January 4, 2012
Transcript of interview with Sen. Francis Guevara Escudero (FGE)
P. Webb: Joining us on "Hot Copy" is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights and now a senator-judge in Chief Justice Corona's forthcoming impeachment trial , Senator Chiz Escudero. Sen. Chiz, good morning.
FGE: Pinky, magandang umaga, sa ating mga televiewers magandang umaga din. Juror daw, hindi judge.
P. Webb: Ooo nga ano ba talaga, juror ba o judge sabi ni Atty. Allan Paguia.
FGE: Kasi wala namang tayong jury dito sa Pilipinas at hindi tulad ng ordinaryong 'juror' sa ibang bansa, hindi puwedeng magtanong ang "jury" sa testigo at sa abogado, dito puwede. Mas dikit sa tradisyon ang titulo at pangalan 'yung judge kaysa juror.
P. Webb: Parang isa ata yan sa maliit na po-problemahin ng mga senador pero pati 'yun kailangang patulan. Senator let's start with the process again just to give us again the basics here. December 12 let's go back, the House passed, well 188 Congressmen signed the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
FGE: Signed, yes.
P. Webb: Okay, signed, correct me if I'm,
FGE: May away pa sila sa "verified" o "signed," signed lang muna.
P. Webb: Mamaya 'yun ang pupuntahan natin, they signed it, eventually at one or two days after, I guess the next day it was passed on to the Senate. 'Yun sinasabi bakit daw tinanggap, it's purely ministerial on the part of the Senate to accept this "verified" complaint.
FGE: "Signed" complaint.
P. Webb: "Signed" complaint, oo.
FGE: It's ministerial on the part not of Sen. Enrile but of the Senate Secretariat to receive everything, now whether or not it is defective will be decided upon by the Senate as an Impeachment Court. Walang kapangyarihan ang Secretary General ng Senate na magtanggap o hindi magtanggap depende sa pagkakatingin niya doon sa complaint. She's not so-empowered.
P. Webb: So in other words walang right 'yung Senate Secretary to say "Hindi ko puwedeng tanggapin 'yan," tatanggapin niya 'yan tapos,
FGE: O "Ayaw kong tanggapin 'yan," hindi rin puwede.
P. Webb: Hindi 'yan "verified" ha.
FGE: It's ministerial act on the part of the Secretary. She has no discretion as to whether or not she would receive or reject or return in effect.
P. Webb: You already took your oaths?
FGE: Yes Pinky, last year.
P. Webb: Last year before your Christmas break, you took your oaths and now you would be sitting as an impeachment court as Senator judges and the process which we talked about a number of times Senator, para mabalikan lang,
FGE: Nang hindi na naka-robe Pinky ha,
P. Webb: Ah?
FGE: Hindi na kami naka-robe, ang init nun.
P. Webb: Ah ganun ba?
FGE: At saka mahirap dumukot ng cellphone 'pag,
P. Webb: Hindi ka dapat nagce-cellphone.
FGE: Hindi, once lang. Ceremonial lamang 'yun.
P. Webb: I see, photo-op ha.
FGE: Yes, we agreed, we agreed.
P. Webb: So anong suot nito?
FGE: Wala, ordinaryong suot sa Senado, halimbawa mag-aamerikana 'yung mahilig mag-amerikana o barong.
P. Webb: Pero 'di ba 'yung time ni dating Pang. Estrada naka-robe ang mga senador nun?
FGE: Ang naaalala mo lang siguro Pinky eh si Chief Justice Davide dahil siya ang nagpe-preside nun. Pero sa senator-judges I don't think they were wearing robes. In fact naalala ko pa 'yung suot nung ilan doon, 'yung mga umiyak noon, 'yung mga nagsayaw noon, di naman sila naka-robe.
P. Webb: Ah, oo nga ano. Well of course, everybody knows who you are talking about. Senator Loren Legarda and Senator Tessi Aquino-Oreta, okay, so 'yung process Sir tapos na ba 'yung proseso?
FGE: Anong ibig sabihin ng proseso? Ah 'yung nag-file ng complaint, nasa Senado na.
P. Webb: Tinanggap na ng Senado, impeachment court na kayo, pinasagot na si Chief Justice Renato Corona. After 10 days sumagot po si Chief Justice at sumagot uli ang prosecution team kahapon.
