feb 22 senate impeachment court record

8/2/2019 Feb 22 Senate impeachment court record

1/60

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 1

AT 2:36 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

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

We shall be led in prayer by Manny Villar.

Senator Villar. Today is Ash Wednesday, a humbling reminder of our mortality that from dust

we were created and to dust we shall return. What we do on this earth, we shall account to the Great

Judge and Jury.

Lord, You have said, Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one

another. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,

but judge your neighbor fairly.

Allow us then, o Lord, to sift through the facts with an unflinching eye for truth in accord

with the precepts of justice. Let your servants ferret through the impeachment process by

looking where there is wrongdoing and discerning where there is none.

Let no man, wealth or malice stand between this Court and its purpose. As elected

Senator-Judges, make our institution a bastion of democracy and let our conduct mirror the

spirit of unity rather than divisiveness.

Bantayan Mo Po ang bawat salitang lalabas sa aming bibig. Naway hindi ito

pagmulan ng hindi pagkakaintindihan o pagkakagalit, bagkus ay magdulot ito ng

liwanag sa aming mga kaisipan.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Pasay City


2/60

2 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

______________

*Arrived after the roll call

Panginoon, ikaw ang pinagmulan ng lahat ng pag-ibig at karunungan. Tanggapin Mo Po

ang panalanging ito bilang alay sa Iyo at sa bayan.

Ikaw ang aming lakas at sa pamamagitan Mo kami ay naglilingkod sa bayan. Hinihiling po

namin ito sa banal at dakilang Pangalan ni Hesus.

Amen.The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will now please call the roll of Members.

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 .................................................... PresentSenator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present

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

Senator Francis J.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 ............................................................ PresentSenator 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. There are 20 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 is directed to make the 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.


3/60


The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 21, 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 21, 2012

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

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. Yes, for the Prosecution, Mr. President.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honor. For the Prosecution panel

of the House of Representatives, same appearances.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

The 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, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

would like to be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The lady-senator from Iloilo is recognized.

Senator Defensor Santiago. I beg the indulgence of our colleagues in making this manifestation.

Our Constitution provides under Article III, which is entitled The Bill of Rights, Section 1, No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied

the equal protection of the laws. Section 1 is only one sentence. It consists of two parts, what lawyers

call the due process clause, and number two, what lawyers call, the equal protection clause. And

yet, Section 1 is so powerful that even if you deleted the entire Bill of Rights and remained only with

Section 1, every single Filipino citizen would still be entitled to the entire panoply of human rights

enshrined in our Constitution. Ganoon katindi ang bigat ng equal protection clause at ng due processclause.

Ngayon, the business for the day is the due process clause. Because, yesterday, Prosecution

wanted to present a PAL officer and the Presiding Officer ruled that because bribery is not alleged

under Article III, then Prosecution cannot present that PAL officer. I support that ruling. In fact, I

insist on it because of the due process clause of our Constitution. The due process clause is so

important that, as I said, in the view of certain constitutional experts with tripartite democracies like

ours all over the world, tanggalin mo na ang buong Saligang Batas, iwan mo lang ang due process

at ang equal protection clauses, meron ka ng protection ng buong Saligang Batas para sa

karapatang pantao. That is how important due process is.


4/60


Ngayon, di lamang iyon ang probisyon ng ating Konstitusyon, kung hindi sa Konstitusyon

mismo, hindi sa Rules of Court lang. Sa Constitution, Article III, which is also the Bill of Rights, going

down the rights, Section 14, paragraph 2, provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be...

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.... That is due process. That is how

our Constitution defines what due process is. You must inform the accused, any accused person in

a criminal proceeding or in a semi-criminal proceeding such as ours, of the nature and cause of the

accusation against him. And accordingly, the Rules of Court provides, Section 1, Rule 115, Rights of

the Accused: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: Letter

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. So, the Rules of Court

is nothing but a reflection of an actual constitutional duty imposed explicitly by the Constitution. That

is why we cannot admit the testimony or any other evidence of an officer, of any person, or any witness

concerning an allegation which has not been included in the complaint or information or, as in this case,

which has not been included in the Articles of Impeachment.

Merong mga biritero diyan sige ang false note na magsasabi, Eh, bakit ano ang diperensiya?

Testigo lang naman yan, eh di isingit mo na lang doon. Hindi puwede iyan! Because that is

violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. This is, more or less, virtually the same situation

during the President Estrada Trial when I voted against opening the second envelope, unless the

Prosecution first amended their Information. My basis was due process of law. Ganoon na rin iyan

ngayon, meron tayong testigo dito. Ngayon, doon sa President Estrada Trial, naalala niyo?

Opening of the second envelope, binilang kami isa-isa tapos nagalit ang publikowell, at least part

of the publicagainst me dahil bumoto akong huwag niyong buksan iyan. Actually, ang boto ko,

puwedeng buksan pero amendahin o baguhin mo muna ang Complaint or Information para

mabigyan ng due process clause ang akusado so that he can be informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation against him. Ngayon, nabuksan bandang huli ang second envelope, wala palang

laman na incriminatory doon. Kaya what was all that fury about? That pretended anger at the

pretended violation of the constitutional rights of the Prosecution at that time? Ngayon, maliwanag

sa ating Saligang Batas at sa ating Rules of Court na hindi ka dapat magbigay ng ebidensiya,testigo man o anumang exhibit mo kung hindi mo sinali doon sa iyong akusasyon, sa iyong

Complaint or Information ang partikular na krimen na ginawa ng taong iyonkrimen, according

to the Penal Code. Kaya sa mga kaso, our Supreme Court has ruled, particularly in Andaya vs.

People, a decision in 2006, No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,

an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information and which is tried

or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is contemplating his

defense against the ground alleged, would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance

between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during the trial shall be fatal to the criminal

case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.

Kaya fatal iyan. Kaya dapat dahan-dahan ka lang kung gumagawa ka ng Complaint orInformation mo or your Articles of Impeachment para sigurado mo na lahat ng ebidensiya mo

maiprisinta mo sa bistadahil nakalista doon. Pag wala doon nakalista, hindi puwede. That is

the rule.

People vs. Flores, 2002. The right cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. If you have

the right, you cannot even waive it. It is imperative that a Complaint or Information filed against the

accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of

the specific offense alleged to have been committed for an accused cannot be convicted of an offense

even if duly proven unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the Complaint or Information.

And not only that, but our Supreme Court held in the case ofIlo vs. the Court of Appeals (1960)


5/60


on the effects of a fatally defective information. A substantial defect in the information cannot be cured

by evidence, for that would jeopardize their right to be informed of the true nature of the offense for

which they are charged.

Iyon lamang ang gusto kong sabihin noon sa Estrada Impeachment Trial eh, ang dami kasing

sawsawero doon eh. Mas marunong pa sila sa nag-aral ng batas. Palagi silang nagsasabing

technicality, technicality. Exactly, the law is exactly a body of technicalities. That is why you needfour (4) years of law school plus one (1) year of the Bar, in all a total of nine (9) yearspara malaman

mo kung ano itong mga teknikalidad na ito. Dahil kung wala tayong mga teknikalidad na iyan,

wala tayong tinatawag na rule of law, wala tayong tinatawag na due process of law. Kaya

itong mga iba nanagdudunung-dunungan, akala mo marunong pa sila sa abogado o sa dating

hukom o sa mga hukom ngayong nakaupo, kung anu-ano ang mga pinagsasabi. So filled with

hubris about their ignorance. Kasi kursunada nila o kaya mayroon silang intuition o kaya mayroon

silang conscience. Para bang ang konsiyensiya nila mas malakas sa konsiyensiya ng lahat ng tao

sa buong bansa. Iyan ang problema sa bansa na ito, nagdudunung-dunungan.

Plus the Rules of Court provides, Section 5. Amendment to Conform True or Authorize

Presentation of Evidence. You cannot, as I said, to repeat the rule, you cannot present evidence unlessit is included within a charge that is listed in your Complaint or Information.

Ngayon, kung gustong magprisinta ng ebidensiya at hindi nag-object ang kabilang panig,

puwede iyon dahil wala naman pala silang objection eh. Pero kung may objection, this is what

the Rules of Court says: If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the

issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with

liberality, et cetera. Under this ruling, our Supreme Court in 2005, in the case ofCagungun vs.

