Feb 29 Senate impeachment court record

8/2/2019 Feb 29 Senate impeachment court record

1/38

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 1

AT 2:16 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. Pia S. Cayetano.

Senator Cayetano (P). Let us put ourselves in the presence of the Lord. We offer up this prayer

through a poem which is entitled True Justice:

Enthroned upon the mighty truth, Within the confines of the laws,

True Justice seeth not the man, But only hears his cause.

Unconscious of his creed or race, She cannot see but only weighs;

For Justice with unbandaged eyes, Would be oppression in disguise.

This is a poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar.

Our God and Father in heaven, as we go through the difficult and sometimes painful process of

finding out the truth in relation to the issues at hand, we humbly ask for the gift of extraordinary wisdom

to enable us to distinguish between conflicting issues and claims, to do what is right by Your standards

and by the standards of our laws, always remaining faithful to the oath we took as Senator-Judges.

We would also like to say a special prayer for the bar examinees. May those who successfully

passed the Bar exam be true vanguards of the law.

And this we pray in Jesus Name. Amen.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Pasay City


2/38

2 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

______________*Arrived after the roll call

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will now call the roll of Senators.

The Secretary, reading:

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

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... PresentSenator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Absent

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

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

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... PresentSenator 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 .................................................................... Present*

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. With 20 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the

presence of a quorum.

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

Senator Sotto. Proclamation.

The Sergeant-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. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 28, 2012

Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 28, 2012

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

Please call the case, Madam Clerk of Court.


3/38


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

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. Appearances.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. For the Prosecution, Mr. President.

Representative Primicias-Agabas. Good afternoon, Your Honors.

For the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives, same appearance. And we are ready,

Your Honors.

Senator Sotto. For the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. We are ready also.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, thank you.

Before the Business of the Day yesterday, the Minority Leader was asking for the floor. So may

we recognize the Minority Leader, Sen. Alan Cayetano, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Minority Floor Leader.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, yesterday when Congressman Neri Colmenares brought

up certain topics, I asked to be recognized today because I did some research dwelling on the

immunities of Supreme Court Justices because of thisInRe: Raul Gonzales which practically states

that, a member of the Philippine Barthat it is a qualification to become a Justice that you have to be

a member of the Philippine Bar and you cannot file a disbarment case during the incumbency of a Justice

nor can you file a criminal case before the Sandiganbayan of any offense which carries with it theremoval from office. Meaning, the only way to address issues of transparency and accountability to

Justices is through an Impeachment Court.

The President has an immunity from suit for his term of six years only but since the Justices retire

at the age of 70 years old, they basically have a much longer time of immunity, in effect, because of

what some people term procedural immunity. And I see the point of this. You cannot see a situation

wherein a Supreme Court Justice is being tried before the Sandiganbayan and then the appeal will be

before the Supreme Court and, at the same time, they pass a resolution. And to be fair to the Supreme

Court, it was the previous members that basically made it very difficult, if not almost impossible, for

anyone to get a copy of the SALN.


4/38


And so basically, Mr. President, ang sinasabi ko po, with all of these immunities, ang takbuhan

lang ng tao po yung Impeachment Court. Pero kung ang magiging desisyon po ng Supreme Court

is that every step of the way, whetherpagsu-subpoena ng kanilang records o ng mga tao, et cetera,

ay hindi puwedeng kunin, lalong nai-strengthen yung kanilang so-called immunity. So saan ka

tatakbo?

Parang may problema tayo: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Kukunin mo ba yungebidensya at kakasuhan mo ba muna siya bago ka dumating ng Impeachment? Or pag nasa

Impeachment na, sasabihin, Nasaan ang ebidensya? Magiging technical tayo. And hindi mo

naman puwede silang kunin na witness; hindi mo puwedeng kunin yung records. Samantalang

malinaw na malinaw naman sa lahat ng court rulings abroad na angjudicial misconduct is one of

the exceptions to opening up their records, regardless if the case is pending before them or not.

The Neri Case which dealt with Executive Privilege, very, very clear yung umpisa niyang

statement, Executive privilege cannot be used to excuse a crime.

So I wanted to go into a discussion, Mr. President, an academic discussion rather than a ruling on

the points that we have already ruled upon because of my concern that whatever we do here will seta precedent, na magiging basehan ito ng future impeachment. I hope we will never have to go

through this again with any of the other justices. I do know that wetama po si Senator Miriam, let

us talk about the country, let us talk about the future. Napakahalaga na yung integrity ng Supreme

Court intact.

Pero, Mr. President, yun din po ang sinabi kasi natin sa militar nung sinabi nating huwag

imbestigahansinasabi nilang huwag imbestigahan si General Garcia; huwag pag-usapan ang

pabaon, huwag pag-usapan ang mga nangyayari. But this actually strengthened the military, and

the reforms that came afterwards actually strengthened the military. So I think there are good intentions

in asking the Supreme Court to release some of their records or to make themselves subject to this

Impeachment Court.

Let me just put on the record, Mr. President, that some of the confusion is because of the name.

Ang tawag po kasi natin, Supreme Court. If we put the name Supreme Impeachment Court,

magkakaroon ng context nang konti kasi lahat po ng Justices, whether collectively or individually,

are subject to the Impeachment Court because they are impeachable officers. Hindi natin puwedeng

sabihin na pantay natin sila sapagkat lahat ng dapat magsa-submit sa jurisdiction ng Court ay mas

mababa sa Korte. But, Mr. President, this will go into a discussion of the difference between dealing

with the Supreme Court itself and Members of the Supreme Court.

Be that as it may, Mr. President, I was overtaken by some events and I think we agreed to talk

about this in caucus instead. I know it is a very sensitive issue but let me just reserve some time after

our caucus or at the appropriate time, Mr. President, to talk about how the Impeachment Court can

balance these two very important interests: one, which is the respect of a coequal branch of the Senate

which is the Judiciary not a coequal branch of the Impeachment Court; No. 2, Mr. President, is the

integrity of the adjudicatory process of the Supreme Court and to record its peoplehow to ensure

that ang Justices natin ay protektado at hindi sila yung yuyugyog o sila ang kinakasuhan or yung

independence ng Judiciary, napaka-importante yon. But at the same time, we know that absolute

power corrupts absolutely. And alam po natin that there can be no person or no branch of

government that can have absolute immunity.

So, Mr. President, I just wanted to put these on record and I prepared a legal study and some

cases that we researched. But let me stop here, Mr. President, and discuss it in the caucus and then


5/38


maybe at the appropriate time, we can have a discussion just for the records as I said because this will

be a precedent. And it will be very, very difficult to impeach an erring Supreme Court Justice if these

issues are not resolved.

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

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Pia Cayetano is seeking to be recognized.

And while she is preparing for that, I just called the attention of the Clerk of Court to page 54 of

theJournal wherein the last line is acknowledged to the Senate President or the Presiding Officer, but

this is Senator Drilon. Just to make the proper correction. Typographic error, most probably. Anyway,

for the record.

So, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, on Monday, February 27, the Prosecution offered as evidence the testimony of one

of their witness, Edmond Llosala. And in theJournal of said date, it states, among many others, the

purpose of why his testimony was offered. I will quote, To prove that Respondent Corona using his

administrative powers as the Supreme Court Chief Justice extended office hours so that the TRO

condition can be fulfilled by GMA and thus allow GMA and then First Gentleman to leave.

I was very interested in this allegation and was looking forward to the presentation of evidence on

this matter, Mr. President. But let me move forward. Yesterday, Senator Loren stood up and she askedfor clarification because she did not recall that there was any testimony given by any witness to prove

that in fact the office hours were extended. So, I was intently listening to the query and to the response

given to Senator Legarda. I refer to page 37 of ourJournal wherein the statement or should I say the

testimony of the Prosecution, I refer to Attorney Parreo, refers to certain times. There was 1:30, three

oclock and 4:30.

Mr. President, I would like to put on record that the statements of Counsel on the time that certain

activities to please have absolutely no bearing on this Impeachment Court. It will be recalled that it was

Counsel who testified on those times, and I would like to know if Counsel has now offered himself as

the witness. Has Counsel taken an oath, perhaps when I stood out for a few minutes? I just do not

want people, whether non-lawyers or the millions of Filipinos who are watching, to be confusedbecause there was no evidence that I can see in the record and that I have witnessed with my own

eyes on the witness stand.

