard at ang isa pala ay driver.  So, medyo napansin namin, bakit security guard at driver ang nag-serve ng TRO kay Secretary De Lima  noong November 15?  Noong pangalawa pong strange thing dito, is later on, after an  hour doon sa holding room, I was informed, may nag-text o tumawag po sa kanila at dali-dali po silang lumabas sa holding room ng Senado at nang tinanong sila, “Saan kayo pupunta?”Sabi nila, “Magpapa-xerox lang kami.”  Hindi na po sila bumalik mula noong Lunes hanggang Martes, hanggang sa kasalukuyan po.

Para sa amin po, this is not only disrespect para sa Senado at sa Impeachment Court at sa atin, kasi may order po ang Senate President. Until formally discharged, hindi naman pupwedeng umalis ang dalawang witness na pumunta na po dito.  Pangalawa, ano ang rason po, bakit hindi pwedeng mag-testify ang mga personnel ng Korte on administrative matters?  Ang simple lang naman sanang itatanong namin sa kanila, “Anong oras ninyo sinerve iyong TRO?” Ganoon lang po at ngayon, siyempre, may dugtong na kaming tanong, “Bakit driver ka, security guard ka, bakit ikaw ang nag-serve ng TRO?” Pero these are things, Your Honor, that does not go into the deliberation of the Court, that does not threaten the deliberation of the Courts. So, para sa amin po, na-subpoena na po sila, si Clerk of Court Vidal was, in fact, subpoenad na rin in a sense, napunta na sila sa Senado.  They will be made to testify, Your Honors please, on administrative matters.  “Ano oras n’yo tinaype ang TRO?  Ano oras ito na-serve? Ano oras nagbayad ng bond?,” which is in no way po confidential. So, ang manifestation po namin dito napakaimportante po noong kanilang mga testimonya dito.  If we are saying that the Senate resolution, sorry, the Supreme Court resolution of February 14 is the reason why we cannot subpoena or impose our powers of subpoena over them po, tingin ko po hindi dapat nating tingnan yon.  Ang Senate, the impeachment court, has been very respectful of the Supreme court.   Iyong ginawa po ng dalawang watchmen at ng driver po, para sa kin, ay disrespectful po ‘yan.  Ngayon po ang  testimony ng clerk of court, ng other administrative personnel really hindi naman po sila pwedeng i-disqualify just because they are pre-decisional based don sa resolution po ng Korte Suprema, hindi sila pwedeng mag-testify kasi pre-decisional sila. The powers of the impeachment court is an expressed constitutional provision.  We should not be tramped by an implied powers in the Constitution na hindi naman natin alam po.  So, nire-reiterate ko lang po, nabanggit nyo po kanina, napag-usapan ng clerk of court at ng ating Secretariat kung papano sila mag-testify dito, aming pong i-reiterate may request po kami for subpoena sa mga administrative personnel.  Iyong isa po ay sa clerk of court na napakaimportante lalo na sa narinig kong desisyon na bago lang na hindi ma-subpoena si Justice Sereno of ma-invite man lang.  Napakaimportante po ng kanilang sasabihin dahil they will prove para sa amin iyong aming teorya na may distortion pong nangyari.  So, iyong lang po ang aming nire-reiterate, at least, as far as the administrative personnel, lalo na po and clerk of court, at iba pang administrative personnel on issues that we would like to propound on them, Your Honors, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Pwede bang makapagtanong ang Presiding Officer sa prosecution?

REP. COLMENARES.  Tatangkain po naming masagot kung kakayanin po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ang gusto na ninyong gawin naming ay i-enforce naming iyong subpoena na pinadala naming?

REP. COLMENARES.  Opo, sana po, mai-enforce po sana.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pagpalagay natin na e-enforce naming yon at hindi sumunod iyong mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema dahil may utos sa kanila ang Korte Suprema na huwag kayong magtetestigo, ano ang palagay ninyo ang remedyo ng Senado?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ang ating pong …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ano ang remedyo ng Senado kaya?

REP. COLMENARES.   Para sa akin may contempt, nakalagay po sa Rules natin na may contempt powers…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pagpalagay na natin na iko-contempt natin, o, sige, i-contempt natin.  Iyon ba ang iminumungkahi ninyo?

REP. COLMENARES.  Kasi otherwise po lahat na lang po ng ahensya po…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga, iyon ang mungkahi po ninyo na iko-contempt nitong korte na ito…

REP. COLMENARES.  Ako po, I would like to avoid contempt powers, the exercise of contempt powers po.  Pero ito po, lantaran poi to kasi lahat na lang pala po ng ahensiya bawat ma-impeachment will promulgate their internal rules, saying na confidential, powerless po ang buong impeachment proceedings natin.  Kaya para sa akin po, this time around…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga po tinatanong ko sa prosekusyon ito, gusto ninyo na i-contempt naming iyong hindi susunod sa subpoena naming?

REP. COLMENARES.  Kung nag-subpoena po ang Senate at hindi nila susundin na dahil ang administrative matters ay goes…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Meron nga kaming subpoena…

REP. COLMENARES.  …hihingi po kami na i-enforce ng Senate ang kanilang poder, and if necessary, may contempt powers po, i-contempt po natin.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iko-contempt natin.  E, kung hindi susundin iyon, sino ang ikukulong natin?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ang tingin ko naman po ang impeachment court ay not so powerless na balewala pala po ang Rules natin sa impeachment proceedings kapag hindi sinunod po ng kino-contempt natin.  Nakalagay po sa rules natin, the Senate President, the impeachment court has the power to cite, anyone who disobeys the Rules of this impeachment court, in contempt.  Pero ‘pag simulan po natin sa puntong e kung kinontempt naming at  ayaw baka po malagay sa alanganin na agad, hindi lang iyong prestige, kung hindi iyong poder po natin bilang impeachment court.  So, we implore the Senate President.  Huwag muna tayo sigurong dumating doon, pwedeng sabihin sa kanila po na ang poder naming, on this…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga sinabi ko sa inyo na inutusan ko iyong clerk of court natin dito sa Senado at makipagusap muna doon sa clerk of court ng Korte Suprema.

REP. COLMENARES.  So, kung ganoon…

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

REP. COLMENARES.  ..po e, maraming salamat at sana po ay hindi po tayo pumayag kung sasabihin ng clerk of court ng Korte Suprema na ayaw naming pumunta, iyon lamang po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Gusto ko lang na i-pursue ito, kung i-contempt naming ang mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema at hindi sila sumunod at paaaresto naming sa Sergeant-At-Arms ng Senado at hindi rin sila sumunod ay meron ba tayong order, meron ba tayong kapangyarihan upang orderan natin ang armada ng Pilipinas, ang Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas para dakpin lahat iyong mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema?

REP. COLMENARES.  Sa tingin ko po there is probably no need to resort to that.  I am very sure that if the impeachment court will really instill on this po…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iyon na nga ang logical movement noong proseso pag hindi natin pinag-usapan ng mahinahaon ito.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  Perhaps iyon pong hinaing ng ating prosekusyon, Representative Colmenares ay na-advance ng konti.  If you will notice the letter, we just said that there was a letter from the Supreme Court Clerk of Court requesting that they not be called to testify although the Senate has already issued a subpoena.  Okay.  Ngayon, ang order ng court was for the Clerk of Court of the impeachment court to talk to them about this letter-request.  We are not saying that we are denying anything at all.  Medyo na-advance ninyo lang ng konti iyong kilos.  One thing that we should clarify, Mr. President is that idugtong lang natin doon sa in relation to the denial of a subpoena and invitation to a Supreme Court Justice, this does not preclude you from inviting her.  It is suggested that the prosecution invite Justice Sereno.  That is the sentiment of the court.

REP. COLMENARES.  If I may, thank you po sa clarification.  In that case, I just hope that the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court cannot impose her decision on us.  Pero if I may po, can I just say also.  Just a short manifestation po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Go ahead.

REP. COLMENARES.  I presume po na ang proposal ng Senado is for the prosecution to invite Justices of the Supreme Court.  Ang problema po namin diyan is may resolusyon ang Korte Suprema, February 14, disagree po kami diyan.  Para naman sa amin, sige pagbigay pa natin iyong deliberative aspect ng kanilang privilege.  Pero ang testimony naman po sana ni Justice Sereno is not on the judicial deliberations merely on whether or not to grant the TRO.  Hindi po iyon.  She is going to testify also po on the distortion as alleged by her in her dissent.  At iyong judicial misconduct, if any, if there is a distortion of the decision is not a collegial act po of the Supreme Court.  In fact the allegations of the prosecution may desisyon ang Korte Suprema na magbayad ka muna ng bond bago ka lumipad. Ang naisulat po ng Chief Justice is pwede ka ng lumipad kahit hindi ka nagbayad ng bond.  Iyon lang po ang distortion po na iyan should not hide behind the cloak of confidentiality po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pwede bang makapagtanong sa inyo ulit.

REP. COLMENARES.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, meron kayong mosyon na dumating dito sa impeachment court at hinihiling ninyo ang subpoena o kaya imbitasyon kay Justice Sereno, hindi ba?

REP. COLMENARES.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung isu-subpoena po namin si Justice Sereno at hindi pupunta rito at hindi magtetestigo, kayo po ba ay inaasahan ninyo na i-contempt itong husgadong ito, si Justice Sereno?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ako po personally po may tiwala ako na pagna-subpoena si Justice Sereno ay pupunta siya.  Pero ganon pa man po, we invited…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Hindi namin alam iyong tiwala po ninyo.

REP. COLMENARES.  Opo, alam ko po but we also invited, for example, po Representative Bolet Banal.  He could have said no, he could have said yes but the impeachment court asserted its authority.  Whatever you say, this is the decision of the impeachment court.  You are invited to come over kung kaya para sa amin po naman just to assert po that power of the impeachment court, at least kung tatanggihan ang imbitasyon, it’s an invitation po, and, therefore, maybe…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ipagpalagay natin imbitasyon, iimbitahin ng husgadong ito si Justice Sereno at siya ay pupunta rito, ano ba maging testigo o resource person?

REP. COLMENARES.  Well, ang sabi ko nga po sa mosyon…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  ..Sandali lang, ano ba ang gusto ninyo, maging testigo ninyo o resource person?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ang aming pong ninanais po is mag-testify siya po for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Para sa inyo?

REP. COLMENARES.  Of course, because the Senate Rules also apply here, as far as I know, under the Senate Rules, resource persons are also invited but as for our purpose po, we would like her sana po to testify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Palagay ninyo na pag inimbita natin si Justice Sereno, pupunta dito, susumpa dito sa husgadong ito at magdedeklara bilang testigo ng prosekusyon, ganon ba?

REP. COLMENARES.  If that’s the subpoena …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Tinatanong ko po kayo.  Tinatanong ko kayo dahil meron akong puntirya diyan.

REP. COLMENARES.  That’s what we were asking po, that she testify for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Ngayon, kung ganon ang akala po ninyo, bakit hindi ninyo imbitahin muna si Justice Sereno na pumunta rito?

Kaya kayo prosecution e.  Sa halip na gamitin ninyo ang compulsory process ng hukom na ito, kayong mga prosecution dapat kinausap ninyo yung gusto nyong maging testigo at dalhin ninyo dito muna.  At kung ayaw na pupunta na kusa at sasabihin ninyo sa amin, kailangan daw niya ang subpoena o imbitasyon, e baka sakali, kakausapin ko ang mga kapwa kong hukom at baka sakaling papayagan.