Planters Development Bank. Under this section that I have just read, If evidence is objected to at

the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the

pleadings to be amended freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved

thereby and admission of such evidence would not prejudice subjecting party in maintaining his actionor defense upon the merit. It is thus clear, that where there is an objection on the evidence presented

because it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, an amendment must be made before accepting

such evidence. If no amendment is made, the evidence objected to cannot be considered. That is

the categorical ruling of our Supreme Court in the 2004 case,Ardiente vs. ProvincialSheriff. The

complaint should state the theory of a course of action which forms the bases of the plaintiffs claim

of liability. The office, purpose or function of the complaint is to inform the defendant clearly and

definitely of the claims made against him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at the trial.

Yan ang batas.

Ngayon ang problema natin, marami kasi na mga kibitzers mahilig mag-abo-abogaduhan.

Kung gusto ninyong mag-abogado, mag-enrol kayo o kaya magbasa kayo tungkol sa batas. Athala, criticize , batikos nang batikos na wala namang base sa batas natin. Gusto ba nilang

gagawin sa kanila ang gusto nilang gawin sa ibang tao? That is the basic question.Akala mo kasi

nakikipag-fish ball-an tayo dito. Hindi. Mahalaga ang pinag-uusapan natin dito. Hindi tayo

nakatayo sa tabi ng fish ball vendor at bumili ka ng fish ballstickmo at bumili din ako ng akin.

Tapos, kakain tayo doon at maglandian tayo tungkol sa ating mga opinions sa batas. Magbasa

kayo ng batas.

In short, we did a discretion of this Court. We can have a continuance because that is what the

law says, to allow the Prosecution if it makes the proper request to amend their Complaint. If they

do not, then they simply cannot present the witness because he will testify to a matter that is not alleged


6/60


in the Articles of Impeachment. That was my position in the Estrada Impeachment Trial. That is the

very same position I take today.

Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you very much.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are ready to listen to the presentation of the Prosecution for

the continuation of their presentation of evidence or witnesses.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution has the floor. You may now present your witness, if

you have any witness.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honors. Good afternoon.

I speakYour Honor, this representation speaks relative to Article III, Your Honors.

The Presiding Officer. Article II?

Representative Aggabao. Article III, Your Honor. We have started. We have reverted back

to Article III yesterday, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, proceed.

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, we have concluded the presentation of evidence

yesterday with the offer ofwith the proffer of proof.

The Presiding Officer. Proffer of proof?

Representative Aggabao. Proffer of proof, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Not offer of proof? Not offer of evidence? I just want to clarify.

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor.

With the proffer made by the private Prosecutor yesterday, in light of the ruling by this Court, Your

Honor, that a pivotal witness may no longer testify, that is the last witness we have, Your Honor, for

the so-called FASAP case.

Now, this is embraced in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the Complaint, Your Honor. Just to be very

clear. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Three point one (3.1)

Representative Aggabao. To 3.3 of the Complaint.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. I want to see the3.1 up to 3.3?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, 3.1 to 3.3.

The Presiding Officer. At any rate, the understanding of the Court is the private Prosecutor made

a manifestation and proffered what he considered to be an evidence. The Chair will allow it to stay

in the record but at the time of the offer of evidence, then the matter will be revisited and decided

whether it will be admitted or not.


7/60


Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I just want to put on record with a caveat that Article III does not allege

any subornation or bribery or any special favor that influenced the thinking, the attitude or whatever of

the Respondent. I just want to make that clear so that if you want to strengthen your position, you

know the remedies.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

Having said that, the Prosecution would like to respectfully manifest, Your Honor, that so far as

the other wrongful acts stated under Article III is concerned, namely, that Respondent created an

excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office which is

embraced under Paragraphs 3.4 to 3.4.8, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. 3.4

Representative Aggabao. To 3.4.8.

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Representative Aggabao. That is the second wrongful instance or wrongful act that we alleged,

Your Honor.


Representative Aggabao. Also, that Respondent dipped his hands into public funds to finance

personal expenses. This is embraced in Paragraphs 3.4.9 to 3.4.10.


Representative Aggabao. Point 9 (.9), Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. To?

Representative Aggabao. To 3.4.10.


Representative Aggabao. And finally, that Respondent discussed with litigants cases pending

before the Supreme Court which is embraced in Paragraphs 3.5 to 3.6.5.


Representative Aggabao. Point 5 (.5), Your Honor, 3.5 to 3.6.5.

The Presiding Officer. What I have here is 3.6.4. There is

Representative Aggabao. Up to fifth.


Representative Aggabao. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. 3.6.5.

Representative Aggabao. Yes.



8/60


Representative Aggabao. In all these allegations of wrongful acts, Your Honor, starting with

3.4 to 3.6.5, Your Honor, the Prosecution respectfully manifests that we are no longer presenting

evidence in regard to this.

The Presiding Officer. Are you dropping these matters?

Representative Aggabao. Only with respect to the three wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint,Your Honor. But as far as Article III is concerned, Your Honor, the case is there. And in support

of that, Your Honor, we have the evidence submitted in that so-called FASAP case, Your Honor.

To recall, Your Honor please

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. To be clarified.


The Presiding Officer. Your allegation in Article...

Representative Aggabao. III.

The Presiding Officer. ...III is, Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution

and/or betrayal of public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards of 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 and independence (1) in allowing the Supreme Court to act

on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final executory

cases. Now...

Representative Aggabao. We stopped there, Your Honor. We stopped there.

The Presiding Officer. ...you want to maintain this allegation...


The Presiding Officer. ...to be the subject of proof.

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. We have proven that already, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely. To be the subject of proof which you will offer at the

proper time.

Representative Aggabao. Yes. Yes, Your Honor please. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Now, the next charge that you included in Article IIIthe predicate ofyour conclusion is that...in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her

appointment of his wife to office. You are now dropping this?

Representative Aggabao. That is right, Your Honor. We are not presenting evidence on this.

The Presiding Officer. And you are not going to present any evidence?

Representative Aggabao. No more.

The Presiding Officer. And this will not be presented to the Court for decision?



9/60


The Presiding Officer. Okay. Then the last one is andyou have a conjunction here-

and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court. You will also

drop this allegation; you will not offer any evidence and it will not be presented to the Impeachment

Court for decision?

Representative Aggabao. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Joker Arroyo

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Senator Arroyo would like to ask a question on this point.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol.

Senator Arroyo. Thank you, Mr. President.

It is just a simple question. I will just ask from the Prosecution, anybody can answer. Therewas a lawyer here that appeared as a private Prosecutor, is he here now?

Representative Aggabao. Yesterday, Your Honor? The one that made

Senator Arroyo. Yes.

Representative Aggabao. Si Attorney Marlon. We are not sure if he is here, Your Honor.

We will try to answer it, Your Honor.

Senator Arroyo. Now, anyway, I just want to ask the question. Is he the lawyer of PALEA?

Because I received information that he is the lawyer of PALEA, meaning the labor union in

Philippine Airlines.

Representative Aggabao. We will have to make an inquiry, Your Honor.

Senator Arroyo. All right, take your time. I just want to have an answer on that.

Representative Aggabao. We will provide you with the answer, Your Honor.

Senator Arroyo. Okay.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you.

Senator Sotto. Still on the issue, Mr. President, Senator Escudero.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President.

Some questions to the Honorable Congressman, Congressman Gigi Aggabao with respect to

the statements he made. Do I take it that the Prosecution will no longer present evidence aliunde

with respect to the other subparagraphs of Article III?

Representative Aggabao. That is right, Your Honor, with respect to Article III.

Senator Escudero. But the Article still stands?


10/60



Senator Escudero. And simply you are resting on the allegations contained in your Complaint

and will no longer be presenting documentary or testimonial evidence on the matter?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, with respect to the other allegations there, Your Honor. But

with respect to the FASAP case, Your Honor, as I said, we have concluded the presentation of

evidence.

Senator Escudero. Just to be clear, Mr. President, Your Honor. So therefore we will still be

putting it to a vote? You are not withdrawing it, as I earlier heard you respond to a question by the

Presiding Officer?

Representative Aggabao. No, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. You are not withdrawing Article III?

Representative Aggabao. No, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. We will still put it to a vote?


Senator Escudero. And the Defense is free to present evidence aliunde should it so desire?