Having said that, Mr. President, I refer back to the query of Sen. Loren Legarda. And in fact,

page 37 of theJournal will bear out her concern that the only reference to time provided by Counsel,

not by the witness, if I may emphasize again, was 1:30, 2:30, three oclock and 4:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I mentioned this becauseI belabor this point because they used our time. We

spent so many minutes trying not to fall asleep watching that video. So, if there is no testimony that will

accompany that video, can we please be more conscious of this? Or if the one who will testify on the

video will be the lawyer, then please take the witness stand so that we do not waste the time of


6/38


Counsel, our researchers, our people in trying to understand what is evidence that we must use in

deciding this case. This becomes even more relevant because the Prosecution has rested.

So, I leave this point, Mr. President. I do not require a response. But if the Prosecution cares to

respond, I am more than happy.

Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair would like to state for the record that the personal statements

of the lawyers representing either side of the adversarial proceeding are not evidence. They are just

plain statement, manifestation. And they will not be taken into account as proof of anything, except that

they said it.

Anybody who wants to respond to the lady Senator from Taguig?

From the Prosecution side.

Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, the statement of the Senator is well taken.

Actually, the intention of the video is part of the building block of the presentation of theProsecution. However, in light of yesterdays development, Your Honor, that we can no longer present

the other witnesses, like the process server, which we would have wanted to prove the extension of

office hours, we cannot go further on that, Your Honor. But thank you for thatI think the Senator

did not want us to responddoes not need a response, but, yes, we clarify that it is part of the building

block, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Only statements given under oath by somebody sitting on the witness

stand is evidence.



Senator Sotto. May we now proceed to the Business for the Day?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Senator Sotto. And this is the continuation of the cross-examination of Witness Mr. Danny Piedad

of ABS-CBN by the Defense.

So may we call on the Witness, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. You may call now the Witness who is going to be subjected to cross-

examination under the same oath. Let him take the stand.

Mr. Parreo. Atty. Al Parreo, Your Honor, for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. What is the pleasure of Atty. Al Parreo?

Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, I am just going to befor the presentation offor the cross-

examination, Your Honor, I will be for the Prosecution, Your Honor. For the cross-examination of

the Defense. I am really here, Your Honor, to

The Presiding Officer. You know, to me as a Presiding Officer, I am confused about these

things. Do you have to designate somebody to stand up to attend to the Witness for cross-examination?

Anyone of you can stand up to object.


7/38


Mr. Parreo. Yes, Your Honor. It is just that he was the one who conducted the direct,

Your Honor, so

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Mr. Parreo. May we call the Witness, Danny Piedad.

The Presiding Officer. And before we proceed, may I suggest, gentlemen on both sides, you areputting this Court in a very serious predicament because you already make pronouncement about the

weight and the quantum of the evidence that you have presented for your side. No one can be sure

of the outcome of this case even if you have presented your evidence. We will wait for the completion

of the entire trial until a judgment can be pronounced.

Those who practised law extensively are not sure of their case until the entire case is over. So

please do not make sweeping statements outside that may befuddle or confuse the people or convince

them napanalo na kayo. Wala pang panalo dito. Huwag kayong maniniguro. Bakapagkatapos

sasabihin ninyo Natalo kami dahil iyong mga Senador nasuhulan at dahil malakas iyong aming

kaso. Hindi ganoon ang paglilitis.

So, I hope you will take this advice because we have to be truthful to our people. Okay?

So, proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Mr. Piedad. Magandang hapon po sa inyo.

Mr. Piedad. Good afternoonpo.

Mr. Cuevas.Noong binabasa ko iyong transcript ng inyong testimony, napag-alaman ko nakayo ay taga-ABS-CBN.

Mr. Piedad. Tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. At naroon kayo bilang photographerfor almost 11years, tama ho ba?

Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. Nagsimula po kayo ngmagkano ang inyong sweldo?

Mr. Parreo. Objection, Your Honor. Your Honor, that specific question is not material to the

direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. He is under cross. He is not under direct. The cross-examiner is testing

this Witness.

Proceed. May answer.

Mr. Piedad. Nung nag-start ako nung 2001 na cameraman, per hour po kami noon, so

pumapatak lang po ng P54 per hour.

Mr. Cuevas. Magkano po?

Mr. Piedad. Fifty-four pesospo per hour.


8/38


Mr. Cuevas. Magkano po yun isang buwan ang inyong suweldo nuong panahon na yun?

Mr. Piedad. Ah, depende po sa ano, sa dami ng oras na ipinasok namin.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes but, more or less, magkano po ang sinasahod ninyo?

Mr. Piedad. Sa isang buwan ho puwede hong pumalo ng mga P18,000.

Mr. Cuevas. Isang buwan?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. At yan eh nadagdagan nang nadagdagan

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. samantalang kayo ay tumatagal sa inyong serbisyo bilang cameraman.


Mr. Cuevas. Nang kayo ay tumestigo dito nuong nakaraang araw, magkano na po angsuweldo ninyo bilang photographer?

Mr. Parreo. Your Honor, may I just make a quick objection on the question, Your Honor?

Because it might affect such and any confidential matters regarding the circumstances of the Witness

when he is asked on questions regarding salary.

The Presiding Officer. What confidential matter?

Mr. Parreo. He is asked about what his salary is, Your Honor, it might affect the

The Presiding Officer. What is the confidentiality on a salary of the Witness?

Mr. Parreo. Only if the Witness is willing to answer, Your Honor. But, if he is not, I would

like to presume that he does not want to divulge his salary, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Is that incriminating? May we be allowed to know, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The Witness may answer.

Mr. Piedad. Thirty-five thousand a month.

Mr. Cuevas.At kasama po ninyo diyan sa pagiging photographer ng ABS-CBN si kagalang-

galang na photographer Llosala?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Yung tumestigo dito kamakailan sa panig ng Prosecution, tama ho ba yun?


Mr. Cuevas.Magkasama kayo sa isang dibisyon o sa isang larangan na saklaw ng ABS-CBN?

Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama.

Mr. Cuevas. Meronnatatandaan ko po alinsunod sa inyong deklarasyon na nuong

Nobyembre 15, 2011 eh assigned kayo sa isang mission para saksihan o kunan ng video ang

magaganap daw sa isang department ng gobyerno, yung DepartmentMMDA, tama ho ba ako?


9/38


Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. And that was mga anong oras po noon?

Mr. Piedad.Nung morningpo ng November 15, ang assignment namin about the cancellation

ng mga bus franchise so ang regional assignment namin that morning is to cover the DOTC and

MMDA in the afternoon.Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay mga anong oras noon?

Mr. Piedad. Morningpo kami nagpunta ng DOTC and then afternoon na po sa MMDA.

Mr. Cuevas. So mga?

Mr. Piedad. Mga 2:00po.

Mr. Cuevas. Two oclock?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Sino po ang nag-assign sa inyo? Yun ho bay boluntaryong ginawa ninyo o

merong assignment kayo buhat sa nakatataas sa inyo?

Mr. Piedad. Ang usual routinepo noon eh

Mr. Cuevas. Iyong araw lang na yun ang tanong ko sa iyo.

Mr. Piedad. Opo. Nautusan po yung reporter ko na mag-cover nung istorya na yun sa bus

franchisepo.

Mr. Cuevas. Sino po yung reporter ninyo na yon?

Mr. Piedad. Si Ms. Zen Hernandezpo.

Mr. Cuevas. At inutusan naman kayo nitong Ms. Hernandez na maging isang photographer

doon sa mangyayari sa MMDA nuong araw na yun?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas.Tama ho bang sabihin ko na yun eh mga alas onse hanggang alas-dos ng hapon?

Mr. Piedad. Puwede po.

Mr. Cuevas. Puwede. Kasama ninyo doon si Mr. Leotilla Leocilla?

Mr. Piedad. Llosalapo.

Mr. Cuevas. Llosala.

Mr. Piedad. Ay, hindi po.

Mr. Cuevas. Hiwalay kayo?

Mr. Piedad. Hiwalay po kami ng assignment.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi kayo nagkita nung araw na yun?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi po.