FGE: Nag-send ng reply.
P. Webb: Sorry, it's Monday at 2:49 P.M.
FGE: So it's Complaint-Answer by the Respondent- Reply by the Complainants. The respondent has a choice as to whether or not to submit a rejoinder, it's totally up to him. Kung sa tingin niya kailangan pa, puwede pa rin niyang gawin 'yun. Kung sa tingin ng prosecution kailangan pa ulit, puwede silang magsampa ng tinatawag nating "ex-abundante cautella," it's a legal term na gusto nilang mag-submit kahit hindi sila required mag-submit, may gusto lang silang sabihin pa sa impeachment court, puwede nilang gawin 'yun.
P. Webb: If that happens, Senator will that delay the January 16?
P. Webb: Not at all.
FGE: No. At this point in time, after the answer was filed by Chief Justice Corona, the issues have been joined, so to speak, so meaning 'yung binatong issue, sinagot na so proceed na 'yan to trial or sa pre-trial as the case may be.
P. Webb: We're talking before, binigyan niyo si Chief Justice na sagutin 'yung allegations, 'yung eight (8) Articles of Impeachment. In 10 days sinagot po niya 'yun tapos ang alam ko binigyan ang prosecution ng five (5) days tapos sumagot ang prosecution Monday, 2:49 P.M sinagot nila 'yun. Tapos na 'yun, tapos na 'yung proseso by then,
FGE: Tapos na 'yun.
P. Webb: Pero puwede pa rin silang magsagutan kung gusto nila?
FGE: Puwede pa rin silang mag-file uli sa impeachment court kung gusto nila pero ginawa namin 'yung Pinky para habang recess tumatakbo na 'yung proseso.
P. Webb: That's right. All right. Let's talk about much of what's been in the papers and being discussed in the radio. Verification process, Sir please help us, I know we can't discuss the merits of the case. Let's talk about the verification process over and above what is happening right now. We have to put this in that the defense lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona are saying this could have been flawed, mali 'yung verification process. How's the verification process supposed to be correct and above board?
FGE: Iba-ibang kasi ang pamamaraan sa pagsumpa sa dokumento, Pinky. Puwedeng 'yung simple lang na pag-notario, 'yung "subscribe and sworn to before me" a notary public, na nagpakita ng kanyang resident certificate number, 'yun ang pinakasimple na paraan ng pagsumpa sa dokumento. 'Yung verification mas mahaba-haba ng konte at mas maraming sinasabi 'yun. Nakasaad at nakalagay hindi lamang sa rules of court, pati sa notarial law natin na may personal knowledge siya tungkol doon sa dokumento o may pinakita sa kanyang mga dokumento na nabasa at binasa niya na pinaniniwalaan niyang totoo. 'Yun yung pagkakaiba nun,
P. Webb: Ulitin natin Sir.
FGE: So ang ordinaryong pag-under oath ng isang dokumento "Subscribe and sworn before me" lang 'yun. 'Yung verification nakalagay doon na may personal knowledge ka dapat o binasa mo yung mga dokumentong inilahad sa iyo at pinaniniwalaan mong totoo 'yung mga dokumentong 'yun kung kaya't pumirma ka at nilagay mo ang pirma mo doon. Ang tanong ngayon at nadesisyunan na ng korte at ng impeachment court 'formal defect ba 'yun o substantial defect'? Will it fatally affect the petition as if there was no petition? Or is it a formal defect that can be corrected? Meaning, "O palitan niyo nga," kasi ginagawa din 'yun minsan sa court proceedings. 'Pag may kulang na pirma, pinapapirmahan naman 'yun.
P. Webb: An if that happens ibabalik lang po 'yun doon sa original source which is the House of Representatives.
FGE: If it is considered as a formal defect, yes.
P. Webb: Right. But if it is fatal is that tantamount to the dismissal of a case?
FGE: It will be tantamount to a dismissal and it will have several consequences Pinky. Tanda mo sa Constitution natin, one impeachment complaint per year na. Ang panibagong tanong diyan, counted na ba 'to as one? Dahil lumampas na sa House, maghihintay ba ng one year bago mag-file uli ang House? Mas mahabang kuwento at mas mahabang diskusyon 'yun.