REP. COLMENARES.  Of course we can take the advice of the Senate President.  Ang problema lang po namin, yung February 14 resolution ng Korte Suprema that not only prohibits but in fact threatens members of the court from cooperating with the Impeachment Court.  Yun ang pinakamalaking balakid …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  E ayun nga po e.  E meron yon.  Kung meron din kayong ganon sa House of Representatives, mapipilit po namin kayo na dumalo rito?

REP. COLMENARES.  Tingin ko po, yung internal rules ng legislature, ng Supreme Court o Executive, at may mga—e hindi po dapat siya maging absolute blanket confidentiality na mawalan na po ng poder and Impeachment Court on issues that are not—in no longer in fact part of the adjudicatory tasks of justice po.  Sa akin po, the internal rules may only apply pag adjudicatory process.  O kung sa legislative naman po, legislative process.  Pero kung katulad ng ina-allege po ng prosekusyon na merong pagsalungat, pag-distort sa desisyon po, sana po hindi natin mahayaan na mag-issue ang Korte Suprema ng isang internal rules na nagpo-protect po niyan, despite the fact that in many instances it has been said that yung mga privilege po na yan should not be used to cover a crime or an offense po or judicial misconduct po …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Iginagalang ko po ang inyong opinyon.  Pero sa aking paningin, yan ay opinyon lamang, at meron ding mga iba na may opinyon at igagalang ko rin yon.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Pero pag ginawa ko yon, ginawa nitong husgado na ito yon, e baka magkakaron tayo ng mas malaking problema e.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, may we recognize Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentle Lady from Iloilo.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, counsel wants to place this Impeachment Court in a direct collision course with the Supreme Court.

Counsel’s answer to the question, anong mangyayari ngayon pag sinabpina natin ang isang Justice of the Supreme Court at ayaw niyang sumunod?

The answer is not responsive.  Sa tingin ko naman ay susundin niya.  Hindi.  Sagutin mo ang tanong.  Anong mangyayari ngayon kung ayaw niya?  Sagutin mo.  Your answer should be responsive and I’m not asking you to answer it this time.  You didn’t ask that several times by the Presiding Officer and you insist on hypotheticating that she will obey.  E kung hindi nga niya gagawin, ano ngayon ang mangyayari sa Impeachment Court?  E di away kami ng Korte Suprema.  And will you assist us during that?  Will you enlighten the public on what is the proper balance of power between and Impeachment Court and the Supreme Court?

Ngayon, gusto mo na yung confidentiality privilege ng Supreme Court should be for—at least in this instance, to be disregarded.  Tatlong branches ng gobyerno, tatlong sangay ng gobyerno, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  Bawa’t isa may privilege.

Executive, may executive privilege.  Legislative, may legislative privilege during executive sessions as we call it.  Judicial, may judicial privilege also known as deliberative privilege or deliberative process privilege.  Pag nagde-deliberate ang Supreme Court, hindi mo pwedeng tanungin iyan tungkol sa kanilang pag-deliberate.

Kamukha lang sa legislation, pag nag-close-door session and Senate or ang House, hindi mo pwedeng tanungin ang mga Legislators, Senators and Representatives, what they took up in a closed-door session.  Ganun din sa Judiciary.  E bakit ngayon, we are singling out one branch of government so that we can penetrate the rule of confidentiality?  Anong klaseng argumento yan?

Do you recognize that you are asking this nation to go on a direct collision between two branches—separate branches of government?  Have you fully taught out your position?  Tinatanong ka ng Presiding Officer, ilang beses ka ng tinanong, ano ngayon ang mangyayari kung i-subpoena namin, utusan namin ang Justice at ayaw nyang sumunod?  I-cite naming siya for contempt.  O, ano ngayon ang mangyayari?  Magpapakulong ba siya sukat?  E kung i-cite nya din kami for contempt, o ano ngayon ang sagot mo?

Pag-isipan muna natin ito because we are talking about the entire nation  This is not a question of pataasan ng ihi.  Sino ang mas malakas, ang Supreme Court o ang Impeachment Court?  Hangga’t sa maaari, maglilihis tayo para hindi tayo nagko-confrontasi.  Ganoon yon.

Ngayon, iyan ang unang punto, you are not responsive to the question of the Presiding Officer.  Ngayon, sabi mo, gawa-gawa lang ng Supreme Court yan, internal rule yan nito, hindi, hindi totoo yan.  Meron tayong New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.  Iyan, ginawa ng Korte Suprema because of its constitutional power to control and supervise the Judiciary.  In that New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Section 9 provides, confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose, related to their judicial duties.

Kaya, hindi naman gawa-gawa lang nila yon.  Are you attacking the entire system of privilege for every of the three branches of government, if you are attacking, deliberative process, privilege, as they call it in America, in favour of the Supreme Court?  Do you want also that the institution of deliberative process privilege for the Judiciary, not only for the Judiciary, but also for the Legislature, and Executive Branch of the government should also be made to come tumbling down over our heads?  Iyan, you are not being candid with the court.

Pagkatapos, sinubukan namin yan e, merong letter from Congressman Joseph Emilio Abaya, Congressman and Impeachment Prosecution Panel Manager, in behalf of the House Impeachment panel, and in response, the Supreme Court issued, as you said, resolution dated February 14, in re, concerning production of court records and documents, and the attendance of court officials and employees as witnesses under the subpoenas of so and so.  Sinabi ng Korte Suprema, ayaw naming dahil that falls under deliberative process privilege.

Ngayon, you are asking this court to go all over the resolution of the Supreme Court, because you want us to overturn their resolution.  E kung i-overturn natin yan and ayaw nila kaming sundin, ano ngayon ang mangyayari?  You keep on telling us here, palagay natin—sa palagay ko, susundin nya yon.  E kung hindi nya sundin?  E di laking kahihiyan ng Impeachment Court.  At ano pa ngayon ang mangyayari?  It’s like putting humpty dumpty together again.  Nabasag na e.  Ganoon yon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo, Ginoong Prosecutor, kaya itong Hukom na ito, at ang kanyang Presiding Officer ay nagdadahan-dahan sa kanilang mga ginagawang hakbang, dito sa impeachment na ito, sapagkat mayroon kaming iniiwasan na mangyayari.  Hindi ko sinasabing baka mangyari o mangyayari.  Pero alam po ninyo, ang isang inatasan lamang ng ating Saligang Batas na mag-deklara na, kung ang isang gawain ng gobyerno ng ahensya ng gobyerno o ng batas o ng Malacañang o sinuman dito ay, sang-ayon sa Saligang Batas o hindi sang-ayon, ay Korte Suprema lamang. What the Constitution says as constitutional law is, constitutional law.  No one else can reverse it.  Suppose we follow your line of action.  Halimbawa ay gagawin namin iyan, susunod kami sa gusto ninyo, kahit na gusto namin at susunod kami at makikita ng Korte Suprema na magiging arbitrary itong hukom na ito, at idenerekla nila itong prosesong ito na unconstitutional, saan tayo pupunta?  Saan?

RE. COLMENARES.  …If I may po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Saan nga?  Saan?  Please answer lang.

REP. COLMENARES.  In fact po, sa totoo lang, inilaban na po ng Senadong ito iyan.noon.  Hindi namin sinasabi na walang privilege po.  Ang sinasabi lang naman po namin, hindi siya absolute.  Inilaban ng Senado ang privilege na iyan noong panahon ng Senate vs. Ermita.  Ang sabi ni Presidente Arroyo, hindi puwedeng mag-appear dito because of EO 464 ang mga Cabinet members niya.  Inilaban ng Senado po.  Sabi ng Senado, that is not impinging on the prerogatives on the powers of congressional investigation. Is there a chance na magka-clash po ba noon iyong Executive at ang Legislative?  Mayroon po.  Pero tingin ng Senado kasi, tama kami, mag-i-investigate  kami ng Hello Garci, mag-i-investigate kami ng NBN, at hind puwedeng mag-issue si Ginang Arroyo ng isang blanket na privilege, Executive Order 464, na defang ang buong Senado.  Lumaban na po tayo  niyan, at kasama po ako sa petition na iyan noong panahong iyon.  At, in fact, nanaig po tayo doon.  So, sa akin po, of course, there is always that pag-agam-agam, na puwedeng may mangyari, kaya lang ang sabi ng Senado noon, kahit may ganoon tayong paga-agam-agam, ilaban natin kasi karapatan at poder ng Senado iyon.  Iyon din lang po.  Wala kaming sinasabi na walang privilege ang Judiciary, ang Legislative at ang Executive.  Ang sinasabi lang po namin, huwag naman maabuso ang ganoong pribilehiyo ng confidentiality lalo na kung ang issue po ay isang paglabag sa Code of Conduct ng Judiciary.  Iyon na po ang aking masasabi po diyan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Totoo po iyong sinasabi ninyo.  Ipinaglaban namin iyan.  Pero, sino ba ang nagdesisyon?  Sino ang nagdesisyon po?  Ang Korte Suprema.  Noon, hindi sila nasasanggkot.  Ang nasasangkot ay ang Senado at ang Ehekutibo.  Pinasyahan nila iyon. Pero ngayon, ang mangyayari, ang masasangkot ang Senado at ang Korte Supreme mismo.  Ngayon, eh una, pag ginawa natin iyan pupunta ang kaso doon.  Made-delay ito.  Ang alam ko eh gusto ninyong tapusin itong kaso na ito bago dumating ang Mahal na Araw, hindi ba?

REP. COLMENARES.  Tama po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Siyempre pupunta iyon sa Korte Suprema.  Ngayon, para pasyahan, kung papasyahan nila.  Eh, iyon nga po ang iniiwasan namin dahil gusto namin na tugunan iyong kagustuhan ninyo na matapos ito bago maging Mahal na Araw.  Ngayon, kung gusto ninyo iyan, kung iyan ang utos ng hukom sa akin, gagawin ko.  Padadalhan ko ng subpoena si Justice Sereno, lahat ng mga Magistrado sa Korte Suprema, kung iyon ang gusto ng husgado na ito.  Imbitahin ko lahat sila rito.  Eh kung hindi sila papayag, at sasabihin nila you are doing an unconstitutional act, ano ngayon ang remedyo po ninyo?

REP. COLMENARES.  Sa ganang amin lang po, iyong administrative, at least iyong administrative aspects po, sana po ay hindi po natin hayaan na ma-cover po iyan ng confidentiality.  Kahit pa man igiit ng Korte Suprema ng deliberative process nila.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kaya nga po kami nagpapakahirap.  Halos hindi kami nanananghalian para pag-usapan itong mga bagay na ito.  Hindi lang po kayo ang interesado eh.

REP. COLMENARES.  I understand po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kami rin ay interesado na pangalagaan namin ang kapangyarihan ng impeachment court..  Pero kina-calibrate po namin ang galaw namin dito para sa ganoon ay hindi magkabulilyaso.  Masisira ang sistema ng gobyerno natin.  Hindi tayo po ang magdudusa.  Ang magdudusa ang taumbayan.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Lacson and I are preventing Senator Honasan from standing up.  So, may we recognize Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago again for the continuation.

