Feb 27 Senate impeachment court record

8/2/2019 Feb 27 Senate impeachment court record

1/47

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 1

AT 2:17 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.

CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Joker Arroyo.

Senator Arroyo. Heavenly Father, as this Impeachment Trial rolls on its seventh week, with every

evidence presented and every position argued by both sides, we pray that our mindsthe Prosecution,

the Defense and the Senateremain unencumbered, our bodies unexhausted and our spirit unweary.

May the gift of the good Lord be sent upon us so that this Impeachment Trial will reach its rightful end

towards peace, justice and the unity of our nation achieved.

These we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senator-Judges.

The Secretary,reading:

Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present*

Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present*

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, February 27, 2012

Pasay City

______________

*Arrived after the roll call


2/47

2 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

______________*Arrived after the roll call

**On sick leave

Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present

Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present

Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present

Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present

Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present

Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present*

Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present*

Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Absent**

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present

Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present

Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV........................................... Present

Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present*The Senate President ......................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. There being 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares

the presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.

The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make the proclamation.

The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty whilethe Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator 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,

2012Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved.

Calling for the Impeachment Case. The Secretary will now please call the case.

The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Appearances.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. For the Prosecution.


3/47


Representative Farias. Good afternoon, Mr. President and the Honorable Members of the

Senate sitting in Impeachment, same appearances for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The Floor Leader.

Senator 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 theSupreme Court has been withdrawn.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, last Thursday we received a letter from the Supreme Court

Clerk of Court requesting that Mr. Eric 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 will be also 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 directlywith 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.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.


Representative Colmenares. Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po, Mr. Presiding

Officer.

The Presiding Officer. Gentleman of the Prosecution.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you.

May we be allowed to make a short manifestation?

The Presiding Officer. Please, go ahead.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Sir.

Last weekpo, February 20, Monday,pumunta po dito dalawang (2) regular front 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.


4/47


Noong nandoon po sila sa holding room, nakausap sila ng Secretariat natin atthere were two

strange things that happened herepo.

Una, when they filled up the logbookang sinabi nila, actually, kahit sila ang nag-serve ng

TRO noong gabing yon, actually ang isa pala ay security guard at ang isa pala ay driver. So

medyo napansin namin, bakitsecurity guard atdriver 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

ngSenado, 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 disrespectpara saSenado as an Impeachment Court at sa atin

kasi may order po ang Senate President. Until formally discharged, hindi naman po puwedeng

umalis ang dalawang witness na pumunta na po dito.

Pangalawa, ano ang rason po bakit hindi puwedeng mag-testify ang mga personnel ngKorte

on administrative matter? Simple lang naman sana ang itatanong namin sa kanila, Anong oras

nyosinerve (serve) yung TRO? Ganoon lang po. At ngayon, siyempre may dugtong na kaming

tanong, Bakitdriver ka, security guard ka, bakit ikaw ang nag-serve ng TRO?

Pero these are things, Your Honor please, that do not go into the deliberation of the Court, that

do not threaten the deliberation of the Court. So para sa amin po, na-subpoena na po sila. Si Clerk

of Court Vidal has, in fact, been subpoenaed na rin. In a sense napunta na sila sa Senado. They

will be made to testify, Your Honors, please, on administrative matters. Anong oras nyo tinype (type)

ang TRO, anong oras ito na-serve, anong oras nagbayad ng bond? Which is in no way po

confidential.

So ang manifestation po namin dito, napakaimportante po nung kanilang mga testimonya

dito. If we are saying that the Senate resolutionsorry, the Supreme Court Resolution of February

14 is the reason why we cannot subpoena or impose our powers of subpoena over thempo,tingin

ko po, hindi dapat natin tingnan yon. Ang Senatethe Impeachment Court has been very

respectful of the Supreme Court. Yung ginawa po ng dalawang (2) watchman and the driverpo,

para sa akin ay disrespectful po yan. Ngayon po, ang testimony ng Clerk of Court, ng other

administrative personnel, really hindi naman po sila puwedengi-disqualify just because they are pre-

decisional. Based doon sa resolutionpo ng Korte Suprema, hindi sila puwedeng mag-testify kasi

pre-decisional sila. The powers of the Impeachment Court is an express constitutional provision. We

should not be tramped by unimplied powers in the Constitution na hindi naman natin alam.

So nire-reiterate ko lang po. Nabanggit ninyo po kanina na napag-usapan ng Clerk of

Court at ng ating Secretariat kung papaano sila mag-testify dito, amin pong i-reiterate, may request

po kami for subpoena sa mga administrative personnel. Iyong isa po ay sa Clerk of Court na

napaka-importante lalo na po sa narinig kong desisyong bago lang na hindi ma-subpoena

si Justice Sereno o ma-invite man lang.Napaka-importante po ng kanilang sasabihin dahil they

will provepara sa aminiyong aming teyoriya na may distortion pong nangyari. So iyon lang

po ang aming nire-reiterate. At least, as far as the administrative personnel, lalo na po ang Clerk

of Court at mga iba pang administrative personnel on issues that we would like to propound on them,

Your Honors please.

The Presiding Officer. Puwede bang makapagtanong ang Presiding Officer sa Prosecution?


5/47


Representative Colmenares. Tatangkain po naming masagot kung kakayanin po.

The Presiding Officer. Ang gusto ba ninyong gawin namin ay i-enforce namin iyong

subpoena na pinadala namin?

Representative Colmenares. Opo, sana po ma-enforce.

The Presiding Officer. Ipagpalagay na natin na i-enforce namin iyon at hindi sumunod iyong

mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema dahil may utos sa kanila ang Korte Supreme na, Huwag

kayong magtetestigo. Ano sa palagay ninyo ang remedyo ng Senado?

Representative Colmenares. Ang atin pong

The Presiding Officer. Ano angremedyo ng Senado kaya?

Representative Colmenares. Sa akin popara sa akin may contempt, nakalagay po sa

Rules natin may contempt powers

The Presiding Officer. Ipagpalagay na natin na iko-contempt natin, o sige i-contempt natin. Iyon ba ang mungkahi ninyo?

Representative Colmenares. Kasi otherwisepo lahat na lang po ng ahensiya po

The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga. Iyon ang mungkahi po ninyo na i-contempt nitong Senate?

Representative Colmenares. Ako po, I would like to avoid contempt powers, the exercise of

contempt powerspo, pero ito po lantaran po ito kasi lahat na lang pala po ng ahensiya, bawat

may impeachment, will promulgate their internal rules saying na confidential, powerlesspo ang buong

Impeachment proceedings natin. Kaya para sa akin po this time aroundpo

The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga tinatanong ko sa Prosecution ito, gusto ninyo na i-contemptnamin iyong hindi susunod sa subpoena namin?

Representative Colmenares. Kung nag-subpoena po ang Senate at hindi nila susundin na

dahil ang administrative matters ay

The Presiding Officer. Mayroong nga kaming subpoena.