P. Webb: But I wanna go there Sir, bago natin balikan 'yung issue na 'yun. One impeachment proceeding every year?
P. Webb: Pero once naman dumating, kahit sino pa, whoever is this we talking about, pag dumating na sa Senado hindi ba nagumpisa na 'yung "impeachment proceeding?" In your opinion?
FGE: Nag-umpisa na sa House pa lang Pinky.
P. Webb: Tsaka impeached na siya sa House.
FGE: Yes, if we will use as the basis the Davide ruling if you remember, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema doon, hindi na umabot sa Senado 'yun eh. Dalawang impeachment proceedings ang tinake-up ng House noon bagaman hindi pa nakakarating sa Senado. Baka ito maliwanag na impeachment proceeding na ito. Ang argumento lang siguro ng ibang abogado Pinky, alam mo kung gaano karami ang isyu ganoon karami ang mga abogado, kung fatally defective ito, as if walang impeachment complaint.
P. Webb: So parang hindi siya nabuo, hindi nag-umpisa kasi mali na siya from the onset.
FGE: Oo, so wala, so not counted. They can argue that way.
P. Webb: Naku tama.
FGE: Yun ang maganda sa probisyon ng abogado. Kapag mayroong issue, puwede mong i-argue magkabilaang panig.
P. Webb: So itong "fatal" at "formal" mistake, is it okay for me to ask you, would this be a consensus among the senator-judges?
FGE: It will be voted upon, not by a consensus. Hindi na puwede Pinky sa impeachment court na consensus-consensus, 'yung magkikindatan na lamang at magtatanguan. O magme-meeting kami in an executive session tapos pag labas, areglado na. There are only two ways of deciding an issue or a motion asked by any party. One is the Senate President as the presiding officer can rule on it, on his own. Now, a senator-judge can seek a reconsideration or appeal from the ruling of the chair in which case, pagbobotohan. Ang second option ng Senate President ay kung ayaw niyang mag-rule, ibabato niya agad sa plenary. Sasabihin niya "Let's put it to a vote." Although initially he can say for example, "I move that it present back to the House," for example the lawyer for the defense would say that. Senate Pres. Enrile can rule on that.
P. Webb: And say "I affirm, I agree."
FGE: Or "Denied." For example, "The motion is denied." A senator-judge can say "I appeal the ruling of the Chair and I ask for a vote." So we'll put it in a vote.
P. Webb: And you need a simple majority to overturn what the presiding justice would rule on.
P. Webb: For example 'pag sinabi ni Sen. Enrile na "Denied" at sinabi ni Chiz Escudero na "Let's come down to a vote" at nanalo ka, that stays, wala nang Motion for Reconsideration.
FGE: But you don't necessarily disagree with the Chair when you ask for a vote. Sometimes you can just ask for a vote para lang, alam mo 'yun.
P. Webb: Yeah, but Senator, really when you ask for a vote that's really as if you do not agree with the presiding justice's statement.
FGE: Not necessarily. The way we view it ,Pinky, you might want to ask for a vote so that the ruling is more firm especially on a crucial issue. Remember in the Senate or in the House, parliamentary procedure will dictate the Senate President and/or the Speaker cannot lose in a vote. They should always win all of the votations on the floor because theoretically they enjoy the support of the majority. Once they lose a vote on the floor, in other parliaments in the world by traditional practice, the Speaker should resign. So it's not necessarily an attack against the Senate President.
P. Webb: You know but I really wonder Sir, if you really try to do the numbers among you senator-judges, I know it's premature but we can help but to speculate who's going to convict, who's going to acquit, it's still an uphill battle for acquittal or a conviction, in other words it's not sure, hindi pa certain because it's not on the table yet.
FGE: It can go either way, Pinky, the way I see it and to a large extent, on the amount and kind of evidence that both sides will present. It can make or break them and that's what makes the process fair. And what makes it more fair is the fact that although we will be the ones to vote, lahat ng nanonood sa TV can be a citizen-judge. He can decide for himself or herself, "Kapani-paniwala 'tong testigong 'to. Ito medyo nagsisinungaling 'to. Tingnan mo medyo kabado oh." They can very well decide for themselves and make their own judgment with respect to the decision.