10/38


Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, meron kayong binanggit sa inyong deklarasyon, direct

examination na nasa airport naman kayo nung bandang hapon nung araw na yun, Nobyembre

15, 2011, tama ho ba yun?

Mr. Piedad. Opo. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. At nandoon kayo sa inyong sariling kagustuhan o assignment, o dahilsa assignment ninyo?

Mr. Piedad. Ah, nasabi ko po doon sa unang statement ko napunta po kami doon dahil

nakipag-appointment po kami kay Chairman Tolentino ng MMDA na doon na lang kami mag-

ambush interview dahil aalis siya ng bansa. So, kaya po kami napunta doon.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po ninyo sinasagot ang tanong ko sa inyo. Kayo bay nandoon sa

airport

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. doon sa mga oras na binanggit ninyo sapagkat boluntaryo kayong nagpuntaroon o sumusunod kayo sa utos ng isang nakatataas sa inyo?

Mr. Piedad. Sumusunod lang po sa utos nung reporter.

Mr. Cuevas.Ano po ang utos sa inyo ng reporter? Puwede ho bang malaman ng Kagalang-

galang na Hukuman na ito?

Mr. Piedad.Ang pagkakasabi niya sa akin si Chairman Tolentinopo ay pupunta ng airport

so doon na po namin siya i-interbyuhin kaya po kami nandun.

Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid po ang inyong misyon ay para interbyuhin si Kagalang-galang

naChairman Tolentino.Mr. Piedad. Opo, tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. Wala pong kinalaman yon sa pag-alis ng Kagalang-galang na GMA?


Mr. Cuevas. Eh meron kayong in-identify ditong video tungkol doon sa pag-alis ng

Kagalang-galang na GMA, tama ho ba iyon?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Paano po nangyari na ang inyong assignment eh para makunan ng video iyongpag-alis ni Chairman Tolentino at napasama si Kagalang-galang na GMA sa inyong video?

Mr. Piedad. Afterpo naming mag-interview sa airport kay Chairman Tolentino, nag-staypo

kami doon sa airport dahil meron na hong ENG van na naka-stand by doon. Ito po iyong nagta-

transmit ng mga materials namin since iyong oras po eh wala na, kumbaga kakapusin na po kami

ng oras para mag-back to basepara sa materials ng unang istorya namin, ay nag-feed na po kami

ng materials. Habang naghihintay po kami ng feeding ng materials, suddenly iyong reporter ko

sinabihan ako, Baka mag-stay tayo dito.

Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang kinalaman ng pag-alis ng Kagalang-galang na GMA doon sa

inyong takdang pakikipagtagpo kay Chairman Tolentino?


11/38


Mr. Piedad. Wala po.

Mr. Cuevas. May kinalaman ho ba?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. So hindi ninyo alam kung aalis nga o hindi ang Kagalang-galang na GMA?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po kaming kinalaman.

Mr. Cuevas. All right.Anong oras po iyon nang sabihin ninyong aalis?

Mr. Piedad. Natatandaan ko po mga around 4:00 to 4:30 po. Sinabi ng reporter ko sa akin

na may info daw po na aalis si CGMA.

Mr. Cuevas. Samakatuwid, kung walang sinabi sa inyo iyong reporter ninyo, wala kayong

maipahahayag sa Kagalang-galang na Hukumang ito tungkol sa pag-alis diumano ng Kagalang-

galang na GMA?

Mr. Piedad. Opo, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Tama po iyon?

Mr. Piedad. Tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Kilala ba ninyo si Kagalang-galang na GMA o sa pangalan lang?

Mr. Piedad. Sa pangalan po at saka sa mukha po.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo siya nakausap kahit kailan?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi po kahit kailan.

Mr. Cuevas. Noong araw na kinunan ninyo ng video, tama ho ba ang aking palagay na

hindi ninyo nakadaupang palad o nakausap man lang kahit saglit ang Kagalang-galang?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi po, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Alam ba ninyo kung saan siya pupunta noon?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po akong alam.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung bakit siya nasa airport nung oras na iyon?

Mr. Piedad. Wala rin po kaming idea.

Mr. Cuevas. Ang nalalaman lamang ninyo na pinagtapat ninyo sa Kagalang-galang na

Hukuman na iyong diumano merongaalis ang Kagalang-galang na GMA, tama ho ba iyon?


Mr. Cuevas. All right. Eh ano po ang kinalaman ng pag-alis ni GMA sa inyong pagiging

assigned doon sa airport, wala? Wala pong kinalaman?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po kaming idea nun.

Mr. Cuevas. O aksidente lang ang pagkakaroon ninyo?


12/38


Mr. Piedad. Sabi kasi ng reporter ko na

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi kayosige po, I am sorry.

Mr. Piedad. Sabi kasi ng reporter ko mag-stand by lang kami dun. Iyon lang po ang

Mr. Cuevas. Iyon lang ang dahilan kaya nagkaroon kayo ng pagkakataon na makunan

ng video ang alleged na pag-alis ni Kagalang-galang na GMA?

Mr. Piedad. Opo, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Alinsunod po sa inyong deklarasyon na aking natunghayan dito sa

record, mga alas-nueve na ng gabi nun, tama ho ba?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi pa naman po, mga 8:30 po to 9:00, ganun po.

Mr. Cuevas. Kaya nga. Alas-otso y medya hanggang alas-nueve ng gabi?

Mr. Piedad. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam kung bakit siya aalis?

Mr. Piedad. Wala po akong alam.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung ano ang dahilan ng kanyang pag-alis?

Mr. Piedad. Hindi rin po.

Mr. Cuevas. That will bemaraming salamat po. That is all with the Witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Any redirect?

Mr. Parreo. No redirect, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. The Witness is discharged.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, as manifested during yesterdays trial, the Prosecution will no

longer present evidence with respect to Articles I, VIII, IV, V and VI of the Verified Complaint

for Impeachment. But it reserves its right to present evidence on the dollar accounts of Chief

Justice Corona.

The Presiding Officer. Only on Article II?

Senator Sotto. Yes. May we now call on the Prosecution, may we know the pleasure,Mr. President?

Before we do that, I am sorry, I withdraw that request, Mr. President, and ask that Sen. Miriam

Defensor Santiago be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle Lady from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, yesterday we were struck by a thunderbolt. All of

a sudden, the Prosecution stood up and said, We have eight Articles of the Impeachment but we are

no longer presenting or withdrawing at least five of those articles leaving us with only three Articles of

Impeachment.


13/38


In my entire career as an RTC judge of Quezon City, I have never seen a lawyer in a civil case

which is, in this instance, parallel to the Impeachment Trial withdraw any cause of action that he told

the Court he would present evidence on. That has never been done.

An Impeachment Trial is like a civil trial and like a criminal trial. An RTC judge has jurisdiction

over all kinds of trials: civil, criminal, and special proceedings. I have never heard, apart from my own

individual experience, I have never heard of a civil case where there are several causes of action wherethe lawyer suddenly says to the judge, I am sorry, Your Honor, I made a mistake. I now want to

withdraw or drop more than half of my causes of action. This is unprecedented. That is why I feel

obliged as Senator-Judge to enter into the record my very serious concern about this development.

Counsel, you please take a seat.

Number 1. Early in this trial I asked both Counsel, both panels to tell, Please tell the Court how

many witnesses you will present and how many pieces of evidence you expect to authenticate by the

testimony of your respective witnesses. Both panels submitted their so-called Compliance. That is

to say, when a judge issues an order and you comply with the order, you file a piece of paper called

Compliance and then you attach whatever it is that the court wanted to see or hear or to read. There

is a Compliance, dated 27 January 2012, filed by the House of Representatives, where the Order of

the Court was, List down all your testimonial and documentary evidence, on my instigation, and I have

this copy of the Compliance by the House of Representatives.

Number 1, Article I. Partiality to Mrs. Arroyo in Supreme Court decisions; Testimonial evidence,

six witnesses; Documentary evidence as appropriate, is a long list of documents that these six witnesses

were supposed to authenticate.

Article IV. Irregularities in the issuance of the status quo ante order on the Impeachment

proceedings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Testimonial evidence said the Prosecution Panel, seven witnesses plus the corresponding list ofdocumentary evidence to be presented to those seven witnesses.

