feb 8 senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Feb 8 Senate impeachment court record

1/79

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 1

At 2:14 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 JusticeRenato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Ferdinand Bongbong Romualdez Marcos Jr.

Senator Marcos. Let us put ourselves in the presence of the Lord.

Heavenly Father, we come to You once more with bowed heads. We beseech You to

bless us in the difficult and trying work that lies before us in the days and weeks ahead.

As we search for the path of righteousness, shine the light of Your wisdom and fairness to

always guide us. Stay our hand that in our zeal to do Your work, we do not fall upon the

innocent and unprotected of our citizens. And when this work is done, bind up the wounds

it will have wrenched into the fabric of our society and heal the scars that we will have left.

That we might emerge from this painful process once again a united people working together

for the common good.

We pray that You always keep in Your benevolent grace our beloved country and her

people. This, dear Lord, is our most fervent prayer.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators.

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Pasay City


2/79

2 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

______________

*Arrived after the roll call

**On sick leave

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 .................................................... Absent**Senator 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 ............................................................ 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 President ..................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 21 Senator-Judges present in the Chamber, 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.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Senator Guingona is seeking the floor, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Bukidnon, Senator Guingona.

Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President.

Magandang hapon sa lahat. Para po maintindihan ng mga kababayan natin, marami pong

mga kababayan natin ngayon ang nangangamba at kasama na nga ako doon. Nangangamba


3/79


na magkakaroon po daw ng constitutional crisis. Ngayon po ay may pending petition sa Korte

Suprema na pigilan ang paglabas ng subpoena mula sa Impeachment Court na may kaugnayan

sa bank deposits ng nasasakdal. Ngayon pong hapong ito, meron akong tatlong mahalagang

punto.

First, the impeachment process is the peoples way of making public officials accountable. The

people, through the Constitution, reposed this power on Congress. Therefore, the Senate as anImpeachment Court is independent.

Second, since the Impeachment Court is independent and a class of its own, the Supreme Court

cannot and should not impose this body. Because at this point, we are not a coequal branch of

government. We are coequal if we are exercising legislative functions. But at this point, mga

kababayan ko, we are not legislating. We are exercising a specific special judicial function and that is

sitting as an Impeachment Court. Sana po makita ng Korte Suprema ang puntong iyon.

Pangatlo po, the Senate as an Impeachment Court has the sole power to try and decide cases

on impeachment. Uulitin ko po ang dati kong sinabi. Nandito po kami hindi lamang bilang

Senador, nandito po kami bilang Senator-Judges. We are here to hear a case and to pass judgmenton the accused. Pero, mga kababayan, may tiwala pa rin ako sa Korte Suprema na alam nito

ang tamang dapat gawin at alam ko tutulungan tayo ng Korte Suprema sa paghahanap ng

katotohanan.

Maraming salamat po.


Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I move to defer the approval of theJournal of February 7, 2012 for a later time,

Mr. President.The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? What is the pleasure of the lady Senator from

Taguig?

Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I just have a comment to make on the Journal.

Mr. President, in ourJournal of yesterday, a copy of which we were furnished, there is a statement

by Representative Farias and I would like to quote from the records: Kaya ang Kongreso po

nagsasama po tayo. Magkasama po tayo dito, hindi po tayo magkakaaway. Ang kalaban po

natin ay iyong Respondente dahil pinapanagot po natin siya.

Iyan po ang records natin at importante pong malaman ho nating lahat na araw-araw

sinusulat po natin ang kasaysayan ng ating bayan. Kaya po palagay ko importanteng ilagay kodin sa record na hindi po tayo sama-sama; kanya-kanya po tayong tungkulin. Ang Prosecutor

ay prosecutor, ang Defense ay ang defense at kami pong mga Senador ay mga huwes.

So liwanagin po natin kasi marami ho akong natanggap na tanong na mga nakapanood

kung magkakasama po ang Prosecutors at ang Senado. Hindi po, magkakaiba ho ang ating

tungkulin dito. So nililiwanag ko po iyan dahil po balang araw babasahin po itong records na

ito at importanteng malaman ng tao na may kanya-kanya tayong hiwa-hiwalay na tungkulin.

Salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.


4/79


May I just request everybody to think about what they say in this Impeachment Court. The

opinions of people speaking here are respected but those statements are opinions. They are not rulings

of the Court. The Court will act as a collegial body, they vote on any given issue and the vote of the

majority is the position of the Impeachment Court. And I hope that the public will understand this.

And may I also suggest and request that whoever speaks in this Chamber must not involve the

Members of this Court. We are not partisan in this Court. We are the triers and hearers of fact. AndI think every lawyer, elementarily, knows this norm. We are not combatants, we are judges. We are

the referee between the Prosecution and the Defense. And I hope that whatever statements implying

that this Court is an adversary to anyone, whether the Prosecution or the Defense, should be taken

without any value because this Court is a court of law designated by the sovereign people in their

Constitution to render justice according to the evidence, and nothing more and nothing less.

So ordered.


Senator Sotto. May we now proceed with the trial? May we ask the Secretary to call the

Impeachment Case.

The Presiding Officer. The Secretary may now please call the Impeachment Case?

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

Justice Renato C. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. I would like to warn everybody that this Court has been quite lenient in

the handling of this proceeding. But, henceforth, the Chair announces that we will apply the full force

of the powers of this Court to maintain order and discipline in the conduct of this Trial.

So ordered.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.


Senator Sotto. Yes, thank you.

Mr. President, before I move to recognize a member of the Prosecution, may I ask that they make

their appearances or enter their appearances first? The Prosecution and then the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. Appearances for the Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the House of Representatives

Prosecution panel, same appearances, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. The appearance of the Prosecution is noted.

The Defense?

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

Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. For the Defense, noted.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.


5/79


Mr. President, may we recognize a member of the Prosecution panel, Congressman Rudy Farias.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte has the floor.

Representative Farias. Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo.

Unang-una po, humihingi po ako ng paumanhin kung iyong istilo po ng aking pakikipagpalit

ng kuro-kuro po kahapon ay hindi po maganda ang dating sa iba po. Pero ang sinasabi ko pona ako po ay lubos na gumagalang sa Pangulo ng Senado at saka sa mga Miyembro po, mga

Kagalang-galang na Senador. Alam naman po ninyo na sa aking pakikitungo sa inyo, dati-dati

na po, Ginoong Pangulo, ang tawag ko po sa inyo Sir at buong respeto naman po ang

binibigay ko.

Kahapon po, may nabanggit po ako dito at lilinawin ko po. Eto po yung records ng Minutes

mismo.

Ang sabi po dito, sabi ng Presiding Officer: Pero may parusa dito, di ba?

Sagot ko po: Ang parusa lamang po sa impeachment, pagkatanggal lang po sa trabaho.

Presiding Officer: Tama. Pero yun ay hindi ba parusa yon, hindi ba ho?

Sagot ko po: Yes, Sir. Pero kung sinabi rin po ng labing-anim dito na tanggal ang senador,

tanggal na po sa pagka-senador. Maski po si Kagalang-galang Bong Revilla na hinalal ng

dalawampung milyon na mamboboto, pag sinabi po ng two-thirds dito, tanggal kang senador

dahil ang gulo-gulo mo dito, halimbawa, tanggal po siya sa trabaho. Hindi po siya puwedeng

umangal na, Eh bakit naman walang due process?

Ang puntos ko lamang po doon ay sinasabi ko po na tayo po na public officers, maski Pangulo

po ng bansa, pag sinabi po ng labing-anim po dito at na-impeach po ng one-third ng House at

hinatulan po ng Kagalang-galang na Senado, maski Pangulo po ng bansa o Pangalawang

Pangulo po ng bansa, tanggal po yan. Maski po Chief Justice, dahil ganoon po.

Kagalang-galang Bong Revilla, alam naman po ninyo ang pag-respeto ko po sa inyo.

Ipinakita ko lamang po yun na maskihalimbawa si Chiz EscuderoHonorable Chiz Escudero

sa susunod na eleksyon eh mag-Number 1 din siya katulad niyo, maski ilang milyon po yung

bumoto sa kanya, pag sinabi po ng dalawamput tatlo na miyembro po dito because isa lamang

po ang dahilan na puwede po tayong tanggalin ng ating Kamara, disorderly behavior lamang po.

Yun medyo kulang po tayoano po bang Tagalog ng disorderly behavior? Eh parang

ang nadukot ko lang pong Tagalog yung ang gulo-gulomagulo, hindi ba? Disorderly

behaviormagulo. Yun lamang po ang ibig kong sabihin, Ginoong Pangulo. At kung iyon

po ay iba ang dating o pagkaintindi ng iba, ako po ay humihingi ng patawad at paumanhin.