P. Webb: But let us go to another issue. There are people, senator, who are up for the re-elections, someone like you for re-election in 2013, you wouldn't wanna lose the vote of the people. I mean. somehow, you would always say, Sir, that it depends on the evidence that will be presented by the prosecution or the defense, but there is more sensitivity, maybe I should call it that, on senator-judges who are up for re-elections.
FGE: Fair question, Pinky. I'm not offended, really. It's a fair question. To begin with, the impeachment is a political process because it's... elected representatives of the people get to decide on the issue, not judges. So in that sense, political process s'ya. But I disagree with some of the statements of my colleagues that it is purely based on the opinion of the public. No way. Kung ganun din lang, edi kung magi-impeach yung House, mag-referendum na lang tayo. Mag-survey na lang tayo. Kung ano yung sabi ng survey, tapos na. At least hindi pa naantala yung trabaho namin sa Senado. Why do we have to go through the formal proceedings of the trial if it's simply based on public opinion? Now, with respect to your question, I'm not dodging it. Marami naman kaming, marami sa Senado at sa Kongreso, ang gumawa ng mga bagay-bagay kaugnay ng impeachment na hindi naman talaga ganun ka-popular nung mga panahon na yun. Halimbawa, nung nag-hain kami ng impeachment complaint, isa ako sa mga signatories, laban kay dating Chief Justice Davide, public opinion was against us at that time, but we stood our ground and wanted the JDF fund, the same issue being used against Chief Justice Corona, to be released to the public and to Congress.
P. Webb: Did you also wanted it to be handled by the national treasury, the JDF?
FGE: It should be, Pinky. That was the policy at that time. Secondly, I don't know the issues involving the JDF are now because they were not specifically alleged in the complaint. Second, during the impeachment of the former President Estrada, public opinion was half but majority of those in media, uhm...
P. Webb: But Sir ha, let's go back. Those who supported, if I remember correctly, former President Joseph Estrada lost the senatorial race years after.
FGE: Sen. Estrada? No.
P. Webb: No, the senators who supported former President Estrada lost.
FGE: Whether they win or lose, Pinky, the point is they stood their ground regardless of what public opinion said. Bear in mind also that although these senators lost, Sen. Estrada won in that same election so it's difficult to say. I think at the end of the day, the people will judge the senator-judges based on how they explained their votes and carry themselves, not necessarily how they vote.
P. Webb: Anyway, how many is that? You're all 23.
FGE: We're all 23 and there are 6 re-electionists, Pinky.
P. Webb: Okay, there's still a lot to talk about. We have the deed of sale. This condominium bought supposedly by the Chief Justice. We can't again, talk about the merits of the case but we'll try to see what you think about the prosecution laying out their arguments in public. We'll talk about that.
P. Webb: Sir, the side of Chief Justice Renato Corona is asking for a preliminary hearing.
FGE: That's within the discretion of the Senate to grant or to deny because that's found within the Rules of Court. Ang rules na iaaply namin dito ay 'yong rules ng Senate, maikli lang 'yon, mga 5 pages lang 'yon hindi pa back to back. Pangalawa would be the rules of court including the rules of evidence and the tradition, practice and precedents with respect to other parliamnents of the world on the impeachment process. So kasama sa rules of court 'yong pagakakaroon ng preliminary hearing. Pwede hilingin 'yon ng magkabilang panig. But it is within the discretion of the Senate whether or not it will be granted. So walang mali na hiniling 'yon ni Chief Justice Corona, pero nasa kamay ng bawat senador ang pagdesisyon kung iga-grant 'yon o hindi.
P. Webb: So, what happens on January 16? Do you have to agree whether start with the preliminary hearing or not?
FGE: Whether it's the preliminary hearing Pinky or the trial proper of the main case, to my mind, the effect would be the same. Because whatever is presented in the preliminary hearing...
P. Webb: Can be used in the trial proper?
FGE: Can be used in the trial proper.
P. Webb: That's what Serafin Cuevas was saying.
FGE: Ang pagkakaiba lang Pinky, 'pag nag preliminary hearing at nag request si Chief Justice Corona ng preliminary hearing, sila ang mag pepresinta ng ebidensya kaugnay sa gusto nilang malaman. Mare-reverse 'yon ng konti hindi tulad ng ordinary trial sa main case na magpepresinta ng ebidensya ang prosecution tapos susunod ang defense.