Representative Colmenares. hihingi po kami na i-enforce ng Senate ang kanilang poder

and if necessary may contempt powers po, i-contemptpo natin.

The Presiding Officer. Iko-contempt natin? Kung hindi susundin iyon, sino ang ikukulong

natin?

Representative Colmenares. Ang tingin ko naman po, ang Impeachment Court is not

so powerless na balewala pala po ang Rules natin sa Impeachment proceedings pag 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 with contempt.

Pero pag simulan po natin sa puntong, Eh kung kinontempt (contempt) namin at ayaw,

baka po malagay po sa alanganin kaagad hindi lang iyong prestige kundi iyong poder po natin

bilang Impeachment Court. So, we implore the Senate President. Huwag muna tayo sigurong

dumating doon. Puwedeng sabihin sa kanila po na, Ang poder namin ay on this-


6/47


The Presiding Officer. Kaya nga po sinabi ko sa inyo na inutusan ko iyong Clerk of Court

natin dito sa Senado at makipag-usap muna doon sa Clerk of Court ng Korte Suprema.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

Representative Colmenares. So, kung ganoon po, maraming salamat po at sana po hindi

po tayo pumayag kung sasabihin ng Clerk of Court ng Korte Suprema na, Ayaw naming pumunta. Iyon lang po.

The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lang i-pursue ito. Kung i-contempt namin ang mga

empleyado ng Korte Suprema at hindi sila sumunod at ipaaaresto namin sa Sergeant-At-Arms

Representative Colmenares. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. ng Senado at hindi rin sila sumunod ay mayroon ba tayong

kapangyarihan upang orderan natin ang Armada ng Pilipinas, ang Sandatahang Lakas ng

Pilipinas para dakpin lahat iyong mga empleyado ng Korte Suprema?

Representative 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. Pero iyon na nga ang logical movement noong proseso pag hindi

natin pinag-usapan nang mahinahon ito.


The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Senator Sotto. Perhaps, iyon pong hinaing ng ating Prosecution, Representative Colmenares

Representative Colmenares. Salamat.

Senator Sotto. eh na-advance nang 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 the subpoena.

Representative Colmenares. Subpoena.

Senator Sotto. 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.

Representative Colmenares. Ah, okay po.

Senator Sotto. Medyo na-advance niyo lang nang konti yung kilos eh.

Representative Colmenares. Kung

Senator Sotto. 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.

Representative Colmenares. If I maythank youpo sa clarification.


7/47


In that case, I just hope that the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court cannot impose her decision

on us. Pero, if I maypo, can I just say alsojust a short manifestationpo.

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Representative Colmenares. I presumepo na ang proposal ngSenado is for the Prosecution

to invite Justices of the Supreme Court. Ang problema po namin diyan is may Resolution ang KorteSupremaFebruary 14disagreepo kami diyan. Para naman sa amin, sige, ipagbigay pa natin

yung deliberative aspect ng kanilang privilegepero 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 yun. She

is going to testify alsopo on the distortion as alleged by her in her dissent. Atyung 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 Puwede ka nang lumipad

kahit hindi ka nagbayad ng bond. Yun lang po. Ang distortionpo na yan should not beshould

not hide behind the cloak of confidentialitypo.

The Presiding Officer. Puwede bang makapagtanong sa inyo ulit?

Representative Colmenares. Salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, mayroon kayong Mosyon na dumating dito sa Impeachment

Court at hinihiling ninyo ang subpoena o kaya imbitasyon kay Justice Sereno, hindi ba?

Representative Colmenares. Tama po.

The Presiding Officer. Oho. Kung isu-subpoena po namin si Justice Sereno at hindi

papayaghindi pupunta rito at hindi magtetestigo, kayo po ba ay inaasahan ninyo na i-contempt

nitong Husgadong ito, si Justice Sereno?

Representative Colmenares. Ako po, personally po, may tiwala ako na pag na-subpoena

si Justice Serenopupunta siya. Pero ganun pa man po, we invited

The Presiding Officer. Hindi namin alam yung tiwala po ninyo eh.

Representative 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 assertpo that power of the

Impeachment Court, at least kung tatanggihan oang imbitasyonit is an invitation po and

therefore, maybeThe Presiding Officer. O , ipagpalagay natin imbitasyon. Iimbitahin ng Husgadong ito si

Justice Sereno at siya ay pupunta rito, ano ba? Maging testigo o resource person?

Representative Colmenares. Well, ang sabi ko nga po sa Motion

The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang. Ano ba ang gusto ninyo? Maging testigo ninyo o

resource person lamang?

Representative Colmenares.Ang amin pong ninanais is mag-testify siya for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Para sa inyo?


8/47


Representative Colmenares. Of course, because the Senate Rules also apply here. As far as

I know, under the Senate Rules, the resource persons are also invited but as for our purposepo, 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 Prosekyusyon, ganun ba?

Representative Colmenares. If that is the subpoena

The Presiding Officer. No. Tinatanong ko po kayo. Tinatanong ko kayo dahil mayroon

akong puntirya diyan eh.

Representative Colmenares. That is what we were askingpo that she testify for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, kung ganun ang akala po ninyo, bakit hindi ninyo

imbitahin muna si Justice Sereno na pumunta rito? Kaya kayo ang Prosecution eh. Sa halip na

gamitin ninyo ang compulsory process ng Hukom na ito, kayong mga Prosecution dapat kinausap

ninyo yung gusto ninyong maging testigo at dalhin ninyo rito muna. At kung ayaw na pupunta

na kusa at sinasabi ninyo sa amin kailangan daw niya ng subpoena o imbitasyon, baka sakalikakausapin ko ang mga kapwa kong Hukom at baka sakali papayagan.

Representative Colmenares. Of course, we can also take the advice of the Senate President.

Ang problema rin 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.Iyon ang

pinakamalaking balakid eh.

The Presiding Officer. Iyon nga po ay meron iyon. Kung meron din kayo nung ganun sa

House of Representatives, mapipilit po ba namin kayo na dumalo rito?

Representative Colmenares. Tingin ko po yung Internal Rules ng Legislature, ng SupremeCourt o Executive ay hindi po dapat siya maging absolute blanket confidentiality na mawalan na

po ng poder ang Impeachment Court on issues that are no longer, in fact, part of the adjudicatory tasks

of a Justicepo. Sa akin po the Internal Rules may only applypag adjudicatory process. Kung sa

Legislative naman po, legislative process. Pero kung katulad ng ina-allegepo ng Prosecution na

merong pagsalungat, pag-distort sa desisyon po, sana po hindi natin mahayaan na mag-isyu ang

Korte Supreme ng isang internal rules na nagpo-protect po niyan despite the fact that in many

instances, it has been said thatyung mga privilegepo na yan should not be used to cover a crime

or an offensepo or judicial misconductpo.