Pero, malayo po, malayo po sa aking intensiyon na babanggitin ko na magulo ang sinuman

po dito. Wala po iyon.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President

The Presiding Officer. We note the statement of the honorable gentleman from the House.

The gentleman from Cavite has the floor.

Senator Revilla. Well, Mr. President, nasaktan lang ako doon, doon sa point na sinabi niya

na ang gulo-gulo. Baka maguluhan din ang taongbayan na isipin nila na si Senator Bong

Revilla ay nanggugulo sa Senado.


6/79


Mr. Congressman, matagal nating iniingatan yung pangalan natin. Matagal nating binuo

iyan. Kailangan maging maingat tayo sa mga salitang bibitawan natin. I do respect you. You

are a friend of my Dad. Pero igalang niyo ang bawat isa sa amin dito.

Representative Farias. Opo. Katulad nga po ng sinabi ko, ang taas-taas po ng paggalang

ko sa inyong lahat po. Kaya maliwanag po na hindi nga

Senator Revilla. Apology accepted.

Representative Farias. Salamat po.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Let us end this discussion.

Senator Sotto. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Let us proceed with the case.

Senator Sotto. Yes, with that, Mr. President, I move to dispense with the reading of theJournalof February 7, 2012 of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.

The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the Journal is

approved.



Senator Sotto. There was a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Senator Defensor-Santiago in

a letter yesterday which we took up into caucus. May I be allowed to read the Resolution of the Court

after the decision was made this afternoonor this noon?

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Senator Sotto. This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed on 7 February 2012 by

Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago on a 6 February 2012 Resolution of this Impeachment Court

granting the Prosecutions request for subpoena to the responsible officers of the Philippine Savings

Bank (PSBank) and the Bank of Philippine Islands but subject to specific limits.

At todays caucus, Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III moved to adopt the Motion for Reconsideration

made by Senator Defensor-Santiago. In view of the contrary view on the ruling of the Impeachment

Court expressed by a Senator-Judge through a Motion for Reconsideration, a vote to consider the

Motion is necessary.

After deliberating on the issue, the majority resolved not to consider the Motion for Reconsideration.

For the information of the Court, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Any comment from the Members of the Court? [Silence] None.

Let us proceed with the trial. The Prosecution is still presenting its evidence. You may proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel.


7/79


Mr. Cuevas. Yesterday, I requested permission from this Honorable Court to allow me to conduct

my cross-examination of the witness on the stand, Mr. Anduiza, Your Honor. We are now ready,

Your Honor, to cross-examine Mr. Anduiza.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Let the witness who is supposed to be under cross-examination

today be brought to the Chamber, take the witness stand to be cross-examined by the Defense.



Senator Sotto. Before we proceed with the cross-examination, Mr. President, for the information

also of the Court, we have an Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Immediate

Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction by Chief Justice Corona,

and in receipt also of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of

Procedure with the Application for TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the Philippine Savings

Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, and also Motion to Defer Action on Subpoena of Banks and Motion

to Stop Reception of Evidence.

Mr. President, with the permission of the Chamber, I move that the Body go into caucus

immediately to resolve these issues before we go into the cross-examination proper of the trial, Mr.

President. I so move.

The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Court? No objection? [Silence]

With due respect to the distinguished head of the Defense Counsel, will you allow us to go into a

caucus first before you proceed with your cross-examination so that we can discuss these new matters

that were brought to our attention just a while ago so that we can deal with them accordingly?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, very willingly.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Trial suspended and all the Members of the Court will go into caucus.

The trial was suspended at 2:35 p.m.

At 3:34 p.m., the trial was resumed.

The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, for the record, the Motion to Defer Action on Subpoena of Bankspending before us earlier, the majority of the Members of the Court have decided to deny the Motions,

Mr. President, for the record.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Senator Sotto. On the Motion to Stop Reception of Evidence in Relation to the FASAP case,

the majority of the Members have decided to deny the Motion with a reminder to the Prosecution not

to touch upon the merits of the case which is still pending before the Supreme Court.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Senator Sotto.Thank you.


8/79


Mr. President, we are ready for the cross-examination of the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel will now proceed with the cross-examination of the

witness.

Mr. Cuevas. We are ready, Your Honor.


Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we are calling back witness, Roberto Anduiza, president

of FASAP. Your Honor, the witness is here.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel.

Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor, the witness is here.

Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of this Honorable Court


Mr. Cuevas. may we be allowed to proceed, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. All right.

Mr. Anduiza, I understand that FASAP is a labor union...

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. duly organized and registered with the Department of Labor.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. So, it also has a board of directors.

Mr. Anduiza. Yespo.

Mr. Cuevas. May we know from you whether your appearance today is authorized by the board?

Mr. Anduiza. Kasama ho ng function ko yun bilang isangpresidente.

Mr. Cuevas. That is not my question to you. My question to you is, whether there is a board

resolution authorizing you to appear. Kindly askmay we ask, Your Honor, that the witness

Mr. Anduiza. Wala po.

Mr. Cuevas.Ah, wala. So, your coming here is only at your instance, voluntarily.

Mr. Anduiza.Bilang isang presidente ng labor unionpo.

Mr. Cuevas. I see. Now, I notice that while you were testifying, you were apparently too mad

against the Chief Justice Corona, am I right?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi naman po.

Mr. Cuevas. What made you state that Kaya nga po gustonamin maaalis na siya, eh?


9/79


Mr. Anduiza. Kasi nga because sa pangingialam niya po. Satingin namin ang pangingialam

niya, nagresulta sa pagkabawi ng final decision. Of course, hindi kami naging masaya sa

partisipasyon niya.

Mr. Cuevas. Sa pagkaalam ninyo? Ano po ang naging base ninyo sa pakakaalam ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. Sa mga earlier resolutionpo ng Supreme Court, malinaw na nag-inhibit siya

earlier. Tapos, doon sa October 4, yungpagbawi ng decision, nag-participate siya.

Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong decision ang binawi?

Mr. Anduiza. Yung ni-recallpo yung final decision noong September 10.

Mr. Cuevas. Yung Order denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration, ganoon ho ba?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. So, the Order on the meritthe decision on the merit still stands.

Mr. Anduiza. Yes,Manong.

Mr. Cuevas. And it is in favor of FASAP.

Mr. Anduiza. Yespo.

Mr. Cuevas. That had not been touched whatsoever.

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi pa po.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. So it is very clear now that what have been touched in the Resolution

you are speaking of is only the order denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration?

Mr. Anduiza. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. I noticed that you do not appear to have examined the Resolution in connection

with that, am I right?

Mr. Anduiza. Alin po?

Mr. Cuevas. The denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration.

Mr. Anduiza. Nakita ko po iyon.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, I am showing to you a Notice dated October 25, 2011, En Banc, and this

appears toat the bottom portion thereof, it appears Corona CJ, Carpio, Velasco Jr., Leonardo de

Castro, took no part. Are you referring to that Resolution?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyan.

Mr. Cuevas. Oh, why are you saying that it was Chief Justice Corona who engineered the

denial of the Resolution?

Mr. Anduiza. I was referring on the October 4 Recall Order.

Mr. Cuevas. That is not my question to you. My question to you is the Order that nullifies the

Second Motion for Reconsideration. Iyon po ang itinatanong ko sa inyo.

Representative Bag-ao. Already answered, Your Honor. October 4 na po yung sinabi niya.


10/79


The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer the question.

Mr. Anduiza. Can you repeat the question?

Mr. Cuevas. May we repeat, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Witness, intindihin mo lang na mabuti yung tinatanong nung

nagtatanong sa iyo.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Para sagutin mo yung tanong at huwag kang liligaw-ligaw.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo yung tanong. Naintindihan mo po ba yung sinabi?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sagot ninyo?


Mr. Cuevas. I am showing to you a copy of theEn Banc Resolution which I am referring to in

my question. Will you kindly go over the same and tell us whether you will agree with me that Chief

Justice Corona took no part in that Resolution?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyan. October 18, Chief Justice Corona took no part. Nandito po

sa ibaba. Tama.

Mr. Cuevas. And you knew that as a fact?

Mr. Anduiza. Yes, po.

Mr. Cuevas. That notwithstanding, you are recommending the dismissal of Chief Justice Corona?

Mr. Anduiza. Yes,po.

Mr. Cuevas. No other ground?

Mr. Anduiza. May I add somethingpo paraKasi iba ho ang nire-refer natin eh. Magkaiba ho.

Mr. Cuevas. Just kindly answer the question. I am asking you a definite question. Are you

predicate

The Presiding Officer. Huwag kang makipag-argumento sa abogado. Sasagutin mo lang

yung tanong sa iyo. Paki lang.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

The Presiding Officer. Para hindi tayo tatagal dito. Wala tayong mahabang panahon eh.

Sige, sagutin mo lang yung question.