Article V. Gerrymandering in the creation of 16 new cities and the declaration of Dinagat Island

as a province. Testimonial evidence, three witnesses.

I am quoting the Prosecution Panel documentary evidence and list of cases.

Article VI. Allegedly improper investigation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillos plagiarism

case. Testimonial evidence, two witnesses; documentary evidence, as listed.

Article VIII. Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special

Allowance for the Judiciary. Testimonial Evidence, seven witnesses.

All these witnesses are listed here. What their names are, what their addresses are and what is

the purpose of their proposed testimony plus, of course, the documentary evidence to be authenticated

by these witnesses.

So, House of Representatives, January, tells us in the Impeachment Court, We will present

these witnesses. We will also prove and authenticateand produce into evidence an authenticate

documentary evidence.

Now, all of a sudden, it is only MarchJanuary, February, March, all of a sudden, there is a

complete turnaround. Ni ha, ni ho, wala.Basta sabihin lang niya, Ayaw na namin magprisinta

ngebidensya.


14/38


15/38


Will you please make a distinction between those two because each of those optionals have their

own peculiar circumstances in law?

Ngayon, nagbasa na ako ng mga sinabi ninyo noong Enero lamang. Marso pa lang ngayon,

nagpalit na kayo ng isip. I am very much concerned that this might constitute unethical behavior.

In trial court, we have also a term of art calledwhich is sometimes used and it normally runs to

frivolous and sham. Frivolous and sham is not to be taken in its ordinary meaning. It is also to betaken in its technical meaning and this is the technical meaning of a frivolous claim. A frivolous claim

in legal term refers to a lawsuit or motion in lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, to delay

or to embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis

in law or in fact.

Ngayon, let me remind you, Prosecutors of the Prosecution Panel, of your Code of Professional

Responsibility. Kung abogado kayo, Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to

the court.

Nang sinabi ninyo sa Compliance ninyo na magpi-prisinta kayo ng ebidensya at ang bawat

testigo ay maglalabas ng mga dokumento niya, were you in good faith? Because now you turnaround and say you do not want to do that.

Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court nor

shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

You have been misleading the Court. There are some Senator-Judges who, as a matter of personal

discipline, read well ahead of the two panels. So if you present a Complaint with us for impeachment

with eight Articlesthere are some lawyers among us who will read for all eight Articles. That is what

the law calls frivolous when you later say, I do not want to present evidence on eight. I only want to

present evidence on five.

Plus, let me remind you, gentlemen, the Lawyers Oath, I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the

doing of any in Court; I will not wittingly or unwillingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful

suit nor give aid or consent to the same.

Cases Prieto v. Corpuz, 2006, No person should be penalized for exercising the right to litigate.

This right, however, must be exercised in good faith. Must be exercised in good faith. I am very

concerned that the Prosecution has been in bad faith all along. Kung anu-ano ang mga pinagsasabi

niyo sa media.Bakit hindi kayo mag-official manifestation dito?

Manalo na kami. Mayroon na kaming proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Good grief! That is contempt of Court. It is already saying us in the face and it is about to bite our

nose. And you expect me to be part of a Court that just says nothing about it.

You are engaging, gentlemen, in a public discourse on the merits of your case. You are not

supposed to say that at all.Ang yayabang ng mga nagsasalita ng ganyan, ang ... [stricken off the

record by order of the Presiding Officer] naman! Oh my goodness!Ang [striken off the record

by order of the Presideng Officer] is a ground for contempt of Court.

Another case, Philippine British Company v. De Los Angeles, 1975, By failing to substantiate

his serious charges when called upon to do so, a lawyer may not only show his dubious motive,

therefore, but the falsity of the charges as well, which merits disciplinary action against him.


16/38


Ay pero ang tatanda na ninyo eh! Eh, Lista kayo sa amin,naka-robe kami at lahat. We look

like a convention ... takers everyday coming here in these robes. You are supposed to grant us full and

high respect. You cannot give us a list and then after a few months, say, Oh, I am sorry but I have

decided to change this list. You cannot do that to a Court that you respect.

Again, the Code of Personal Responsibility, Canon 12A lawyer shall exert every effort and

consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Case Pepsi Cola Products v. Court of Appeals, 1998, As officers of the Court, lawyers are of

responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice.

Hindi ito pulitika, gentlemen. We are not in politics where we are free to hire character assassins

and do all manner of dirty tricks. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding.Itigil na ninyo yan. Yun ang

problema niyo eh, mahilig kayo sa ganyan eh. You are very fond of the occult arts.

As officers of the Court, lawyers have responsibility to assist the proper administration of the due

justice. They do not discharge their duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of

the Judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the fact

and the law should advise them when a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merelyclutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of the law or their client

by commencing litigations that, for sheer lack of merit, do not deserve the attention of the Court.

That is what the Supreme Court speaking in all those cases.

Were you aware of these decided cases when you decided on your own to make that manifestation

yesterday?

That is my second point.

The first point is, you filed a Compliance and you listed, according to the instruction of this Court,

your list of witnesses and documentary evidence for every article. And now you turn around and say,

Oh, no! We decidedchanged our mind. That can be a very expensive change of mind.

Second point of concern that might be unethical behavior, I have never seen such a parody of

justice in my entire adult life in the Judiciary. May I remind you, for those of you who have been talking

to your character assassins, I have been awarded as a Judicial Judge for Excellence in Trial Work, not

only by the TOYM of the Jaycees, the TOWNS of the Lions but many other NGOs who I may no

longer enumerate. Kaya siguro may alam akong kaunti tungkol sa batas. Huwag ninyo kaming

ginaganyan-ganyan.

Last and most important. I may not be able to help it if the Members of the Impeachment Court

will engage in the judicial and legal presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse

if produced. Kayo mismo ang nagdala nito ah. You called up this disputable presumption whenthe Defendant refused to give his consent to the opening of his dollar accounts. You said evidence

adverseevidence suppressed is evidence adverse. Kung ayaw mong magprisinta ng ebidensiya,

ibig sabihin kung walang ebidensiya pandagdag, na may itinatago ka. Iyon ang sabi ninyo sa

Chief Justice.

Eh ngayon, ngayon naman ang ginagawa ninyo, sinabi ninyo eight (8) Articles of Impeachment

ninyo. Ngayon ayaw na ninyong maglabas ng ebidensiya ninyo sa five (5) of those Articles. Then

let me invoke the disputable presumption against you.

The Rules of Court provide disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory

if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.


17/38


(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

Oh ngayon, ano kaya ang ibig sabihin ng kalidad na iyan? In People v. Padrigone, 2002 case

decided by the Supreme Court, the Court said: This rule that evidence willfully suppressed would be

adverse if produced does not apply if: (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. Iyong

ebidensiya ba ninyo inilista ninyo sa Compliance ninyo, ay puwede ninyong ibigay doon sa

Defense? That is the only exception.

Another exception. The suppression was not willful. Willful itokasi kusa niyong ayaw ninyo

eh. Wala namang supervening factor that prevents you from presenting your evidence. That you

already said to us in January, We are going to present.

(c) It is merely corroborative or cumulative. This does not apply because when you file an

Impeachment Complaint, you have different Articles of Impeachment which are separate from and

independent of each other. So none of these Articles of Impeachment, just like causes of action on

civil case, are said to be cumulative or corroborative. Cumulative means you already produced evidence

in the form of one witness and you just want to add, let us say, ten (10) more witnesses to completely

repeat what that other witness said. That is corroborative. Kaya kung corroborative lang ang witnessmo,puwedeng hindi mo na iprisinta. Ito naman, hindi corroborative eh because they are separate

and distinct Articles of Impeachment.

And letter (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Kaya iyong Defendant sa bank

accounts niya, ayaw niyang magbigay ng consent niya. But we cannot apply this presumption to him

because the suppression is the exercise of his privilege. That is a privilege given to any person who

opens a dollar bank account.

The law provides confidentiality is absolute except only when the depositor is giving his consent.

Ngayon ito, kaiba itong inyong kaso na ito. Wala kayong privilege eh.