SEN. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, point of order.  This must stop now. No counsel, whether of the prosecution or the defense is allowed to engage in a call of queue.  A call of queue is a discussion or a debate between a senator-judge on a hand hand and one of the counse on the other hand. The two counsel must debate with each other, not with the ruling of a Senator-Judge, much less, with the ruling of the Senate President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Anyway, I will give you the last word, Mr. Prosecutor.

REP. COLMENARES.         Iyong last word lang naman po namin ay nabanggit na namin.  Hindi po talaga maayos na sa ngayon pa lang ang simula natin, dineklara na natin na pag-i-defy pa la po  ang ating subpoena powers, eh, wala na tayong magawa,  at least, for the Justices.  Although, we still continue to hope na sa administrative aspects po wala namang masamang tanungin ang Clerk of Court: “Ano oras mo tinayp iyong TRO? Ano oras nilabas?” Sana po naman ay ma-insist na Impeachment Court ang pag-subpoena po sa kanila. Maraming, maraming salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Salamat.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Alright. Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  The prosecution also filed last Thursday a manifestation  and request for clarification on the order of the Impeachment Court regarding the disallowance of the testimonial and documentary evidence required of Mr. Enrique Javier and Ms. Carreon Domingo, both of Philippine Airlines, relative to Art. III of the verified complaint for impeachment. May the Presiding Officer please rule on this motion.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. We were served with the copy of this manifestation and motion for clarification only last Friday about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Your Honor.  If we will not be asking too much, may we plead that we be given, at least, five days within which to comment thereon.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, this is merely a motion for clarification.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, but …

SEN. SOTTO.  The court is ready to clarify, so, we need not extend …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But if we examine the prayers, Your Honor, together with the allegations, it is more of a motion for reconsideration rather than clarification, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Well, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That touch our basic stand on the matter, Your Honor. This is not seeking a clarification.  This is seeking a reconsideration of what had been fully adjudicated by this Honorable impeachment court.

SEN. SOTTO.  But, Mr. President, we take it as a motion for clarification.  And the Presiding Officer is ready to rule on the clarification that we [will] make (made) at the caucus has already arrived at.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Okay, then, we submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will read to you again the text of Article III of your Articles of Impeachment: “The respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and the betrayal of public trust.”  That is your ground. How did he, according to you, commit culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust? By failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII Section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that a member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. And how did it fail, the respondent fail to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution? And this was your answer, and you said: “In allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel, which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decision in final and executor cases.” That is one reason why you said there was a failure to observe that standard.

Second, in creating, that your second reason, second, because in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo, through her appointment of his wife to office.  That is the second.  And, lastly, in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.  Now, where did you allege partiality or ill-motive or because of reward or indirect bribery or direct bribery in making the principal allegation in your Article III?  I did not make this, you made this.

Now, but apart from that, you yourself recognized the witness of your allegation, and that is why in the last hearing, you, in this court, openly withdrawn the two other reasons that you used to support your claim that the respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and or betrayal of public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7, paragraph 3 of the Constitution regarding competence, integrity, probity, and independence, which are in creating and excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending the court, you withdrew this.  I repeatedly ask you, are you sure that you are going to withdraw this allegation?  And you said, yes.  Now, why are you asking for clarification now?

You know, when I discharged that witness from PAL to testify, are you observing procedural due process in favour of the respondent because you never made any allegation that would be supported by that evidence, and because of that there was never any fact answered by the respondent when he filed his answer because you failed to present that allegation in your Articles of Impeachment.  How can you expect to grant a procedural due process to the respondent when you, yourselves denied him to answer what you are now trying to add as an expansion to your Article III of your articles of impeachment.

Now, you waived it, and I am telling you the substantial reason why I denied it, the presentation of that witness.  If you think that I abuse power, I committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the remedies are open to you and you know it what are the remedies.  Either you amend or you take me to the Supreme Court.  So, that is the ruling of the Chair.  (Gavel)

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

SEN. ESCUDERO.   Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this is just a brief manifestation and queries to the prosecutors, I don’t know who will respond.

Congressman Colmenares, ang assumption po namin kapag may tumayo diyan sa kinalalagyan ninyo ngayon, e, sana po nagsasalita para po sa buong prosekusyon.  Hindi po naming alam iyong assignment ninyo na Article III, Article VII, Article I.  Pag tumayo ho diyan ibig sabihin nagsasalita po siya para sa inyong lahat, hindi po ba?

REP. COLMENARES.  Opo.  Pero pag Article III po, with due respect, I just like to ask the lead prosecutor of Article III, if it’s about Article III po.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Hindi in general kasi ang tinatanong—nagka mahaba kaming diskusyon kanina dahil dito sa manifestation at clarification ninyo, doon sa mosyon ninyo essentially the consideration, nag rest na iyong isang co-counsel ninyo sa Article III tapos magpa-file si Congressman Tupas tungkol sa pinag rest-an ng kaso which will bring me to the point I am driving at, Mr. Presiding Officer.  On the motion of Senator Santiago, she asked that you submit, tentatively without holding you to it, your list of witnesses and the same is true for the defense.  Para naman ho malaman namin at makapaghanda kami doon sa ipe-present ninyong ebidensya at ng hindi rin ho kami nagugulat.  Sa Article II, ang nilista ninyong testigo ay 13, ang prinisinta po ninyo ay 6.  Sa Article III, 26 na testigo ho ang nilista ninyo, ang prinesenta ninyo po isa at tumigil na ho kayo doon.  Sa Article VII, 24 na testigo po ang nilista ninyo, isa pa lang po ang prinepresenta ninyo.  May I know, at least insofar as Article VII is concerned, mga ilan testigo po ba ang ipepresenta ninyo dahil magandang pakinggan ho noong nalista iyong maraming testigo pero nalalagay ho kasi sa alanganin iyong Senado.  Pagkatapos ianunsyo sa labas na 100 ang testigo ninyo, ay mukha naman ho kaming mga bulag sa labas kung biglang iilan lamang iyong testigo.  Maaari po bang malaman, ilan po bang testigo ang ipepresenta ninyo sa Article VII?

REP. COLMENARES.  Actually po just a preliminary, iyong pag-compliance naman po namin, part po ng siyempre ng lawyer who will submit the list of his or her witnesses iyong pinakatingin niya kaliangan niya para naman hindi na rin mag-object siyempre ang depensa later if you, you know, call someone na wala sa list nyo.  Sa amin po dito sa Article VII, ang napakahalaga po sa amin iyong testimonya.  Siyempre po hindi naman kailangang sabihin ng mga officers at ng Korte Suprema at mga Justice so ang amin pong testigo sa ngayon because gusto po namin i-cut down, ininstraksyunan na rin po kami ng prosekusyon na i-cut down ang number of witnesses kasi ayaw rin nating humaba.  If we think that the witnesses are enough, so sa amin po kung payagan po at in fact we hope na payagan po sa Korte Suprema mga walo po siguro or 9 ang aming maiprisinta.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Under Article VII po.

REP. COLMENARES.  Under Article VII.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Huling bagay na lang po, Mr. Presiding Officer—si Justice Sereno po ba nakausap nyo na?  Naimbitahan nyo na ba siya ng personal at sabi ba niya kailangan ko ng subpoena o ng imbitasyon mula sa Senado kung hindi, hindi ako magpupunta diyan?

REP. COLMENARES.  Ako po personally nag-usap po kami ng legal team na pumunta doon para kausapin iyong Clerk of Court, Justice Sereno, upon, of course, the advice of the Senate President na kausapin ninyo naman ang witness ninyo.  Sa mahabang diskusyon po ng legal team po namin in the end ang sabi ng legal team, it’s better not to go there at baka naman, you know, may allegations na you were trying to force her, influence or—so ang ano namin hindi po ako personally o wala po akong personal na paglapit kay Justice Sereno.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Again, Congressman Neri…

REP. COLMENARES.  Pero naglabas po kami ng iyong request po namin na at least doon sa dokumento na nabanggit na naging ano po ng resolusyon ng February 14.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Again, forgive me, Congressman Neri, pag tumayo nga ho kayo diyan, kayo na ang nagsasalita para sa buong prosekusyon.  Hindi ko ho tinatanong iyong personal ninyong karanasan kung nakausap ninyo siya o hindi.  Nakipag-ugnayan na po ba ang prosekusyon sa kanya at nagsabi po ba siya na isyuhan lang ako ng imbitasyon, isyuhan lang ako ng subpoena pupunta ako diyan?  Dahil sa totoo lang, malaya naman po siyang pwedeng magpunta rito kung ninanais talaga niya.

REP. COLMENARES.  Ayon po sa aming lead prosecutor, wala po silang personal na pagpunta kay Justice Sereno.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Huling bagay na lamang po, Mr. Presiding Officer.  Congressman Neri, nalalagay ho kami sa alanganin.  Tuwing may testigo kayong gustong ipresenta rito hinihingan nyo po kami ng subpoena e nakatali din po ang kamay namin sa ilang pagkakataon at sa totoo lang nag-litigate ho kayo, maski na nagpa-practice ho kayo, hindi ba?  Obligasyon namang pangunahin ng prosekusyon ang alagaan ang kanilang testigo at ipresenta rito at kung kinakailangan, halimbawa, kung 9 to 5 na siya para naman hindi mabawasan yung sweldo niya, hindi ma-issue-han ng subpoena para magpunta rito, o sa ibang mga pagkakataon tulad ng bangko, sige pwede po yon.  Pero may mga pagkakataon na hindi naman na ho kailangan ng subpoena, and on your own, and it’s your lookout to present these witnesses.

Gayun di po sa depensa, pag turn na nila magpresenta ng ebidensiya, lookout din nila yung mga testigo nila.  At pareho yung batayan at standard na ia-apply ng korte sa mga testigong nais nilang ipresenta.  May nais silang ipresentang Justice din, ia-apply po namin yung parehong rule don na po i-issue-han ng subpoena kung nais nilang voluntary magpunta rito, bahala ho sila.  Tatanggapin sila ng maluwhati basta ipresenta sila nung paning na nagpepresenta sa kanila.

Sana po, maunawaan ninyo yung aming kalagayan kaugnay non, at sana sikapin po ninyo.  Sigurado ko naman tatanungin ni Atty. Cuevas e, kinausap ka ba nung abogado ng depensa?  Ganon naman ho yung palaging tanong ni Atty. Cuevas sa mga testigo e.

E, kinausap nyo ho para magpunta rito e.  Wala naman hong masama diyan basta hindi siya nagsisinungaling at basta’t nagsasabi siya ng totoo.

REP. COLMENARES.  Salamat po at actually po, ang nabanggit ko sa kaso na ito, sinasabi ko, talagang pahirapan itong kaso na to, kasi sa nature niya po, ang karamihan ng witnesses po very reluctant talagang mag-testify.  Siguro dahil ang kalaban mo Chief Justice ng Korte Suprema, kaya hindi po kami ganon kadali na makakuha po ng mga willing and cooperative witnesses.

Pero tatangkain po namin na makakausap at least yung ilang mga witnesses, siguro simulan na namin itong sa Korte Suprema the moment that the Impeachment Court will allow the subpoena of the Clerk of Court.  We will probably do that.