Mr. Anduiza. Tama ho ito. Nung October 18 NoticeEn Banc took no part ho si Chief Justice

Corona.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you.


11/79


May we request, Your Honor, that this document identified by the witness be marked as

Exhibit 60, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, I am showing to you again another Resolution of the Honorable Supreme

Court En Banc, dated February 6, 2012. Kindly go over the same and tell us whether you areacquainted or you know that Resolution.

Witness perusing the same, Your Honor.

Ang tanong po lang sa inyo, iyan ba ay nakita nyo nang dati?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as Exhibit 61,

Your Honor, for the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.

What is the date of that Resolution?

Mr. Cuevas. October 4, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That is different from the previous Resolution?

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right. What was the date of the previous Resolution?

Representative Bag-ao. May we request if we can see also the document, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. The first one, Your Honor, is dated October 18, 2011, Your Honor.The Presiding Officer. That is the first Resolution.

Mr. Cuevas. Which is Prosecutions Exhibit SSSSSS, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. That was the first Resolution.

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And the second Resolution is dated 24.

Mr. Cuevas. October 4, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. October?

Mr. Cuevas. 4, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, October 4.

Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Witness going over the same, Your Honor.

Sige po. Sige po.

Tama yan?


12/79


Mr. Anduiza. Tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. I notice that this Resolution, more particularly at the bottom thereof which states,

The CourtEn Banc further resolves to recall the Resolution dated September 7, 2011 by the Second

Division in this case. Did you notice that?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po.Mr. Cuevas. So, the recalling of the Resolution concerning the Second Motion for Reconsideration

was made by the Court En Banc.

Mr. Anduiza. Yespo.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Not by Chief Justice Corona.

Mr. Anduiza.Hindipo.

Mr. Cuevas. You will agree with me that Chief Justice Corona had nothing to do with the recall

of the Resolution.

Mr. Anduiza. Mayroon po.

Mr. Cuevas. Sabihin nga ninyo kung ano ang kinalaman niya sa Resolution na ito?

Mr. Anduiza. Kasama po siya sa nag-decide.

Mr. Cuevas. Paano ninyo sinabi na kasama siya?

Mr. Anduiza.Nakalagay po sa baba ng Resolution na yanyung mga wala doon. Wala yung

pangalan niya doon po.

Mr. Cuevas. So, yun lang ang batayan ninyo.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. You have not gone over the records of the Supreme Court in connection with this

Resolution.

Mr. Anduiza. Yung previous records po, mayroon na siyang

Mr. Cuevas. This one only.

Mr. Anduiza. Ah, diyan po, wala kami doon sa loob.

Mr. Cuevas. Wala. All right.

Now, may I know from you whether you had been an employee or official of the Supreme Court?

Mr. Anduiza.Hindi po.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. You will agree with me, therefore, that you have no knowledge

whatsoever of the rules and procedures of the Court, both in a Division and En Banc.

Mr. Anduiza. Sa konting consultationpo with the lawyers. But

The Presiding Officer. Alam mo ba yung reglamento ng Korte Suprema?



13/79


The Presiding Officer. Oh,yun.

Mr. Cuevas. So the basis of your statement now relative to hindi po nakalagay diyan ang

pangalan niya ay yun lang sinabi sa inyo ng mga abugado? Mga abugado ba o abugado lang?

Mr. Anduiza. Abugado po.

Mr. Cuevas. Sino po in particular?

Mr. Anduiza. Si Attorney Kapunanpo.

Mr. Cuevas. Attorney?

Mr. Anduiza. Atty. Santiago Kapunan.

Mr. Cuevas. Yung abugado ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ho ba ito ang dating retired Justice Kapunan?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po. Anak po ito.

Mr. Cuevas. Ah, anak. I see.

Eh kung sinabi sa inyo na ganitot ganito, komo wala kayong nalalaman, ang aking

pakahulugan ay paniniwalaan ninyo siya sapagkat siya ay abugado ninyo. Tama ho ba ako?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo. And based on the records din po.

Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong record na sinasabi ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. Yung nandoon po sa baba ng Resolution na binigay ng Korte Suprema.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, you mentioned while testifying on direct that there was a sort ofa letter coming from Atty. Estelito Mendoza to the Chief Justice Corona. Am I right?

Mr. Anduiza. Mayroon po.

Mr. Cuevas. You have seen that letter?

Mr. Anduiza. Only after the recall order.

Mr. Cuevas. And the letter was signed by Attorney Mendoza?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Addressed to the Chief Justice?

Mr. Anduiza. The Clerk of Court.

Mr. Cuevas. Ah, Clerk of Court. So you are now withdrawing your statement that it is a letter

by Attorney Mendoza to the Clerk of Court, not to the Chief Justice.

Mr. Anduiza. To the Clerk of Court.

Mr. Cuevas. I see.

Now, in accordance with the rules of procedure obtaining in the Supreme Court, once a letter

of that sort is brought to the attention of the Court, it is referred to the Clerk of the Division involved.

Am I right?


14/79


Mr. Anduiza. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer)

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po yun angMay we move to strike out the answer of the witness,

Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Answer is stricken off the record.

Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito, kapag mayroong sulat sa Clerk of Courtng isang Division ng Supreme Court, ito ay nire-refer sa Division, hindi ho ba? Yun ang tanong

ko lang sa inyo, oo lang o hindi.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Opo. Ito ho bang sulat na ito, alinsunod sa pagkaalam ninyo o sa sinabi sa

inyo ni Attorney Kapunan, ni-refer sa Division?


Mr. Cuevas. Alin pong hindi? Hindi ni-refer?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po namin alam iyon.

Mr. Cuevas. Ah, hindi ninyo alam. Kung sabihin ko sa inyo na itong sulat na ito ni

Attorney Mendoza doon sa Clerk of Court ni-refer sa Division, hindi ninyo mapapasinungalingan

iyan, hindi ho ba?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Sapagkat wala kayong kinalaman diyan.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Basta galit lang kayo kay Chief Justice Corona?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi naman dahil galit lang.

Mr. Cuevas.Eh, ano po ang ibig ninyong sabihin? Kung walang kinalaman si Chief Justice

Corona dito ay bakit kayo galit kay Justice Corona sa pagre-recall nito?

Representative Bag-ao. Already answered.

Mr. Cuevas. No, I have not even asked the question, how could it have been answered?

The Presiding Officer. Antayin mo muna na matapos iyong tanong bago mo sagutin.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Sige po. Anong sagot po ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer.)

Mr. Cuevas. Again, we move to strike out the answer of the witness and we request,

Your Honor

Representative Bag-ao. But that is the answer of the witness.

Mr. Cuevas. that the witness be directed to


15/79


The Presiding Officer. Unresponsive, stricken off the record.

Mr. Cuevas.Ang tanong ko po lang sa inyo ay ito: may sulat na dumating sa Clerk of Court

na isang Division, in this particular case Second Division, alam ba ninyo na ang sulat na iyan ay

ini-refer sa Division?

Mr. Anduiza.Hindi po.Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam. Hindi rin ninyo alam kung anong aksiyon ang ginawa ng

Division.


Mr. Cuevas. Kung sabihin ko sa inyo na ini-refer ng Division iyan sa Clerk of Court En Banc

becausedahil hindi nila mapagpasiyahan, mayroon ba kayong ebidensiya na iyan ay hindi

totoo?


Mr. Cuevas. Wala. So ang

The Presiding Officer. Sandali lang. Lakasan mo lang iyong sagot mo.


Mr. Cuevas. Okay. So, the way I understood you, you have no complaint about the procedure

regarding this case because you do not know the procedure. Am I right?

Mr. Anduiza. Yespo.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, I noticed that you were very, very categorical and positive about

complaining against Chief Justice Corona, how about the other members of the divisions? Do you havesimilar complaint also against them for revoking the previous order in connection with the Second

Motion for Reconsideration?

Mr. Anduiza. Wala po dahil noong nag-inhibitpo earlier, consistent nag-inhibit sila all the way.

Mr. Cuevas. Eh iyon pong iba na naging dahilan ng pagkakaroon ng Resolution na ito na

nire-revoke iyong Second Motion for Reconsideration, wala po kayong reklamo sa kanila?

Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Siya lang po iyong kakaiba ang sitwasyon.

Mr. Cuevas. Did you note that the recall order was unanimous? Ibig sabihin lahat eh bumoto,

iyong nakalagay dito. Hindi rin ninyo alam iyan.

Mr. Anduiza. Alam po.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi ninyo alam.

Mr. Anduiza. Wala pong nakalagay yata sa decision. Kasi walang

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito.

The Presiding Officer. Sagutin mo lang iyong tanong. Alam mo ba o hindi mo alam?

Mr. Anduiza.Hindi.