P. Webb: So baliktad kapag mag-uumpisa ang preliminary hearing?
FGE: Kung sa pamamagitan ng preliminary hearing na sila ang may gustong patunayan ngayon. It is a basic principle in law that says he who alleges must prove the same. Kapag may ina-allege sila Atty. Cuevas sa ngalan at sa side ni Chief Justice Corona, they must prove it.
P. Webb: But again, balikan ko, just to settle the issue that you will come to a vote on the first day whether to start the preliminary hearing or the trial proper?
FGE: Perhaps yes. Either put it to a vote before the body or the senate president can simply decide on it.
P. Webb: Another thing sir, maliban doon sa preliminary hearing, there are motions filed before the Supreme Court to stop this impeachment proceeding. They will tackle it the same day sir that you'll be starting the impeachment trial of the chief justice on January 16. If and when the Supreme Court issues a TRO, what are the senator-judges likely to do?
FGE: I don't want to pre-empt whatever decision the Senate will have on that matter, and I hope it doesn't come to that Pinky. Nakakalungkot na wala pa kasing impeachment trial na natapos sa bansang ito. So wala tayong pwedeng pag-usapan na precedent or earlier ruling na pwede nating panghawakan o tayuan sa anumang isyung kinakaharap ng trial ngayon except for the unfinished impeachment trial of former President Estrada. On the petitions filed before the Supreme Court, this was done before, actually this is not the first time. If you remember during the impeachment of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the Supreme Court actully issued a TRO on the House from proceeding against then Chief Justice Davide. Kaya lang 'yong araw na inissue nila 'yon, 'yon din ang araw na nagbotohan kami sa plenary and it was dismissed. The plenary voted to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide. Hence, rendering moot and academic the TRO issued by the Supreme Court. We didn't get there.
P. Webb: Oo. That was not threshed out.
FGE: Now there's a chance that it might get there if a TRO is indeed issued by the court. But hopefully, it won't reach that point.
P. Webb: Let's go to the question from Twitter and Facebook. If the Supreme Court issues a TRO on the impeachment trial, will the Senate stop? Well that's the one.
FGE: The Senate will have to vote on it. But it will be a little awkward Pinky because can you imagine a situation, the highest court of the land, for example, this is all hypothetical, issuing a restraning order and a gov't institution, agency or branch vote whether or not to follow it, it might not look good from the outside looking in.
P. Webb: But you know sir, there's something very different from what you said, an institution voting for or against it, right? If the Supreme Court does something like that? But didn't the Supreme Court do something like that in the past with regard to the ban on the travel of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and this did not come down to a vote by an agency. Justice Sec. Leila de Lima decides, wait a minute I am asking airport officials to stop the former president from leaving the airport.
FGE: But remember, Sec. de Lima was a party in interest in that case. She was the one prosecuting, the Senate is an institution, is a third party by standard, hindi naman talaga kami ang dinidemanda dito eh. Mag mo-motion for reconsideration ba kami, teka 'wag nyo kaming pigilan.
P. Webb: Hindi kayo. Well, papaano nga naman 'yon if the prosecution does it.
FGE: But in the meantime what do we do? We are a third party by standard, Sec. de Lima was the party in interest. She was the one deciding will follow or not?
P. Webb: Eto kayo, kayo ang senator-judges, saan kayo pupunta? Ano'ng gagawin ninyo?
FGE: We have to decide on it Pinky, we will put it to a vote. But the very thought of putting to a vote as an institution, whether or not to follow a court decision or order right or wrong ha.
P. Webb: I'll tell you something, that will set a precedent.
FGE: I know it will.
P. Webb: Onin Palanca asks, Rep. Miro Quimbo has said if the SC issues a TRO then definitely a constitutional crisis sets it. Your thoughts?