Senator Escudero. Or rely on the allegations of their own answer in other pleadings, if at all,

when their turn comes?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, that is true.

Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Your Honor.

Representative Aggabao. If I may add, Your Honor, we feel that

Mr. Cuevas. Before we leave the subject, Your Honor, may I be allowed to make a short

clarification, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. The only witness that I recall having been presented by the Prosecution is the

president of PALEA, Mr. AnduizaFASAP, rather. Is he the only witness you are referring to in

support of the allegations mentioned in here which you allowed to remain?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor, because the pivotal witness for the Prosecution,Your Honor

Mr. Cuevas. So no other witness?

Representative Aggabao. No other witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Will you allow the Prosecution to finish first?

Representative Aggabao. No other witness, Your Honor. I reiterate, Your Honor, that so

far as the Prosecution is concerned, we have concluded the presentation of evidence with respect to

the FASAP case covered under Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of the Complaint


11/60


The Presiding Officer. The only one presented by you is the

Representative Aggabao. The FASAP president, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The FASAP president. And that will be the only witness you will present

under Article III?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.

The Presiding Officer. In other words, I would like to reiterate my question. You have totally

waived theother than the flip-flopping-you will waive everything else?

Representative Aggabao. That is true, Your Honor. We have

The Presiding Officer. And you will not present anymore evidence, and this portion of Article

III will not be presented for the consideration of...

Representative Aggabao. ...of the Impeachment Body, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. the Impeachment Court?

Representative Aggabao. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So that is very clear.

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, yes.

The Presiding Officer. In effect, what you are saying is that you are waivingyou are excising

this particular portion of your Articles of Impeachment?

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman

Mr. Cuevas. If I recall correctly, Your Honor, while Mr. Anduiza was on the stand, he admitted

that he had no complaint against thehe admitted that he had no complaint against the rest of the other

members of the Court although he knew that the decision of the Court is a collegiate one and not solely

aponencia by the Respondent, the Honorable Renato Corona, Your Honor.

Now, there was also an admission by him that he was of the impression that the decision that was

altered or modified or reversed is the decision on the merits. But when we clarified this point throughcross-examination and confronting him with the records of that case, You Honor, it becomes very clear

that the decision on the merits of this case awarding the PALEA employees millions of dollars in back

wages, Your Honor, had never been modified, altered nor revoked. It remains as it is, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, Counsel

Mr. Cuevas. I was

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, that will be proper

Representative Aggabao. In the memorandum.


12/60


Mr. Cuevas. In the appreciation of

The Presiding Officer. In the appreciation of the evidence and during your summation.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, with the kind permission of the Court.


Mr. Cuevas. I just brought that out, Your Honor, because I was about to move for the exclusion

of that particular testimony, Your Honor, because it does not support the allegations of the Complaint

in connection with the alleged violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. That is my point, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. But, anyway, let it stay in the record since the admission of the

witness will be carried or will have to be borne by the party that offered it.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay, then, with that clarification, Your Honor, we submit.

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you very much.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. Just one more question from Sen. Miriam Santiago, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo is recognized.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel, you are well aware that your present move is entirely

unconventional by the standards of trial judges throughout the country.

Normally, when you make several charges under a certain course of action or under a certain

Article of Impeachment, then you want to present proof because otherwise the answer of the Defense

will stay on the record. You will have your Complaint plus the Answer, there is equipoise; but they

might present proof in defense on Article III. So the equipoise will be broken and then the balance

of evidence will be in favor of the Defense.

Of course, you are well aware of that. As I said, it is very unconventional. I just wonder as a

Judge why you are wasting the time of the Court.

Representative Aggabao. Your HonorYour Honor please.

Of course, Your Honor, we have taken a look at this hard and long. We feel that on the strength

alone of the evidence presented on the FASAP case, Your Honor, it is, as far as we are concerned,

adequate, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. That is your privilege.

Representative Aggabao. And we want to abbreviate the proceedings, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, that is your privilege, of course.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor.


13/60


Senator Defensor Santiago. I just wanted to be clear.

Now, I want to know, for Article III, have you made an offer of proof or are you making a tender

of excluded evidence? Which one are you doing?

Representative Aggabao. The words used by the Private Counsel, Your Honor, was offer of

excluded evidence. I stand correctedtendertender of excluded evidence...

Senator Defensor Santiago. You are making tender of excluded evidence.

Representative Aggabao. ...Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. I will read Section 40 of Rule 132, If documents or things offered

in evidence are excluded by the Court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the

record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other

personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. That is what the

Rules of Court provide.


Senator Defensor Santiago. Now, I want you to answer this question.

Since only the Impeachment Court, this Court and none othernot even the Supreme Courtcan

make a decision on an Impeachment Trial, what then is the purpose of your tender of excluded

evidence?

In normal trial practice, we make such tenders or make such offers of proof because we want it

to be placed on record. And when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court

will be in a position to state whether the trial court was wrong in its rulings or not.

But since we are supreme as an Impeachment Court, the Supreme Court cannot substitute itsjudgment for our judgment with respect to the Impeachment Trial, what then is the purpose of this

tender of excluded evidence?

Representative Aggabao. Very respectfully, Your Honor, we were aware of that, Your

Honor. We were not even sure, Your Honor, whether under the Rules that is allowed because as I

said, and as you correctly pointed out, there is no appeal here for which the exclusion of evidence

would have been raised as a correctible error. But we thought, Your Honor, that we have the evidence

inserted in the records so that the entire Impeachment Body is afforded a second look, a chanceeven

if remotely a chance to be able to review the evidence that should have been made by the witness

who was excluded, Your Honor.

Senator Defensor Santiago. Well, that is in the far fringes of expectations, right?


Senator Defensor Santiago. Because we have transcripts of stenographic notes in the form of

our SenateJournal which are now verbatim just like in court. And we place aJournal on top of that

everyday and it must now be about one foot high so the expectations could be too high for the purpose.

I doubt very much if every senator will bother to go through the TSN or the transcript verbatim of the

Journal. What I am saying is, the tender of excluded evidence seems to be an extraneous and

unnecessary motion. But in the spirit of liberality, since the Rules of Court provide that the Rules should

be construed with liberality, I have no objection.


14/60


Representative Aggabao. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, if Your Honor please, only in connection with this matter, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court. There is a lot of difference

between offer of evidence and tender of proof because under the particular rule of evidence mentionedby the Honorable Senator who had just spoken, Your Honor, it refers to a situation where a party had

presented its evidence and it is closing its evidence. In this case, there is no closure yet to speak of.

So this will not apply. The way I understood the manifestation with the gentleman representing the

private prosecution yesterday, it is because there was an objection to the offer of the testimony and,

therefore, he is merely making an offer of proof. And the situation cannot be covered or cannot be

considered as falling within the ambit of offer of proof, Your Honor, because the situation contemplated

in an offer of proof is something like this: The witness is on the stand; he is being examined by Counsel

and there is an objection interposed and the objection was sustained. Therefore, he was prevented

from answering the question. Then, in that case, the examining Counsel may offer or may tender an

offer of proof, and that is by stating that if he is allowedif the question is allowed, he would haveelicited this kind of an answer, and only that.

But as what the Court will note yesterday, practically several documents were mentioned. They

were about to be marked upon motion but it was denied by the Court, Your Honor. And allegedly,

they should be considered as evidence in this case. There is where I cannot affirm my concurrence

or conformity, Your Honor, because it is violative of the rules of evidence, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. However liberal may the attitude be taken by this Honorable Court, I do not think

that it will sustain the situation contemplated or brought about by the private Prosecutor yesterday,

Your Honor.


The Presiding Officer. All right. We take note of the position of the Defense. And as I said,

let the manifestation stay in the records. It is not being offered yet. At the proper time, if I remember

our Impeachment Rules, both parties will have one hour each, I think, to argue their case. Then, it is

at that time where you will have to tackle this issue. And I assure you that we are well-informed about

the rules of evidence.

Mr. Cuevas. We just brought that into the attention of this Honorable Body, Your Honor, with

the hope that we may not be construed as having waived our objection to this kind of a procedure,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. We understand your position.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor. Having said that, Your Honor, the Prosecution is

prepared to move to the next article which is Article VII, Your Honor, and we are ready, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What happened to Article IV, Article V, Article VI?