16/79


Mr. Cuevas. At kung sabihin ko sa inyo na ang lumagda sa Resolution na ito ay lahat ng

miyembro ng Husgado maliban kay Chief Justice Corona, hindi rin ninyo kayang pabulaanan iyan

sapagkat hindi ninyo alam ang procedimiento sa kagalang-galang na kataas-taasang Hukuman,

tama ho ba ako?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po.

Mr. Cuevas. Tama po. Now, I seem to recall you having testified that kayo ay napighati,

na-damage kayo, nagkaroon kayo nang hindi magandang pakiramdam sapagkatgawa ng

pagkaka-recall. Tama ho ba ako?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Bakit? Naghahabol ho ba kayo ng damage dito sa kaso na ito kaya

ninyo sinabing nagdamdam kayo, nag-emotionally involved kayo, ganito and so on?

Mr. Anduiza. Back wagespo ng mga kasamahan namin.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi. Kayo po. Hindi ko tinatanong iyong mga kasamahan ninyo. Hindi

ninyo kayang sagutin iyon.

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po ako.

Mr. Cuevas. Hindi po. So, wala kayong claim for damages?

Mr. Anduiza. Wala po. Ako mismo, wala po.

Mr. Cuevas.At hindi naman maaari na kayo ay mag-claim for damages dito sa Impeachment

Proceedings na ito.

Mr. Anduiza. Wala din po.

Mr. Cuevas. Nalalaman ninyo iyan?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Mr. Cuevas. Salamat po. That is all with the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Any redirect?

Representive Bag-ao. No redirect, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. No redirect, the witness is discharged.

Mr. Anduiza. Salamat po.


The Presiding Officer. May magtatanong sa iyo.

Senator Sotto. Yes, Sen. Loren Legarda wishes to be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique and the Philippines, Sen. Loren Legarda.

Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Just points of clarification to summarize that quite complicated issues that were brought about. May

I request the Madam Prosecutor to answer the questions and please allow me to just state what you


17/79


stated, if it is correct in terms of the dates. Based on the testimony of the witness, it was on July 22nd,

2008 that the decision was made by the Supreme Court in favor of FASAP. Is that correct?

Representative Bag-ao. Yes, Maam.

Senator Legarda. And on October 2, 2009, a Resolution denying PALs MR from the decision

dated July 22, 2008. Is that correct?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo.

Senator Legarda. And in these two occasions, the Supreme Courtthe Chief Justice did not

participate?


Senator Legarda. Was he already Chief Justice then?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Nasa Division po ang kaso na yan.

Senator Legarda. Nasa Division and he was already Chief Justice?

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi pa po.

Senator Legarda. Not yet.

Representative Bag-ao. 2008 at 2009 po yung tinutukoy natin.

Senator Legarda. But it was in the Division to which he belonged?

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po. Lima po ang nag-decide sa kasong yan.

Senator Legarda. Ah, he just did not take part because he was not a member of that Division

to which it was assigned.


Senator Legarda. Thank you.

On September 7, 2011, there was a Resolution denying PALs Second MR with finality, is that

correct?


Senator Legarda. And it affirmed, again, the July 22, 2008 Decision to award the FASAP with

whatever they were due, is that correct?


Senator Legarda. On October 4, 2011, there was a Resolution recalling the Resolution dated

September 7, 2011 and opening the case again.


Senator Legarda. And at this time, Chief Justice Corona was already Chief Justice?


Senator Legarda. So in the first two, he did not inhibit. He simply was not a member

of that Division?


18/79


Representative Bag-ao. Iko-correct ko lang po.

Senator Legarda. Yes.

Representative Bag-ao. Yun pong pinaka-unang desisyon noong 2008 ay nag-inhibit na

po siya sa kaso na yan sa rafflepa lang. Kaya po hindi na siya naging bahagi sa pagde-decide

nung kaso dahil pinalitan na siya.Senator Legarda. Yes. Okay.

But on October 4, 2011, there was a Resolution recallingopening the case anew.


Senator Legarda. He is already Chief Justice?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo, Maam.

Senator Legarda. PAL filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. This is the status of the

case now.


Senator Legarda. This is the case pending.

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Yes, Maam.

Senator Legarda. Yes.

It was mentioned in the reasons behind the testimony of Mr. Anduiza that he was supposed to

testify on the status of this FASAP case, which he did, and the two decisions which I am asking you

now. May this Court be clarified on the circumstances concerning the recall of the decision and the

alleged letters of Attorney Mendoza because I do not have a copy of those letters, I do not know

whether it has been made an exhibit, so that we will try to link the relevance of those alleged letters

whether they are directly addressed to the Chief Justice or merely letters, as mentioned, to the Clerk

of Court, copy furnished the Chief Justice. And may I know the relevance of these letters to Section

3 of the Articles of Impeachment?

Representative Bag-ao. Una po ay gusto ko pong banggitin na yun pong October 4, 2011

Decision ay AM MatterAdministrative Matter No. 11-10-1-SC regarding letters of Atty. Estelito P.

Mendoza, re: G.R. No. 178083, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines

(FASAP) vs. Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL), Patria Chiong, et al . Yun po yung unang sagot.

Pangalawa po yung apat po na sulat ay bahagi po ng exhibit ng ProsecutionExhibitsTTTTTT-1 to 4. Yun pong apat na sulat ay iba-iba po ang sirkumstansiya ng pagkakapadala

sa Clerk of Court at pagbibigay ng kopya sa Chief Justice.

Yung una pong sulat na may date na September 13, ay addressed po saClerk of Courtpero

may copy furnishedpo na The Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Supreme Court, Manila.

Yung pangalawa pong sulat ay may date na September 16, 2011. Ulit po addressed po ito

sa Clerk of Court at wala pong copy furnished.

Yun pong pangatlong sulat ay September 20, 2011 addressed po ulit sa Clerk of Court at

meron pong copy furnished na Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.


19/79


Yun pong pang-apat na sulat ay ipinadala po noong September 22, 2011 at ang copy furnished

po ay ang mga sumusunod: Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Honorable Arturo D. Brion,

Honorable Jose T. Perez, Honorable Diosdado M. Peralta, Honorable Lucas P. Bersamin, Honorable

Jose C. Mendoza, with copies of letters dated September 13, 16 and 20, 11.

Ano po ang kaugnayan ng mga sulat na ito at yung Desisyon ng October 4, 2011 na

Administrative Matter sa Article III? Yun pong Article III ay tungkol sa betrayal of public trust atculpable violation of the Constitution dahil po sa hindi pagsunod ng Chief Justice sa requirement ng

Constitution na ang isang huwes o member ng Judiciary must be a person of competence, integrity,

probity and independence.

Ang sinasabi po namin sa titulo pa lang ng kaso na AM na nagresulta ng pagbukas ulit ng

GR No. 178083, ito po ay dahil sa mga sulat. In fact, ang titlepo ay: Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito

P. Mendoza, re: GR No. 178083.

Pangalawa po, ang gusto pong ihayag nung testigo na pinag-uusapan natin ay ang

pagkakaiba ng pagtrato ng mga sulat na ito sa sulat ng mga miyembro ng FASAP. Sumulat po

ang mga miyembro ng FASAP, prinisent (present) din po namin iyon kahapon. Insteadpo silaay ni-require to furnish a copy sa kabilang partido. Pero itong sulat ni Attorney Mendoza ni

hindi sila pinadalhan ng kopya, naging subjectpa siya sa Administrative Matter No. 11-10-1-SC.

Iyon po ang malaking link at connection ng mga sulat na ito sa akusasyon po namin ng

pagkakaiba ng pagtrato sa mga sulat.

Pangalawa po, ang pinag-uusapan po natin ay ang partisipasyon. Doon po sa sagot, doon

po sa laging paulit-ulit na sagot ni Chief Justice kahit po sa kanyang answer, sinasabi po niya sa

Paragraph 4 atParagraph 6 sa kanyang sagotfor Article III na siya po ay did not take part having

been inhibited from the case since 2008. Iyon pong inhibition since 2008 ay tama. Kasi sa recall

pa lang po ng kasong ito na nasa Second Division kung saan si Justice Ynares-Santiago ang

sumulat ng ponencia bago pa po ito nadesisyunan ay nag-inhibit na po siya. Kapag po nagi-inhibit ang isang huwes, kapag po naglalabas ng desisyon, sinasabi po nila ang kanilang

partisipasyon.

Sa lahat po ng mga kasong ito, in fact iyon pong order sa FASAP na magbigay ng kopya sa

kabilang partido ay may nakalagay na Chief Justice Corona took no part. Doon po sa kanilang

administrative matter, iyong pinakita po ni Defense Counsel na sulat na may petsang October 18,

2011, ito na po ang AM ulit, October 18, 2011. Nakalagay po dito, Corona, CJ; Carpio;

Velasco Jr.; Leonardo-De Castro; and Del Castillo, JJ, no part.