FGE: Definitely Pinky because you have two institutions at loggerheads not following the order of each other and the other defying the orders issued. At the end of the day Pinky, lawyers understand this, to be a fact, because lawyers have had cases before the courts have experienced winning or losing a case. Sometimes it's not about right or wrong, it's about putting an end to litigation. Tuldukan mo na para tama na. Tama man o mali, tama na hanggang dito nalang. Hindi pwedeng endless 'yong litigation na, natalo ka ngayon, magsampa ulit ako ng kaso tingnan natin ulit. Hindi 'yan parang eleksyon na kapag natalo ka pwede kang tumakbo hanggang gusto mong tumakbo, diba? May term limits ang nananalo. Walang term limits ang natatalo. Sa kaso at sa korte, ibang usapan 'yon, tama man o mali, panalo ka man o talo, litigation must come to an end at some point, it cannot go on forever. I wanted to say something, just a reminder to our counterparts in the House. Senator-judges are prohibited from talking about the merits of the case, that's clear in our rules. But there's a second part to that rule, the respondent, the complainants, and their witnesses are also prohibited, not really prohibited, the word used is they should refrain from talking about the merits of the case. This will be discussed I am sure on January 16. But Pinky, there's a reason behind it. This is not sub-judice. Let me clarify it, when a case is pending before tha court, it's considered sub-judice, meaning you cannot talk about it, you cannot write about it, you cannot discuss it, ito you can discuss it but the restraint is on the parties involved in the case.
P. Webb: Right. That means senator-judges, prosecution, defense?
FGE: Prosecution, defense and their witnesses. Kasam 'yong witnesses. There's rhyme and reason in it Pinky. Alam mo 'yong nakita natin noong mga nagdaang linggo na nagtatawagan ng sinungaling 'yong magkabilang panig and you're talking about the highest official of our land. Hopefully, if they want to say anything, let them say it before the impeachment court and hopefully they will realize that they are bound by the rules on decorum that they cannot use gutter language so to speak when they are appearing before the Senate impeachment court.
P. Webb: Legal queries asks, will senator-judges who are not knowledgeable in the proceedings be assisted by their legal staff? Is this allowed?
FGE: They are being assisted; even lawyers are being assisted by our legal staff. But only senator-judges can speak and vote at the trial.
P. Webb: And in many intances a lot of senators really have good legal team behind them diba?
FGE: And it's not required that you will be a lawyer to be able to sit as a senator-judge.
P. Webb: Okay, very quickly. We have to go but it's just really interesting sir that you mentioned that number one you shouldn't be telegraphing your punches. You have the prosecution saying that CJ justice has this condominium, it's not included in the SALN. Just very quickly ito nalang 'yong huli. Sabi ng prosecution, we are unsure if it's included in his SALN, but apparently, at least in the paper sir, CJ Corona had answered in the 8 Article of Impeachment against him. At least that's what I read sir. He said that he did buy a property in Fort Bonifacio worth millions of pesos. It was bought in 2009 at P14-M now the price they say is P30-M.
FGE: Are you asking me what the issue is?
P. Webb: Yes sir, I mean frankly I don't get it. Why bring it up if you're unsure if it's in or not included in your SALN. And you have the chief justice saying, I included it in my SALN. Siguro doon lang 'yong tanong sir, dapat ba talagang ilabas ni chief justice 'yong kanyang SALN?
FGE: It's a fair query Pinky but I think I'll leave it to Congressman Tupas to answer. But, dapat ba niyang ilabas o hindi? I know for a fact and it's also in the answer of Chief Justice Corona if I am not mistaken, that this is a ruling of the court. Not a ruling but a circular issued by the court during the time of Justice Teehankee or Narvasa na nagsabing bawal yan ilabas, handed down and carried over from generation to generation.
P. Webb: Just because that was the practice then doesn't make it right, right?
FGE: It doesn't make it right but what the prosecution would have to prove is why lay the blame on the either presiding justice, the chief justice or the entire court.
P. Webb: Well because there is an impeachment complaint against him now.
FGE: But there's also a basic rule among lawyers who are practicing, never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to it. Mahirap magtanong na hindi mo alam ang isasagot ng testigo mo. I think that's the basic rule that most litigators follow. Mahirap magbato ng alegasyon na ni hindi mo pa alam kung paano sasagutin at ano ang isasagot.
P. Webb: Thank you very for coming over. I know you will be very busy in the coming days. Your session starts at 9am?
FGE: Our session will be from 9am- 12nn from Monday to Wednesday. Ang impeachment trial trial will be 2pm hanggang sawa, Monday to Thursday. Ang hearing namin limitado nalang ng Thursday morning dahil Friday wala kaming pasok dahil 4-day work.
P. Webb: All right senator. Thank you!
Monday, May 25