When you file an Article of Impeachment or a cause of action, it is not only your right to presentevidence, it is also your duty. It is not a privilege that you can just waive at will. That is not what the

law means. The suppression is exercise of a privilege. You have no such privilege to bother the Court.

Cases People v. Melosantos, 1995. The prosecution evidence must at all times be competent

and admissible to sustain its stand. The prosecution cannot rely on an imaginary person charging a

serious offense without extending to the accused the benefit of confronting his accuser. In default of

a satisfactory premise for a non-presentation of crucial witness if ineluctably follows that disputable

presumption that evidence deliberately withheld would be adverse if produced remains undisturbed.

May tinatago kayo ah. Takot ba kayo? Ngayon sinasabi ninyo, Panalo na kami dito sa

tatlo. Kami ang magde-desisyon niyan, hindi kayo. Ang yayabang ninyo. Maaga pa. What areyou, conducting trial by publicity? Is that what you are trying to do? We will not be swayed. The

entire capacity for tsunami waves by Manila Bay can fall over this Impeachment Court and we will not

be affected by what you say in public or what your chosen public brings back to you, particularly if

they have been paid to do so. Please do not try these little dirty tricks on us. We are all old people

here. Tumanda na tayong lahat sa pulitika. Huwag niyo kaming ginaganyan ha. Kamukha nung

survey justas I predicted. Aba! May balita kanina sa isang diyaryo na ang survey daw sa UP,

500 ang respondents atlike 75 percent of them said, No, we no longer trust the Chief Justice.

Kayong mga UP kayo dapat kayo i-kick out immediately. If you are true actual persons, you should

be kicked out immediately because you do not deserve to be in UP. And the people who machinated

the publication of that press release should likewise be kicked out of UP. If they are enrolled in the


18/38


rolls of the University as alumni, they should be permanently erased from the rolls as a perpetual shame

on the University. Biro mo, may survey daw sila na 500 katao sa UP nagsabi na ang Chief Justice,

so far because of the Prosecution evidence, can no longer be trusted. Eh, ang taas-taas pa naman

ng pagtingin ng tao sa UPpagkatapos limangdaan lang out of, let us say, 50 million all over the

Philippines and it is not even conducted on scientific basis, it is not conducted by any of those reliable

survey firms that have already been proven in their forecast for election results. Kanya-kanya lang

sila. Grabe! My goodness me! If I were the symbol of UP standing there, naked, called the Oblation,

I would immediately throw away my fig leaf. [Laughter]

Huwag na tayong magtago-tago pa. Eh, kagaguhan lang naman pala ang pinapag-aralan

sa UP kung ganyan. I cannot imagine a survey where 500 high IQ people will say, We have already

lost trust in the Chief Justice because we have already heard the evidence from the Prosecution although

we admit that the Defense has not yet presented its case. Grabe naman. Sino namang PR firm ang

nag-isip nito? Sabihin lang ninyo at hanapin ko iyon. You are playing games. I was not born

yesterday. I was born a long time ago and I am about to die. I want to leave a legacy that at least,

when presented with this anomaly in trial technique, I rose to condemn it. We will be studied generation

from now by other senators faced with other impeachment cases and I do not want the records to

reveal that we have allowed this development to pass by uncommented on. This is a travesty. Una

sabi niyo, Ah, malakas na malakas ang ebidensiya namin kasi eight ang krimen niya, eight ang

Articles of Impeachment namin.Bilangin mo, walo iyan. Pagkatapos ngayon dalawang buwan

pa lang, Ah, wala na. Tatlo na lang sa lima. Kasi tama na iyon, eh. Panalo na kami. Waah!

I request the Secretariat should record in ourJournal that I have said, Waah! [Laughter]

The Presiding Officer. Silence. Silence, please. Silence.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Osmea is asking what is the spelling of Waah? [Laughter]

The Presiding Officer. That is an expression. [Laughter]

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, again, may we call on the Prosecution to find out what is the

pleasure concerning the manifestation that they made yesterday?

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, sir.

Your Honor, Mr. President, as was

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the distinguished gentleman from Iloilo?

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, as was manifested yesterday by the Prosecution that after

the cross-examination conducted by the Defense, we are terminating the presentation of our evidence.

The Presiding Officer. Are you notaccording to the newspapers this morning, the Prosecution

intends to present the Honorable Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. And I also read in the newspapers

that in the Resolution of the Supreme CourtEn Banc, I think it was yesterday, the Supreme Court

En Banc left it to the discretion of the good Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to appear here voluntarily

for the Prosecution. And I remember that one of the panel of Prosecutors, I think it was

Congressman Colmenares, informed the Court that he wrote Justice Sereno to appear here for the

Prosecution, and I think the Court is entitled to know whether you are still goingyou still intend

to present Justice Sereno.


19/38


Representative Tupas. Your Honor, a letter-invitation, as suggested by this Honorable Tribunal,

was delivered personally to the Office of Justice Sereno last Monday for her to appear before this

Honorable Tribunal tomorrow, that is a Thursday.

The Presiding Officer. Tomorrow?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir. But we have not yet received any formal communication orreply from the lady Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Presiding Officer. Incidentally, I raised this question because I am interested to know your

real position. Because yesterday you already terminated, according to you, to the records, your

presentation of evidence on Article III and Article VII that you have retained among the three Articles

of Impeachment, out of eight Articles of Impeachment covered by your pleading known as Articles

of Impeachment. And I asked you very definitely whether you are really going to stop presenting

anymore witnesses on these two Articles and you said, Yes. That is my recollection. Except that

you reserved the right of the Prosecution to present evidence on Article II. And I understood that.

I was of the mind that you were referring to the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court regarding

the foreign currency deposit.

Representative Tupas. That is correct, Mr. President. We reserved that right yesterday.

The Presiding Officer. So, will you clarify really the position of the Prosecution?

Representative Tupas. After yesterday, Mr. President, the Prosecution met and we discussed

about the pending invitation to Justice Sereno. That is why today we would like to make that

manifestation that the Prosecution is trying to get in touch with the Honorable Lady Justice of the

Supreme Court if she is indeed willing to testify. And that if we may be given time within the week,

we will communicate to the Honorable Tribunal if the lady Justice would be willing to testify. Which

means, Your Honor, that we would like to reserve our right to present her if she is willing.

The Presiding Officer. So you are not really closing your evidence; it is open.

Representative Tupas. We are, Your Honor. We are already terminating the presentation of

evidence with the two reservations.

No. 1

The Presiding Officer. You cannot make any reservation if you areyou cannot close your

evidence if you still have to present witnesses. The proper thing to do is to ask for continuance.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the

Mr. Cuevas. Yesterday, I thought we were agreed together with the Honorable Court, Your

Honor, that the enumerated Impeachment Articles, Your Honor, that were not touched upon will be

considered as abandoned or dismissed.

The Presiding Officer. That is true. As far as Article I, Article IV, V, VI and VIIIfive.

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That is already effectively withdrawn.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.


20/38


The Presiding Officer. That is clear. I clarified that yesterday.

Mr. Cuevas. And we were merely discussing, Your Honor, the modality or the means by which

the same could be effected. There were some suggestions that a mere notice will be more than enough.

We were of the impression that a Motion to Dismiss is necessary because there is already an Answer

filed and, in fact, there has been trial going on. So that matter of how to dismiss the four (4)

Impeachment Articles, Your Honor, will be effected is left to the discretion of the Prosecution, YourHonor. But now comes another development, Your Honor, with this lot of reservations and so on.

Calling Justice Sereno to the stand may be is another turning back from the original position that was

manifested by the Chief Prosecutor before this Honorable Court, Your Honor.

We just invite the attention of the Court on that matter, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yesterday, I clarified and I think the records of these proceedings will

bear me out whetherthere is no question about the five (5) Articles withdrawn. That is clear in the

record. And it was also clear to this Presiding Officer that the Prosecution was terminating the

presentation of its evidence with respect to Article III and Article VII. In fact, in the case of Article

III, they did not only manifest that they were terminating the presentation of evidence. They cut downthe allegation. They retained only in Article III, flip-flopping. But as far as the entanglement of the

Defendant with the former President Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as well as talking to litigants as

a basis of their charge that he did not follow the stringent requirement of probity, integrity, competence

and independence, they have already also withdrawn that. They have also decided to take that out

and do not present any evidence on it. But they made a reservation only with respect to Article II.