The Presiding Officer.Iginagalang ko po ang inyong opinyon. Pero sa aking paningin iyan

ay opinyon lamang. At meron ding mga iba na may opinyon at igagalang ko rin yon.


The Presiding Officer.Pero pag ginawa ko iyon, ginawa nitong Husgado na ito iyon, eh

baka magkakaroon tayo ng mas malaking problema.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, Counsel wants to place this Impeachment Court in

a direct collision course with the Supreme Court. Counsels answer to the question Anong


9/47


mangyayari ngayon pag sinubpoena (subpoena) natin ang isang Justice of Supreme Court at ayaw

niya sumunod? The answer is not responsive, Sa tingin ko naman ay susundin niya. Hindi.

Sagutin mo ang tanong. Ano ang mangyayari ngayon kung ayaw niya? Sagutin mo. Your answer

should be responsive and I am not asking you to answer at this time. You have been asked that several

times by the Presiding Officer and you insist on hypothecating that you will obey.Eh kung hindi nga

niya gagawin, ano ngayon ang mangyayari sa Impeachment Court? 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 an Impeachment Court and the Supreme Court? Ngayon, gusto mo na yung

confidentiality privilege ng Supreme Court, should beat least in this instance, should be disregarded.

Tatlong (3) branches ng gobyerno,tatlong (3) sangay ng gobyerno: Executive, Legislative and

Judicial.Bawat isa may privilege. Executive, may executive privilege; Legislative, may legislative

privilege during executive session, as what we call it; Judicial, may judicial privilege, also known as

deliberative privilege or deliberative process privilege. Pag nagde-deliberate ang Supreme Court,

hindi mo puwedeng tanungin iyan tungkol sa kanilang pag-deliberate. Kamukha lang sa

legislation,pag nag-closed-door session ang Senate or ang House, hindi mo pwedeng tanungin ang

mga legislators, senators and representatives what they took up in a closed-door session. Ganoon din

sa Judiciary.Bakit ngayon we are singling out one branch of government so that we can penetrate the

rule of confidentiality?Anong klaseng argumento iyan? Do you recognize that you are asking this

nation to go on a direct collision between two (2) separate branches of government? Have you fully

thought out your position?

Tinatanong ka ng Presiding Officer. Ilang beses ka nang tinanong. Ano ngayon ang

mangyayari kung i-subpoena namin, utusan namin ang Justice at ayaw niyang sumunod? I-cite

namin siya for contempt. Ano ngayon ang mangyayari? Magpapakulong ba siya sukat? Kung

i-cite din niya kami for contempt?Ano ngayon ang sagot mo?

Pag-isipan muna natin ito because we are talking about the entire nation. This is not a

question ofpataasan ng ihi.Sino angmas malakas, ang Supreme Court or Impeachment Court? Hanggat maaari lumihis tayo para hindi tayo nagkokomprontasi. Ganoon iyon. 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 iyan. Internal rule iyan nito.Hindi, hindi totoo iyan. Mayroontayong

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 iyon. Are you attacking the entire system of privilege

for every three branches of government? If you are attacking deliberative process privilege, as they call

it in America, in favor 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 the

Executive Branch of government, should also be made to come tumbling down over our heads? Iyan.

You are not being candid with the Court.

Pagkatapos sinubukan namin iyan, eh. Mayroong 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, a Resolution dated


10/47


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 namin 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. Eh kung i-overturn natin iyanat ayaw nila kaming sundin,

ano ngayon ang mangyayari? You keep on telling us here, Eh palagay natin susundinsa palagay ko susundin iyan. Kung hindi niya sundin, eh di laking kahihiyan ng Impeachment

Court. At ano pa ngayon ang mangyayari? It is like putting humpty-dumpty together again.

Nabasag na eh. Ganoon iyon.

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 namangyayari. Hindi ko sinasabi na

baka mangyari o mangyayari.Pero alam po ninyo, ang inatasan lamang ng ating Saligang Batas

na magdeklara na kung ang isang gawain ng gobyerno, ng ahensiya ng gobyerno o ng batas o

ng Malacaang o sinuman dito ay sang-ayonsa Saligang Batas o hindi sang-ayon ay Korte

Suprema lamang. What the Supreme Court says as constitutional law is constitutional law. No oneelse can reverse it. Suppose we follow your line of actionhalimbawa 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 idedeklara nila itong prosesong ito na

unconstitutional, saan tayo pupunta at saan? Saan nga, saan?

Please answer lang.

Representative Colmenares. In factpo sa totoo lang,nilabanan na po ng Senadong ito yan

noon. Hindi namin sinasabi nawalang privilegepo. Ang sinasabi lang naman po namin, hindi

siya absolute. Nilabanan 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 the that is impinging

on the prerogative, on the powers of the congressional investigation. Is there a chance na magka-

clashpo ba noon yung Executive atLegislative? Meron po. Pero tingin ng Senado kasi, Tama

kami, mag-i-investigate kami ng Hello, Garci mag-i-investigate kami ng NBN at hindi puwedeng

mag-issue si Ginang Arroyo ng isang blanket na privilege, Executive Order 464.Na-defanged ang

buong Senado. Lumaban na po tayo niyan. At kasama po ako sa petition na iyan noong

panahong iyon. Atin fact, nanaig po tayo doon. So sa akin po, of course, there is always that

pag-agam-agamna puwedeng may mangyari. Kaya lang ang sabi ng Senado noon: Kahit may

ganun tayong pag-agam-agam, ilaban natin kasi karapatan at poder ng Senado yon. Yun 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 ganong pribilehiyo ng confidentialitylalo na kung ang issue po ay isang paglabag saCode of Conduct ng Judiciary. Yun, yun na

po ang aking masasabi.

The Presiding Officer. Totoo po yung sinasabi niyo. Pinaglaban namin iyan. Pero sino ba

ang nagdesisyon? Sino ang nagdesisyon po? Ang Korte Suprema. Noon hindi sila nasasangkot.

Ang nasasangkot ay ang Senado at ang Ehekutibo. Pinasyahan nila yon. Pero ngayon, ang

mangyayari, ang masasangkot ang Senado at ang Korte Suprema mismo. Ngayon, una, pag

ginawa natin yan, pupunta ang kaso doon. Made-delay ito. Ang alam ko ay gusto ninyong

tapusin itong kaso na ito bago dumating ang Mahal na Araw.

Representative Colmenares. Tama po.


11/47


The Presiding Officer. Di ba? Siyempre pupunta yan sa Korte Suprema ngayon para

pasyahan, kung papasyahan nila. Yun nga po ang iniiwasan namin dahil gusto namin tugunan

yung kagustuhan ninyo na matapos ito bago maging Mahal na Araw. Ngayon kung gusto ninyo

yan, eh, ako po ay kung yun ang utos ng Hukom sa akin ay gagawin ko. Padadalhan ko ng

subpoena si Justice Sereno, lahat ng mga mahistrado sa Korte Suprema kung yun ang gusto ng

Husgado na ito. Iimbitahin ko lahat sila rito. Pero, kung hindi sila papayag at sasabihin nila,

You are doing an unconstitutional act, ano ngayon ang remedyo po ninyo?