Representative Aggabao. Your Honor, to recall, Your Honor, the original order was


15/60


The Presiding Officer. Yes, you have given that order of proof. But are you also going to

present evidence on Article IV, Article V, and Article VII?

Representative Aggabao. May I turn over the floor to the lead prosecutor, Your Honor?

Thank you very much.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Present your witness.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon.

Representative Tupas. We filed a manifestation to that effect, Mr. President, I think on the

second week of the trial and we stated the sequence of the Articles.

So, first, is Article II, the SALN, non-disclosure of SALN. Then, Article III which is this case, the

competence, integrity, probity and independence and Article VII, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer remembers that and that is why I just want to clarify

whether the Prosecution will eventually present evidence on Article IV, V and VI? If you want to

proceed, proceed on Article VII.

Representative Tupas. Thank you so much, Mr. President.

For Article VII, Mr. President, may we request that a member of the panel of prosecutors, Bayan

Partylist, Nery Colmenares, be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from the Partylist, the Honorable Congressman Colmenares,

has the floor.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. Magandang hapon po.

The Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon po naman.

Representative Colmenares. Before we embarkpo on Article VII, may we be allowed

po a brief manifestation just to give a road map or a brief sketch on how Article VII is going to present

this case, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor.

Ang Prosekusyon po sa ilalim ng Article VII ay magpe-present ng ebidensya na magpapatunay

ng mga sumusunod:

Una, bumoto si Chief Justice Corona para agad-agarang ibigay ang hinihinging TRO ni

Ginang Arroyo kahit wala namang life and death urgency na ibigay itong TRO.

Pangalawa po, noong November 15, bumoto ang Korte Suprema na i-grant ang TRO

pero dapat tuparin muna ang mga kondisyon bago ito maging effective bago makalipad si

Ginang Arroyo. Ang ginawa ni Chief Justice Corona, binaliktad ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema

at ginawang effective yung TRO kahit hindi pa natupad ang mga kondisyon.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, at this juncture I hope we will be permitted to interrupt,

Your Honor.


16/60


Representative Colmenares. Ang pangatlo po ay

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute.

Counsel, we will let him say because these are matters of his representation how he will develop

his case. Anyway, the records of the case will show what happened.

Representative Colmenares. Salamat po.

Pangatlo po, ilahad namin na noong November 18, may desisyon na naman ang Korte

Suprema na hindi na-comply ang isang kondisyon ng TRO kaya hindi po effective ito. Pero ang

ginawa ni Chief Justice Corona, binaliktad na naman po ang desisyon at sinabi niyang effective

ang TRO pending the compliance of the second condition.

Pang apat po, in-extend niya ang office hours ng Korte Suprema. Maagaran niyang inisyu

ang TRO kahit hindi pa nagbayad ng bond, kahit hindi pa nag-submit ng SPA.

Panglima po, si Chief Justice Corona fed information through Midas Marquez that misled the

publicpara i-distort ang desisyon.At panghuli po, panghuli, si Chief Justice Coronapinigilan ang pag-upload ng dissent ni Justice

Sereno, bahagi ng kanyang pag-attempt na ma-distort ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema.

The Presiding Justice. Iyan ba ay nasasaad sa record ng Korte Suprema?

Representative Colmenares. Yes po. There was a dissent of the

The Presiding Officer.Hindi. Iyong sinabi ninyong lahat na iyon, naka-reflect doon sa mga

records ng Korte Suprema?

Representative Colmenares. Yes. Your Honor, we are going to present testimonial and

documentary evidence to prove this po.


Representative Colmenares.Salamat po.

And just to end na lang po, Your Honors, these acts among others, we will prove in Article VII.

We will show that by his acts Chief Justice Corona betrayed public trust and he cannot therefore

continue to remain in public office.

The Presiding Officer. So, proceed.

Representative Colmenares. And the last sentence na lang po is, na ang desisyon ni ChiefJustice Corona was a conscious decision to favor former President Arroyopara makatakas siya sa

mga kasong laban sa kanya.

Thank you, Your Honor. That is just the brief manifestation.

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


Mr. Cuevas. I knew I may be charged of discourtesy, Your Honor

The Presiding Officer. No. Go ahead.


17/60


Mr. Cuevas. but I cannot in conscience tolerate this kind of presenting evidence, Your Honor,

because it appears that what he is trying to tell the Court are gospel truth, Your Honor. To our mind,

it is a matter of evidence, Your Honor. Whatever he says

The Presiding Officer. That is why, Counsel, we are asking him to proceed. Those are his

impressions, opinions. They are not evidence yet


The Presiding Officer. But the words of a lawyer advocating for his client. And so, therefore,

we will not take that as evidence.


The Presiding Officer. Well, maybe the public will believe or not believe what he says. Then

that is why we want to receive the evidence, so that we will see whether he is truthful in his

manifestation.

Representative Colmenares. Maraming salamat po, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Not that he is truthful. But whether, Your Honor, his manifestations are accurate

and correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Correct.

Representative Colmenares. If Your Honor please, it was a mere manifestation. And the

Senate President said these are not evidence.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Proceed.

Representative Colmenares. In fact, Your Honor please

The Presiding Officer. Stop this discussion. Just proceed with your evidence.

Representative Colmenares. Okay, Your Honor. Thank you for that grant, Your Honor.

So, we would like to call one of our Prosecutors, Your Honor, Deputy Speaker Raul Daza to

present our first witness under Article VII, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I thought you are the one presenting?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, I was thinking that he will be

Representative Colmenares. Your Honor, I am the Lead Prosecutor of Article VII. Deputy

Speaker Daza is the Lead Prosecutor of Article I.In our presentation of witnesses, Your Honor, we allow other panel members to handle and present

the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor.

May we ask the Honorable Court to recognize Deputy Speaker Raul Daza, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Gentleman from Northern Samar, Congressman Raul

Daza is recognized.


18/60


Representative Daza. Thank you, Mr. President.

Good afternoon, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon.

Representative Daza. Good afternoon, ladies

The Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, Brod.

Representative Daza. Good afternoon. Good afternoon to the distinguished Counsel.

The Presiding Officer. He is also your fraternity brother.

Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Brod, including Brod Drilon and Angara.

Representative Daza. Thank you.

Mr. President, may we call our first witness to the stand, Sec. Leila De Lima of the Department

of Justice.

The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Secretary of Justice, if she is here, may now please take

the witness stand, if she wishes, and be sworn in to testify in this Impeachment Trial?

Representative Daza. I understand that she is in the holding room of the Impeachment Court.

The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended for one minute.

Mr. Cuevas. Long minute, Your Honor?

The trial was suspended at 3:24 p.m.

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

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for the continuation of the Prosecution.

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

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

Proceedings?

Ms. De Lima. Yes, I will.

The Clerk of Court. So help you God.


Representative Daza. Madam Secretary, will you please state your full name, your address and

your present occupation.

Ms. De Lima. Magandang hapon po. Ako po si Leila De Lima. Ako po iyong Kalihim ng

Katarungan.

The Presiding Officer. I think we can take judicial notice of that, the facts about the

circumstances of our witness.


19/60


Ms. De Lima. Thank you, Your Honor.


The testimony of this witness is offered to prove the partiality of the Defendant as Chief Justice and

as a Member of the Supreme Court.

1. In the grant of a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, in the consolidated cases ofGloria Macapagal-Arroyo

v. Hon. Leila De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, and Ricardo

A. David Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 199034;

and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Justice, Ricardo Paras III in his capacity as Chief State Counsel of the

Department of Justice, and Ricardo A. David Jr., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau

of Immigration, G.R. No. 199046, in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution

and to frustrate the ends of justice; and

2. In distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in spite of the clear

failure by the petitioners in these two cases to comply with all the conditions of the TRO.

The Presiding Officer. So proceed, Counsel.

Representative Daza. Ginang Kalihim, kailan pa po kayo nanungkulan sa inyong pagiging

Kalihim ng Kagawaran ng Katarungan?

Ms. De Lima. Naitalaga po ako sa posisyon na ito noong July 1, 2010.

