Press Release
September 23, 2010

Transcript of Kapihan with Senator Honasan

Comments on the IIRC Report

We are at the mercy of the official publication of the complete report that has been the tact that your 4 committees have taken, the committee on public order and illegal drug that is one committee jointly with the committee on justice and human rights and the committee on public information and mas media and the committee on public services under Sen. Bong Revilla we will wait for the report but without prejudice further consultation with Sen. Chiz Escudero and Sen. Revilla the tendency of your committee on public order is to conduct at least one more hearing so that we can focus as it has been born out by bits and pieces of the IIRC report we can focus on the roles and relationship between the local government officials and the police in crisis situations like this like what happened last August 23 and the grievance mechanism that involve PNP personnel. We are planning this is just a plan of your Committee on Public Order and I will have to consult Sen. Escudero and Revilla we will call possibly Mayor Fred Lim, Vice-Mayor Isko Moreno, Col. Yebra and Ombudsman Gutierrez together with the original list that included the Sec. of DILG and the Chief of the PNP. That is the plan and the tendency as of this moment

That is the problem with dealing with the personalities if u noticed only 2 public officers have assumed frontally full responsibility. One is the President of the Republic and the other one is the ground commander, the Chief of the Manila Police who went subsequently on indefinite leave . In between we don't see the same tendency so it is ...for your Committee on Public Order and other Committees involve to look at in aid of legislation the weaknesses of the law, the weaknesses in the implementing rules and regulation including the relationships and of course the weaknesses of the offices involve or all of the above.

On whether there should be more names on the list recommended by the IIRC for possible filing of cases.

That is not our goal. The hearings of the IIRC have been exhaustive enough but we are looking at the possible gaps that your Committees in aid of legislation can cover. It is not within our mandate to look at the culpability legally of the personalities involved that is outside our jurisdiction our job and our mandate is to look at the law and everything that falls under the law, the implementation and the offices involve. We will not comment on whether the list should be increase or reduce. In fact, as we speak, a review by the no less than the office of the President is on going.

Q: You mentioned the next hearing that you will conduct inviting the Ombudsman, Are you optimistic about that since the Ombudsman was invited by the IIRC and was snobbed by the Ombudsman?

Maybe we will get a more positive response from the Ombudsman since the point in inviting the Ombudsman to this hearing aside in aid of legislation is to look at the grievance mechanism that maybe part of the root causes of this hostage taking incident last Aug 23, they might be more responsive to your committees invitation.

On P02 Gregorio Mendoza was not at all included in the list.

Whether we are surprised that will be limited to personal opinion but that is the judgment call that falls back on the exhaustive investigations and marathon hearing in fact that have been conducted by the IIRC. We will not comment on that.

Any parallel investigation that will serve the same objective will be welcome. The Senate Committees will limit itself to its mandate in aid of legislation not in aid of prosecution just to complete the entire picture. The gaps that the IIRC reports may have left we will try to cover. Any internal investigation that will be conducted by the Ombudsman reportedly will be welcome. On whether there will be another hearing.

Yun pa lang ang plano nang Committee on Public Order. We will have to consult Sen. Chiz Escudero and Sen. Bong Revilla.

Napag isipan na namin. Even with the limited information that we got from reports. By the way I should update you, your Committee communicated officially to the no less than the Sec. of Justice the reply was that the President should approve the release of the IIRC Report to your Committee. We went to Plan B which was manifested on the floor by Sen. Migs Zubiri that the Senate as a chamber officially request of a complete copy of the IIRC report. I understand that is on-going. On what the IIRC report did not cover.

Yung relationship. The IIRC report may not have covered the relationship between the police and local government officials including a backward integrative effort towards the grievance mechanism. Yun ang objective nang one more hearing as far as your Committee on Public Order is concern

On legislating PNP protocol vis-a-vis hostage crisis

What we might end up doing is to give PNP Circular Memorandum 2006-022 define the relationship pero walang provision kung i-violate ang memorandum na yun that's one area that we will be looking at. By the way, this might interest you as we said in our Committee hearing of your Committee on Public Information and media and it is on going now and we are encouraged by the positive result we are allowing media to get together so that they can craft their own code of ethics covering more participation from all media network. I would like to underscore it does never been the intention of your committees to use media as a escape goat.