SEN. ESCUDERO.  Salamat po.  At hindi lamang po limitado sa Korte Suprema.  Maski na sarili nyong testigo, si Secretary De Lima, maski naman po siya e, at hindi naman din kayo nagreklamo’t nag-object, nag-invoke din siya ng executive privilege e sa ilang katanungan na ayaw niyang sagutin, at sa palagay niya’y mava-violate yung executive privilege kaugnay ng kanyang komunikasyon sa Pangulo man or sa ibang mga testigo at tao na kumausap sa kanya kaugnay ng kasong ito.

So, ganon lang talaga yung pag-dribble, siguro bagsak ng bola.  I hope that you will be able to work with this and through this and be able to still present your case adequately.

Thank you, Mr. President.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you po.  We will try to work within the difficulties po.  Salamat po.

SEN. SOTTO.  May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President, and then Senator Santiago from the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Cavite.

SEN. LACSON.  Salamat po.  Nagpaalam ako kay kagalang-galang Senadora Santiago.

Ginoong Tagausig, nabanggit nyo kanina, nagpulong kayong legal team at napagkaisahan ninyo wag na lang tumuloy para kausapin si Jutice Sereno dahil baka isipin niya e, pinupwersa o inimpluwensya ninyo.  E bakit kami isusubo nyo sa kinahiyan nyong gawin?

REP. COLMENARES.  Hindi po yan.  Kami kasi po …

SEN. LACSON.  E ganon po ang gusto nyong mangyari.  Salamat po.

REP. COLMENARES.  Wala po kaming poder po na katulad ninyo po na mag-subpoena kay Justice Sereno po.  Pero, yes, ang nabanggit ko po kanina kay Senador Chiz, we will attempt to talk to the witnesses ng Korte Suprema pag i-subpoena, kung sakaling i-subpoena na sila ng Impeachment Court po.

SEN. SOTTO.  Finally, Mr. President, Senator Miriam Santiago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Lady Senator from Iloilo.

SEN. SANTIAGO.  Mr. President, allow me to address this question to the prosecution panel as a group.  What on earth were you thinking?  You were asked to tell the court early in the opening of this impeachment trial, how many witnesses will you present?  You answered 100.  It was all in the banner headlines of all major newspapers.

Now you’re telling us you’ll present, maybe in effect, 15 at most.  I repeat, what on earth were you thinking?  Were you playing games with us?  You know that when the judge asked you how many witnesses you will present, that is not binding on the lawyer.  The judge has no power to limit the number of witnesses.  That is only an approximation.  So, if your answer is, you only wanted to make sure, then you could have approximated a figure relatively close to about 15 or so that you will present.

Why say 100?  What on earth was going through your mind?  Were you trying to mislead the court?  Were you trying to conduct trial by publicity?  And, may I remind the prosecution panel, in the Rules of the Impeachment Court promulgated by the Senate, the Senators are themselves limited from making public statements on the merits of the case.  How dare you make allegations about personal attacks concerning Senator-Judges.

Pare-pareho tayong nasa politika.  Wag nyo kaming lokohin dito.  Nanggagaling yan sa inyo.  In the same way that maybe the defense is also engaging in the same practice, let’s say in self-defense in its kindness like.

Kaya wag na kayong magpapanggap-panggapan diyan. Irespeto nyo ang Impeachment Court.  Huwag kayong mang-atakeng personal.  Malapit na talaga akong mag-privilege speech dito tungkol sa sub-judice rule.  Nagtatago kayo ha.  Lumabas kayo dito.

Ngayon, itong Article III ninyo, I am reading from your complaint, in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo, through her appointment of his wife to office, what are you thinking?  Excessive entanglement is a term of art in Constitutional Law.  That is applied in cases involving the separation of Church and State.  When you used the term excessive entanglement, that means that this is a case involving the power of the State to regulate the activities of the Church and vice versa.  Don’t use this term of art here because it has nothing to do with the Church, State conflict.  Pasiklab kayo ng pasiklab, you are using terms of art in law.  Pwede ba sabihin nyo na lang, he was so close, therefore, he could no longer maintain the independence of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.  Ganoon na lang.  Huwag na kayong gumamit gamit pa ng kung anu-anong salita sa Constitutional Law.  Hindi tayo maiintindihan.  Pagtatawanan tayo ng mga students of Constitutional Law in all tri-partite democracies like ours.  Kapag may term of art, huwag mong gamitin yan kung hindi ka siguro kung ano ang meaning nyan, kaya tayo tumatagal dito e.

This is all taking a toll on my physical condition.  I have to make that of record because I think to myself, what will lawyers outside of our country think when they read the transcript?

Saka habang nagbi-bista tayo dito, walang patid ang mga atakeng personal sa aming mga Impeachment Court judges, whether we are perceived to be in favour of the prosecution or of the defense.  Ano ito, trial by publicity?  Are you hoping that you can frighten or threaten or intimidate the Impeachment Court into a decision, in conformity with your own particular view of the law, which I might say, sometimes bizarre, is not only peculiar, but itself, bizaare.  So, byzantine that I cannot figure out what it is that you are trying to do.

Pagkatapos, kagabi, Mr. President, I want our colleagues to know, there was a special newscast saying that UP students are going to conduct a referendum or a survey, with three questions, sa tingin mo ba, pwede pang manatili sa posisyon si Chief Justice Corona, and others of like import?

In the first place, no UP student with an IQ that is demanded of the state university will conduct that kind of a survey when only the prosecution has presented evidence.  Wala pa ngang na-present na evidence ang defense, magtatanong ka na.And secondly, what is the implication that this matter can be resolved by referendum?

E kung mag-survey kaya ang Ateneo at kontra sa survey ng UP, ano ngayon ang gagawin natin?  Anong klaseng propaganda yan, aber?  Mag-isip, isip naman kayo, nakakainsulto, you are insult to the intelligence of educated Filipinos.  At saka hindi man lang student council ng UP ang magko-conduct.  Nag-interview sila ng student leaders daw of two colleges.  The UP has a constituency of maybe, 30 million all over the country or maybe I do not know, Senator Angara would know better than me, maybe close to 50 million.

Ano ang ibig sabihin nito?  At wag nga ninyo akong lokohin.  Hindi yan lilitaw sa newscast kung walang may nagbayad dahil hindi naman legitimate tools yon e.  Magsu-survey ang isang campus, is that even officially sponsored by the owner of the school or the administrators of the school or by the student council of that school?

Saka ang dami ninyong komentaryo sa aming mga Senator Judges, e kung magkomentaryo kaya kami during the trial about your competence, in fact, maybe about your mental sanity, aber?  Gustuhin nyo?

Huwag nyo kaming ginaganyan ha.  And besides, I have evidence about a certain Congressman who has been testifying here, wag nyo akong pilitin to reveal my hand, I can prove that he is lying under oath.  Be careful.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Joker Arroyo, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

SEN. ARROYO.  Thank you, Mr. President, you know, I keep on—I am amazed at the statement of the prosecution that they have difficulty because the respondent is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Now, but you have the backing of no less than the President of the Philippines.  How can you say that?  You have here, you have the support of the President of the Philippines, no less.  You should have no problem getting witnesses because of the suasion, so I suppose you should be careful about your statements.  I can understand your problem, as I have said always, I have been in that seat, you will have problems.  But don’t ascribe that to external problems like citing that it is hard to fight the Chief Justice of the Philippines.  You have on your corner no less than the President of the Philippines.  Thank you, Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The counsel for the defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor please, may I be allowed to say a couple of words, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mention had been made of the pattern of my cross-examination when the defense’s turn comes in.  I have all the while resorted to a question relative to the conference between the witness and the counsel for the prosecution.  Because it is our humble opinion, Your Honor, that the complaint had been haphazardly prepared.  It was railroaded with no evidence on hand yet, and immediately it was thrown into the lap of this honorable impeachment court, Your Honor.  We did prove that this is true because as what the witnesses had been saying, there have been no conferences with them by the prosecution panel, neither, when they were asked to submit any evidence whatsoever.  And our point is to show that there was merely a fishing expedition on the part of the prosecution when these witnesses were called, Your Honor.  The complaint was filed way back in December, they were interviewed only at the time when they were on the stand, Your Honor.  So, that supports our suspicion, Your Honor, that at the time the complaint was filed, there was no evidence on hand which is violative of the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Salonga vs. Paño, Your Honor, that before any complaint, or prosecution complaint must be filed, then the prosecution must have in his hand the evidence to support the allegations of the complaint or accusation and not file the complaint and thereafter look for evidence.  That was our intention.  It was never our intention to cast aspersion or any malice against the members of the prosecution but only to show that notwithstanding the absence of probable cause, notwithstanding the thorough investigation that was necessary, demanded by the nature of the proceedings, Your Honor, the complaint was filed, and it was railroaded to this honourable impeachment court.  Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES.  If I may, Mr. President, just a short manifestation lang po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can we shorten this?  I will give you a chance.  But we have wasted more than an hour already discussing things,  the time that are ought to have been utilized to present your case.  But anyway, go ahead.

REP. COLMENARES.  Salamat po.  Totoo po iyon.  Kahit na may question ang depensa, talagang may kahirapan kami sa witnesses.  Nadagdagan po siyempre iyong desisyon halimbawa ng Korte Suprema, iyong resolution ng February 14, na cut po siyempre ang aming mga witnesses.  Pero, gayunpaman po, tatangkain pa rin namin na makaprisinta ng mga pinaka-importanteng witnesses namin dito para ayaw namin na humaba ito.  So, ang aming statement lang po eh, handa naman po kaming magprisinta ng mga witnesses at ebidensya, me problema lang po kami talaga.  Katulad nito, sina-cite ko po ngayon, itong February 14 resolution, mula Chief Justice hanggang security guard po, baka mahirapan po kaming mag-present.  Lahat na lang ng dokumento na kahit walang kinalaman sa deliberasyon ng Korte Suprema, ipinagbabawal po ng Korte Suprema.  So, we are having that difficulty but we will try, Mr. President, our utmost to overcome that difficulty.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alam mo, Ginoong prosecutor, ang remedy diyan ay hindi manggaling dito sa impeachment court.  Ang remedyo diyan ay baguhin iyong Saligang Batas na ginagamit natin sa paglilitis na ito.  Habang iyan ay hindi napapalitan, ay iyon ang susundin natin na reglamento, iyong Saligang-Batas natin na nakasalang ngayon.

REP. COLMENARES.  Salamat po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Hindi ba?

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, may we move on to the Business for the Day. We call on the prosecution, they are ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Your witness.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you po. The first witness will be presented by Private Prosecutor, Atty. Art. Lim, Your Honor please, may I give the rostrum to him, po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I was about to suggest, Your Honor, if it will not be asking too much that the good Public Prosecutor handle the prosecution, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Well, …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So that we will be better enlightened, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES.  Your Honor, there will come a time when I will handle a witness,  if Justice Sereno is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Counsel, …

REP. COLMENARES.  I think, Your Honor, it was unfair for the defense to dictate who …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    (Gavel)

REP. COLMENARES.  Sorry, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I said already, let us stop all of these discussions.  We cannot finish this case if we are not going to do our work. We have heard enough.  So, let us forget out his opinion. Let us go to the Business of the Day, present the case.

Present your witness.