Sa lahat po ng mga desisyon ay ini-indicate niya na no part. Except iyon pong Administrative

Matter No. 11-10-1-SC kung saan na-recall ang desisyon ng G.R. No. 178083. Iyong last

paragraphpo nakalagay, The Court, furthermore, resolves to re-raffle this case to a new member

in charge (Carpio, Velasco Jr., Leonardo-De Castro and Del Castillo, JJ, no part.) Brion, no part

insofar as the re-raffle is concerned. Ito po ay desisyon, October 4, 2011. Hindi po natin makikita

sa resolusyon na ito na may nakalagay na Corona, CJ no part. Ang simpleng interpretasyon

lang po ay siya po ay naging bahagi, no part. Which means

Senator Legarda. Iyon po ang inyong assumption?

Representative Bag-ao. Nag-participate, took no part. Ibig sabihin nag-participate po siya

sa kaso. Hindi po iyon assumption, iyon po ay nasa records.

Senator Legarda. Nasa record ninyo? Base sa record ng Korte Suprema?


20/79


Representative Bag-ao. Hindi lang po sa record namin at pwede pong mag-take ng judicial

notice ang Korteng ito doon sa fact na iyon dahil requirement po na kailangang ilagay sa mga

resolusyon atorders ng korte ang kanilang partisipasyon sa isang kaso.

Senator Legarda. Okay. Naintindihan na po natin iyan, salamat sa inyo. Ang aking

katanungan langalam ko may bell na, huling katanungan lang. Sinisisi ba ninyo kay Chief

Justice Corona iyong pag-recall ng decisionin favor of FASAP bagamat siyay isa lamang sa mganagdesisyon sa recall na ito?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. At papatunayan po namin iyan, hindi lang po mula sa

testigong ito kundi pati din po sa iba pang mga testigo na gusto sana po namin maging bahagi

para po mabuo iyong picture kung bakit po namin sinasabi na may malaking kinalaman,

partisipasyon sa pagdedesisyun at pag-recall ng decision dito sa AM case na ito noong

October 4, 2011.

Senator Legarda. So ang ating testigo ngayon ay isa lamang tungkol sa FASAP case?

Dahil kung siya lang ang testigo tungkol dito ay siguro kulang pa ang paliwanag kung bakit

Representative Bag-ao. Tama po. Tama po.

Senator Legarda. si Chief Justice Corona lamang ang inyong sinisisi sa pag backtrack, so

to speak, ng Suprema,

Representative Bag-ao. Tama po.

Senator Legarda. ng Korte Suprema sa kasong ito.

Representative Bag-ao. Tama po. Ang kahalagahan po ng testimony ng testigong ito ay

para lang po i-establish yung unang fact. Andito po kami para i-establish yungunang fact na

dito sa AM case na ito kaiba sa lahat ng resolusyon may took no part.At may pagkakaiba sa

treatment ng letters. Kaya nga po mahalagang-mahalaga yung aming mga request for subpoenaparapo ibigay yung next step ng istorya ng pag proseso sa pagre-resolve nung AM case na ito.

Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. The Minority Leader. Yes, Mr. President.

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

Marami sa katanungan ko ay nasagot na sa mga tanong ni Senator Legarda. But let me

explain my clarification before I ask the questions.

Marami po kasing nagtatanong sa amin eh. Pagka erroneous ba yung decision ng Supreme

Court or kapagka yung losing litigant ba ay may angal, impeachable ba yon? Or hindi ba natin

binubuksan ang Korte, ang Impeachment Court at ang Kongreso bilang mag-i-impeach sa isang

impeachable officer na bastat makapangyarihan din or popular or whatever, for whatever reason

matalo sa Korte, ay tumakbo sa Kongreso at hinginang impeachment nungjustices na yan. And

in this case, kung live pa yung case, yung magiging epekto sa kaso na ito ano?

So not to go into all of those details, but importanteng maintindihan nating lahat ang kaibahan

na kapagka ang isang kaso ay erroneous lang yung decision and therefore walang question, hindi

naman impeachable or merong ibang circumstance na pupunta sa may basis or mayroong ground

for impeachment.


21/79


So you answered already the first question about sinasabi niyong reportedly si Chief Justice

sa 3.3.1 ang nag-order ng recall.Nasagot niyo na po yan na you will call another witness.

Madam Prosecutor, ang tanong ko po, what makes this different from just an ordinary case?

Is it the fact thatlet me clarifypo muna.

In your view, final and executory na yung kaso nani re-open?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Kung titingnan po natin yung wording ng resolution,pareho

po doon sa 2008 at 2009, pareho pong may nakalagay na final and executory. 2009 and 2011.

I am sorry, Sir.

Senator Cayetano (A). So that is what you are proving. PakiNabasa ko po sa iyong 3.3

3.3.1 and 3.3.2, but please explain further what do you want to show here. Na final and executory

na pero nabago, and then CJ Corona ang


Ang pinakamahalaga pong punto, without necessarily, Sir, going to the meritsbecause that is

an issue still no that we are talking about, ang pinaka bottom line po ay ang partisipasyon ni ChiefJustice Corona sa pagbabaliktad ng kasong ito ano, yung recall, in contradiction sa mga sinasabi

nga na he did not participate. Sinasabi niya na he did not participatepero klarong-klaro naman

na he participated.

Senator Cayetano (A). Klaro po sa amin na kung siya ang nag- cause ng recall or kung siya

po ay nag-participate o hindi, klaro sa amin na gusto niyong patunayan yon. Ang hindi klaro,

katulad po ng sinabi ng witnessand we are not talking about the merits ha at yung simpatiya

namin sa mga kaso. Many of us made a stand on that before this Court, before this Impeachment

Court. Ang tanong kasi, tinanong noong Defense Counsel eh. So hindi ka galit doon sa ibang

mga miyembro ng Korte. So are we saying, because final na yung decision nabaligtad pa,

impeachable din lahat ng ibang justices na they reopened the case that is supposed to be closed?

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po namin sinasabi yun sa ngayon kasi ang gusto lang po

naming patunayan, at, in fact, yun po ang nakalagay sa aming complaint, ay napaka-partikular

Senator Cayetano (A). Yes, hindi niyo po sinasabi ngayon yun

Representative Bag-ao. sa partisipasyon.

Senator Cayetano (A). perohindi niyo rin sinasabing hindi sila impeachable doon.

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po yun naging bahagi ng aming

Senator Cayetano (A). Okay.Representative Bag-ao. ..paghahanda ng impeachment.

Senator Cayetano (A). The reason I asked that, kasi maraming nagtatanong hanggang

ngayon, maging abogado man o hindi, Bakit si CJ lang kung desisyon ito ng buong Korte?

At yun ang isang, sa aking paniniwala, nililinaw ng ating Presiding Officer at Chief Justice

noong umpisa. Na kailangan ipakita niyo


Senator Cayetano (A). kung bakit si Chief Justice ay kailangan ma-impeach samantalang

desisyon ito ng buong Korte.


22/79



Senator Cayetano (A). Can I ask that one clarification doon sa witness, Bakit si CJ noong

tinanong ka ng Defense lawyer, si Justice Cuevas, ang sagot mo, Okay lang yung ibang mga

justices. Hindi po ba kayohindi niyo tingin na mali, na final and executory na babaliktarin pa

ng Korte?

Mr. Anduiza. Unang-una, mali yun, final and executory yun babaliktarin, babawiin pa.

At pangalawa, siya lang yung kakaiba dahil nag-inhibit na siya sa umpisa, nag-participate siya

sa recall at nag-inhibit uli pagkatapos ng recall.

Senator Cayetano (A). But assuming na totoo na siya ang nagmaniobra para mangyari ito,

eh kung sumunod naman yung iba? Hindi ba buong Korte ang nagdesisyon nito at hindi lang

si CJ Corona?

Mr. Anduiza. Eh kung malalaman ho namin na ganun, di pati sila may liability.

Senator Cayetano (A). Well, anyway, Mr. President, my time is up and as the Madam

Prosecutorthe good Prosecutor said, they will elaborate, I just like to make that point, na kailanganmalinaw na malinaw sa amin at sa buong bansa. Pag in-impeach natin ang isang Justice base

sa isang desisyon, anong kaibahan na yung liability nung buong Division or nung en banc dun

sa liability ng isang Justice lang na yun?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Representative Bag-ao. Puwede pong sumagot sa huli niyo pong tanong.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may I ask

The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, I just would like to elicit an admission from the complainantfrom the

witness, Your Honor, through his Counsel, whether they admit that the Decision on the merits, awarding

them millions of damages, had not been touched in the Resolution with this question because what is

being reconsidered is only the motion denying the second motion, not the Decision because the Decision

on the merits still stand. There was a first motion, denied. There was a second motion, denied also.