On whether the media met after the hearing

No, Manong Jun. On the contrary, I understand there was a group that met in Tagaytay. After the the hearing without the benefit of the minutes, among the the major networks that we invited and their representatives, only one network reacted.

On jueteng.

On calling for DILG Usec Puno to attend the next hearing

Senator: Either si Sec. Puno who was involved in other issues. Baka ipatawag namin ulit si Sec. Robredo.We will not comment on that list until we look at the IRRC complete official report.

Well, apparently, from one hearing and including the privilege speech of Senator Santiago, we have two choices - enforce it or legalize it. So, the problem now is getting additional information so that we can make a rational decision on the matter.

Q: Enforced again, I mean who do you charge? Looks like the whistle blowers that the witnesses for the peer because medyo dala na e.

Arbishop Cruz made that very clear na he's not even inclined to encourage the other resource persons to come forward because of the discouraging experience, painful experience and in some cases fatal experience.

Q: Sir, ang public order ba hindi isasama sa investigation on the jueteng?

If it is referred to our committee. In fact, kasama na rin diyan ang games and amusements. Kaya lang I think it was a laudable initiative of Chairman TG Guingona and Chairman Bongbong Marcos that they took the initiative.

Q: Kasi before public order talaga ang ganyang event.

Public order at saka games. Pero we can take it from there. It doesn't really matter as long as the issues are joined and made public. There is enough word for anybody.

On the hostage crisis.

Actually, may mga mas malalalim pa diyan e at hindi lang sa kaso ni Capt. Mendoza. Siguro sya lang iyong narating iyong hangganan niya at nag desisyon siya na gumawa nung ganoong klaseng marahas na hakbang na kinukundena naman natin. Kaya itong susunod na hearing na binabalak natin kapag nakapag desisyon na kaming mga chairman ng committee. Si Senator Chiz and Sen. Bong Revilla ay titingnan, iyong grievance mechanism. Bakit? Alam mo, iyong kapulisan natin, isang reklamo lang sa ombudsman, internal affairs. 'Yung people's law enforcement board, local government, regional offices and provincial offices, isa lang ha. Talagang umiikot na ang mundo�.suspendido, tigil iyong salaries and benefits. So, ang balak natin ay i-consolidate ito para kung may reklamo ka na sa isa, harassment o hindi, unang-una ay mapabilis iyong resolution at mapatanuyan na ito ay may laman, may sustansiya at hindi ito harassment case lang. Pangalawa, this is the other side of the coin so to speak, ito perennial na reklamo. Personally, lumalapit sa akin�tayo kasi ang kasalukuyang chairman ng public order. Yung kapulisan ha, yung legal support system na dapat tutulong sa kanila kapag kinakasuhan sila ay napakahina. Para bang pulis ka kapag kinasuhan ka, bahala ka sa buhay mo. So, kailangan palakasin din iyon para hindi na maulit ito sa ganitong klaseng sitwasyon. So tatanungin natin ang ombudsman na kausap ko the other day, immediately after the hearing, si Dir. Gen. Bacalso. Sabi ko, minsan pupuntahan ko kayo diyan para magkaroon tayo ng more comprehensive briefing doon sa gusto natin hindi lamang doon sa PNP reform law kundi din sa isyung ito kasama na siguro iyong sa jueteng and grievance mechanism.

On what the police should do

Yung batas kasi, huwag sanang detalyado para me latitude tayo doon sa implementing rules and regulations. Huwag masyadong broad para subject to misinterpretation. Iyan ang isang area na pag uukulan natin ng pansin. A sort of prescribing na ito ang gawin ninyo... A,B,C,D dahil kung gawin natin yan, magiging redundant na yung leadership ng kapulisan, yung leadership ng DILG. Ayaw natin na masyadong i micro manage ito and at the same time, ayaw natin ng masyadong motherhood baka mawalan na ng latitude yung batas. But, ang puno't dulo nito, you cannot legislate conscience. These are things that you cannot legislate. Talagang tao pa rin ang pag uusapan dito.