REP. COLMENARES.  Atty. Art Lim, Your Honor please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Now, counsel for the defense, let them control their side of the controversy.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The panel of prosecutors created by the House has full control of the manner by which they will present their case including the designation of lawyers that will direct the examination. So, please do not interfere.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor. I was making that as a suggestion only, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Good afternoon, Your Honor, and the Honorable Members of the court.  We would like to call on Dra. Juliet Gopes-Cervantes as our first witness for today, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  May we request the Secretariat to fetch the witness from the holding room, Your Honor.

SUSPENSION OF THE TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Alright, while the witness is coming to the Chamber, I will suspend the trial for one minute.

It was 3:22 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

At 3:28 p.m., the trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial resumed.  Is the witness here?  Yes, please swear in the witness.

THE SECRETARY.  Madam Witness, please raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?  So, help you God.

MS. CERVANTES.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Counsel for the prosecution, please proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.

You may please take your seat, Madam Witness.

MS. CERVANTES.  Thank you, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Magandang hapon po, Dra. Cervantes.

MS. CERVANTES.  Magandang hapon din po, Atty. Lim and magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat.

ATTY. LIM.  Kindly state Ma’m your full name, your address, and your occupation.

MS. CERVANTES.  Ako po si Dr. Juliet Gopes-Cervantes, ako po ay nakatira sa 9th Street, Rolling Hills, New Manila, Quezon City, at ako po ay isang manggagamot.

ATTY. LIM.  Your Honor, please, we are presenting the witness, Dra. Juliet Gopes-Cervantes,  as our own witness, but, only as an ordinary witness.

We are respectfully offering her testimony for the purpose of proving that she issued a medical certificate dated October 1, 2011 relative to the health condition of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What date is that?

ATTY. LIM.  October 1, 2011, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Okay.

ATTY. LIM.  Your Honor, as records show, we would like to manifest that this medical certificate was submitted to the Supreme Court as Annex I to the petition for TRO in GR NO. 199034 filed by the former President.  May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. LIM.  Dra. Cervantes, did you receive a subpoena in relation to this hearing?

MS. CERVANTES.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  And is that the reason why you are here?

MS. CERVANTES.  Opo.

ATTY. LIM.  Do you know former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?

MS. CERVANTES.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Why do you know her, ma’am?

MS. CERVANTES.  Ako po ay siyang pinaka main attending physician ng former President.  Every time she went to St. Luke’s Medical Center from Quezon City and lately in Lubao and I was the main attending from 2006 to December 2011.  So for five years, I’ve been the main attending physician of the former President.

ATTY. LIM.  Can you kindly explain what exactly you do or you have done as main attending physician for the former President?  What exactly do you mean by that, ma’am?

MS. CERVANTES.  Sir, I am a gastroenterologist and a hepatologist.  Meaning I specialize in the gastrointestinal tract and most especially in the liver.  In 2006, the former President developed diarrhea and the family decided that she be brought to St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City.  So being the main attending of the former Gentleman Mike Arroyo and her problem was in gastroenterology, she was referred to me to attend to her diarrhea.  And from then on, even there were occasions that the problem was no longer in gastroenterology neither in the liver because I started as her main physician, whether it is in gastroenterology or other problems, it was decided that I will be the main attending doctor.  That if there are occasions or there were occasions that the problem is no longer in my field of specialty, then I refer to the different sub specialties depending on what the problem was.  So as the main attending, I evaluate the case, I evaluate the problem and if I saw the need that it is beyond my specialty at gastroenterologist or hepatologist, I refer the problem to the different sub specialties and then decide as whom to refer the problem and ultimately summarize everything and then come up with the decision whatever it is, whether in the diagnosis or in the management.

ATTY. LIM.  Madam Witness, do you recall having attended to the former President, Honorable Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in the months of July 2009, August 2009 and also in Septmeber 2009—I am sorry—July of 2011, August of 2011 and September of 2011?  My apologies, Doctora.

MS. CERVANTES.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. LIM.  For what ailments?

MS. CERVANTES.  Mainly for the problem in the neck.  And…

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, ma’am.

MS. CERVANTES.  … she was admitted because of the severe neck pains.

ATTY. LIM.  Can you please state for the record the dates of confinement of the former President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If, Your Honor please, at this juncture may we place this observation on record, Your Honor.

There is a categorical statement on part of the prosecutor that the Madam Witness, Your Honor, is being presented as an ordinary witness.  We notice, however, that practically from the start, she’s testifying along medical lines, Your Honor.

We would like to know how …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  She’s being presented as a doctor and as an ordinary witness testifying on general medical matters.  So, let her answer.  (Gavel)

ATTY. LIM.  Can you kindly answer the question, ma’am.  I just would like to request you to state for the record the dates of confinement or hospitalization of the former President in 2011, specifically July 2011, August 2011 and also September 2011.

DR. CERVANTES.  She was admitted July 25, 2011 to August 5, 2011.  And then, she was re-admitted on September 20, and then discharged the following day, September 21.

ATTY. LIM.  In the subpoena, Dr. Cervantes, you were required to bring and produce the original and certified true copies of the medical certificate dated October 1, 2011 which you issued on the medical condition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  Did you bring that medical certificate, doktora?

DR. CERVANTES.  Yes, Sir.

ATTY. LIM.  Witness, Your Honor, please, handing to counsel a one-page document captioned medical certificate with the handwritten notation at the bottom left-hand portion printed from the computer file on February 17, 2011, Friday, followed by a signature which this representation cannot read.

Your Honor, I would like to ask these questions to the witness.  Madam Witness, I notice that this medical certificate which you have produced and which you just handed to this representation is an unsigned copy.  And I also notice that it is merely a printout on a one-page bond paper without any letterhead.  Can you please explain why this is unsigned?

DR. CERVANTES.  Sir, because that was a print from the computer, because the original copy is with the former President.

When we issued that medical certificate, the former President was already discharged.  So, there was no duplicate copy that we made because it was issued on an outpatient basis.  And I did not realize that I will end up this way in front of the court, that is why I did not Xerox the outpatient medical certificate.

But it is my computer, so when I was asked to bring the said medical certificate, I printed a copy.  And I will be able to recognize the duplicate if ever I will see it, even if I have no signature on that medical certificate that I’m bringing.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We’ll have no objection to the authentication of that document, Your Honor.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you.  Thank you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Just to make it easier for you.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Justice.

There is a signature at the bottom of the handwritten notation which I read earlier printed from the computer file on February 17, 2011, Friday.  Who’s signature is this, ma’am?

DR. CERVANTES.  It’s mine, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  They have already admitted the authenticity of that document, counsel.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes, Your Honor.  We would like to request …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Only for a detailed presentation, go ahead.

ATTY. LIM.  Yes,Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor, we would like to request, Your Honor, that this medical certificate be marked in evidence as the prosecution’s exhibit decaple N as in Nancy, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.

ATTY. LIM.  We would also like to request, Your Honor, that the penultimate paragraph in this medical certificate, containing the phrase …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please read the entire penultimate paragraph.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you, Your Honor.  The penultimate paragraph, Your Honor, reads as follows, “Ms. Macapagal-Arroyo has metabolic bone disease and osteoporosis due to hypoparathyroidism with electrolyte imbalance and vitamin D deficiency.  The Minerva brace should remain in place for at least three months.  And varying any complications, she should be fully recovered from her spine surgery in six to eight months.  Her metabolic bone disease needs lifetime maintenance treatment.”  The last paragraph reads, “Issued and signed on October 1, 2011 at Taguig City, Philippines, Juliet Gopes Cervantes, M.D., Gastroenterologist-Hepatologist, main attending physician”.  That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Your Honor, please, I just would like to elicit an admission from my colleague in the prosecution, as to whether he admits that these matters taken up today are involved in the Supreme Court case in connection with the restraining order.  If they are, I have no cross.

ATTY. LIM.  I will readily admit and stipulate, Your Honor, that the medical certificate, the penultimate and last paragraphs of which were read into the record, was submitted by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as Annex I to her petition for TRO in GR No. 199034.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Do you admit that this is involved in a pending case in the Supreme Court?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is the request for admission.

THE PRESIDINg OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. LIM.  Well, the matters mentioned therein, Your Honor, are before the court and subject even of …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pending …

ATTY. LIM.  … dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, do you admit that that is involved in a pending case in the Supreme Court?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Before the Supreme Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  If you don’t, you don’t.

ATTY. LIM.  The medical certificate, yes.  It is there, Your Honor, in the Supreme Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The defense.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Madam Witness.  No cross.  Thank you very much.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.

ATTY. LIM.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Your next witness for the prosecution.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you po.  Our next witness po will be presented by Representative Raul Daza, Your Honor, Ms. Emma Abanador, Your Honor.

May we request for a one-minute suspension while we get the witness po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Trial is suspended for one minute to allow the witness to come.

REP. COLEMENARES.  Thank you po.

It was 3:44 p.m.

At 3:48 p.m., trial was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Session is resumed.

(The witness was sworn to an oath.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  Your witness.

REP. DAZA.  With the permission of the impeachment court.  Mr. President, the witness is here simply to identify and authenticate certain documents that have already been pre-marked.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

REP. DAZA.  Would you please state your name and personal circumstances.

MS. ABANADOR.  I am Mrs. Emma Abanador from the Office of the Vice-President of the Philippines.  I am at present the Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of the Vice-President.

REP. DAZA.  Mrs. Abanador, a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum was served on you to bring to the court certified true copy of the personal record file of the Chief Justice, the respondent in this case, while he was employed with the Office of the Vice-President.  Did you bring those documents with you?

MS. ABANADOR.  Yes, sir.  I have submitted that last February 23 to the Legal Officer of the Senate.

REP. DAZA.  Mr. President, request permission to approach the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, you may.

REP. DAZA.  I am showing to you these documents marked on February 23, pre-marked rather, on February 23, 2012, which are Exhibits AAAAAAAAAA, BBBBBBBBBB, CCCCCCCCCC, DDDDDDDDDD, EEEEEEEEEE, FFFFFFFFFF, GGGGGGGGGG, HHHHHHHHHH, IIIIIIIIII, JJJJJJJJJJ, KKKKKKKKKK, LLLLLLLLLL, and MMMMMMMMMM.  Would the defense counsel stipulate that these pre-marked exhibits are true and faithful copy of the originals that were brought by the witness on February 23?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We admit, Your Honor, that they are genuine reproduction of the respective originals.

REP. DAZA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You mean all the documents brought by the witness …

REP. DAZA.  Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  … are genuine documents?

REP. DAZA.  May I just put on record the titles of these documents. Exh. MMMMMMMM, Certificate of Service, no, no—Exh. AAAAAAAAAA, Special Order No. 2000-19, signed by then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; Exh. BBBBBBBBBB, Consultancy Agreement dated January 24, 2001; Exh. CCCCCCCCCC, Certificate of Service for the month of January 2001; Exh. DDDDDDDD, Consultancy Agreement dated May 24, 2000; Exh. FFFFFFFFF, Certificate of Service—I withdraw that. Exh. EEEEEEEEFF, Certificate of Service for the month of December 2000; Exh. FFFFFFFFFF, Certificate of Service for the month of November 2000;  Exh. GGGGGGGGGG, Certificate of Service for the month of October 2000; Exh. HHHHHHHHHH, Certificate of Service for September 2000;  Exh. IIIIIIIIII, Certificate of Service for August 2000; Exh. JJJJJJJJJJ, Certificate of Service for July 2000; Exh. KKKKKKKKKK, for the month of June 2000 exhibit LLLLLLLLLL, certificate of service for the month of May 2000, exhibit MMMMMMMMMM for the month of April 2000, all of these certificate of service contained the signature of consultant Renato C. Corona.  I have no further question on the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Cross.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Good afternoon, Ma’m.  No cross, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No cross.