Representative Daza. Bilang Secretary of Justice, mangyari po bang sabihin ninyo sa

Kagalang-galang na Hukumang ito ang mga mahahalaga ninyong tungkulin?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ang karamihan po ng mga katungkulan ng Kalihim ng Katarunganay nakasaad sa Revised Administrative Code. Marami po iyan pero yung mga maitatawag po

natin na parang core mandates or core functions ng Kalihim ng Katarungan ay yung imbestigasyon

ng mga krimen at prosekusyon ng mga criminal offenders. At meron din po kami provision on the

regulatory immigrations services at kaya nga po sa ilalim ng Department of Justice ay severalpo yung

mga attached agencies na nandiyan nga po yung Bureau of Immigration atevenyungwell, the

National Prosecution Servicepo ay sakop ng Department of Justice. At isa pa hong function or

authority ng Secretary of Justice ay yung pag-i-issue po nung mga tinatawag na hold departure

orders and watchlist orders ayon sa isang circular.

Representative Daza. Ito pong nabanggit ninyong tungkulin ninyo sa pagpapalabas ng

tinatawag na hold departure orders, watchlist orders, ano ho ba ang batayan ng inyong tungkulinna ito?

Ms. De Lima.Nandiyan po iyan sa Department Circular No. 41 which was issued around May

25, 2010. At bago po yung Department Circular No. 41 ay meron pa hong mga nauna pa na mga

circularCircular 17, if I am not mistakenpo, it was issued sometime in 1999 or 1997; and thenyung

isa pa po ay yung Circular No. 18 in 2007. Yung Circular No. 41 po ay parang kinonsolidate

(consolidate) lang po yung mga dati na mga regulasyon ukol sa pag-i-issue ng tinatawag na hold

departure orders (HDOs) and watchlist orders (WLOs).

Representative Daza. Sino po ba ang Kalihim ng Katarungan noong inilabas itong

nabanggit ninyong Department Circular No. 41?


20/60


Ms. De Lima. Yan po ay ipinalabas nung aking predecessorActing Secretary Alberto Agra,

kasi bago po iyan ako naging Kalihim.

Representative Daza. Yun po ay noong kapanahunan nung dating pangulo, Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Sinabi ko po kanina, yung circular was issued May 25, 2010, bago honag-assume officially sa katungkulan si Presidente Benigno S. Aquino III, so bago rin po ako

naging Kalihim.

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

exhibit?

The Presiding Officer. You may approach the witness. No problem.

Representative Daza. Akin pong ipinakikita sa inyo ngayon ang isang exhibit, Exhibit

KKKKKKKKK, which was marked this morning during the pre-marking. Ano pong kaugnayan

nitong Exhibit KKKKKKKKK doon sa circular na inyong nabanggit?

Ms. De Lima. Certified true copy po ito nung Circular No. 41 na binanggit ko po kanina.

Representative Daza. Sa bawat pahina po nitong exhibit na ito ay may nakalagda sa taas

ng pangalang Joel A. Ocay, OIC Records Section, kilala po ba niyo itong lagdang ito?

Ms. De Lima. Well, part ho siya ng Record Section ng departamento, although bihira ko hong

makita iyong kanyang signature, pero kami po ang humingi nito sa kanya. So, pinirmahan ho

ito sa harap ng aking staff.

Mr. Cuevas. To save time

Representative Daza. Would the Defense Counsel

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. To save time, Your Honor, we are willing to admit that the document being

identified by Madam Secretary is a faithful reproduction of Circular No. 41.



Representative Daza. Natatandaan po ba ninyo na sa ilalim nitong Circular No. 41, kung

inyo pong natatandaan ay kayo ay nagpalabas ng isang watch list order na nauukol sa dating

Pangulo at ang dating First Gentleman?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, nagpalabas po ako ng a total of three (3) watch list orders against the

former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, although actually dalawa (2) lang po iyon because iyong

unang watch list order issued August of 2011, ay in-amendpo ng another watch list order issued

sometime in September.At iyong pangatlo po ay another watch list order issued sometime in October,

October 27. So , ito po ay mga watch list orders. Yong unang dalawa (2) na binanggit ko ay

against the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, yong pangatlo naman na binanggit ko

against the former President and the former First Gentleman.

Representative Daza. Bakit po kayo nagpalabas ng watch list orders na nauukol sa dating

Pangulo? Ano po ang dahilan o mga dahilan?


21/60


Ms. De Lima. Mayroon ho kasing mga mabibigat na kaso na nai-file sa Department of

Justice. Ito po yong plunder cases, tatlo (3) po yong plunder cases against the former President,

and mayroon naman podalawa (2) na electoral sabotage cases against the former President and even

against the former First Gentleman.

Representative Daza. Kayo po ba ay nagsagawa ng isang listahan nitong mga cases na ito

na inyong nabanggit?

Ms. De Lima. Mayroon ho akong hiningi na parang matrix of these cases filed with the

Department of Justice against the former President,pinagawa ko po iyon sa National Prosecution

Service. In a matrix form ho yan para mas madali po na makita. Mayroon po.

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


Representative Daza. Akin pong pinakita sa inyo itong listahan, angnakasulat po sa itaas

ay Status of cases filed with the Department of Justice against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, ito ho ang

tinutukoy mong listahan?

Mr. Cuevas. Dated what?

Representative Daza. As of October 27, 2011.

Mr. Cuevas. October 27. Thank you.

Representative Daza. Yes, welcome.

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyong matrix na nanggaling po sa National Prosecution Service

na prenipeyr(prepare)po ng aming Prosecutor General Claro Arellano.

Representative Daza.

Dito po sa ibaba nitong dokumentong ito naminarkahan kaninangumaga Exhibit LLLLLLLLL mayroon po ritongnakalagdang Claro A. Arellano, Prosecutor

General, kilala po ba ninyoitong lagdang ito?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, kilalang-kilala ko po ang pirma niya.

Representative Daza. Okay.

Would the Defense stipulate that

Mr. Cuevas. We will not only stipulate. We admit that the document being shown to the witness

is a genuine document, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. To save you the problem of authenticity.

Representative Daza. Nasabi ninyo kanina kayo ay nagpalabasng tinatawag na Watch

List Order. Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali, ang sabi niyo ay dalawang order. At ipinakikita

ko po sa inyo itongmay nakasulat na Watch List Order No. 2011-422 at Watch List Order

No. 2011-422 rin. Ito ba ang tinutukoy ninyong dalawang watch list orders at ito po ay

kaninang minarkahan na Exhibits MMMMMMMMM at MMMMMMMMM-1.

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Itong una pong dokumento na ipinapakitaniyo sa akin ito po yung

unang WLOoriginal WLO dated August 9 naaking ipinalabas po against the former President.


22/60


Ito naman pong pangalawang dokumento na ipinakita niyo sa akin is the amended order

dated September 6. It is the amended WLO dated September 6 na ipinalabas ko rin po against the

former President.

Representative Daza. Would the Defense Counsel favor us with the same admission in respect

to these two exhibits?

Mr. Cuevas. Very willingly.


Kanina pong umaga, mayroon din isang watch list order na minarkahang Exhibit

NNNNNNNNN 2011-573. Akin pong ipinakikita ito sa inyo. Ito ba ay nakikilala niyo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po yung pangatlong WLO at ito po ay ipinalabas ko against several

na mga respondents. So, hindi lang ho ito against the former President.Mayroon din pong mga

iba pang mga personalidad na kasama dito sa WLO. Sila po yung mga chinarge (charge)

for electoral sabotage case. Now, kasama po diyan yung former First Gentleman; kasama yung

former Comelec Chairman, et cetera.

Representative Daza. The same admission.

Mr. Cuevas. Admitted.


Dahil po na ang ating dating Pangulo ay nakasama doon sa tatlong watch list orders na

aking ipinakita sa inyo, mayroon po bang hakbangin na ginawa ang dating Pangulo na

nauukol po dito sa mga watch orders na ito?

Ms. De Lima. Humingi ho ng permiso yung dating Pangulo. Humingi ho siya nung

tinatawag na Allow Departure Order sa akindahil nga po mayroong watch list orders laban sakanya. Kung natatandaan ko po yung unang request niya for the issuance of an allow departure

order, pursuant to the provisions of Circular No. 41, ay ang petsa ho noon is October

September 21 at nasundan paho ng dalawa pang mga sulatreiterating yung request na kung

puwede daw po payagan siya na makaalis ng bansa.

Representative Daza. Again, may I approach the witness, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. Please do so.