The Presiding Officer. There is no detriment to the complainants.

Senator Pimentel. Mr. President.

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. So may I ask a couple of questions only, Your Honor.

Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor, we can argue about that but we do not want to make any

admission because that is part of the issue that we are still trying to resolve.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute, wait a minute. I am just clarifying.


The Presiding Officer. I hope that the Prosecutors are not jumpy. You know, I am lenient but

you know the procedure in the Court. You cannot interject a statement while I am talking to another

counsel.

Counsel for the Defense.


23/79


Mr. Cuevas. We are showing theIf your Honor please, in compliance with the

Senator Pimentel. What is the

Mr. Cuevas. suggestion of the Court, we are showing the Decision now just to prove our point

that what was reconsidered is not the Decision on the merits but the Resolution denying the Second

Motion for Reconsideration.The Presiding Officer. In other words, the original Decision

Mr. Cuevas. Stands.

The Presiding Officer. stands

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. today?


The Presiding Officer. And in whose favor was that Decision?

Mr. Cuevas. In favor of the FASAP.

Representative Bag-ao. Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. FASAP.



Representative Bag-ao. Gusto ko lang po sanang itanong kung cross-examination po ba itoo nag-uusap po tayo ng admission?

Mr. Cuevas. I am asking the

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman has the floor here. He is asking a clarificatory question

with respect to your manifestation as counsel. So, I am authorizing him to do that.

Mr. Cuevas. May I now proceed, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Please proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, likewise in the Resolution of October 2, 2009, a copy of which is part of

their evidence, Your Honor, Exhibit NNNNNN. There is no revocation of the original Decision.

Because what is in controversy here is the withdrawalis the denial of the Second Motion for

Reconsideration and it is still pending before the Supreme Court En Banc whether that denial or

withdrawal is valid, legal or should be allowed. Not the Decision on the merits, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. The Decision is still in their favor.

The Presiding Officer. Maliwanag iyan. Nagkaroon ngDecision in favor sa

Mr. Cuevas. FASAP.


24/79


The Presiding Officer. FASAP, nag-Motion for Reconsideration

Mr. Cuevas. Denied.

The Presiding Officer. yung kalaban nila, yung PAL, hindi ba?


The Presiding Officer. Dinenay (deny)


The Presiding Officer. yung Motion for Reconsideration.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Pagkatapos ang PAL muli

Mr. Cuevas. Second motion.

The Presiding Officer. nag-file ng Second Motion for Reconsideration, dinenay (deny) din.


The Presiding Officer. Ngayon, ano ba yung Administrative Matter? Ano ba yun? Is that

going into the merits of the case or it is just an administrative matter to dispose whether the matter

is to be resolved by a Court or just to be thrown into the waste basket?

Representative Bag-ao. Puwede na po?

The Presiding Officer. Oo. I am addressing the question to the Prosecution.

Representative Bag-ao. Babasahin ko po.

The Court further resolved to re-raffle this case to a new member in charge. Ang ibig

sabihin po

The Presiding Officer. To re-raffle.

Representative Bag-ao. At ang naging epekto po ng AM case na ito in relation to G.R.

178083 ay wala pong execution na nangyari.

The Presiding Officer. Teka muna. Bakit nga kailangan ang re-raffle?

Representative Bag-ao. Hindi po ipinaliwanag. Ang naging epekto po

The Presiding Officer. No. Tinanong mo ba bilang abogado bago mo ginawa itong Articles

of Impeachment, Bakit kailangan ang re-raffle?

Representative Bag-ao. Iyon po ang ipepresenta natin ngayon po sana sa kasong ito.

The Presiding Officer. No. As a matter of procedure, you are a lawyer, you should know.

Representative Bag-ao. Sa ngayon po ay may pending MR ang mga partido po ng FASAP

dito sa AM case na ito at iyon nga po ang gusto nilang linawin sa Korte na nagbigay ng

resolution dated October 4, kung ano ang basehan bakit ni-recall ang desisyon kung dalawang

beses na itong dineclare (declare) na final and executory doon sa G.R. No. 178083.


25/79


The Presiding Officer. Ang itinatanong ng Presiding Officer, yung administrative matter

na binanggit ninyo, ano ba iyon, to re-raffle yung kaso?

Representative Bag-ao. Yes po.

Mr. Cuevas. Only.

Representative Bag-ao. To recall the Resolutionpo dated September 7, issued by the SecondDivision in this case. Ni-recallpo.

The Presiding Officer. Yung re-raffle na iyon has nothing to do with the merits of the case?

Representative Bag-ao. Mayroon po, ni-recall. Ni-recall po ang case na ito. In fact,

hindi pa

The Presiding Officer. Ano ang ni-recall? Yung desisyon na ginawa na, yung una?

Representative Bag-ao. Opo. Yung G.R. No. 178083.

The Presiding Officer. O?

Representative Bag-ao. To recallThe Court En Banc further resolves to recall the Resolution

dated September 7, 2011.

The Presiding Officer.Ano yung resolution na yan?

Representative Bag-ao. Yun po ang Resolution sa G.R. No. 178083 na dine-deny yung

Second Motion for Reconsideration ng PAL na kaso with FASAP.

The Presiding Officer. O.

Mr. Cuevas. Not the decision.

The Presiding Officer. Okay. So

Mr. Cuevas. Not the decision on the merits, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Oo.

Mr. Cuevas. If we may be allowed to be heard.

Representative Bag-ao. Pero, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed even one minute to make a rejoinder or reply?

The Presiding Officer. Yes. Go ahead. You have one (1) minute.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, these proceedings denominated as AM, Your Honor, came into

existence because of that letter allegedly to the Clerk of Court, Your Honor. Since there is no

resolution it was labeled as AM case and it does not refer to the case on the merits. It has nothing

to do with the award of multi-million peso compensation to the FASAP, Your Honor. The original

decision stands. But what was recalled is the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration.

In other words, when it goes back to the Court En Banc, what will be litigated is the withdrawal

of the Second Motion for Reconsideration, valid or not or legal. That is the only thing. Not a decision

on the merits, Your Honor. That is why it is merely an AM, administrative matter, not a main case.


26/79


The Presiding Officer. All right. Anyway

Mr. Cuevas. I hope I am not lecturing on the Defense and Prosecution.

Representative Bag-ao. Permission to respond, Your Honor. Para lang

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental.

Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President.

Just a few clarificatory factual questions to the witness.

Your Article III is about violating the canons because the Respondent allowed the Supreme

Court to act on mere letters.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Senator Pimentel. But kayo din, ang FASAP ba ay sumulat din sa Supreme Court?

Mr. Anduiza. Yung mga kasamahan ko po.

Senator Pimentel. Ah, mayroon din pong sulat ang FASAP sa Supreme Court, tama po

ba yon?

Mr. Anduiza. Not FASAP, yung mga miyembro po.

Senator Pimentel. Members ng FASAP. Opo.

Mr. Anduiza. Yes.

Senator Pimentel. So sumulat po kayo at in-expect niyo rin na aksiyonan din yung

sulat ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po kami ang sumulat, pero iba ho yung pagkakatrato. Noong sumulat

ho yung mga kasamahan namin

The Presiding Officer. Tinatanong sa yo kung in-expect ninyo na aksiyonan ng Korte

Suprema yung sulat ninyo?

Mr. Anduiza. Hindi po FASAP ang nagsulat.

Senator Pimentel. Okay. Hindi ikaw, no, so mga kasama mo.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Senator Pimentel. So wala nga sila rito. Pero, at least, factual na yun na may mga kasama

kang sumulat din sa Supreme Court?

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Senator Pimentel. At siguro mayroon naman din silamay dahilan din siguro sa pagsulat

sa Supreme Court. Gusto rin nilang maaksiyonan din yung laman nung sulat nila, whatever that is.

Mr. Anduiza. Opo.

Senator Pimentel. Sa pagkakaalam ninyo po, sino po angkaninong sulat po ang nauna,

ang sulat po nung mga kasamahan ninyo o yung sulat ni Attorney Mendoza?


27/79


Mr. Anduiza. Nauna yung sulat ng mga kasamahan namin.

Senator Pimentel. Okay. So ang reklamo lang ninyo is ang ginawa ng Supreme CourtSino

ba ang kumilos pala doon sa sulat ng mga kasamahan ninyo, si Chief Justice Corona rin ba ang

nag-aksyon doon na pinasagot iyung other party?

Mr. Anduiza. Chief Justice Puno.Senator Pimentel. Chief Justice Punopa noong time na iyon. So at least naklaro ko na rin

sa sarili ko na ang reklamo lang ninyo hindiiyong pag-aksyon sa sulat pero iyong ibang klaseng

aksyon sa sulat?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyon.