And that is because there is a pending case and understandably, the Court was aware of that because

there is a pending case in the Supreme Court whether impeachment is an implied exception to the

confidentiality of foreign currency deposits. So I would like to be clarified.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we are sticking to our earlier manifestation that we are

presentingwe are terminating the presentation of our evidence subject to one reservation and that isthe reservation with respect to the dollar accounts of the Chief Justice.

The Presiding Officer. Only, only?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. And you are not going to ask Justice Sereno anymore to come to

this Court?

Representative Tupas. No more, no more.


Representative Tupas. I just want to make a manifestation that, yesterday, my math was wrong.

With respect to the documents that we have marked so far, 166 documents for Article II, 16

documents for Article III and 65 documents for Article VII. The total, I said yesterday, was 390

documentary evidence, but it was just 247. So 247 documents, Your Honor. And also, Mr. President,

what we manifested and what we stated even outside of this Honorable Tribunal with respect to

the termination of the presentation of evidence was that, we felt that we have already presented a

strong case.



21/38


Representative Tupas. And even outside this Honorable Tribunal, Mr. President, we are saying

that it is really up to the Tribunal to decide, to appreciate, and we are just stating our advocacy without

prejudging the outcome of the resolution because we have high respect to this Honorable Tribunal.

We just want that to go on record, those statements, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. All right. We accept that explanation.Now, what is your pleasure? When are you going to make your offer of evidence, especially

documentary evidence?

Representative Tupas. Yes, documentary. We are now requesting the Honorable Tribunal,

through the Honorable Presiding Officer, to give us, the Prosecution, until Friday this week. That is

two (2) days from today within which to

The Presiding Officer. Three (3) days.

Representative Tupas. Yes, to file our written formal offer of documentary evidence.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, and list them down.

Representative Tupas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. And then we will also give the Defense enough time to go over it, with

copy furnished.

Representative Tupas. We will do that, Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, if it is not asking too much, a five-day period within

which to signify our objection and/or conformity to the offer that will be made?

The Presiding Officer. All right. That is a reasonable request.

So when you file your pleading to formally offer your testimonial and documentary evidence to this

Court in writing, send a copy to the Defense and the Defense will have five (5) days from receipt of

your formal offer in writing to file their objection to your documentary evidence.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we will submit our offer of documentary evidence on

Friday this week, that is two (2) days from today. And we understand that the Senate has set a caucus

also on Monday. Probably it will be reasonable, Mr. President, to ask the Defense to submit it also,

if not two (2) days, three (3) days. For us, we will submit it two (2) days from today. And if I may

finish, in fact, there is already a submission of the suppression of evidence with respect to Article II and

166 documents pertain to Article II.

So, we are just suggesting, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. You know, Counseljust a minute.

You know, for the Prosecution, all you have to do actually is to list these documents in some pieces

of paper and list them down. But the Defense, to be fair to them, they will have to analyze what those

documents are and to state their objections for their admissibility.

So five (5) days is a reasonable time.

Representative Tupas. We submit, Mr. President.


22/38



So ordered.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Now, when will the Defense start its presentation of its evidence in chief?

Mr. Cuevas. We will await the ruling of this Court, Your Honor, after the order is made relative

to the admissibility of the offered evidence, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. To expedite the proceedings, would it not be possible to start the

presentation of the testimonial or whatever evidence the Defense would make, then we will deal with

the objections of the Defense on the offered evidence of the Prosecution?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we wanted to do that and by way of accommodating the

Court in order that the general public may not have the impression that we are delaying the proceedings

in this case, Your Honor.

But there are so many things that may come up, Your Honor, in our observation, opposition asagainst the admissibility of these documents, Your Honor. Insofar as the Prosecution is concerned,

these evidences are with them. They have examined it, they have made a formal offer of the same.

But insofar as the Defense is concerned, Your Honor, we have to analyze. It is not enough that they

are listed as being offered. We have to analyze what is the purpose of the offer. They may be admitted

on certain grounds, Your Honor, but decidedly they may not be admitted in consonance with the

purpose for which they are offered. That is our position, Your Honor.


Representative Tupas. Mr. President, if we may?

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Representative Tupas. Sir, we are constrained to object to that proposal because if we will

submit our

The Presiding Officer. What proposal?

Representative Tupas. The proposal of the

The Presiding Officer. Of the Chair? Of the Chair?

Representative Tupas. No, no, no. It is not the Chairs proposal but the proposal of the

Defense to submit or to present their evidence only after the ruling of the Senate on the admissibility,if I may finish.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. That is the most

Representative Tupas. Yes. If I can. I am

Mr. Cuevas. Go ahead. I am sorry.

Representative Tupas. I have the floor. Thank you.

Because if that is so, Mr. President, we ask for two (2) days to submit our formal offer of evidence

and that will be Friday. And the Chair gave five (5) days to the Defense. And if you count that, it would


23/38


be Wednesday. And from tomorrow until Wednesday, if we will follow the proposal, there will be no

hearing and to us it is a waste of time of this Honorable Court, Mr. President.

That is the position of the Prosecution.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, many a time we have been over-liberal and magnanimous

to the Prosecution, Your Honor. They come here, no evidence, no witness, the setting is postponed,Your Honor. And we had never been heard to complain, Your Honor. We had been very

accommodating. Now, if they wanted a very strict application of the Rules, we will meet them

head on, Your Honor. There are various evidence here presented, documentary at that. If they are

overruled and they are rejected, why are we going to touch them at the presentation of our evidence,

Your Honor?

On the other hand, there is even a motion filed by us to suppress and/or to delete from the records,

Your Honor, the documentary evidence consisting of bank records which we feel are in violation of the

rule on regarding privacy pursuant to Republic Act 1405. Why will we be deprived simply because you

wanted us to go the way you wanted to? There is nothing that the Prosecution can impose upon this

Defense, Your Honor. We have never been unreasonable.

Representative Tupas. I just have to respond to that. There is a statement

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but

Representative Tupas. with respect to the Prosecution not being prepared, to the Prosecution

not ready, and to me that is uncalled for, to us. I just want to put on record, Mr. President

Mr. Cuevas. I will stick on the record of making that statement, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. It is okay, if you stick on the record. But, Mr. President, we want

to put on record that that is unfair, inaccurate statement. And we submit to the discretion of our

Honorable Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer. All right. This Court cannot control the Prosecution as well as the

Defense regarding their presentation of their respective positions on this Impeachment Trial. The

Defense is entitled to a reasonable time to prepare and assemble their evidence in order to present it

orderly before this Court.

So, how many days after do you need to prepare for trial for the presentation of your defense?

Mr. Cuevas. We have left that to the discretion of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. If after

a ruling had been made, we are so ordered to present our evidence any time, we will, Your Honor.

We will abide very willingly.

The Presiding Officer. We will work fast to make rulings on the offered evidence by the

Prosecution, so be ready.


The Presiding Officer. Be ready.


The Presiding Officer. Including the motion of the Defense to exclude certain

Mr. Cuevas. Bank documents, Your Honor.


24/38


The Presiding Officer. documentary the bank documents that floated around. So, that

is understood that you will file your written offer of your evidence formally to this Court not later

than Friday.

Representative Tupas. We will do that, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. And then from the time you notify the Defense the filing of yourwritten offer of your evidence to this Court, then they will have five (5) days alsonot more than five

(5) days, inextensible, to submit their objections.

So ordered.


Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we inquire when will be the hearing if that is the case,

Your Honor? Can we set, at least, a tentative date so that we can also prepare, Mr. President?

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. Yes. May we give the other Members of the Court a chance to decide on

this on Monday, Mr. President, during the caucus


Senator Sotto. to answer that particular question?

The Presiding Officer. I suggest that both sides must be ready everyday for trial. Because I

am sure that you have prepared this case very well on your part. So that there is no need to appear

being taken by surprise because we are going to call the case for trial at any given date.

Representative Tupas. Mr. President, yes, we are ready everyday. But may we be clarified

if we have a hearing on Monday, if that is the case?

Senator Sotto. Wala.

Representative Tupas. Because they were given five (5) days which will end on Wednesday,

Mr. President.