And may I suggest that Counsel is free to approach the distinguished member of the Cabinet.


Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo ang tatlong liham na kaninang umagaay minarkahang Exhibits

OOOOOOOOO, PPPPPPPPP at QQQQQQQQQ. Itopo ba ang mga sulat o liham na

tinutukoy ninyo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyong tatlong liham dated October 20, 21 and 24, na pirmado

ho lahat ng dating Pangulo at mayroon nga po dito naito pong tatlo ay may mga attachments.

Representative Daza. Okay. The same admission? Thank you.

Bukod po doon sa tatlong liham na ipinakita ko sa inyo kanina, kayo po ba ay nakatanggap

ng liham na nagbuhat sa manananggol ng dating Pangulo?


23/60


Ms. De Lima. Opo. Natatandaan ko po na after the third letter requesting permission to travel

abroad, nag-submit din po iyong isang abogado ng former President, if I am not mistaken, si Atty.

Anacleto Diaz na basically inuulit din iyong request na payagan at may sinabmit(submit)po silang

sort of final itinerary daw noong balak na pag-alis ng bansa.

Representative Daza. Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo itong liham na nanggaling kay Atty.

Anacleto Diaz na kaninang umaga ay namarkahang Exhibit RRRRR. Ito ho ba ang tinutukoyninyong sulat na galing sa manananggol ng dating Pangulo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ito po iyon na pirmado ni Atty. Anacleto Diaz at mayroon pong isang

attachment, nakalagay Itinerary sa Part 1; and Part 2, Persons Accompanying President GMA.

Representative Daza. Same admission? Same admission from the Defense Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.


Pagkatapos po ninyong matanggap iyong mga liham na galing sa dating Pangulo at iyongikaapat na liham na galing naman sa kanyang manananggol, ano po ba ang mga hakbang o

hakbanging inyong ginawa ukol dito sa mgaukol sa hiling ng dating Pangulong siya ay

makapaglakbay sa ibayong dagat?

Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang una ko pong ginawa ay in-evaluate kopo iyong mga sulat na iyan

at nagpatulong din po ako kay Secretary Enrique Ona, ang ating Secretary of Health,para doon

sa pag-iintindi noong mga nakakabit o naka-attach na medical abstract. Mayroon ho kasing isang

medical abstract diyan na naka-attach sa isa sa mga tatlong letterspo iyon. So,pina-explain ko

po sa kanya kasi nga po iyong panguhaning dahilan na sinasabi ng dating Pangulo kung bakit

kailangan daw po niya na makaalis ng bansa ay dahil nga daw po magpapagamot siya. So,

para ho sa akin, importante hong malaman ko kung sapat po iyong dahilan na iyan, dahil ngapo under Circular No. 41, bagamat nga may WLO, anyone who is the subject of either an HDO

or a WLO aypuwedeng humingi ng permiso na makaalis basta ba mayroong i-cite na exceptional

reasons para makapag-issue po ang Secretary of Justice noong tinatawag na Allow Departure

Order or ADO.

Representative Daza. Ano po ang pinaghantungan ng inyong pakikipagsangguni sa

Kalihim ng Department of Health?

Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang kanya pong pananaw, ang kanya pong opinionand we can say

that he is an expert kasi nga po siya ang pangunahing government physician ang sabi niya po,

base doon sa medical abstract sa pagkaka-describe at saka binisita rin niya po si former President

GMA sa kanyang tahanan sa Libis, ang kanyang opinyon is that, hindi po life-threatening iyong

kondisyon ng dating Pangulo at wala rin pong medical necessity na kung anuman ang

pangangailangan ng dating Pangulo ukol sa kanyang kalusugan, yung kanyang complaint

nagpaopera ho kasi siya months ago ay puwede daw hong matugunan dito sa ating bansa ng

ating mga local doctors.

Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor, may it please the Court, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. I understand that these matters being dealt with now and the examination of the

Honorable Secretary of Justice are matters pending before the Supreme Court on exactly the same


24/60


issue, validity and/or authority of the Secretary to issue this Hold Departure Order. I am worried that

there may be a conflict of findings and conclusions between this Court and the Supreme Court,

Your Honor. But if this Court desires, then I will just abide, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let us allow the Secretary to recite the facts for the consideration

of this Court.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. We are aware that there is a pending case.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. And we have no assurance that the stand or the position of the

Honorable Secretary will be reversed or will be sustained by the Honorable Supreme Court.

That is my only worry, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. Because in the event

The Presiding Officer. We will know the jurisdictional issues involved.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor. Because in the event that there will be a

pronouncement on the part of the Supreme Court that the authority in the issuance of the hold order

is not valid and this Court may do otherwise, there may be a conflict of pronouncements, Your Honor.

That is my apprehension, Your Honor, which I am now placing upon the table of his Honorable Court.

Representative Daza. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. We are well aware about the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment

and I think the Members of this Court are very intelligent enough to distinguish between the jurisdiction

of this Court and the jurisdiction of the Judicial Department of government.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you then, Your Honor.

Representative Daza. May I proceed, Mr. President?


Representative Daza. Bukod po doon sa inyong pakikipagsangguni sa Kalihim ng

Kalusugan o Secretary of Health, sa inyong mga hakbanging ginawa, tugon doon sa hiling ng

dating Pangulo, meron pa po ba kayong ibang isinagawa?

Ms. De Lima. Kasi nga po dahil kailangan kong ma-determine kung mayroong exceptionalreason para payagan yung dating Pangulo na makaalis, kailangan ko pong masiguro lahat.

Masiguro yung mga nakasabi ngang rason, at masiguro na hindi siya magiging flight risk. So

kailangan ko po ma-analyze lahat, ma-evaluate lahat, attendant circumstances, hindi lang po yung

tungkol nga po sa kanyang kalusugan kundi iba pa po. Kasi nakatawag-pansin po sa akin yung

mga itinerary niya na nag-iba-iba po sila ng listahan ng mga bansa na pupuntahan daw po. So

kailangan ko rin pong i-evaluate iyon na bakit ganon, paiba-iba yung kanilang itinerary.

Representative Daza. So ano po, ano po ang nagging resulta ng inyong evaluation tungkol

doon sa itineraring iprinisinta ng dating Pangulo?

Ms. De Lima. Nakita ko po na hindi naman lahat po yung una nilang mga linagay na


25/60


bansa ay hindi naman dahil sa magpapagamot daw po yung dating Pangulo. Mayroon ho

kasama doon, like for example, yung sa New York, U.S.A. at saka sa Geneva, Switzerland na

nakalagay na rasonito po ay nakita ko na lang doon sa travel authoritypo na naka-attach galing

sa House of Representatives. Kasi hindi ho iyon linagay sa mga sulat ng dating Pantulo. Katulad

po yung nasa New York, ay mag-a-attend daw po ng komperensiya, yung Clinton Global Initiative

Meeting at yung sa Munichsa Geneva naman po ay tungkol naman sa komperensiya on the

abolition of dealth penalty. So iniisip ko, kung ang kanyang paglabas sa pagpunta sa ibang bansa

ay para makakuha ngnakasabi kasi, the best medical treatment abroadshe would want,

allegedly, to seek best medical treatment abroad, bakit hokasama sa kanyang mga paiba-ibang

mga itinerary iyong mga ganyang events or purposes?

Representative Daza. Bukod po riyan, mayroon pa po bakayong natuklasan o anumang

nakarating sa inyong kaalaman na ukolsa inyong pagsisiyasat bagay dito sa kanyang hiling na

makapaglakbay?

Ms. De Lima. Sa totoo lang po, nagduda ho ako doon sa tunay na dahilan kung bakit

gustong umalis ng bansa. So, bukod nga doon saang pananaw ko posa aking analysis ay

ginagawa lang dahilaniyong supposedly health reasons or medical reasons. Paiba-iba nga po

iyong itinerary. And then, humihingi po kami noon ng kung sino ang mga kasama niya para

makaalis ng bansa. Ang nakalagay po sa November2 , apat o lima lang na pangalan. Pero

meron po kaming impormasyon na hindi lang pala ganoonhindi lang pala apat o lima iyong

balak niyang isama sa travel.

Representative Daza. Puwede po ba ninyong masabi itong ulat o impormasyon na sa inyo

ay dumating?

Ms. De Lima. Ahkung tatanungin ninyo po ako kung saan nanggaling ang impormasyon,

hindi ko po puwedeng sabihin.