Senator Pimentel. So, hindi masama ang sumulat sa Supreme Court at malagay sa agenda

iyong sulat at aksyonan?

Mr. Anduiza. Tama po iyon.

Senator Pimentel. Tanggap ninyo iyon?

Mr. Anduiza. Pero ang pagkakaalam ko ho na pleadings lang ang pwede naming i-file.

Senator Pimentel. Oo nga. Pero siyempre iyong mga kasamaninyong sumulat gusto rin

nila na may resulta rin iyong sulat nila, somaaksyonan din ang sulat nila.

Mr. Anduiza. Oo, dahil naiinip na po sila. Fourteen years na iyong kasong iyon.

Senator Pimentel. Opo. So tinitingnan ko lang po iyong point of view ninyo.

Okay po. Thank you po.

The Presiding Officer. Gusto ko lang malaman sa iyo, Ginoong Witness, bakit hindi ikaw

ang sumulat bagaman ikaw ang presidente noong organisasyon? Bakit iyong mga kasamahan

mo ang sumulat, nahindi pinadaan sa iyo bilang presidente?

Mr. Anduiza. Dahil iyong bandang nasa 12 years na ho iyon.

The Presiding Officer. Ano?

Mr. Anduiza. Twelve years na ho kasi iyong kaso, nainip na iyong ibang kasamahan namin .

So, may kanya-kanya silaon their own, may sumulat, may mga pumunta sila

The Presiding Officer. Pero ikaw bilang presidente nila, lider nila, hindi ka nainip?

Mr. Anduiza. Nainip ho kami. Nagpa-follow up ho kami sa Supreme Court.

The Presiding Officer. No. Ang tinatanong ko lang sa iyo kung nainip ka o hindi ka nainip.

Mr. Anduiza. Inip na inip ho.

The Presiding Officer. Nainip. Pero hindi ka sumulat?

Mr. Anduiza.Hindi po ng letters.

The Presiding Officer. Okay, proceed.


28/79


Anything else?

Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized.

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.

Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ilang katanungan lang po para maliwanagan ko ang sarili ko.

Addressed to Counsel for the Prosecution.

Unang-una, iyong main Decision dito ay ni-release noong July 22, 2008, ganoon po ba?


Senator Drilon.Ngayon, may Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse the main Decision,

tama po ba iyan?


Senator Drilon. Ito po ay dinenay (deny) ng Korte Suprema?


Senator Drilon. Kailan dinenay?

Representative Bag-ao. October 2009 po.

Senator Drilon. October 2009. Pagkatapos itong dinenay iyong Motion for Reconsideration,

mayroong Second Motion for Reconsideration seeking again to reverse the main decision, tama po

baiyon?


Senator Drilon. Is that correct?


Senator Drilon. And what action was taken on the Second Motion for Reconsideration?

Representative Bag-ao. Na-denypo ito ulit noong September 7, with finality, 2011.

Senator Drilon.Na-deny with finality noong September?

Representative Bag-ao. September 7, 2011.

Senator Drilon.Ngayon, pagkatapos noong denial with finality, mayroong Third Motion for

Reconsideration via a letter of Attorney Mendoza.

Representative Bag-ao. Opo, apat na sulat po.

Senator Drilon.Apat na sulat. At dahilan po dito sa sulat na sinasabi ninyo ay pinayagan

na buksan muli iyong desisyon na naging pinal na.


Senator Drilon. Ayun. So sa ngayon, iyong desisyon na naging pinal ay nabuksan muli?


29/79


Representative Bag-ao. Opo. In fact ho hindi po siya pwedengma-execute ngayon.

Senator Drilon. Salamat po.

Representative Bag-ao. Walang entry of judgmentpo hanggang ngayon.

The Presiding Officer. Teka muna, sandali lang.

Iyong pangalawang Motion for Reconsideration na dinenay din iyong First Motion for

Reconsiderationsinusteyn (sustain) iyong First Motion for Reconsideration, sinong Division ang

nag-decide noon?

Representative Bag-ao. Third Divisionpo.

The Presiding Officer. Third Division. Iyong First Motion for Reconsideration, sino ang nag-

decide?

Representative Bag-ao. Third Divisionpo.

The Presiding Officer. Third Division. Nuong ginawa iyong denial nuong Second Motion forReconsideration by the Third Division, iyun bang mga member noong Third Division ay pareho

nuong member nanag-decide doon sa First Motion for Reconsideration?

Representative Bag-ao.Hindi na po, Your Honor, kasi po maymga nag-retire na po sa kanila.

The Presiding Officer. Ah, ganoon.

Representative Bag-ao. At dalawang beses pong nagkaroon ng reorganization.

The Presiding Officer. Sa kaalaman ko kasi ang pwede langmag-participate sa desisyon

tungkol sa isang kaso ay kung sino lang yung mga duminig nung kaso. Yung mga iba na

nandun sa Division na hindi duminig ay hindi sila pwedeng makialam.


The Presiding Officer. Di ba? Kaya tinatanong ko yan baka nagkaroon ng diperensya

yung problema ng membership nuong Third Division.

Representative Bag-ao. Wala po. Yun pong mga nag-decide po ay laging kumpleto every

time may decision, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Oo nga eh, pero duon sa Decision nung Second Motion for Reconsideration

na sinustain yung First Motion for Reconsideration ay iba na ang composition nung Third Division.


The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. I will just make a short manifestation, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. I had a hard time convincing myself, Your Honor, to the status of the main Decision

because it was never mentioned in the Order of recall that the Decision on the merit shall be the subject


30/79


matter of deliberation, Your Honor. What is merely referred to the CourtEn Banc is the correctness,

the accuracy and the validity of the recall of the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Not the main

Decision. I do not agree with that but I cannot object because according to the Rules, Your Honor,

we cannot argue with the member of this Court. So I just made itI will just make it of record to

make the stand of the Defense clear and categorical, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Noted.

Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Taguig.

Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you.

Mr. President, I recall, I think it was yesterday, we asked for a memorandum on the functions of

theI think the administrative functions of the Chief Justice, I am not sure if a time frame was given

but may I know from the Prosecution if this has been submittedwill be submitted?

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. The Chair required the Prosecution because there was

an issue about what are really the functions of the Chief Justice, that they should submit to us their

memorandum defining what they consider to be the functions of the Chief Justice.

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. We confirm that, Your Honor. And may we

askwe started on it already, Your Honor, but may we ask till Monday to submit that Memorandum

of Authority, Your Honors?

The Presiding Officer. It is so simple, all you have to read is Article VIII.

Representative Aggabao. May we ask then till Friday, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. All right. You are given

Representative Aggabao. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. To be fair to you, you are given until Monday.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Cayetano (P). Well, I would just like to put on record without that legal memorandum

I continue to be confused on the Articles of Impeachment specifically Article III, Section 3.3, because

it basically states here that: Respondent himself caused and allowed the violation of the adverse partys

constitutional rights to due process; 3.3.1. The matter is made worse since the recall was reported tohave been at the instance of the Respondent Corona; 3.3.2. What is even more disturbing is that under

Respondent Coronas watch as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court appears to be acting on mere letters.

So we would like to be guided accordingly if in fact anyif at all, any violations committed by the

Supreme Court, the Division orEn Banc is because of the Chief Justice who should be held liable on

his sole account as compared to any acts or omissions committed by other members of the Division

or theEn Banc. So we need to make that distinction similar to what Senator Alan has said, otherwise,

I cannot still follow why this becomes the responsibility of the Chief Justice and we have already taken

up two (2) days on this matter.

Thank you.


31/79


Representative Aggabao. We will make sure, Your Honors, that that will be included in the

Memorandum of Authority, Your Honor.

Thank you.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, since we are dealing with this, with the permission of the

Honorable Court.

The Presiding Officer. The Counsel is recognized.

Mr. Cuevas. Since we are dealing with Article III of the Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor,

and in order to obviate the possibility of any deferment in my cross-examination, may I be allowed to

ask Counsel for the Prosecution to kindly inform us the litigants referred to in their third impeachment

complaint which is, and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court?

This seemed to be plural, Your Honor. Litigants, so they are more than one. May we know who

they are just so we can prepare for our defense and cross-examination, Your Honor?

Representative Aggabao. May we ask, Your Honor, that the Defense take a look at the

Compliance List. I think it is enumerated there.

Mr. Cuevas. No. Discuss litigants regardingI am not asking for the list of witnesses. I am

asking a categorical question, Your Honor, and that is, who are these litigants?

There are so many witnesses listed in their List of Witnesses. I am not supposed to swallow hook,

line and sinker every name stated in there. I just want to know, Your Honor, in behalf of the impeached

public official, the litigants they are referring to in this complaint. If there is none, then we will be content

with that statement, none other except

The Presiding Officer. What paragraph of?