On hierarchy of authority

Kasama na iyon dahil sa nangyaring ito. Isa sa ating unresolved issues na lagi nating inilalantad kapag may pagkakataon, the DILG Secretary is wearing two hats... chairman din siya ng NAPOLCOM. Kaya kapag nagsalita siya, siyempre susunod ang kapulisan, meron din siyang administrative supervision over the local government officials. So, what hat is he wearing for every situation? Unresolved iyon. And, the PNP kahit masyadong prominent yan in this issues, is just one bureau under the Department of Interior and Local Government.

On the speech of Senator Santiago

Ang assessment natin doon ay hindi naman talaga nawawala. Naaalala niyo yong sinabi ni Archbishop Cruz, noong lumantad ang isyung ito, many congresses ago, sabi niya natigil ng 3 weeks tapos lumabas na naman. So, hindi talaga tumitigil. So, yan ang pag-uusapan ng mabuti para once and for all we decide. All out ba? Yung tanong ni Senator Santiago kahapon, na kung hindi natin kayang sugpuin, e di i-legalized na lang natin. Bakit tayo mag-aaksaya ng panahon, resources.. ba't natin ulit ulitin ang isyung ito. I agree, we have to make a decision. Now is the time that we face the issue and on. Nalantad iyan noong hearing di ba? Sabi ni Senate President, you study legalized again. Pero sabi niya din doon sa PCSO, sa pulis.. sa DILG, you submit to us your intelligence report, your studies. Pati BIR iniimbita na, pati anti-money laundering council.

Q: Sir, kapag na legalized, yong mga lumilitaw na nakinabang sa jueteng money, wala na bang liability?

Well, i-aaply natin diyan ang batas, yong retroactive effect. Pero may sinabi din si Archbishop Cruz, yong sagot nya sa katanungang "Archbishop, what do you think of legalizing it?" Sabi niya, kapag I legalized niyo yan ay may bago na naming susulpot na kapalit. Doon nawawala ang revenues, hindi ba? Kapag i legalized mo, assuming effective tayo, na sa kaban ng bayan mapupunta. Kapag ginawa mong illegal or may sumulpot na illegal, hindi sa gobyerno iyon mapupunta. Yon ang area... ang gray area sa batas.

On supporting the move to legalize jueteng

Senator: No, I support the move to make a decision already. I mean for information. Hinihintay pa natin yong intelligence report, yong report ng PAGCOR and PCSO and iyong magiging report ng BIR and anti-money laundering council. Iyon ang problema natin when we deal on decisions like this. Kulang sa impormasyon and then biglang you come up with the names and allegations. We have to be fair to each other.

On conducting another hearing regarding jueteng

I asked the same question because I have conducted and attended many hearings before in the past regarding jueteng. We are hoping and we should be working towards this objective na dapat this time may mangyari. In fact sabi ni Senator Santiago, may existing na mga batas, kailangan lang palakasin at i-refocus.

The problem has never been solved. Walang closure. May committee report, but the fact that jueteng exists means that even in aid of legislation we have not been effective in solving this problem, but I would also agree doon sa sinabi ni Chief PNP Bacalzo na this is a multi-dimensional problem. Example, pag walang alternative livelihood at ipilit nating sugpuin ito, there will be a rise in crimes against person and property, including illegal drugs. We have to deal with that.

On Congress legislating a law penalizing operators of jueteng.

Kung all-out. Tama 'yung sinabi ni Senator Santiago. That is if we consider Plan A, kung all-out. Pag-aralan din natin 'yung Plan B, legalize. So, choices.

On whether the government is conceding the fight against jueteng with its legalization.

'Yun na nga ang sabi ni Senator Santiago, tanggapin na natin. Ilang taon na, marami nang administrasyon, marami nang Presidente, hanggang ngayon nandiyan pa 'yung jueteng. Baka kailangang tanggapin na natin na ang solusyon lamang diyan ay i-legalize. So, hindi ko sinasabing all-out war, or i-legalize. Panahon na para magdesisyon tayo at 'yung desisyon na 'yan, manggagaling sa impormasyon na manggagaling sa inyo sa media, sa police, sa DILG, sa BIR, kay Archbishop Cruz, sa anti-money laundering council, sa PCSO, sa Pagcor. 'Yan ang mga involved so far.