Representative Daza. Pero iyong impormasyon o ulat, puwede ho ba ninyong ibunyag dito

sa Kagalang-galang na Hukuman?

Ms. De Lima. Okay. Ang impormasyon po na natanggap namin is that hindi lang apat or

lima sila na aalis, kundi katorse po. May mga pangalan po kami ng kung sino iyong mga

isasama supposedly sa isang bansa. At noong tinitingnan ko nga po iyong mga pangalan noong

mga kasama na hindi naman dinisclose (disclose) sa amin ay nagki-create ng agam-agam po sa

akin na, Ano kaya ito? Talaga bang magpapagamot lang, or mayroong ibang pakay, na baka

hindi na bumalik? Isa pong pangunahing ano ko po is she is a real flight riskdahil nga may

nakasampa sa kanyanakasampa against her na mga malalaki o mabibigat na kaso, like plunder

and electoral sabotage. And at that time, malapit na pong matapos iyong joint DOJ-Comelecinvestigation into the electoral sabotage case.

Representative Daza. Ito pong labing-apat na mga taong sa inyo ay nakarating na

impormasyon ay ito ba ay mga doctor , mga nurse , mga taong may kinalaman sa kalusugan ng

dating Pangulo?

Ms. De Lima. Mayroon din pong personal nurse, mayroong aide, mayroong mga dati niyang

empleyado, mayroon ding utility , mayroon din passport worker. So, nag-isip po ako, kung

magpapagamot lang, bakit ho ganoon kadami at bakit may mga personalidad na kasama na

kailangan ba sila sa pagpapagamot? Isalang po iyan sa mga konsiderasyon noong aking hindi

pagpayag na makaalis iyong dating Pangulo.


26/60


Representative Daza. Nang dahil po dito sa inyong pagsisiyasat, sa inyong paghingi ng

sangguni sa mga taong nararapat hingan ng sangguni, at itong mga ulat na dumating sa inyong

tanggapan, ano po ang inyong naging aksyon doon sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo na

makapaglakbay?

Ms. De Lima. Hindi ko po pinayagan. Dininay (deny) ko po iyong application for allow

departure order for several reasons, including na po iyong mga nabanggit ko na.

Representative Daza. Doon po sa inyong pagtanggi sa kanyang ifinayl (file) na request na

tinatawag na ADO o application to depart order

Ms. De Lima. Allow departure orderpo.

Representative Daza. Kayo ba ay gumawa ng isang sulat na kung saan ay doon po nilahad

ninyo ang inyong pagtanggi sa kahilingan at ang mga dahilan kung bakit tinanggi ninyo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, nasa isang order po iyan dated November 8 na aking pinalabas.

Representative Daza. Pinakikita ko po sa inyo ang isang Order na binubuo ng labing-isang pahina at ang petsa ay ika-8 ng Nobyembre 2011. Ito ho ba ang tinutukoy ninyong Order na

inyong pinalabas, pagtanggi sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, ito po yun, Order dated November 8, 2011.

Representative Daza. Doon po sa pahina ika-11 ay may lagda po rito, Leila De Lima,

Secretary. Ito po ay lagda ninyo?

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

Representative Daza. Itong sulat na ito ay kanina minarkahang Exhibit SSSSSSSSS.

At mangyari po bang dulutan kami ng Defense Counsel ng admission uli gaya nung dati?

Mr. Cuevas. We have an alleged copy, Your Honor, but we have no time to verify the

authenticity of this document, Your Honor.

Representative Daza. But you admit that your copy is the same?

Mr. Cuevas. That is the farthest we can go. We wanted to go farther but the situation does not

allow us to do so.

Representative Daza. Madam Secretary, dito po sa bawat pahinang ito ay may naka-

timbreng Certified True Copy at may naka-lagdang Joel I. Ocay, OIC, Records Section. Ito

ho ba si Mr. Ocay ang Records OIC ng Kagawaran ng Katarungan?

Ms. De Lima. Katulad po ng sinabi ko po kanina, although hindi ako masyadong familiar sa

pirma niya pero personnel nga po siya sa DOJ. Siya po ang OIC ng Records Section. At ito nga

pong Order na ito, kilalang-kilala ko po ito kasi Order ko po ito.

The Presiding Officer. Ano bang Order iyan, Madam Secretary?

Representative Daza. Oho.

Ms. De Lima. It is, Your Honor, the Order dated November 8, 2011, denying the request of

the former President for an allow departure order.


27/60


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed.

Representative Daza. Pagkatapos na inyong tanggihan ang dating Pangulo na siya ay

maglakbay sa ibayong dagat, mayroon po ba kayong natanggap na anumang Order na nagbuhat

sa Korte Suprema ukol doon sa dalawang usaping nasa Korte Suprema?

Mr. Cuevas. Very vague, Your Honor. We hate to object but to ask the question is very vague.The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. She is intelligent enough to understand the

question.

Ms. De Lima. Okay. Sa pag-deny ko po nung Allow Departure Order by issuing the November

8, 2011 Order, ang alam ko po ay nag-file ng Supplemental Petition sa Korte Suprema yung

dating Pangulo.

Representative Daza. Ang nasabi po ninyo ngayon ay Supplemental Petitionokay

mangyari po bang ipaliwanag ninyo sa Hukuman bakit ang natanggap na ninyo ay Supplemental

Petition pagkatapos ninyong tinanggihan ang kanyang kahilingang maglakbay?

Ms. De Lima. Bago ho kasi pinalabas ko po yung aking November 8, 2011 Order, denying

the Allow Departure Order, ay pumunta na po sa Korte Suprema yung dating Pangulo by filing

a petition questioning the constitutionality of Department Circular No. 41 at saka yung WLOWLOs

po na na-issue ko. So, bago pa man pinalabas ko yung November 8, 2011 Order, pumunta na

po sa Supreme Court yung dating Pangulo. At sa katunayan nag-file din po ng similar petition

questioning the constitutionality of Department Circular No. 41 and the Watch List Orderyung dating

First Gentleman.

Representative Daza.Liliwanagin ko po sa inyo. Samakatuwid, bago po ninyo inilabas yung

pagtanggi sa kahilingan ng dating Pangulo, meron nang dalawang usapin ang naisampa sa

Korte Suprema?

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

Representative Daza.Ang isa ay usapin o kasong finayl (file) ng dating Pangulo at yung

ikalawa ay isang asunto, kaso rin na isinampa ng dating First Gentleman, ganuon po ba?

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

The Presiding Officer.Doon ba sa dalawang kaso na iyon, Madam Secretary, ay may request

for Temporary Restraining Order?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, may prayer po pareho yung dalawang petitions.


Representative Daza. Nasabi ninyo na doon sa dalawang usaping iyon ay humiling doon

sa isa ang dating Pangulo, sa ikalawa ang dating First Gentleman ng Temporary Restraining Order.

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

Representative Daza.Nagkaroon po ba ng Temporary Restraining Order?

Ms. De Lima. Meron po. Nagpalabas po ang Korte Suprema ng Temporary Restraining

Order noong November 15, 2011.


28/60


The Presiding Officer.Ano yung tenor ng Temporary Restraining Order, Madam Secretary?

Ano ang nire-restrain nila?

Ms. De Lima. Restraining or enjoining the respondents, meaning ako po...

The Presiding Officer.Oo.

Ms. De Lima. and BI Commissioner from implementing or enforcing

The Presiding Officer. The watch list?

Ms. De Lima. both the Circular No. 41 po and yung mga Watch List Orders.

Representative Daza.Meron po ba kayong kopya nuong Temporary Restraining Order na

inyong nabanggit?

Ms. De Lima. Meron po. Puwede poYour Honor, puwede pongit was already pre-

markedpo.

Representative Daza. Ipinakikita ko po sa inyo ang isang Notice of Resolution ng Korte

Suprema na ang petsa ay Nobyembre 15, 2011.Ito ho ba ang Temporary Restraining Order o TRO

na inyong tinutukoy?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Temporary Restraining Order,yung pinaka- Resolution mismo ng majority

at may mga naka-attachpo na tatlong dissenting opinions.

Representative Daza. Opo.

The Presiding Officer.Meron bang taning yung Temporary Restraining Order na inisyu ng

Korte Suprema diyan sa dalawang kaso na iyan, Madam Secretary?

