POST CJ IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DAY 4
Transcript of interview of Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter S. Cayetano
(On Impartiality of Senator Judges during their manifestations)

(Reporter: Sa issue na hindi daw malinaw kung damay ang alegasyon ng ill-gotten wealth ni Corona at hindi niya pag-file ng SALN.)

Again, we cannot comment on the merits of the case. Also, everyone has to understand that this impeachment is no ordinary judicial proceeding. This is no ordinary criminal, civil, or administrative case.

Kaya hindi ito isang sistema na kung saan ang prosecution at defense lang ang magp-prove o disprove ng kaso. Obligasyon ng bawat senator-judge na linawin kung ano ang katotohanan at linawin ang issue.

May dalawang rason kung bakit parang lumalabas na may kinikilingan kami o parang may bias. One is because we adopted such a strict interpretation of criminal rules on procedure especially on evidence. Pangalawa, dahil iba sa nature ng impeachment court.

Ang dapat manalo dito ay ang mamamayan. Ang katotohanan ang dapat lumabas. Kaya sana, ang mga mamamayan, 'wag titingnan na ang boto o desisyon ng isang senator-judge ay makikita sa kaniyang tanong o kaniyang manifestation. Dahil kani-kaniyang istilo 'yan. May nagtatanong na parang may kinakampihan, pero iba naman ang iniisip.

Nakita ko 'yan nang maraming beses sa Supreme Court kung saan akala mo kapag nagtatanong, may kinakampihan na. Pero pagdating ng desisyon, iba sa inaasahan. Malalaman mo na ganoon lang magtanong ang judge para lumabas ang tunay na sagot.

In any kind of attempt to remove a public official, it is the prosecution's obligation to prove why this public official should be removed. Kaya normal sa aming senator-judges na magtanong on the articles of impeachment. What do they mean and what is the intended message? What do they intend to prove?

Ang tanong namin ni Sen. Escudero kanina ay nakatuon doon. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng article 2? Ano ang basehan at ano ang aasahan namin.

(Reporter: Where do you draw the line?)

It's very very hard to draw the line because whether or not the senator-judge is biased or impartial is based on his motivation and intention. Kasi kung ang intention niya ay kampihan ang isang panig, pagiging partial na 'yon. Mali 'yon.

Kung ang kaniyang intention ay humingi lang ng paglilinaw sa issue or fact at lumabas ang katotohanan, at incidentally, may natulungan na side, normal sa impeachment case 'yan.

(Reporter: Hindi ba nasa rules na hindi dapat makita ang kulay mo bilang senator-judge?)

Hindi 'yon ang clause of neutrality. Iba ang perception sa reality. Halimbawa sa kaso ko, sa unang dalawang araw, may nagtatanong kung kumakampi ako sa prosecution kasi ang tingin nila sa tanong ko kampi sa prosecution. Pero noong mabigat ang tanong ko sa prosecution kanina, may nagtatanong kung kakampi ko na ang defense.

What I'm saying is that a single question or lines of questioning will not determine one's neutrality. What will determine whether you're neutral or not is whether you've decided on one's guilt.

Pero kahit sunod-sunod ang tanong mo na parang kumakampi sa isang panig, kung ang gusto mo lang ay malinawan, walang mali doon. Nakakadagdag din diyan ang pagsagot sa mga tanong. Kahit matindi ang tanong mo, kahit pabor na pabor ang manifestation mo, kung masagot naman ng kabilang side, pabor pa sa kanila 'yon.

(Reporter: Mahirap malaman at this time ang inclinations, at hindi naman aaamin ang senator-judges...)

Precisely. Napakaaga pa din for that. As senator-judges we find ourselves in a situation na sala sa init sala sa lamig. Kapag hindi nagsalita, sinasabi na hindi nagpa-participate. Kapag nagtanong sa prosecution, kampi sa kanila. Kapag nagtanong sa defense, kampi ka sa kanila. Let's just remember that there's a difference between ordinary cases in the courts of justice and in this case.

In this case, it's not enough that we let the prosecution or defense do their job. Kailangan lumabas kung ano ang totoo. Ngayon, kung tumutulong ka na lumabas ang hindi totoo, that's when you are being partial. You're already losing your neutrality.

But as long as the intention in your line of questioning is to elicit the truth, and that it is only incidental that you're helping a side, there's nothing wrong there.

(Reporter: So you don't see anything wrong with how the senator-judges are asking questions?)

I'm not making a judgement. I'm assuming that everyone is impartial at this time. What I'm saying is that vigilance is much needed, but there should be a limit to it. Bantayan pa rin ang bawat isa sa amin pero 'wag muna husgahan araw-araw.

In other words, right now, I am assuming that everyone is politically neutral and that everyone is impartial. And they're just asking those questions in their own style. Let's see as we go on what the statements will be and how things will go.

(Reporter: Paano natin malalaman which court is above which?)

Sa dating interpretasyon kasi ng bagong Konstitusyon, may sinasabing political question na basta co-equal branch ang magdadala ng kaso, at ang kaso ay tungkol sa co-equal branch, hindi dapat tingnan ang Supreme Court dahil sa political question doctrine.

Pero mayroon din doctrine ng grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Ibig sabihin, kapag nakita ng Supreme Court na may mali and that amounts to no jurisdiction o excess of jurisdiction ng impeachment court, pwede din silang mag-decide.

But that can also spark a constitutional crisis. Kasi ang tanong doon, which questions can be considered a political question, and which ones are questions that fall under the excess or lack of jurisdiction because of grave abuse of discretion. That's a very thin line.

Kaya kaming lahat, umaasa na hindi na dumating doon. Kaya nakakatulong nang husto ang live coverage dahil ang mamamayan mismo ang humuhusga din at nagiging vigilante at nagbabantay sa lahat ng ebidensya na lumalabas. That is a possibility. Anyone can go to the SC.

A few days ago we faced that. That if the Supreme Court issued a TRO, then the impeachment court will have to review the decision and decide which to follow: whether they think that the Supreme Court encroached on the authority of the impeachment court or whether they think that there was indeed a grave abuse of discretion.

This happened in the case of Chief Justice Davide where they ruled that there was grave abuse of discretion by the House of Representatives. Kaya ang ginawa ng House of Representatives, sinunod ang Supreme Court. Hindi nagkaroon ng constitutional crisis.

A constitutional crisis is always possible kapag nagkaroon ng bangaan. At this point in time, hindi namin pwedeng isipin 'yon. Ang kailangan naming isipin paano lalabas ang katotohanan at paano magiging impartial.

Kailangan naming isipin kung paano itong matatapos, na ang Senado ay mananatiling institusyon na walang pinapanigan. As I said before, the Senate is also on trial here. The problem is if we keep quiet and don't ask questions, it will be as bad or even worse than asking questions and be accused of taking sides.