Representative Colmenares. Sa ganang amin lang po, yung administrativeat least yung

administrative aspectspo, sana po ay hindi po nating hayaan na ma-coverpo yan 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.

Representative Colmenares. I understandpo.

The Presiding Officer. Oo. Kami rin interesado na pangalagaan namin ang kapangyarihan

ng Impeachment Court. Pero, kina-calibratepo 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 taong bayan.



Senator Sotto. Senator Lacson and I are preventing Senator Honasan from standing up. So, may

we recognize Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago again for the continuation?

Senator 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 colloquy. A colloquy is a discussionor a debate between a Senator-Judge on the one hand, and one of the Counsels on the other hand.

The two (2) Counsels 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.

Representative Colmenares. Yung last word lang naman po namin ay nabanggit na namin.

Hindi po talaga maayos na sa ngayon pa lang po ang simula natin dineklara na natin na pag-

i-defy pala po ang ating subpoena powers, eh wala na tayong magawa, at least for the Justices.

Although we still continue to hope na sa administrative aspectspo,wala naman masamang tanungin

ang Clerk of Court, anong oras mo tinayp (type) iyong TRO? Anong oras nilabas? Sana ponaman ay ma-insist ng Impeachment Court ang pagka-subpoenapo sa kanila.

Maraming maraming salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. Salamat.


The Presiding Officer. All right, the Floor Leader.

Senator 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


12/47


documentary evidence required of Mr. Enrique Javier and Ms. Carreon- Domingo, both of Philippine

Airlines, relative to Article III of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment. May the Presiding Officer

please rule on this motion?

Mr. Cuevas. Mayroon na bang ruling? If Your Honor please, with the kind indulgence of

the Honorable Court.


Mr. Cuevas. We were served with a copy of this Manifestation and Motion for Clarification only

last Friday, about four oclock 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?

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, this is merely a Motion for Clarification.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Senator Sotto. The Court is ready to clarify.

Mr. Cuevas. Meron na?

Senator Sotto. So we need not

Mr. Cuevas. But if you examine the prayers, Your Honor, together with the allegations, it is more

of a motion for reconsideration rather than clarification. That is our basic stand on the matter, Your

Honor. This is not seeking a clarification, this is seeking a reconsideration of what has been fully

adjudicated by this Honorable Impeachment Court.

Senator 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, that the caucus has already arrived at.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay then, Your Honor, 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, paragraph 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 failed to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7,

paragraph 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 decisions in

final and executory cases. That is one reason why you said there was a failure to observe thatstandard.

Second, this is your second reason: 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 weakness of your allegation. And that is why

in the last hearing, you in this Court openly withdrew the two (2) other reasons that you used to support


13/47


your claim that the Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed 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

an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending

before a court. You withdrew this. I repeatedly asked 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, I was observing procedural due process

in favor 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 yourself 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 the presentation of

that witness. If you think that I abused 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.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Chiz Escudero?

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this is just a brief manifestation, some queries to the Prosecutors. I do not know who

will respond.

Congressman Colmenares, ang assumptionpo namin kapagka may tumayo diyan sa kinakalagyan

ninyo ngayon, siya na po ang nagsasalita para sa buong Prosekusyon. Hindi po namin alamiyong 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?

Representative Colmenares.Opo. Pero pag Article IIIpo, with due respect, I just like to ask

the lead Prosecutor of Article III if it is about Article III po.

Senator Escudero.Hindi. Iyong generalKasi ang tinatanongNagkaroon kami ng mahabang

diskusyon kanina dahil dito sa manifestation at clarification ninyo, doon sa motion ninyo for

essentially, reconsideration. 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 Defensepara naman ho malaman namin at

makapaghanda kami doon sa ipiprisinta niyong ebidensiya at nang hindi rin ho kami nagugulat.

Sa Article II, ang nilista ninyong testigo ay labingtatlo (13). Ang iprinesenta po ninyo ay anim (6).

SaArticle III, dalawamputanim (26) na testigo ho ang inilista ninyo.Ang iprinisinta niyo

po isa (1) at tumigil na po kayo doon.

Sa Article VII, dalawamput apat (24) na testigo po ang inilista ninyo. Isa (1) pa lang po

ang piniprisinta ninyo.


14/47


May I know, at least, insofar as Article VII is concerned, mga ilang testigo po ba ang

ipiprisinta ninyo? Dahil magandang pakinggan honoong nalista yung maraming testigo pero

nalalagay ho kasi sa alanganinyung Senado, eh. Pagkatapos i-anunsiyo sa labas na isangdaan

(100) ang testigo niyo ay mukha naman ho kaming mga bulag sa labas kungbiglang iilan

lamang yung testigo. Maaari po bang malaman ilan pobang testigo ang ipiprisinta ninyo sa

Article VII?

Representative Colmenares. Actuallypo, just a preliminary,yung pag-compliance naman po

naming, part po siyempre nglawyer who will submit the list of his or her witnesses yung

pinakatingin niya nakailangan niya para naman hindi na rin mag-object siyempre ang Defense

later if, you know, you call someone na wala sa list niyo.

Sa amin po,dito sa Article VII ang napakahalaga po sa amin yungtestimonya. Siyempre po,

hindi naman kailangang sabihin ng mga officers ng Korte Suprema at mga Justice. So ang amin

pongtestigo sa ngayon, gusto po namin i-cut down. Ininstraksiyunan (instruct) na rin po kami

ng Prosecution 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 siyam ang aming maiprisinta.

Senator Escudero. Under Article VIIpo?

Representative Colmenares. Under Article VIIpo.

Senator Escudero.Huling bagay na lang po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Si Justice Sereno po ba nakausap niyo na? Naimbitahan niyo na ba siya ngpersonal at

sabi ba niya, Kailangan ko ng subpoena o ng imbitasyon mula sa Senado. Kung hindi, hindi

ako magpupunta diyan.

Representative Colmenares. Ako po, personally, nag-usap po kami ng legal team napumunta doon para kausapin yungClerk of Court, Justice Sereno upon, of course, the advice of

the Senate President, Na kausapin niyo naman ang witness niyo. Sa mahabangdiskusyon po

ng legal team po namin, in the end, ang sabi ng legal team it is better not to go there at baka

naman, you know, may allegations na you were trying to force her, influence orSo ang anonamin,

hindi po ako personally or wala po akong personal na paglapitkay Justice Sereno.

Senator Escudero. Again, Congressman Neri

Representative Colmenares. Pero naglabas po kami ng isangyung request po namin na,

at least, doon sa dokumento na nabanggitna naging ano po ng Resolution noong February 14.

Senator Escudero. Again, forgive me, Congressman Neri. Pag tumayo nga ho kayo diyan,kayo na ang nagsasalita para sa buong Prosecution. Hindi ko ho tinatanong yungpersonal

ninyong karanasan kung nakausap niyo siya o hindi.