Ms. De Lima. Wala po. Ito po yungThis is the so-called indefinite TRO.

The Presiding Officer. Open-endedyung

Ms. De Lima. Open-ended po.

The Presiding Officer. TRO?

Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor.

Representative Daza. I would like to make it of record that this Notice of Resolution was pre-

marked this morning as TTTTTTTTT and attached to the Notice of Resolution was the Temporary

Restraining Order itselfin toto marked as Exhibit TTTTTTTTT-1 and the attached dissenting opinion

of Justice Sereno as Exhibit TTTTTTTTT-2, dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio as TTTTTTTTT-3, and the dissenting opinion of Justice Reyes as TTTTTTTTT-4.

Nung matanggap ninyo itong Notice of Resolution nanakamarkang Exhibit TTTTTTTTT,

kalakip po yung mga ibang exhibits na nabanggit ko sa inyo?

Ms. De Lima. Ang pagkakatanda ko po, nung natanggap ko yung kopya po nitong

November 15, 2011 TRO, early morning of November 16, ay ang kasama lang niya po na naka-

attach dito ay yung dissenting opinion ni Justice Carpio.

The Presiding Officer. Yan bang kaso na yan, ay yan yung ifinayl (file) ng dating Pangulo

o yung ifinayl (file) ng kanyang First Gentleman.


29/60


Ms. De Lima. Consolidated casespo.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, consolidated.

Ms. De Lima. Yes, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, among the dispositions in this Order is

that the two (2) cases are being consolidated. So, aside from the TRO, there is also a decision to

consolidate.

The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Ms. De Lima. So

Representative Daza. Yun pong ibang dissenting opinions nung ibangjustices, yung dalawa,

yun bay natanggap ninyo pagkatapos na matanggap ninyo itong Exhibit TTTTTTTTT?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. After November 16let me just double check. Well, natanggap din po

namin yung copy ng dissenting opinion nung November 16 yung copy ng dissenting opinion ni

Justice Sereno. And then yung dissenting opinion ni Justice Carpio, eto po yung nakakabit dun

sa kopya ng November 15, 2011.

Representative Daza. Yung pong kay Justice Reyes na?

Ms. De Lima. Kay Justice Reyes, mas huli po. I thinknatanggap po namin ito November

17, the next day na po.

Representative Daza. Salamat po.

Ito pong Temporary Restraining Order na ang marka ay Exhibit TTTTTTTTT-1, hihilingin ko

pa sa inyo para sa kaalaman ng Hukumang ito at para sa record, na kung puwede pong basahin

ninyo yuong kondisyones, yung the conditions under the TRO? Kayo na po ang bumasa.

Ms. De Lima. Okay. Kagaya po nang nasabi niyo, it would appear from the tenor of this

Temporary Restraining Order na isa po itong conditional TRO kasi meron pong tatlo na mga

conditions na nilagay dito yung Korte Suprema.

Representative Daza. Basahin po ninyo. Diyan po ninyo basahin sa TRO mismo.

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

Condition No. 1, The petitioners shall post a cash bond of Two million (P2,000,000.00) pesos

payable to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof. Failure to post the bond within the

aforesaid period will result in the automatic lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order.

Two, The petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive

subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence. The petitioners shall

submit the name of the legal representative also within five (5) days from notice hereof.

And No. 3, If there is a Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the place where they will be travelling,

the petitioners shall inform said Embassy or Consulate by personal appearance or by phone of their

whereabouts at all times.

The Presiding Officer. Yung cash bond is for both petitioners?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, Your Honor.


30/60


Representative Daza. Kelan po sa kauna-unahang panahon o petsa na dumating sa inyong

kaalaman na merong TRO na ipinalabas ang ating Korte Suprema?

Ms. De Lima. Yung kopya po ng TRO natanggap namin sa DOJ umaga noong November

16. Meaning, the next day. Pero nung November 15 po ay napanood ko yung presscon ng Court

Administrator cum Chief PIO or spokesperson Midas Marquez. Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali

it is between 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. of November 15 na merong press con at in-announce ni Atty. MidasMarquez na meron nga daw pong TRO na in-issue ang Korte Suprema doon sa dalawang

consolidated cases.

Representative Daza. Kung meron man, ano pa po bang in-announce o ipinatalastas ni

Ginoong Marquez doon po sa conference?Ito po ba ay napanood ninyo sa television o sa radyo

o naroon po ba kayo?

Ms. De Lima. Wala po ako sa press con. Ang natatandaan ko po nasa Palasyo po ako

noong oras na yun at meron ho akong pinanoodmay monitor po doon at nakita ko yung

portions. Hindi po lahat nung pressconyung complete press con ni Atty. Midas Marquez. At in-

announce nga po yan saka sinabi kung ano ang botoeight (8)tofive (5)and parang

natatandaan ko parang sinasabi na immediately executory na daw po yung TRO.

The Presiding Officer. Yung boto nila ay eight (8)tofive (5)?

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Walo ang pabor doon sa TRO

Ms. De Lima. In favor of the TRO.

The Presiding Officer. at lima ang kontra?


The Presiding Officer. Yung mga kontra ang tinatawag na dissenters?


The Presiding Officer. Ang kasama diyan si Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Conchita

Carpio Morales?

Ms. De Lima. Hindi po. Ombudsman na po

The Presiding Officer. Ah wala na siya doon pala.

Ms. De Lima. Justice Sereno po.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, Justice Sereno.

Representative Daza. Liliwanagin ko lang. Napanood niyo ho sanasulyapan niyo,

napanood niyo ito sa television?

Ms. De Lima. Yung pag-announce

The Presiding Officer. By the way, Madam Secretary, sino yung tatlo na naging dissenter?

Ms. De Lima. Justice ReyesMay I justposo that sigurado po ako. Nakasabi po sa last

paragraph ng TROng orderang nakalagay lang ho dito is, Justices Antonio Carpio and


31/60


Bienvenido Reyes have reserved their right to submit their dissenting opinions. Ang natatandaan ko

po ang isa pang nag-dissent is Justice Mendoza and Bernabe, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Lima sila?

Ms. De Lima. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Sino naman yung mga walong bumoto in favor?

Ms. De Lima. Chief Justice Corona; Justices Brion, Abad, Velascoso that is fourJustice

Perez, Justice Bersamin, Justice

The Presiding Officer. Velasco?

Ms. De Lima. Nabanggit ko na po si Justice Velasco, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Si Justice Peralta?

Ms. De Lima. Opo, kasama rin po sa walo.

So let me restate again, Your Honor: Chief Justice Corona, Justice Brion, Justice Abad, Justice

Velasco, Justice Perez, Justice BersaminHindi po. Si Justice De Castropo wala. I think she was

on leaveand Villarama, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Ilan ang hindi nag-participate doon sa kaso? Dalawa?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Justice De Castro who was on official business and Justice Del Castillo

who was on official leave as of November 15.

The Presiding Officer. So thirteen (13) justices participated?


The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Representative Daza.Dito po sa Exhibit TTTTTTTTT sa unang pahina mayroon po ritong

timbre na sinasabi Office of the Secretary, 16 November 2011, Department of Justice. Ano po

baang kahulugan nitong timbreng ito?

Ms. De Lima. Ito po ay nagpapatunay kung kailannatanggap ng opisina po ng Kalihim

ng Katarungan at saka iyongoras na naka-receive kami nung official copy nitong TRO.

Representative Daza. Ano po naman ang naging tugon ninyo o hakbanging inyong

ginawa pagkatapos ninyong matanggap itong TRO noong Nobyembre 16, 2011?

Ms. De Lima. Nakipag-sangguni po ako sa Office of the Solicitor General and I told them

to avail of an appropriate remedy at nung araw pong yun nung November 16, the Solicitor General

prepared and filed an Urgent Motion to Reconsider and/or Lift the Temporary Restraining Order.

Representative Daza. Isinagawa po ba ng Solicitor General?

Ms. De Lima. Opo. Ni-rush po iyong motion na yun because it was also filed, if I am not

mistaken, I think in the afternoon of November 16. We received the TRO 8:25 as shown in that

stamped portion, 8:25 in the morning of November 16 and the Motion was filed in the afternoon of

November 16po.


32/60


feb 22 senate impeachment court record

Documents