On creating a law that will kill illegal gambling.

'Yun ang magiging dulo nito. 'Yun ang objective dito. Makagawa ng batas, palakasin 'yung batas. Pero 'yung batas na 'yan, ay tutugon pa rin sa desisyon na binanggit natin kanina. Either palakasin natin 'yung batas para all-out na tayo na sugpuin 'yan for the last time, or palakasin 'yung batas, para i-legalize 'yan. 'Yun ang magiging desisyon natin.

Actually we have to dig deep into our archives so that we can consider the whole body, the entire body of hearings, propose legislation, resolutions, including intelligence reports on information that will allow us once and for all to make an informed decision and choice. Until we are able to consolidate, magiging piecemeal na naman ito at pag nawala na naman ang isyung ito, makakalimutan at maghe-hearing na naman tayo sa 16th Congress.

Q: Sir, 'yung legalization parang nakaka-frustrate if you go towards that all-out instead of information? Kasi 'yung mga nilagay sa listahan, both by Archbishop Cruz and Senator Santiago, what, they go scot-free?

That is entirely procedural. 'Yung tinanong kanina, ito ba ay may retroactive effect? 'Yung mga na-pinpoint na ebidensiya, hindi ito allegations lang na talagang involved, will the law impact on them retroactively? That is a legal, technical and procedural issue. Walang pinag-uusapa diyan.

On how to enforce the law against jueteng when it seems impossible to do so.

Hindi lang 'yan. Iba 'yung issue na kaya mo bang sundin 'yung money trail? Paano mo susundan kung cash ang transaction, at hindi dumadaan sa banking system? How do you trace that? Kung nakatago sa baul o sa ilalim ng kama o sa sako 'yung pera, paano mo susundan? That's why you want this, to get this straight from the BIR, from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, and corroborate this with what should be accurate intelligence reports from the PNP, the DILG, and add that to the initial information that was given by Archbishop Cruz.

On how to trace the money used in jueteng if it did not pass AMLA

Tama 'yan, that is part of the complexity of problems kaya I agree that we should reduce it to its simplest terms and make a decision dahil sa ang problema talaga, ang hirap i-trace. Ang hirap i-pinpoint. Wala kang ebidensiya, wala kang icha-charge. Involved ang police allegedly. Involved ang government official, media. Now, we have another dimension, some nationally elected officials. How do you fight a problem like that? Legalize. It might partially solve the problem but it is better than what we have now. We're up against a blank wall.

On whether legalization of jueteng means integration with the STL.

No, it does involve STL. All forms of gambling. Technically, ang hinahanap natin 'yung revenues na dapat mapunta sa gobyerno. Pag sinabi nating gambling, illegal lahat 'yan, 'yung karera ng Bangka, pag pumusta kayo diyan, illegal 'yan. Hindi pupunta sa gobyerno 'yung kinita mo diyan.

Pero at the same time ginagamit na cover 'yun. Kunyari STL, pero under the surface, illegal pala, jueteng pala. Ang hinahanap talaga natin dito, kung saan napupunta 'yung dapat mapunta sa gobyerno para magamit? Nakit ninyo 'yung figures na sinabi ni Senator Santiago kahapon. Kaya illegal, dahil hindi napupunta sa gobyerno. Napupunta sa kung sino-sinong bulsa, kung kani-kaninong bulsa.

Q: Siguro sir, misnomer 'yung illegalize 'yung jueteng? That is not the only form of illegal gambling. They now have such things as loteng, last two.

Hindi lang 'yan. The moral issues, sabi nga ni Senator Santiago, she will not debate on that. 'Yung kaunting kinikita ng magsasaka o tricycle driver, pag tinaya sa jueteng at natalo, magugutom 'yung pamilya. Ngayon, may other dimension, dinadaya daw ito. May dayaan, how do we deal with that?

On Senator Lacson

Separate issue 'yan. The Ethics Committee has to decide on this, deliberate on this, at 'yung procedural na legal, it is entirely up to the courts. Sooner or later, if you ask me, I would advice my classmate Senator Lacson to subject himself to due process. That is the only way to go.

News Latest News Feed