Nakipag-ugnayan na po ba ang Prosekusyon sa kanya? Atnagsabipo ba siya na, Isyuhan

lang ako ng imbitasyon, isyuhan langako ng subpoena, pupunta ako diyan? Dahil sa totoo

lang, malaya naman po siyang puwedeng magpunta rito kung ninanais talaganiya, eh.

Representative Colmenares. Ayon po sa aming Lead Prosecutor, wala po silang personal

na pagpuntakay Justice Serenopo.

Senator Escudero. Huling bagay na lamang po, Mr. Presiding Officer.


15/47


Congressman Neri, nalalagay ho kasi kami sa alanganin. Tuwing may testigo kayong

gustong iprisinta rito, hinihingan niyo po kami ng subpoena. Nakatali din po ang kamay namin

sa ilang pagkakataon.

Sa totoo lang, nag-litigate ho kayo maski noong napa-practice ho kayo, hindi ba? Obligasyon

namang pangunahin ng Prosekusyon ang alagaan ang kanilang testigo at iprisinta rito. At

kung kinakailangan,halimbawa, kung 9:00 to 5:00pa siya para naman hindi mabawasan yungsuweldo niya eh di maisyuhan ng subpoena para magpunta rito. O sa ibang mga pagkakataon

tulad ng bangko, sigepuwede po yun. Pero may mga pagkakataon na hindi naman hokailangan

ang subpoena and on your own and it is your lookout to present these witnesses. Gayun din po sa

Depensa, pag turn na nila angmagprisinta ng ebidensiya, lookout din nila yung mga testigo nila.

At pareho ho yung batayan ng standard na i-apply ng Korte sa mga testigo ng nais nilang

iprisinta. May nais silang iprisintang Justice din,i-apply po namin yung parehong rule doon na

hindi po iisyuhan ng subpoena. Kung nais nilang boluntaryo magpunta rito, bahala ho sila.

Tatanggapin sila nang maluwalhati basta iprisinta sila nung panig nanagpiprisinta sa kanila.

Sana po maunawaan ninyo yung aming kalagayan kaugnaynoon. Sana sikapin po ninyo.

Sigurado ko naman tatanungin ni Attorney Cuevas eh, Kinausap ka ba nung abogado ng Depensa? Ganun naman ho yung palaging tanong ni Attorney Cuevas sa mga testigo eh.

Kinausap niyo ho para magpunta rito eh, wala naman hong masama dun basta hindi siya

nagsisinungaling at bastat nagsasabi siya ng totoo.

Representative Colmenares. Salamat po. Atactuallypo, ang nabanggit ko pa po sa kaso

na ito, actually sabi ko, talagang pahirapan itong kaso na ito kasi sa nature niya po, ang

karamihan po ng witnessespo, very reluctant talagang mag-testify. Siguro dahil ang kalaban mo

Chief Justice ng Korte Suprema kaya hindi po kami ganun 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.

Senator Escudero. Salamat po. At hindi lamang po naman limitado sa Korte Suprema.

Maski na sariling ninyong testigo, si Secretary De Lima, maski naman po siya at hindi naman din

kayo nagreklamo onag-object, nag-invoke din siya ng executive privilege eh sa ilang katanungan

na ayaw niyang sagutin at sa palagay niya aymaba-violateyung executive privilege kaugnay ng

kanyang komunikasyon sa Pangulo man o sa ibang mga testigo o tao na kumausap sa kanya

kaugnay ng kasong ito.

So ganun lang talaga yung pagdribol, 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.

Representative Colmenares. Thank youpo. We will try to work within the difficultiespo.

Salamat po.

Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Lacson, Mr. President? And then, Senator Santiago,

for the final word.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cavite.

Senator Lacson. Maraming salamat po. Nagpaalam ako kay Kagalang-galang Senadora

Santiago.


16/47


Ginoong Taga-usig, nabanggit niyo kanina nagpulong kayo ng legal team at napagkaisahan

ninyo, huwag na lang tumuloy para kausapin si Justice Sereno dahil baka isipin ay pinupuwersa

o inimpluwensyahan ninyo. Eh bakit kami isusubo ninyo sa kinahihiyaan nyong gawin?

Representative Colmenares. Hindi po iyan, kami kasi po

Senator Lacson. Eh ganun po ang gusto ninyong mangyari.

Salamat po.

Representative Colmenares. Wala po kaming poder po na katulad ninyo po na mag-

subpoena kay Justice Serenopo. Pero, yes, angnabanggit ko po kanina kay Senador Chiz, we

will attempt to talk to the witnesses ng Korte Supreme kung sakaling i-subpoena na po sila ng

Impeachment Courtpo.

Senator Sotto. Finally, Mr. President, Senator Miriam Santiago.

The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, allow me to address this question to the Prosecutionpanel as a group.

What on earth were you thinking? You are asked to tell the Court early in the opening of this

Impeachment Trial, How many witnesses will you present? You answered, One hundred (100).

It was in all the banner headlines of all the major newspapers. Now, you are telling us, you will present

maybe, in effect, fifteen (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, We only wanted to make sure, then you could have

approximated a figure relatively close to the above fifteen (15) or so that you will present. Why say

one hundred (100)? What on earth was going through your mind? Were you trying to mislead theCourt? Were you trying to conduct trial by publicity?

And may I remind you, Prosecution panel, in the Rules of the Impeachment Court promulgated by

the Senate, the Senators are themselves prohibited 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 pulitika. Huwag niyo kaming lokohin dito. Nanggagaling yun sa inyo. In

the same way that maybe the Defense is also engaging in the same practice, let us say, in self-defense,

in its kindness light.

Kaya huwag na kayong magpapanggap-panggapan diyan. Irespeto niyo ang Impeachment

Court. Huwag kayong mang-atake 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 use the term excessive entanglement, that means this is

a case involving the power of the State to regulate the activities of the Church and vice-versa. Do not

use this term of art here because it has nothing to do with the Church-State conflict. Pasiklab kayo

nang pasiklab, you are using terms of art in law. Puwede ba sabihin ninyo na lang, You are so

close, therefore could no longer maintain the independence or the cold neutrality of an impartial judge,

ganoon na lang. Huwag na kayong gumamit-gamit pa ng kung anu-anong salita sa constitutional


17/47


law. Hindi tayo maintindihan, pagtatawanan tayo ng mga students of constitutional law in all

tripartite democracies like ours. Pag may term of art, huwag mong gamitin yan kung hindi ka

sigurado kung ano ang meaning niyan. Kaya tayo tumatagal dito eh.

These are 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 nagbibista tayo dito, walang patid ang atake personal saaming mga ImpeachmentCourt Judges, whether we are perceived to be in favor 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 must say is sometimes bizarre? It is not only peculiar but itself bizarre, so Byzantine,

that I cannot figure out what it is that you are trying to do.