REP. DAZA.  Thank you.  May I request that the witness may now be discharged, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The witness is discharged.  (Gavel)  Next witness.

REP. COLMENARES.  Thank you, Your Honors.  Our next witness, Your Honor, will be presented by private prosecutor Atty. Al Parreño, Your Honor, please

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Atty. Al Parreño has the floor.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, our next witness is Mr. Edmond Llosala.  May we ask the Secretariat to please call Mr. Llosala to the witness stand, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Please call the witness to enter the Chamber.

THE SECRETARY.  Mr. Witness, please raise your right hand.  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding?

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE SECRETARY.  So, help you God.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, may I proceed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed, proceed.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Mr. Witness, please state your name and other circumstances.

MR. LLOSALA.  Ako po si Edmond Andres Llosala, nakatira po sa Unit 9-F, El Jardin del Presidente II, Quezon City, Sgt. Esguerra.  Ako po ay empleyado ng ABS-CBN News, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, ako po ay isang news cameraman.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honors, we are offering the testimony of the witness, Edmond Llosala, to prove the following material allegations found in the complaint, including the following:

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  This is under Article VII?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor, this is under Article VII, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  To identify and authenticate the video recording he took on November 15, 2011; to prove that the November 15 Supreme Court TRO in favour of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo mandated that she fulfill three conditions before she can leave; to prove that respondent through Midas Marquez coordinated with GMA’s lawyers to ensure that GMA can leave on November 15, 2011; to prove that respondent Corona using his administrative powers as Supreme Court Justice extended office hours so that the TRO conditions can be fulfilled by GMA, and thus, allow GMA and the then first Gentleman to leave; to prove that respondent Midas Marquez misled the public into believing that the TRO is effective; to prove that respondent distorted the effectivity of the TRO to make it effective even if GMA failed to comply with the conditions.  And other related matters, Your Honor.

May we proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Mr. Witness, saan po kayo nagtatrabaho?

MR. LLOSALA.  Sa ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation po.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Bilang ano po?

MR. LLOSALA.  Bilang cameraman po ng news.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Kailan po kayo naging cameraman?

MR. LLOSALA.  1994 pa po.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  At hanggang ngayon po ay cameraman pa rin po kayo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Ano po ang trabaho ng isang cameraman?

MR. LLOSALA.  Nagco-cover po kami ng mga issues, mga ibat-iba pong istorya ng buhay related po sa mga coverage po ng aming kumpanya.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At saan po ang inyong beat?

MR. LLOSALA.  Ako po ay naka-beat sa Department of Justice and Supreme Court po.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At noong buwan ng November 2011, saan po ang inyong beat?

MR. LLOSALA.  Sa Department of Justice po.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Noong November 15, 2011, nasaan po kayo noon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Sa Department of Justice po.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Sa Department of Justice lang po?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Nasa Supreme Court din po ba kayo noong mga panahon iyon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Once na mayroon pong istorya po sa Supreme Court saka lang po kami nagpupunta.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court noong November 15, 2011?

MR. LLOSALA.  Pag may istorya po nagpupunta po kami doon, sa may mga presscon or interview.  Pero after po noon, babalik na po kami doon sa Department of Justice.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Kayo po ay nandito dahil sa isang subpoena, tama po ba?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At ayon po sa subpoena na binigay po sa inyong kumpanya, kayo po ay inatasang magdala rin po ng 3 videos, tama po ba ito?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Nasaan po ang mga videos po na ito ngayon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Ipinadala na po dito po.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Ipapakita ko sa inyo ang unang video, may tagal ito na 23 minutes and 17 seconds.

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes, sir.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Panoorin mo itong mabuti tapos sabihin mo sa amin kung ano ang relasyon ng video na ito sa videong unang ipinadala namin sa inyo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We will object, Your Honor.

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

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  There is no showing, there is no basis, there is no showing that it was he who took it and that it was really taken on the day as specifically mentioned and for the purpose as enunciated by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you reform your question please.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Actually, Your Honor,–sige po.  Kayo po nasabi nyo po kanina na andoon kayo noong November 15, 2011.  Ano po ang ginawa po ninyo doon?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Vague, Your Honor.

MR. LLOSALA.  Bilang isang kameraman po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The question, doon, saan…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let him answer.

MR. LLOSALA.  Iyon po iyong regular beat po namin sa Department of Justice po.  Kaya po kami nandoon dahil po everyday po kaming may regular na coverage po doon at kung ano po iyong magiging isyu, iyon po iyong kinukunan namin.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Nabanggit ninyo po kanina na nasa Supreme Court din po kayo noong panahon ninyo—ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court?

MR. LLOSALA.  Once na meron pong presscon or mga, nagpupunta po kami doon.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At noong November 15, 2011, meron po bang presscon na nangyari po noon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Meron po.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Sino po ang nag presscon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Nagpa presscon po si Atty. Midas Marquez, nagbigay po siya ng statement.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At ano po ang ginawa niyo habang siya ay nagpre-presscon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Nag set up po kami ng kamera, tripod and audio at para po mai-cover namin, ma on record po ang statement na ipinahayag niya.

ATTY. PARRENO.  At nabanggit ninyo kanina na kayo ay nagpadala ng video dito.  Ito ho ba iyong video na nakunan ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Iyon pong video 1 po na ipinadala namin.

ATTY. PARRENO.  So, Your Honor, may we now present the video that was described by the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why don’t you show it to the witness first so that he can verify whether that is indeed the video that he was referring to?

ATTY. PARRENO.  Yes, Your Honor, we have the screen right here, Your Honor, and we have already coordinated with the court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright proceed.

ATTY. PARRENO.  Your Honor, for identification purposes, this video previously marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTT described in the Senate subpoena as the video of the press conference of Supreme Court Midas Marquez on November 15, 2011 at approximately 1:30 p.m.  We request that the compact disc previously marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTT be presented and the time period from 0 to 13 minutes be shown.  Can you please play—to the Secretariat.  Your Honor, may we ask the Secretariat to please show…

(Video presentation of the press conference of Midas Marquez on November 15, 2011)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At this juncture, Your Honor, with the indulgence of the honourable court, may we be informed as to the purpose of this video play.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the question?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we be informed as to the purpose, Your Honor, of the …

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Can we pause the video please.

Your Honor, as stated in my offer, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  In referring the answer to the question of the defense …

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor.  As stated in the offer, this video is being presented to show that the TRO on November 15, and this was taken, Your Honor, at around one to two p.m., the TRO was stated as being suspensive.  Meaning, Your Honor, that according to this press conference, Your Honor, Midas Marquez will state that GMA has to fulfill three conditions first before she can leave.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  But this is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we make a counter statement, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  This is allegedly a press conference held by Atty. Marquez, Your Honor.  We do not see any relevance or importance because the impeachment here is against the Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor.  Whatever he may say cannot be said to be binding upon the Supreme Court …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I will allow the witness to answer.  Let the prosecutor develop their evidence and we’ll see as we go along  (Gavel)

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

Can we please play the video again.

(Continuation of video presentation – Press conference of Atty. Midas Marquez)

ATTY. PAREÑO.  Your Honor, if we may, can we proceed, Your Honor, with the next videos.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.  How long will that be?

ATTY. PAREÑO.  This one, Your Honor, is for 23 minutes.  We just presented the first 13 minutes of the video.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please.  We do not know the actual purpose.  Is it to make it evident that the spokesman of the Supreme Court speak in the manner they wanted it to be.  We do not know the purpose, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  According to the allegation of Article VII, respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, in order to give them an opportunity to escape.  You see, partiality in granting a temporary restraining order.  So, I do not know the purpose.  The purpose says to show his partiality.  So, let us see.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What will be noticed, Your Honor, is a video being played.  It is about 20 or 30 minutes.  Nothing of that sort had come out.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, Counsel, the video to  be fair is talking about a TRO being considered in the Supreme Court. In fact, I heard the Court Administrator say that it is being drafted.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The restraining order, Your Honor, but the resolution granting the same had been earlier issued.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Yes. The TRO was being, precisely, the whole process was under consideration …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   … with conditions, so, let us allow the witness to answer.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can we …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I really—I have to confess, Your Honor, I really cannot comprehend the materiality of the evidence now being presented, Your Honor.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Let them present their case and let us see.

Majority Floor Leader, can we suspend the …

SEN. LEGARDA.  Mr. President, just one minute.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Yes, please.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Just a suggestion, Mr. President.  Instead of us laboring to watch 23 minutes of a video which is not even properly produced and which somewhat inaudible, may we request the prosecution to provide the Senator-Judges, with the concurrence of my colleagues, with the transcript of this video, so that we can appreciate it better.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor, we will do that.

SEN. LEGARDA.  So, I personally—this video, personally, I think would not be very relevant or material at this point. I do not know if you want to show the whole 40 minutes to watch now.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  No, Your Honor, we actually just presented 13 minutes.

SEN. LEGARDA.  Thirteen.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  It is not, Your Honor. We are just going to present two more.  There are two short videos, Your Honor. One, is just one minute and the other one, I think is just a few seconds, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Alright.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is our point.  With the kind …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    We will allow the video to be shown so that we will finish with this matter. Proceed.

(The video is being played.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Tapos na?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, actually, just look …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Tapos na ba?

ATTY. PARREÑO. That is the same video, Your Honor, that just …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Tapos na iyon?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Iyong next video. Sige, tapusin natin.

(The other video is being played.)

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, those are just three videos.  May I now proceed with questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Wait a minute.  What is the relevance of the third video?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, the third video, Your Honor, showed the actual payment—the attempted payment at around 4:30 Your Honor, by the counsel of GMA, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Between the first video and the third video, how long a time transpired.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, the first  video happened at around between 1:30 to 2:30, Your Honor.  The second video, Your Honor, happened after the first video.  The third video, Your Honor, happened…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  No, yes, of course, it happened after the first video but how long?  What was the time interval?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  According to the witness, Your Honor, it happened around 15 minutes or 30 minutes after he went down after the press conference.

So, the second video, Your Honor, wherein Atty. Topacio was saying that he spoke with Midas Marquez happened at around 3:00 p.m. thereabout.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  And then.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  And then, he mentioned that he was…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The third video was at four o’clock?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor, it happened at around 4:15 according to the watch of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   All right.  Before you examined the witness, let’s—Majority Floor Leader.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  Yes, Mr. President, before the examination of the witness, may we move for a 15-minute suspension of the trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Trial is suspended for 15 minutes.

It was 4:26 p.m.

At 4:53, the trial resumes.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   Trial resume.  Prosecution, your witness.

SEN. SOTTO.   Mr. President, before the suspension, the prosecution was still on direct examination on the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The prosecution may now proceed. Okay.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  May we proceed, Your Honor.