Senator Sotto. Yes.

Representative Tupas. Just for the clarification of the Prosecution, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. Well, Mr. President, at the rate things are going, I do not think we will have

a trial on Monday.

Representative Tupas. So, when will be the earliest, at least, a tentative

The Presiding Officer. March 12, according to the Clerk of Court.

Representative Tupas. March 12, Your Honor?


Senator Sotto. March 12. March 12, next Monday.


25/38


Representative Tupas. Because Wednesday is a 7, I suppose. Wednesday, Your Honor,

is March 7. Tama?

Senator Sotto. We will be ruling on the offer on or about March 8 which is a Thursday.

And that is the reason why Monday is the most practical date, March 12.

Representative Tupas. We submit, Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. So, the next trial date will be at two oclock of March 12 two oclock

in the afternoon of March 12.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in the meantime, there is a question on whether the Defense will

be presenting their evidence already on March 12, Mr. President.

They should be ready. You should be ready to present on March 12. Yes, they are.

May we recognize Senator Escudero, Mr. President, and then Senator Santiago, then Cayetano?

Or Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, we recognize first.

The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you, Senator Escudero.

The Prosecution will be making an offer of evidence and then it will rest. What all these means is

that, after it makes its formal offer of evidence, the Prosecution will then lie down in front of that

first table, face down on the floor and assume a planking position, to go rigid there. That is called

planking because tapos ka na.Para ka nangnamatay. Huwag ka nang nagsasalita pa, tapos

ka na, eh. Ngayon langako nakarinig na, We are resting our case. We are making a formal offer.

We are resting our case with a reservation. Pag sinabi mong resting your case, tapos ka na. That

is an oxymoron to say that you are resting and yet you will come alive at a certain point at your

pleasure. That cannot be done.Hindi ka ba nag-trial notebook?Alam mo naman na gusto mo palamagprisinta ng isang testigo, eh, bakit hindi mo tinanong noon pa?Ganun yun.

To be able to deserve your appearance fee, you have to prepare for every appearance in court.

Eh, ngayon patayin mo kami ng testigo mo. Masyado ka namang masuwerte sa buhay. Hindi

ginagawa iyan in law practice ah. Ngayon lang ako nakarinig ngngayon lang ako nakakarinig

nitong mga milagro na ito.

Maybe it is correct, climate change has already changed everybodys heads because I feel like

I have just been confronted by a sink hole. I have never heard this concept before in trial court.

At hanapbuhay ko yunaraw-araw yun. Sari-saring sinungaling naririnig ko. Yun ang

hanapbuhay ng judge eh. Maupo ka dun alas-otso y medya hanggang alas-dose y medya,makinig ka ng sinungaling na parehong grupo.

Kaya magdesisyon kami sa Impeachment Court. If you are going to be allowed to rest but

without your reservation or if you want to file a motion for everything to be suspended while we wait

for the pleasure of your witness which is unheard of in Court. It is an oxymoron to say you, Your

Honor, we presentwe will make a formal offer then we will rest which is pursuant to the Rules of

Court but we will rest with the reservation that you will call on our witness when she is ready and all

of you honorable men and women, ladies and gentlemen of the Impeachment Court, have to wait for

her pleasure and the pleasure of the Prosecution. That, in effect, is what you are asking us to do.

Bakit hindi niyo inihanda yan nung Enero? Eh, kung yun palang testigo ninyokayo naman,

oo, nagbibiro kayo. You got to be joking!


26/38


Pagkatapos, it will take us so much time to make our offer of evidence. Waah! For the second

time. Waah! Round two. [Laughter] Kasi basahin mo lang ang Senate Journal,nandiyan ang

verbatim na offer mo of evidence. Every time you present a witness, you say, I offer her for the

purpose of this and that and we will authenticate certain documents with her testimony. Nandiyan

yan. Di kopyahin mo lang sa SenateJournal.Ano ang problema mo? Have you ever been in

trial court? If so, can you please make way to somebody who has been in trial court before? That

is not a big deal. Andiyan na yan sa SenateJournal,kopyahin mo lang yun. And besides, you

should have had a trial notebookkung saan ililista mo yun dahil alam mo na aabot tayo sa puntong

ito. Ngayon, ang gusto ninyo mag-antay kami. Bakit napakais it going to tax your I.Q. so much

that you need until Friday to make this? Dapat araw-araw ginagawa iyan ng secretary mo or ng

clerk mo. It is all a question of just instructing her. Kopyahin mo ang SenateJournal,ano ba ang

pinag-offer namin kanina at para pag formal offer na, handa na tayo? In trial court, we do not

even wait. We do not even wait for a period of time for the party to make a formal offer. Pagkatapos

ng bista ngayon,bukas sasabihin ng Judge, O, mag-offer ka na. Dahil ginagawa mo yan

throughout the course of the trial. What is the big deal about this? It is highly clerical. You are only

going to murmur there, Here is our witnesswe offer the testimony of this witness, letter (a) for

the purpose of so and so and These were the documents marked during her testimony so andso. Eh, we will be spending the whole half-day doing that kind of thing.

So, this means only that either you do not know your Rules of Court or you are expecting or hoping

for miracles to happen. Korte de milagrosos ito. You are waiting for a miracle to happen. Trabaho

mo iyan eh. Habang the trial is going on, lilistahin mo kung anong mga ebidensiya mo. Basahin

mo ang SenateJournal.Araw-araw yannandidiyan yan eh. Pagkatapos itong arte pa ninyo.

Pag nag-objection ang the other side, sasabihin ka, I make an offer of proof, Your Honor, or we

make a tender of excluded evidence. You do that so that the appellate court can see the records and

can determine if the ruling of the trial judge was correct or not. But there is no court higher than the

Impeachment Court. That is the express language of the Constitution. The Senate, as an Impeachment

Court, tries and decides. So, there is no point making an offer of proof or a tender of excluded

evidence because no one is going to read those documents. I already implied that before but now I

am saying it explicitly for full understanding of what is involved here. These are clerical. These are

ministerial functions.Bakit ang dami nahindi bale kung ang Defense mag-make siya ng motion

dahil ngayon pa lang niya naintindihan having placed these things in context kung dapat ipa-admit

yun o hindi. Nag-o-object na nga siya noon. Pagkatapos, hindi pahindi pa iyon.

Alam naman natin, Gentlemen of both panels, that the general rule is, In case of doubt admit the

evidence. Ganoon naman iyon eh. Kaya let us not make a big deal out of these offers.

Every time a witness is presented, one of you stands up then he says, If the Honorable Court will

please, we offer this testimony by Mr. X and we will mark the following documents for the purpose

of. Nag-recite na kamo niyan noon tapos uulitin pa ninyo? Eh iyon lang eh parang hirap nahirap na kayo. Ay, susmaryosep. Where are your neurons? Where are your synopses? Your brains

are very, very dark. You know, when you use our brains, the electrical impulses from one neuron

jump to another neuron that is called a brain activity or a brainwave.Ngayon kung may brainwave

ka, lahat ng utak mo kumikislap. It is entirely lighted. Ngayon kung madilim na madilim ang utak

mo, your neurons are not working. You are flatline. Meaning to say, hindi ba, kung buhay pa ang

pasyente, naka-jump up and down iyong kanyang recording instrument? Pero kung namatay na,

nag-flatline na. O iyon ang nangyari sa inyo, nagpa-flatline na kayo.

I am, please, appealing to you. Can you please prepare on the Rules of Court? I am very

underwhelmed by all these debate about how many days to give. Dapat ngayon pa lang handa na

kayo. Waah! Part 2.


27/38


Senator Sotto. Senator Escudero, Mr. President.


Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Escudero, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, ilang paglilinaw lang po kaugnay sa mga naganap

kahapon at ngayon.

May I address some questions to the Chief Prosecutor or any of the lawyers for the Prosecution?

Your Honor, kahapon tinanong kayo ng Presiding Officer kung wini-withdraw ba ninyo iyong

Articles of Impeachment, particularly I, IV, V, VI and VIII. And the Presiding Officer asked you to

submit a manifestation or motion to that effect. May we know if that is forthcoming?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. We have already a draft of our Manifestation and

we will file it by Friday, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. To clarify, Mr. Presiding Officer, Your Honor. Iba ho iyong withdraw sahindi na kayo magpi-prisenta ng ebidensiya. Ang sinabi ninyo ho sa records kahapon, you are

dropping it, you are withdrawing it, you are no longer presenting evidence at some point, you said that.