Pagkatapos kagabiMr. 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 puwede pang manatili si posisyon si Chief Justice Corona? and others

of like import.

In the first place, no UP student with an IQ that is demanded of a state university will conduct that

kind of a survey when only the Prosecution has presented the evidence. Wala pa ngana-present na

evidence ang Defense, magtatanong ka na?

And secondly, what is the implication? That this matter can be resolved by referendum? Eh kung

mag-survey kaya ang Ateneo atkontra sa survey ng UP, ano ngayon ang gagawin natin? Anong

klaseng propaganda iyan, aber? Mag-isip-isip naman kayo, nakakainsulto. You are an insult to

the intelligence of educated Filipinos. At saka hindi man lang ang 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 maybeI do not know.

Senator Angara would know better than me. Maybe close to 50 million. Anong ibig sabihin nito?At huwag nga ninyo akong lokohin. Hindi iyan lilitaw sa newscast kung walang may nagbayad

dahil hindi naman legitimate news iyan. 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?

At saka ang dami ninyong komentaryo sa aming mga Senator-Judges.Eh kung magkomentaryo

kaya kami during the trial about your competence, in fact, maybe about your mental sanity, aber,

gustuhin ninyo?

Huwag ninyo kaming ginaganyan ha. And besides I have evidence about a certain congressman

who has been testifying here. Huwag ninyo akong pilitin to reveal my hand, I can prove that he is

lying under oath. Be careful.


Senator Sotto. Sen. Joker Arroyo, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. Gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

You know I keep on wonderingI 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?


18/47


You have hereyou have the support of the President of the Philippines no less. You should have

no problem getting witnesses because of thewhat is this?of suasion. So I supposed you should

notyou should be careful about your statements.

I can understand your problem that you willas I have said always, I have been in that seat.

But you canyou will have problems. But do not ascribe that to external problems like citing that

it is hard to fight the Chief Justice of the Philippines. You have on your corner the Presidentof the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.


Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please may I be allowed to say a couple of words, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Mention had been made of the pattern of my cross-examination when the Defense

turn come in. Now, I had 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. Will they prove that this

is true? Because as what the witnesses have been saying, there have been no conferences with them

by the Prosecution panel, neither were they 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 thesewitnesses were called, Your Honor. The Complaint was filed way back in December, Your Honor.

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 Honorable Supreme Court in the case ofSalonga

vs. Pao, that before any Complaint or Prosecution Complaint must be filed, then the Prosecutor 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. We neverit 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 Honorable Impeachment Court.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Representative Colmenares. If I may, Mr. President? Just a short manifestation lang po.

The Presiding Officer. Can we shorten this?

Representative Colmenares. Yes po.

The Presiding Officer. I will give you a chance but we have wasted almost

Representative Colmenares. Maigsi lang po.


19/47


The Presiding Officer. more than an hour already discussing things that are ought to have

beena time that ought to have been utilized to present your case.

But anyway go ahead.

Representative Colmenares. Opo, salamat po.

Totoo po iyon kahit na may question ang Depensa, talagang may kahirapan kami sawitnesses. Nadagdagan po siyempre iyong decision, halimbawa, ng Korte Suprema, iyong

Resolution ng February 14 na-cutpo siyempre ang aming mga witnesses. Pero gayunpaman po

tatangkain pa rin namin makapresenta ng pinakaimportanteng witnesses namin dito at para

ayaw naman naming humaba ito. So ang aming statement lang po eh handa naman po kaming

magpresenta ng mga witness at ebidensiya, may 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 kaming mag-present. Lahat na lang ng dokumento na kahit walang

kinalaman sa deliberasyon ng Korte Suprema, pinagbabawal po ng Korte Suprema. So we are

having that difficulty. But we will try, Mr. President, our utmost to overcome that difficultypo.

The Presiding Officer. Alam mo, Ginoong Prosecutor , ang remedyo diyan ay hindi

manggagaling dito sa Impeachment Court. Ang remedyo diyan ay baguhin iyong Saligang Batas

na ginagamit natin sa paglilitis na ito. Habang iyan ay hindi napapalitan, iyon ang susundin

natin na reglamento, iyong Saligang Batas natin na nakasalang ngayon, hindi ba?

Representative Colmenares. Salamat po.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President?


Senator Sotto. Yes, may we move on to the business for today? The Prosecution may call

on theProsecution, they are ready for the continuation of their presentation of evidence.

The Presiding Officer. Your witness.

Representative Colmenares. Thank youpo. The first witness will be presented by private

Prosecutor Atty. Art Lim, Your Honor, please. May I give the rostrum to himpo.

Mr. Cuevas. I was about to suggest, Your Honor, if it will not be asking too much, that the

good Prosecutorpublic Prosecutor handle the Prosecution, Your Honor, so that we will be better

enlightened, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel

Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, there will come a time when I will handle a witness.

If Justice Sereno is

The Presiding Officer. Counsel

Representative Colmenares. I think, Your Honor, it was unfair for the Defense to dictate

sorry, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I said already let us stop all of this discussion. We cannot finish this case

if we are not going to do our work. We have heard enough. So, let us forget about these opinions.

Let us go to the business of the day, present the case. Present your witness.


20/47


Representative Colmenares. Atty. Art Lim, Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. Now, Counsel for the Defense, let them control their side of the

controversy. 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.Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

I was making that as a suggestion only, Your Honor.

Thank you.


Mr. Lim. Good afternoon, Your Honor, and the Honorable Members of the Court.

We would like to call on Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes as our first witness for today, Your Honor.


Mr. Lim. May we request the Secretariat to fetch the witness from the holding room, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

While the witness is coming to the Chamber, I will suspend the trial for one minute.

The trial was suspended at 3:23 p.m.

At 3:29 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

Is the witness here?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Please swear in the witness.

The Clerk of Court. 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?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. I do.

The Clerk of Court. So help you God.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Prosecution, proceed.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor.

You may please take your seat, Madam Witness.

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Lim. Magandang hapon po, Doktora Cervantes.

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes.Magandang hapon rin ho, Attorney Lim. And magandang hapon ho

sa inyong lahat.


21/47


Mr. Lim. Kindly state, Maam, your full name, your address and your occupation.

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Ako po si Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes.

Mr. Lim. Address po?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes.Ako po ay nakatira sa 9th Street, Rolling Hills, New Manila, Quezon

City. At ako po ay isang manggagamot.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, we are presenting the witness, Doktora Juliet Gopez-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?

Mr. Lim. October 1, 2011, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. 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.


Mr. Lim.Doktora Cervantes, did you receive a subpoena in relation to this hearing?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lim. And is that the reason why you are here?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Opo.

Mr. Lim. Do you know former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lim. Why do you know her, Maam?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes.Ako po ay siyang pinaka-main attending physician ng former President

every time she went to St. Lukes Medical Center from Quezon City and lately in Global. And I was

the main attending physician from 2006 to December 2011. So for five (5) years, I have been the mainattending physician of the former President.