Mr. Witness, nakita ninyo po kanina iyong video ninyo po iyong Video No. 1, which was previously marked as Exh. TTTTTTTTTT, this is the video of the press briefing of Supreme Court Spokesperson Midas Marquez.  Ano po ang relasyon nito sa video na nabanggit ko kanina na kinunan po ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Ang relasyon po non ay iyon po ay presscon about sa statement po ni Atty. Midas.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Opo.  Nabanggit po ninyo kanina na may video kayo na kinunan, ano ho ang relasyon nito doon sa video na ipinakita po natin kanina?

MR. LLOSALA.  Pareho naman po siya.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  At bakit nyo po alam na pareho lang po iyong video na iyon sa binanggit ninyong video kanina?

MR. LLOSALA.  Bale ako po kasi Sir ang nag-roll ng video na iyon, ako po ang kumuha.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  May naririnig po akong mga nagsasalita sa video na ito, sino ho iyong nagsasalita sa video po na ito?

MR. LLOSALA.  Si Atty. Midas po.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  At bakit po nyo siya kilala?

MR. LLOSALA.  Although regular po namin siyang nakakausap at naiko-cover sa Supreme Court, everyday or every other day po, once po na mayroong istorya po sa Supreme Court.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Sa video po na ‘to may naririnig din po kaming mga ibang boses na nagsasalita, sino po ‘yong mga nagsasalita na ibang tao ditto?

MR. LLOSALA.  Ang alam ko po lahat po iyon ay mga media.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Nabanggit nyo po kanina na kayo  ang kumuha ng video na ito.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Paano nyo po siya kinunan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Nag-set up ho ako ng tripod, bago po nagkaroon ng presscon, nag-set up po kami ng tripod and microphone, at noong lumabas na po si Atty. Midas Marquez, sinimulan ko na pong i-record iyon pong statement na sinasabi niya.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  At ano pong ginamit nyo na camera na pang-record po nito?

MR. LLOSALA.  GF po na Ikegamy, professional na pang broadcast po na camera.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Paano ho niya na-save o paano ho nya nakuha iyong recording na sinabi nyo na nakuha nyo kanina?

MR. LLOSALA.  Iyon pong camera po namin ay mayroon po siyang CF card, iyon po iyong recording storage ng camera.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  At ano pong ginawa ninyo sa CF card po na ito?

MR. LLOSALA.  After po nong presscon, tinanggal ko na po sa camera ang CF card at ipinadala ko na po sa driver ko, na dalin nya sa van at i-feed nya sa base sa ABS-CBN po.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Salamat po.  Nakita nyo rin po ang aming tinatawag na video…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Defense counsel, do you dispute this video?

JUSTICE CUEVAS. I am not in a position to dispute it, Your Honor, but the point is, it appears to be immaterial and irrelevant, because this is a prosecution for impeachment of the Chief Justice, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  I agree.  Proceed.  We will see.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Mr. Witness, nakita ninyo po rin iyong video 2 kanina na aming ipinakita na previously marked as UUUUUUUU, this is described in a Senate subpoena as the video showing Atty. Ferdinand Topacio preparing the payment of cash bond on November 15, 2011.  Ano po ang relasyon ng video na ipinakita po namin dito po sa hiningi naming video sa inyo kanina.?

MR. LLOSALA.  Pareho rin po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Apparently, Your Honor, there is no basis.  We did not see that in the video.  There was Atty. Topacio speaking, but with respect to payment and so on.  Nothing had been shown.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is correct.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor, we were just referring to the subpoena, that was the title or the label used in subpoena, but…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What are you trying to prove?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, we are just authenticating the video as of this moment to show…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You are just authenticating.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Well, I think the authentication is already done.

ATTY. PARREÑO.   A, yes, Your Honor, if the defense…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  There is no question about it.

ATTY. PARREÑO.   Okay, Your Honor, if the defense counsel is also in agreement that three videos are already duly authenticated, we have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  That is was taken by this guy.

ATTY. PARREÑO.   Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What we are objecting, Your Honor, is the statement to the effect that the video reflects Atty. Topacio speaking about the payment of the two million cash bond, Your Honor, which is not reflected, neither is there any statement to that effect.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Anyway, the video is the best evidence of that—whether …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  …he said that or not.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.

ATTY. PARREÑO.   That being the case, Your Honor, and with the court’s pronouncement as the authentication of the said videos, we have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  All right.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.  May I be allowed to start, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes, cross.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  With the kind permission of the honorable court.

Good afternoon, Mr. Llosala.

MR. LLOSALA.  Good afternoon po, Sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Narinig ko kayong sinabi ninyo matagal na kayo sa ABS-CBN, tama ho ba?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Mga ilan taon na po?

MR. LLOSALA.  Almost 16 years na po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  16 years.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And you started as what, nagsimula po kayong ano?

MR. LLOSALA.  Cameraman na po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  At magkano po ang sweldo ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Noong una po nasa P7,000 a month lang po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tumaas ang sweldo ninyo.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Kada taon o kada limang taon o ano?

MR. LLOSALA.  Depende po kasi po talent lang po ako noon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sa ngayon po magkano na ang sinasahod ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Nasa P35 plus po a month

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  P35,000 a month.

MR. LLOSALA.  A month po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nagkamali pala ako ng karera dapat pala photographer.  Necessarily po iyang ibinigay sa inyong increase na iyan ay depende doon sa serbisyo ninyo at sa tagal na ng inyong serbisyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  And because of that, you would not like to incur the ire or displeasure of ABS-CBN.

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po iyon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hangga’t maaari gagawin ninyo ang magagawa ninyo para makalugod kayo sa ABS-CBN.

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. Alright.  Now, bakit po kayo nagkaroon ng pagkakataong kunan ito ng video?  Ito ba ay iniutos sa inyo ng ABS-CBN o boluntar kayo?

MR. LLOSALA. Inutos po sa amin iyan.  Meron po kaming superior na everyday po at sila po ang nagbibigay ng coverage sa amin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ang inaalam ko po itong particular video lamang na ito hindi iyong iba.  Ito ba ay may utos sa inyo na kunan ninyo ng video?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo, inutos po sa amin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Alright.  At ang layunin ninyo—sinabi ba sa inyo kung ano ang dapat na ma-focus ang inyong pagkuha?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi naman po sinabi sa amin na kunan mismo iyon pong presscon.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ang sabi sa inyo kung maaari ninyong ipagtapat sa husgado?

MR. LLOSALA.  Everyday po kasi na naka-beat kami sa Department of Justice, automatic po iyon na lahat po ng istorya na makukunan namin, na magagawa namin sa beat po namin na iyon ay kailangan po naming gawin.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  So ito po ay boluntar ninyo, walang may utos sa inyo.

MR. LLOSALA.  May utos po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  A meron.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ipaalam nga po ninyo sa husgado kung sino ang nag-utos sa inyo.

MR. LLOSALA.  Ang amin pong News Department.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po sa News Department ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Ang reporter ko po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sino po sila?

MR. LLOSALA.  Si Miss Ina Repormina po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ina Repormina.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sinabi ba sa inyo ang dahilan kung bakit pinakukunan ng video ito?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi naman po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sa pagkaunawa ninyo, bakit ninyo kukunan ng video?

MR. LLOSALA.  Dahil po iyon iyong parte ng aming trabaho.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano ang ibig ninyong sabihing parte ng inyong trabaho?

MR. LLOSALA.  Sa araw-araw po iyon po ang aming trabaho mismo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Nadinig ko pong tinukoy ninyo iyong restraining order, naunawaan ho ba ninyo kung ano iyong restraining order na tinutukoy nyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi naman po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po.  Papaano kayo nakapag deklara tungkol dito?  Saan nanggaling iyong kaalaman ninyo sa restraining order?

MR. LLOSALA.  Basta kami po…

ATTY. PARRENO.  Objection, Your Honor.  There was no statement as to the restraining order that is being referred to by the defense, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  But this is cross-examination, my dear colleague.

ATTY. PARRENO.  But it is misleading, Your Honor.  It is premised on a statement that the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the misleading portion of the…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  What is the misleading?

ATTY. PARRENO.  It will show, Your Honor, that the witness made a testimony regarding the temporary restraining order.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We submit, Your Honor.  Very, very much within the coverage in fact even in the video.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The video that was played was about the pending issue on the TRO.  Well, he was taking the video—if he knows.  Sagutin mo kung alam mo.

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes,Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ang sagot ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po ako pamilyar doon po sa restraining order.  Ako po ay cameraman lang, kinukunan ko lang po kung ano po iyong sinasabi at ang nagdedesisyon po niyan sa mga detalye po ng mga statement ay iyong aking reporter.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Samakatwid po tama ho ba iyong aming pagkaalam na wala kayong alam kahit gaano diyan sa restraining order na iyan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po ganoon ka…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Anong ibig ninyong sabihin na hindi ganon?  What is it that you wanted to tell the court?  Ibig ninyong sabihin meron po kayong konting kaalaman pero hindi lubos, ganoon ho ba?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po lubos.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I see.  Itong si Chief Justice Corona, kilala ninyo siya?

MR. LLOSALA.  Simula na lang po noong ma-assign po ako sa department beat, sa Justice beat, saka ko na lang po siya na…

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Noon lang ninyo siya nakilala.

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Dahil nakikita ninyo siya?

MR. LLOSALA.  Yes po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ninyo siya nakakausap?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala kayong komperensya na nagagawa sa kanya kahit ano?

MR. LLOSALA.  Wala po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, meron kaming kopya dito ng Temporary Restraining Order, ipakikita ko sa inyo.  Kindly go over it and tell us whether you are acquainted or familiar with this restraining order …

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … which for purposes of identification, Your Honor, we request that it be marked as Exhibit 63, Your Honor.  Page ano yan?  Anong page yan?  Page four.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Mark it accordingly.  (Gavel)

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I’m pointing, Your Honor, to the particular portion referred to in my question, Your Honor, in my cross-examination.

Nababaya po ninyo yan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  This first paragraph of this page states, “Now, therefore, effective immediately continuing until further orders from this court,” naunawaan ho ba ninyo yon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po masyado.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Anong pagkaunawa ninyo dyan, kung naunawaan ninyo kahit na konti?  Sinasabi niyan, “You, respondent, your agents, representatives or person acting your place or stead are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing DOJ Circular No. 41 and Watch List Order No. ASF11237 dated August 9, 2011 422 dated September 6 …

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Ojbection, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  E wala pa, hindi pa ko tapos.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the counsel finish and then you object, if you have any objections.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  “And 2011 573 dated October 27.”  Pakitingnan nga po ninyo, basahin ninyo at sabihin ninyo sa kagalang-galang na hukuman kung nauunawan ninyo yan, pagka’t tinutukoy diyan, “Effective immediately.”

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Objection, Your Honor.  On the first—Your Honor, that …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we know the basis, Your Honor.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  That question, Your Honor, was already asked and answered as to he understands.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the answer?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  The witness said hindi raw niya nauunawaan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  (Gavel)

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi ko po nauunawaan po yan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So wala kayong kaalaman diyan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Wala po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  E yung pinakita nyong video kanina, sinasabi ninyo na parang hindi pa effective, pero sinabi naman ni kagalang-galang na Midas Marquez na effective kaagad.  Tama ho ba yon?  Tama ba yung pagkaunawa ko?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the ground?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  There was no video taken that Midas Marquez said that it was effective immediately.  In fact, Your Honor, the video that we first presented said that according to Midas Marquez, it is not effective immediately.  If I may quote the exact words, Your Honor, of the witness …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The best evidence will be the transcript.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor, but the counsel is …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  You’re not under oath to make any certitude here.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Okay, Your Honor.  We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the video and the transcription of what was said be the best evidence of that.  (Gavel)

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Okay, Your Honor.