Mr. Cuevas. Number 3, Your Honor, the last portion thereof, And in discussing with litigants

regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

This assumes a situation where the Honorable Chief Justice, in his capacity as such, had entertained

litigants in his sala or in his court discussing with them cases.

The Presiding Officer. Is the Prosecution ready to answer the simple question? When you

wrote these Articles of Impeachment, I am sure that you understood every word that you wrote here.

Representative Aggabao. What I can confirm, Your Honor, is that

The Presiding Officer. What are these litigants?

Representative Aggabao. What I can confirm, Your Honor, is that the Respondent had an ex

parte conversation with Vizconde and Dante Jimenez.

The Presiding Officer. Is Dante Jimenez a litigant?

Mr. Cuevas. Is Dante Jimenez a litigant?

Representative Aggabao. He is not a litigant, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. So my question is, who are these litigants, Your Honor, not who are your witnesses.

That is a very clear and positive query.

Representative Aggabao. I can confirm, Your Honor. That I can confirm, Your Honor, that

except Vizconde.


32/79


Mr. Cuevas. None other, only Vizconde?

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, Counsel, at the proper time when they present witnesses, you

take your legal remedies.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But I am worried that the Court may not understand us when

we ask for a deferment. So in order that we will be prepared, we humbly and most respectfully requestthat these litigants be named so that we will be ready. We will not ask for a deferment ofwe have

been accused of delaying the proceedings in this case. Now that we are accelerating it, they do not

seem to be cooperative, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. May we request the Prosecutors to tell us if you can identify the litigants

involved. I am sure that when you prepared these Articles of Impeachment, I assumed that you knew

the meaning of the terms you are using and I have no doubt about that. And so I think the question

is proper.

Representative Aggabao. Yes, Your Honor. I can confirm categorically that the litigant referred

to is Vizconde.

The Presiding Officer. Only Vizconde?

Representative Aggabao. Vizconde, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. Or none other? I am sorry, Sir.

Representative Aggabao. None other, Your Honor. I can confirm that.

Mr. Cuevas. So this is not litigants but litigant lang?

Representative Aggabao. It is a case of less than perfect drafting, Your Honor, Vizconde.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you for the admission, Your Honor.

Representative Aggabao. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. We will be ready then, Your Honor, if that is the correct manifestation as if it is

the stand of the entire Prosecution team, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Right. The witness is discharged.

Mr Cuevas. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

Mr. Anduiza. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Are you ready with your next witness?

Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor.


Representative Tupas. Your Honor, our next witness is the branch manager of PSBank,

Katipunan Branch, Loyola Heights. This is under subpoena and was commanded to appear 2 oclock

in the afternoon today, February 8.

The Presiding Officer. What article are we discussing?

Representative Tupas. This is Article II, Your Honor.


33/79


The Presiding Officer. Article II. I thought

Representative Tupas. Yes, because we would have presented this the other day, Your Honor,

but because we awaited for the ruling or resolution of this Honorable Tribunal which was issued

Monday. So may we go back to Article II, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. May we be heard in connection with this, Your Honor?


Mr. Cuevas. The issue relative to these bank deposits, Your Honor, is now under question, Your

Honor. With apology and with the indulgence of this Honorable Court, we went on certiorari before

the Honorable Supreme Court raising this particular matter as an issue in our claim for grave abuse of

discretion justifying the result to certiorari under the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If

this witness will be allowed to testify now, which is not scheduled, Your Honor, we are worried that

our petition may be rendered moot and academic. So out of respect for the Supreme Court, we beg

most respectfully that this be deferred even up to Tuesday, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Can you present another witness today with respect to Article III?

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, for today two (2) witnesses were subpoenaed and these are

the bank officialsthey are bank officials. It was scheduled by this Honorable Tribunal tothat they

appear today and I have information that they are here and we want to present them, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. No. It is in connection with Impeachment No. III, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. No, no, no, Your Honor. The only reason, Your Honor, if I may

proceed, please?

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense. We cannot stop the process. With due respect

to the Supreme Court, we are mandated to try and decide this case. The language of the Constitution

is shall forthwith proceed with the trial and decision of this case. Now you are free to state your

objection on any question against the presentation of these witnesses but we will allow the presentation

of the witnesses who are here now.

Mr. Cuevas. With due apologies to the Honorable Court, Your Honor. We went this far because

of the statement on the part of Your Honor that we are not precluded to take any remedy in favor of

the impeached public official under the rising sun.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct.

Mr. Cuevas. So we did so, Your Honor. And we are not seeking a deferment but merelybecause this is one of the issues that we wanted to raise. And we merely followed the suggestion of

the Honorable Court. I do not think it will be a delay of the proceedings in a matter of one (1) or

two (2) days, Your Honor.

We are not-We are in total conformity and in full accord with the fact that this Impeachment Court

is supreme on any matter relative to the trial because that is enshrined under the Constitution, Your

Honor. What we brought to the Honorable Supreme Court is the presence of what we callwith due

apologies to the Courtgrave abuse of discretion in exercising the trial powers of this Court. And the

Supreme Court had acted on similar cases. For instance, the case ofFrancisco, Your Honor. What

was questioned in there is the right to institute the impeachment proceedings. Supreme Court said,

No question. It is the House of Representatives.


34/79


But in the exercise of that power, although it is statedsole power to initiate, then we are

empowered. It is our duty and power to inquire whether in the exercise of that power or authority, there

was grave abuse of discretion warranting the participation or the coming over of the Supreme Court,

Your Honor. We do not mean to say, and it is our proposition, that this Court has no power. It has

the power. That is undebatable. We submit to that. But in the exercise of that power, that must be in

accordance with the Constitution. It must be in accordance with the laws and the rules of procedure.

If the Supreme Court said there is no abuse of discretion, then we humbly submit, Your Honor. That

is only our point, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer. This Presiding Officer is in a quandary at the moment because there

is no order from any authority to stop the proceedings of this Court and yet we are now being asked

to stop it.

What is the pleasure of the Prosecution?

Representative Tupas. We want to proceed, Your Honor. In fact after the Resolution last

February 6 approving the request of the Prosecution to issue subpoena to PSBank and BPI, there wasa Motion to Defer Action of Subpoena on Banks from Defense. It was ruled just now. So to us, there

is no legal obstacle to proceed and we want to present the witness, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. We areI thought we arewith the kind permission of the Court. I thought we

are discussing Impeachment Article No. III? That was ourWe came here prepared for Impeachment

Article No. III.

Representative Tupas. If I may, Your Honor please. Just a very short

Mr. Cuevas. Supposing the Supreme Court came out with the pronouncement that the subpoena

issued as against the bank officials and the productions of those documents is not in accordance with

law, Your Honor, what will happen with the proceedings here? Will it be considered null and void?

Will it be considered valid, Your Honor, if it is the Supreme Court speaking on the issue already?

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please. Your Honor, yesterday

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution.

Representative Tupas. we presentedone of the Prosecutors stood up and manifested that

with reservation on Article II. The first witness for Article III will be presented but with reservation.

The reason for that was we had requested last week for issuance of subpoena to the banks specifically

PSBank, Katipunan Branch, and BPI. That is the reason why we presented one witness for Article

III. But because or last Monday the Tribunal decided and the witnesses were commanded to appear

today. That is why we are now ready for Article II, Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. In the absence of a TRO from the Supreme Court, the Chair rules that

we must proceed with the trial. So bring your witness.

Representative Tupas. Thank you so much.

Your Honor, may we call on the Branch Manager or any duly authorized representative from

PSBank Katipunan, Loyola Heights.

Mr. Cuevas. I only hope and pray, Your Honor, that the handling of the direct examination will

be the Chief Legal Prosecutor in this case, Your Honor. Just so we can have a good


35/79


Representative Tupas. I will not bite that bait, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. So we have a good encounter, Your Honor.

Representative Tupas. I will not bite that bait. And in connection with this, Your Honor, may

we request that Atty. Demetrio Custodio, one of the private prosecutors, be recognized to conduct the

direct examination.The Presiding Officer. Why not the head of the panel?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, the head of the panel.

Representative Tupas. Because according to the Presiding Officer from the very beginning, we

have the ground rules. And in the presentation of the witnesses, we may employ or engage the services

of private counsel, Your Honor please. And right now, we want one of the Prosecutors, Atty. Demetrio

Custodio, to conduct direct examination for the Prosecution.


Representative Tupas. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Let Counsel Custodio handle the direct.

Mr. Custodio. Good afternoon. Magandang hapon po, Mr. President. My name is Atty.

Demetrio Custodio Jr. I would like to respectfully enter my appearance as one of the private

prosecutors subject to the control

feb 8 senate impeachment court record

Documents