Mr. 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, Maam?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Sir, I am a gastroenterologist and a hepatologist, meaning, I specialized

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. Lukes Medical Center in Quezon City. So being the attending physician of the former First

Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, and her problem was in gastroenterology, she was referred to me to attend


22/47


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. But 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 subspecialties 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 itis beyond my specialty as gastroenterologist or a hepatologist, I refer the problem to the different

subspecialties and then decide whom to refer the problem and ultimately summarize everything and then

come up with a decision whatever it is, whether in the diagnosis or in the management.

Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, do you recall having attended to the former President, Honorable

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in the month of July 2009, August 2009 and also in September 2009?

I am sorry, 2011, July of 2011, August of 2011 and September of 2011?

My apologies,Doktora.


Mr. Lim. For what ailments?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. Mainly for the problem in the neck.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Maam.

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. She was admitted because of severe neck pains.

Mr. Lim. Can you please state, for the record, the dates of confinement of the former President?

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, at this juncture may we place this observation on record,

Your Honor.

There is a categorical statement on the part of the Prosecutor that the Madam Witness, Your

Honor, is being presented as an ordinary witness. We noticed, however, that practically from the start,

she is testifying along medical lines, Your Honor. We would like to know

The Presiding Officer. She is being presented as a doctor and as an ordinary witness testifying

on general medical matters. So let her answer.

Mr. Lim. Can you kindly answer the question, Maam? 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.

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. She was admitted July 25, 2011 to August 5, 2011 and then she wasreadmitted on September 20, and then discharged the following day, September 21.

Mr. Lim. In the subpoena,Doktora 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?


Mr. 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


23/47


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 noticed that this medical certificate which you have produced and which you

have just handed to this representation is an unsigned copy and I also noticed that it is merely a printouton a one-page bond paper without any letterhead. Can you please explain why this is unsigned?

Ms. Gopez-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 out patient 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

out patient medical certificate. But it is in 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 am bringing.

Mr. Cuevas. We have no objection to the authentication of that document, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. Thank you.

Mr. Cuevas. Just to make it easier for you.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Mr. 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. Whose signature is this, Maam?

Ms. Gopez-Cervantes. It is mine, Sir.

The Presiding Officer.They have already admitted the authenticity of that document, Counsel.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. We would like to request

The Presiding Officer. Only for detailed presentation. Go ahead.

Mr. 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

Prosecutions Exhibit NNNNNNNNNN as in Nancy, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Lim. We would also like to request, Your Honor, that the penultimate paragraph in thismedical certificate containing the phrase

The Presiding Officer. Please read the entire penultimate paragraph.

Mr. 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 (3) months and barring any

complications, she should be fully recovered from her spine surgery in six (6) to eight (8) months. Her

metabolic bone disease needs lifetime maintenance treatment.


24/47


The last paragraph reads: Issued unsigned on October 1, 2011 at Taguig City, Philippines,

Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, M.D., Gastroenterologist-Hepatologist, main attending physician,

end of quote, Your Honor.

That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Cross.

Mr. Cuevas. If 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.

Mr. 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 G.R. No. 199034.

The Presiding Officer. Do you admit that this is involved in a pending case in the

Supreme Court?

Mr. Cuevas. That is the request for admission.


Mr. Lim. Well, the matters mentioned therein, Your Honor, are before the Court and subject

even of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno.

The Presiding Officer. No. Do you admit that that is involved in a pending case in the

Supreme Court?

Mr. Cuevas. Before the Supreme Court.

The Presiding Officer. If you do not, you do not.

Mr. Lim. The medical certificate? Yes, it is there, Your Honor, in the Supreme Court.

The Presiding Officer. The Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Madam Witness, no cross. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lim. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged.

Mr. Lim. Thank you.

Senator Sotto. Your next witness for the Prosecution.

Representative Colmenares. Thank youpo.

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 witnesspo.

The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended for one (1) minute to allow the witness to come in.

Representative Colmenares. Thank youpo.

The trial was suspended at 3:45 p.m.


25/47


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

The Presiding Officer. Session resumed.

The Clerk of Court. Madam Witness, please stand up and raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this Impeachment

proceeding?

Ms. Abanador. I do.


The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Your witness.

Representative 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.


Representative 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.

Representative Daza. Mrs. Abanador, a subpoena ad testificandum and 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.

Representative Daza. Mr. President, request permission to approach the witness.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. You may.

Representative Daza. I am showing to you these documents marked on February 23pre-

marked rather, on February 23, 2012 which are exhibits AAAAAAAA. Sorry, Mr. President.

AAAAAAAAAA, BBBBBBBBBB, CCCCCCCCCC, DDDDDDDDDD, EEEEEEEEEE,

FFFFFFFFFF, GGGGGGGGGG, HHHHHHHHHH, IIIIIIIIII, JJJJJJJJJJ, LLLLLLLLLL

and MMMMMMMMMM.

Could 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?

Mr. Cuevas. We admit, Your Honor, that they are genuine reproduction of the respective

originals.

Representative Daza. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Justice.

The Presiding Officer. You mean all the documents brought by the witness are genuine

documents?


26/47


Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Representative Daza. May I just put on record the titles of these documents:

MMMMMMMMMM, Certificate of Service

Exhibit AAAAAAAAAA, Special Order No. 2000-19 signed by then Vice President GloriaMacapagal Arroyo.

Exhibit BBBBBBBBBB, Consultancy Agreement, dated January 24, 2001.

Exhibit CCCCCCCCCC, Certificate of Service for the month of January 2001.

Exhibit DDDDDDDDDD, Consultancy Agreement dated May 24, 2000.

Exhibit EEEEEEEEEE, Certificate of Service for the month of December 2000.

Exhibit FFFFFFFFFF, Certificate of Service for the month of November 2000.

Exhibit GGGGGGGGGG, Certificate of Service for the month of October 2000.

Exhibit HHHHHHHHHH, Certificate of Service for September 2000.

Exhibit IIIIIIIIII, Certificate of Service for August 2000.

Exhibit JJJJJJJJJJ, Certificate of Service for July 2000.

Exhibit 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 Certificates of Service contained the signature of Consultant Renato C. Corona.

I have no further question of the Witness, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Cross.

Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Maam.

No cross, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No cross.

Representative Daza. Thank you.

May I request that the Witness may now be discharged?

The Presiding Officer. The Witness is discharged.

Next witness.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor.

Then our next witness will be presented by private Posecutor Atty. Al Parreo,

Your Honor please.


27/47


The Presiding Officer. Atty. Al Parreo has the floor.

Mr. Parreo. Thank you, Your Honor.

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

Mr. Llosala to the witness stand, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Please call the Witness to enter the Chamber.

The Clerk of Court. 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 po.


Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may I proceed?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Proceed.

Mr. Parreo. Mr. Witness, please state your name and other circumstances.