MR. LLOSALA.  Tungkol po don sa video, ang parte ko lang po ng trabaho ay makunan yung video at yung sinasabi ng nagsasalita.  Pero yun pong ibig sabihin na unawain ko po yung sinasabi niya, hindi ko po maunawaan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala kayong kinalaman doon sa katotohanan noong sinabi niya o hindi?  Ganon ho ba ang ibig nyong sabihin?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.  Wala po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  With the permission of the defense counsel, the Gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.  Proceed.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ginoong Pangulo, hindi ko po maintindihan kung ano ho yung pinapakita ni lead counsel of defense kung anong klaseng papeles yan.  Hindi nga po sa minamaliit ang ating testigo, ang testogo po’y narito para i-authenticate lang yung kanyang nakunan.

Syempre, hindi ho niya maintindihan kung anong ibig sabihin ng mga TRO, kung ano yung binayaran na bail bond, syempre—I think, the witness right now is incompetent to answer all the questions coming from the defense dahil siya’y nandito practically, witness ng prosecution yan, para i-authenticate lang kung ano yung kinunan niya.  Yun lang yata ang aking pagkakaintindi.  Yun lang po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May we reply, Your Honor.  We are not arguing with the honourable Senator.

My understanding or the understanding of the defense is, this video presentation was made in order to show that there were no compliance—that first, the TRO is not effective, there was no compliance with the conditions therein set forth, although it was not very clear, Your Honor.  That is why we are trying to ask for a clarification, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Actually, the video, being an evidence presented under Article VII was intended to prove partiality.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  So, let the video speak and the transcription, whether there is any indication that the respondent is partial.  There is no connection insofar that I could see.  Let them establish the connection.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  May we now proceed, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Proceed.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  All right.  Now, likewise, my question was …

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President.

JUSTICE CUEVAS. … premised on the resolution, Your Honor, of the honorable Supreme Court dated November 15, 2011.  Now, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  December 15?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes, Your Honor—November 15, Your Honor, …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  November 15.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  …2011, I am sorry.  Now, may I likewise invite you, if you are in a position to tell the honorable court, whether you understood the first or second paragraph of page 3 of this document.  I am showing it to you.  Pakitingnan nga po ninyo.  Tingnan ninyo kung nauunawaan ninyo ang nakalagay diyan.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Why?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  This question has been repeatedly asked and the witness has repeatedly answered na hindi niya naiintindihan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is a different portion

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  He is only being asked if he—nauunawaan niya yong laman noong dokumento na pinakikita sa kanya.  Sapagkat testigo nyo yan e, kaya kino-cross examine.

ATTY. PARREÑO.  We submit, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ang sagot ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Doon po sa statement …

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  The portion, Your Honor, referred to in the cross examination is, the temporary restraining order shall be immediately executory, Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Bienvenido L. Reyes have reserved their right to submit their dissenting opinions.  Leonardo De Castro, Justice, on official—Del Castillo, also on official leave.  Iyan po lang ang tinatanong ko kung nauunawaan nyo ang nakalagay diyan.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, noong makunan na ninyo ng video e kayo ba ay nakausap ni—ng inyong boss, si Ina Reformina?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Napag-usapan ba ninyo ang tungkol sa restraining order na nasasaklaw ng inyong video?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po.  So, wala siyang sinabi sa inyo, ah tama pala o mali pala yong aming pananaw.

MR. LLOSALA.  Wala po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Wala po.  All right.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, my impression is, the restraining order in this case imposes three conditions.  Am I right?

MR. LLOSALA.  Opo.  Yes po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Tama po ba iyon?  At lahat ng kondisyon na ito, dapat matupad alinsunod sa inyo, bago ma-issue ang restraining order, ganoon ho ba?  Ganoon ba ang pagka-unawa ninyo?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is your objection?

ATTY. PARREÑO.  Your Honor, we have repeatedly stated that the witness has answered the other questions but on this question, Your Honor, he is incompetent.  He has established that he is a cameraman and yet, the defense counsel keeps asking questions of law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  He is under cross.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  We are not suppose to swallow hook line and sinker, every statement made by the …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Sagutin mo kung alam mo, kung hindi mo alam sabihin mo hindi ko alam.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Kung alam mo, sagutin mo.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi po.  All right.  Ang ibig nyong sabihing hindi po, hindi nyo alam ang mga kondisyon …

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … ng pag-issue ng restraining order na yan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Pero sinasabi kanina dito ng abogado ng prosecution na diumano, iyong sinasabing P2 million cash bond ay tinamaan noong video nyo, tama ho ba yon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Iyong P2 million cash bond na yon, iyon ang kinakailangang maideposito noong petitioner doon sa TRO tama ho ba iyon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi ko po alam.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Ano po ang kahulugan noong pagkakakuha ninyo iyong ke Atty. Topacio na diumano nagbabayad ng P2 million bond?

MR. LLOSALA.  Basta ang alam ko lang po, iyon po ay cash bond.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Para saan po iyon sa pagkaalam ninyo?  Para ibigay sa huwes, ibigay sa …

MR. LLOSALA.  Ang alam ko lang po na ibibigay doon sa cashier ng Supreme Court kaya ko po kinunan.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Para po ano iyon, sa pagkaalam ninyo?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi ko pa alam.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, hanggang ngayon hindi ninyo alam.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi ko na po alam.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Iyong ibang kondisyon na nakalagay doon, alam ho ba ninyo o hindi?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi na po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Sinabi ba ninyo kanina na iyong restraining order ay hindi tama ang pagkakapagpatupad dahil iyong mga kondisyon ay hindi nagaganap.  Sinabi ho ba ninyo iyon?

ATTY. PAREÑO.  Objection, Your Honor.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the objection?

ATTY. PAREÑO.  Same objection, Your Honor.  He is misleading the witness and he is asking for an opinion.  So, we are objecting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Let the witness answer.  He is under cross.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Hindi ninyo sinabi iyon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  So, wala kayong kinalaman doon sa mga sinasabing kondisyon.

MR. LLOSALA.  Wala po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Now, ang isa sa mga kondisyon doon eh pagdating nila sa ibang bansa, magre-report sila sa consular office ng gobyerno ng Republika ng Pilipinas.  Hindi rin ninyo alam iyon?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I think that will be all for the witness today, Your Honor.  If permitted by this honourable court, I will continue with my cross tomorrow, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Yes.  I will just recognize the Gentleman from San Juan.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Isang katanungan lang po, Ginoong Pangulo.  Ginoong testigo, iyon bang ipinakita ninyo na video na nakuha ninyo, iyon ba ho ay edited na noong ipinalabas dito o unedited?

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po, yes.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Anong hindi po.

MR. LLOSALA.  Hindi po siya edited.  Raw material po siya.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Ah, raw material.  So, wala kayong in-edit diyan?

MR. LLOSALA.  Wala po.

SEN. ESTRADA.  Thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President, Senator Pimentel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  What is the pleasure of the defense?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  If Your Honor please, I am asking for permission to continue tomorrow because I have a lot more of cross-examination questions.  I have to go to the various documents just presented to me this afternoon, Your Honor.

ATTY. PAREÑO.  Your Honor, may we ask that the cross-examination be finished today.  The witness has a pending job and he wishes to be discharged immediately as possible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Can you finish your cross-examination today?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Well, I have to examine the other documents to be able to intelligibly propound my question, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  We cannot deprive the defense of his right of cross-examination.  You presented your witness, you completed your direct.  It is the turn of the defense to ask him questions, and he could not complete it.  So, let the witness come back tomorrow when we resume the impeachment trial at two ‘clock in the afternoon for further cross-examination.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Senator Pimentel, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  The Gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  I want to ask Justice Cuevas.  Justice, a lot of law students are watching our proceedings and excited to learn.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  I hope they learn the correct law.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  And they are learning a lot from you.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  But you know, I have noticed that in the course of confronting the witness with a document, you had it marked, Exhibit 67 yata.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Correct.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Although the witness had nothing to do with the document.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  That is correct.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  So, for the benefit of our law students who are watching you, is that the correct procedure?

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Very correct, because how can it be referred to later, Your Honor.  If they will not be marked, they will be useless pieces of paper.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Even if the witness did not identify the document or had no part in the document, it is the right time for you to have it marked.  Or should you not have it marked at the time that you are now presenting your case through your own witnesses.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Not the right time.  But it is right for identification,.  Because insofar as documentary exhibits are concerned, we have various stages.  Identification, marking and then offer.  We are not yet at that point where we are making the offer, Your Honor.

SEN. PIMENTEL.  Yes, sir.  It is very clear.  But technically, Justice, we have been very liberal.  You have done that actually a couple of times.  I think that is the fifth document you have marked with the witness not being a party to the document.  And we have allowed that because this is sui generis.  We will be liberal.  But for the benefit of our law students who are watching the proceedings, wanting to learn the application of the Rules of Court to an actual trial, would you say that what you are doing is technically correct?

REP. PIMENTEL.    Very correct, Your Honor, actually, technically correct, it is very correct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    May the Presiding Officer intervene. In a cross-examination, there is a lot of lee-way given to the counsel and there are four techniques of cross-examination, proving, fishing weight to undermine and to confront. And I understood, I allowed the question because of my understanding that the document was being used by the cross-examiner to confront the witness.

REP. PIMENTEL.    Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Those are the purposes of cross-examination but on the proper time to mark an exhibit or a document, just for the benefit of, especially, the law students who are closely watching our proceedings, Justice.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  For the better appreciation of the Honorable Senator, Your Honor, the documents that I confronted the witness with today, had already been marked as evidence for the prosecution, particularly, Exh.  UUUUUUUUU and the other one is Exh. TTTTTTTTT, Your Honor.  They have previously been marked.

REP. PIMENTEL.    How about Exh. 67, I think there was an order to mark it.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Yes.  That is only a portion of the exhibits, Your Honor, of exhibit …

REP. PIMENTEL.    Anyway, Justice, it doesn’t affect the exhibit marked.  I just wanted to highlight that because I have noticed that we have been very liberal and I have no objection.  Actually, I want the liberal application of the Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence to this proceedings.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  May I state for the record that even if we adopt the strictest rule, …

REP. PIMENTEL.    Yes, sir.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  … this will still pass the test of judicial scrutiny.

REP. PIMENTEL.    Thank you, Justice. Thank you, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. SOTTO.  Mr. President. Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The Majority Floor Leader.

SEN. SOTTO.  It was so ordered by the Presiding Officer that the witness will be back tomorrow at two o’clock for the continuation of the cross-examination.  In the meantime, we may excuse the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    The witness is excused.

JUSTICE CUEVAS.  Thank you, thank you.

SEN. SOTTO.  And then, may we ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make an announcement, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.   The Sergeant-At-Arms will now make an announcement.

THE SERGEANT-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.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.    Majority Floor Leader.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL

SEN. SOTTO.  I move that we adjourn until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 28, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  Is there any objection?  Hearing none, the trial is hereby adjourned until two o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 28, 2012.

It was 5:22 p.m.

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