May I know which one is it?

The difference, Mr. President, Your Honor, is if you are withdrawing it, that means hindi namin

pagbobotohan iyong walo (8), tatlo (3) lang ang pagbobotohan namin. If you are merely not

presenting evidence, nothing bars the Defense from presenting evidence on all eight (8) and we will have

to vote on all eight (8). May I know your intentions?

Representative Tupas. With that clarification, yesterday we said that we are withdrawing the

other Articles, namely: Articles VIII, I, IV, V, VI and we will file a Manifestation to that effect.

Senator Escudero. So you are withdrawing it?

Representative Tupas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Meaning, your intention isparang wala na iyon doon sa Complaint?

Representative Tupas. That is correct.

Senator Escudero. Given that answer, Mr. Presiding Officer, I have more questions to ask. One,

that is, in effect, amending the Complaint by withdrawing certain allegations, in this case, Articles

The Presiding Officer. Effectively, actually, they are waiving already the five (5) Articles of

Impeachment, in effect, abandoning it, if you want to use

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, if I may. That was what Congressman Aggabao said with

respect to Article III, that they are standing on the testimony of their lone witness, that they will no

longer present evidence on the matter, and that they are solely relying on the allegations of their

Complaint insofar as Article III is concerned plus the testimony of the witness.

In this case, it is not a mere abandonment. It is a withdrawal because, Mr. President, Your Honor,

the issues have been joined with eight (8) Articles already.

Now, there is a manner and procedure by which a complaint or pleadings can be amended and

in this case, since the issues have been joined by leave of Court.


28/38


So again, may I clarify? So is it withdrawal of the five (5) so we would not have to vote on the

five (5) anymore?

Representative Tupas. That is the position of the Prosecution, no need to vote on the five (5)

other Articles.

The Presiding Officer. That is clear.

Representative Tupas. And our position, Mr. President, is that there is no amendment to the

Complaint. We are simply waiving our right to present evidence and, in effect, abandoning.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, Your Honor

Representative Tupas. But with respect

The Presiding Officer. You are not only waiving a right to present evidence, you have no more

right to present evidence.

Representative Tupas. Yes. We have no more right. We are abandoning it.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, abandon.

Senator Escudero. Abandoning, surrendering, withdrawing, dropping. Mr. President, may I

know againthis is for future impeachment processes, I hope it will not come anytime soondid

the Prosecutors consult with the Complainants of the case? Because this is a substantial amendment

with respect to the Articles of Impeachment. And I heard the good gentleman yesterday when he

was interviewed, he said he consulted with the Speaker of the House. May I knowbecause the

Prosecutors, the 11-man Prosecution panel merely represent the 188 Complainants. In other

jurisdictions, even a mere postponement of trial, the Prosecutors consult the House, and they passed

a resolution to that effect. May I know if there is such a procedure taken or undertaken by the

panel of Prosecutors?

Representative Tupas. If it is a formal consultation with 188 signatories, we did not. We

consulted, for the record, the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader and we were given full

discretion, blanket authority on how to present the case. It is a prosecutorial discretion. We were given

that discretion and now we are waiving our right with respect to the five (5) others and we are sticking,

as the Senate President puts it, we will risewe will stand or fall on the three Articles, namely:

Articles III, VII, and especially II.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I do not wish to debate nor argue with the distinguished Chief

Prosecutor, only to place on record that the withdrawal of Articles of Impeachment is a substantial

decision and, to my mind, this is not merely prosecutorial discretion. Perhaps what evidence to present,

which witness to present, is prosecutorial discretion. But the eight (8) Articles were verified by 188Congressmen. They swore that they had personal knowledge or based on documents that they read

it and that they are therefore accusing the Chief Justice of all eight acts and/or omissions.

My fear, Mr. President, Your Honor, is while the Chief Prosecutor considers this as a mere

dropping, withdrawal but it would still constitute, in effect, an amendment of the Complaint which might

present several other complications that we might not be prepared to encounter and face given the

problems we have been seeing in connection with this trial. I just hope that that can be clarified in your

motion and manifestation that you will file, Your Honors, so that everything we do here can be used

as a good precedent for future impeachment cases and students of the law.

Thank you, Mr. President.


29/38


Representative Tupas. Mr. President, we will clarify that in our notice/manifestation and we

would like to thank Sen. Chiz Escudero.

The Presiding Officer. May I suggest to the Prosecutors to make a very simple, clear and

absolute statementwithdrawing or abandoning, whatever term or semantical terminology you will use

to describe what you are doing without any further consideration including presentation of any iota of

evidence on this withdrawn Articles of Impeachment.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President

The Presiding Officer. No, I just want to know the reaction of

Representative Tupas. We will do that, Sir.


Representative Tupas. We will make it very, very clear.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize, Sen. Alan Cayetano?

The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader.

Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, kanina po nabanggit ng Chief Prosecutor, ni Congressman

Tupas, na sayang yung time ng Court kasi kung matagal pa yung hearing. Well-takenpo yun. But

I just like to put on the record, hindi masasayang ang time kasi aside from giving the Defense a fair

chance to go over the submissions of the Prosecution, ang daming problema ng bansa eh, kagabi

lang tumataas na naman ang presyo ng langis, di ba? So, may mga committee hearings naman

na puwede kaming gawin at saka yung sa session. You know, from problem sa economy,problema

sa agrikultura. Name it, we have it and we will be dealing with that.Ang question ko po: Will the

Prosecution be needing time or will they still reply kapagkaif and when the ProsecutiontheDefense submits some objectionsyou will submit on Friday, tama po ba? Tapos sila Wednesday.

So do you need time na sagutin pa iyon?

Representative Tupas. Hindi na po. Pag na-submit naming nang Friday iyon and we will

submit it. Kung may opposition, then we will submit it for resolution na.

Senator Cayetano (A). Because we are assuming na sa Thursday, makakapag-decide na po

kami para mag-trial na ng Monday. But there is a big possibility na kung marami pong ibi-bring

up ang Depensa, kung 247 documents iyan eh matinding-matinding review at saka pag-uusap pa

ang gagawin namin. So I just wanted to know whether submitted niyo na as far as you are concerned

kung ano ang ibibigay ninyo sa Friday, then we will deal with their objections. And then the Courtwill make the decision.

Representative Tupas. Tama po iyon, Mr President.

Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Yes

Representative Farias. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Sur.


30/38


Senator Sotto. And then is Senator Recto.

Representative Farias. May we request, Mr. Presidentthere was a statement here earlier

made by the good lady here from Iloilo referring to the Prosecution as gago.Baka naman po

puwedeng matanggal iyon dahil baka hindi naman po maganda sa posterity natin na nababasa

po iyon na natawag po kami na

Senator Defensor Santiago. No objection, Mr. President.

Representative Farias. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you, Mr. President.



The Presiding Officer. Strike the term g-a-g-o from the record. (Laughter)

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Ralph Recto.The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Batangas.

Senator Recto. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just a clarification. I heard earlier that we come back on March 12. Is that correct,

Mr. President? That means for one (1) week, next week, there is no session?

The Presiding Officer. We will resume the trial of this Impeachment Case on March 12 at

two oclock in the afternoon.

Senator Recto. That is right. And that would mean, Mr. President, that we would have two (2)

session weeks left until March 23. Looking at the schedule of the Impeachment Court as well and thatof the Senate and the House of Representatives, we come back on May 7, if I am not mistaken. And

I have heard from the Defense that they intendthey need something like five (5) or six (6) weeks to

present their evidence in behalf of the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. We cannot deny them that.

Senator Recto. Yes, I am not denying them that, Mr. President.

I have seen the schedule of this Impeachment Court. And looking at that, then it is possible that

we will not be through by June 7, Mr. President. Because we only have four (4) session weeks left

when we get back on May 7. So, if we come back on March 12, we only have six (6) session weeks

left, Mr. President.

Is it correct to hear from the Defense that you would need something like six (6) session weeks?

Documents

Feb 29 Senate impeachment court record