Mr. Llosala. Ako po si Edmond Handes Llosala, nakatira po sa Unit 9-F, El Hardin, Del

Presidente 2, Quezon City, Sgt. Esguerra. Ako po ay empleyado ng ABS-CBN News, ABS-CBN

Broadcasting Corporation. Ako po ay isang news cameraman.

Mr. Parreo. 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?

Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor, this is under Article VII.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Proceed.

Mr. Parreo. To identify and authenticate the video recording he took on November 15, 2011;

to prove that the November 15 Supreme Court TRO in favor of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo mandated

that she fulfill three conditions before she can leave; to prove that Respondent, through Midas Marquez,

coordinated with GMAs lawyer to ensure that GMA can leave on November 15, 2011; to prove that

Respondent Corona using his administrative powers as Supreme Court Chief 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 RespondentMidas Marquez misled the public into believing that

a TRO is effective when it is not; to prove that Respondent distorted the effectivity of the TRO to make

it effective even if GMA failed to comply with the conditions; other related matters, Your Honor.

May we proceed, Your Honor?


Mr. Parreo. Mr. Witness, saan po kayo nagta-trabaho?

Mr. Llosala. Sa ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporationpo.

Mr. Parreo. Bilang ano po?

Mr. Llosala. Bilang cameramanpo ng News.


28/47


Mr. Parreo. Kailan po kayo naging cameraman?

Mr. Llosala. 1994 pa po.

Mr. Parreo. At hanggang ngayon po ay cameraman din po kayo?

Mr. Llosala. Opo.

Mr. Parreo. Ano po ang trabaho ng isang cameraman?

Mr. Llosala. Nagko-cover po kami ng mga issues, mga newsissues, mga ibat-iba pong

istorya ng buhay relatedpo sa mga coverage ng aming kumpanya.

Mr. Parreo. At saan po ang inyong beat?

Mr. Llosala. Ako po ay naka-beat sa Justice Departmentsa Department of Justice and

Supreme Courtpo.

Mr. Parreo. At noong buwan ng November 2011, saan po ang inyong beat?

Mr. Llosala. Sa Department of Justicepo.

Mr. Parreo. Noong November 15, 2011, nasaan po kayo noon?

Mr. Llosala. Sa Department of Justicepo.

Mr. Parreo. Sa Department of Justice lang po?

Mr. Llosala. Opo.

Mr. Parreo. Nasa Supreme Court din po ba kayo ng mga panahong iyon?

Mr. Llosala. Once na mayroon pong istorya po sa Supreme Court, saka na lang po kami

nagpupunta.

Mr. Parreo. At ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court noong November 15,

2011?

Mr. Llosala. Pag may istorya po, nagpupunta po kami doon. Once na may mga press con

or interview. Pero afterpo noon, babalik na po kami doon sa Department of Justice.

Mr. Parreo. Kayo po ay nandito dahil po isang subpoena. Tama po ba?

Mr. Llosala. Opo.

Mr. Parreo. At ayon po sa subpoena na ibinigay po sa inyong kumpanya, kayo po ayinatasang magdala rin po ng tatlong (3) videos. Tama po ba ito?

Mr. Llosala. Opo.

Mr. Parreo. Nasaan po ang mga videos po na ito ngayon?

Mr. Llosala. Pinadala na po dito po.

Mr. Parreo. Ipapakita ko sa iyo ang unang video. May tagal ito na 23 minutes and

17 seconds.

Mr. Llosala. Yespo.


29/47


Mr. Parreo. Panoorin mo itong mabuti tapos sabihin mo sa amin kung ano ang relasyon

ng video na ito sa videongunang pinadala namin sa inyo.

Mr. Cuevas. We will object, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What is the ground of the objection?

Mr. 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 that date as specifically mentioned and for the purpose as enunciated

by the Witness.

The Presiding Officer. Can you reform your question, please?

Mr. Parreo. Actually, Your HonorSige po.

Kayo po, nasabi niyo po kanina na nandoon kayo noong November 15, 2011, ano po ang

ginawa po ninyo doon?

Mr. Cuevas. Vague, Your Honor.

Mr. Parreo.Bilang isang cameramanpo.

The Presiding Officer. Let him answer.

Mr. Cuevas. The question doon. Saan doon?

The Presiding Officer. Let him answer.

Mr. Llosala. Iyon po yung regular beatpo namin, sa Department of Justicepo. Kaya po kami

nandoon dahil po everyday po kaming may regular na coverage po doon. At kung ano po yung

magiging issue, iyonpo yung kinukunan namin.

Mr. Parreo.Nabanggit niyo po kanina na nasa Supreme Court din po kayo noong panahong

iyon, ano po ang ginagawa ninyo doon sa Supreme Court?

Mr. Llosala. Once na meron pong press con or mga-nagpupunta po kami doon.

Mr. Parreo.At noong November 15, 2011, meron po bang press con na nangyari po noon?

Mr. Llosala. Meron po.

Mr. Parreo.Sino po ang nag-press con?

Mr. Llosala. Nagpa-press conpo si Atty. Midas Marquez.Nagbigay po siya ng statement.

Mr. Parreo.At ano po ang ginawa ninyo habang siya ay nagpa-press con?

Mr. Llosala. Nag-set uppo kami ng camera, tripod and audio at para po mai-cover namin,

ma-on-record po ang statement na ipinahayag niya.

Mr. Parreo.At nabanggit ninyo kanina na kayo ay nagpadala ng video rito, eto ho ba yung

video na nakunan ninyo?

Mr. Llosala.Opo. Yung video onepo na pinadala namin.

Mr. Parreo.Your Honor, may we now present the video that was described by the Witness.


30/47


The Presiding Officer. Why do you not show it to the Witness first so that he can verify whether

that is indeed the video that he was referring to?

Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. We have the screen right here, Your Honor, and we have already

coordinated with the

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, for identification purposes, this video previously marked as Exhibit

TTTTTTTT described in the Senate subpoena as a 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 disk previously marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTT be presented and the time period from

zero to 30 minutes be shown.

Can you please play? To the Secretariat. Your Honor, may we ask the Secretariat to please

(Video Tape Presentation)

Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, with the indulgence of the Honorable Court, may

we be informed as for the purpose of this video playing

The Presiding Officer. What is the question?

Mr. Cuevas. May we be informed as to the purpose, Your Honor, of the video playing?

Mr. Parreo. Can we pause the video, please?

Your Honor, as stated in our Offer

The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly answer the question of the Defense?

Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. As we stated in the Offer, this video is being presented

to show that the TRO on November 15and this was taken, Your Honor, at around 1 to 2 p.m.

The TRO was stated as being suspensive. Meaning, Your Honor, that according to this press

conference, Midas Marquez will state that GMA has to fulfill three conditions first before she can leave.

Mr. Cuevas. May we make a counter-statement, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. This is allegedly a press conference held by Attorney 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 Witnes

Documents

Feb 27 Senate impeachment court record