Press Release
February 23, 2012

SENATE MINORITY LEADER ALAN PETER CAYETANO
Manifestation during Day 22 of the Impeachment Trial of the Chief Justice
Re: Article VII of Impeachment Complaint

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

During this manifestation, ASC clarified the following points:

1) On the decision of the Supreme Court issuing a TRO on the Hold departure Order for GMA

  • Was the TRO issued by the SC considered as an erroneous decision or a decision that we just don't agree with? What defines that thin line between the two?

  • What makes an erroneous decision basis for impeachment?

  • "What makes it different from a case that has an erroneous decision but is not impeachable, and to a case where in it has reached a point where the only option of our people to deal with the actions of certain justices, or maybe a division, or one of them, is to go into an impeachment process?"

2) On the evidence to be presented for Article VII

  • What evidence will be presented aside from the testimony of Sec. Leila De Lima

  • How will the prosecution prove that the SC decision allegedly influenced by a partial Chief Justice was aimed to give GMA 'a chance to escape' as stated in the Articles of Impeachment?

3) On the effectivity of the TRO

  • "Are you saying that there was a conspiracy here and that the leader of the conspiracy is the Chief Justice because he was the one who influenced the others? Are we also going to hold the others accountable? Dahil ang nag-issue po ng TRO ay ang majority ng SC."

  • "I'm trying to find out what makes it a betrayal of public trust."

ACTUAL MANIFESTATION

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano (ASC): Together with many of our other colleagues here--Sen. Lacson, Sen. Guingona, Sen. Escudero, and some of my former colleagues who are sitting behind you (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) and somewhere in government now, we really took a stand to hold former president Arroyo accountable for her actions during her term, and until now.

I don't think issue sa amin 'yon. You have some people like Cong. Colmenares who is one of them who drafted the impeachment complaint, and helped us during that time. I think hindi issue na many Filipinos want her held accountable and does not want her to escape.

But I'd like you to help me draw the line, o katulad ng tanong po ni Sen. Pimentel dati sa inyo, ano ang legal theory. Pwede po ba ninyong ipaliwanag sa amin sa Korte, and for my own clarification, ano po ang difference ng isang erroneous na desisyon lang ng Supreme Court doon sa hindi lang tayo nag-a-agree.

Kasi kung tama ang desisyon nila, wala tayong pag-uusapan. Pero kung mali, o erroneous, ibig sabihin, hindi tayo agree sa kanila at tingin natin mali ang desisyon nila, o tingin natin irregular ang pag-issue ng TRO.

When is it simply erroneous, and because they are the Supreme Court, we just have to follow. But to what extent does it become an impeachable offense?

I'd like that clarified. The answer of the defense, sabi nga nila, collegial body 'yan, so why single out the chief justice when it is the whole body that decided? Please try to clarify on that also.

Deputy Speaker Raul Daza said CJ Corona has been known as a primus inter pares (first among equals). He said Corona has broad powers not only over the courts, but also over the members of the court.

Daza cited what Justice Serreno referred in his dissenting opinion as saying that actions of the Chief Justice have now gone beyond the line from honest mistake to an impeachable offense amounting to betrayal of public trust, among other things.

ASC: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I want to be fair to the defense. Are you going to present witnesses on that, or is it only the DOJ Secretary?

Daza said the prosecution have already marked the dissenting opinion of Justice Serreno.

ASC: In other words, you are saying that the partiality makes it different? If it is simply an erroneous decision, and they are impartial, it is not impeachable. But the partiality amounted to betrayal of public trust?

Daza concurred.

ASC: Secondly, I see that in your complaint it said, "in order to give them (Arroyos) a chance to escape". Are you also going to present witnesses on that, or are you also going to rely on some documents to show that in fact, it was the motive of the Chief Justice to allow her (GMA) to escape?

Daza said the prosecution doesn't have documents to support that, but certain acts stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Serreno are enough to show that it was the intention of the Chief Justice to let the Arroyo couple escape.

ASC: Thirdly, regarding the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO, and this is what the good justice secretary is testifying on.

Do I get it right that what you are saying is if it is an ordinary decision, walang conspiracy, walang influence ng kahit sino, walang partiality, kahit hindi kayo agree, hindi impeachable iyon?

Daza agreed.

ASC: Kasi, ang dali pong humusga dito dahil unpopular si dating pangulong Arroyo. Can you imagine if she was very popular and 90% of the people wanted her to leave, would we be having this impeachment proceeding?

As senator-judges, we have to make that legal distinction. Hindi puwede na kung ano lang ang popular, 'yon ang gagawin namin. I'm trying to find out what makes it a betrayal of public trust.

What you are saying is, number one, it's the partiality which you are going to show through the dissenting opinion and the testimony of this witness. And then, 'yung "distorting" and "give them (Arroyos) a chance to escape" are conclusions based on the actions and on the partiality.

Daza cleared that the issue of "distortion" has been made clear in the dissenting opinion of Justice Serreno.

ASC: Mayroon po iyon sa dissenting opinion pero may sagot din po ang defense sa kanilang inilahad na 'answer'. Halimbawa, kahapon nagdesisyon ang Senate President na hindi tatanggapin ang ebidensya tungkol doon sa free tickets.

Collegial body po kami at wala po sa amin ang tumayo, even if some of us may agree or disagree. Of course, the senate president has a lot of influence on us. Although pare-pareho kaming senador and he is just our president. But will you file a case only against him, and not the whole senate? That is the same logic presented by the defense and that we also want clarified.

Are you saying that there was a conspiracy here and that the leader of the conspiracy is the Chief Justice because he was the one who influenced the others? Are we also going to hold the others accountable? Dahil ang nag-issue po ng TRO ay ang majority ng SC.

Klaro po sa akin na 'yung partiality, at 'yung dalawa ko pang sinabi, pero ang katanungan ko na ang mali ba sa pag-issue ng TRO ay 'yung Chief Justice lang, o lahat ng justices na pumirma?

Daza explained that the others may be held accountable as well, but they are not the ones on trial now. He also said that based on the dissenting opinion of Justice Serreno, there were certain acts that were solely made by the chief justice.

ASC: And you have outlined that and you will submit that to us?

The reason this is so important to us is because some of these cases, including the show-cause, the TRO, and the FASAP case, these are all pending in the Supreme Court. Marami tuloy ang nagtatanong, kung hindi mo gusto ang desisyon at marami kang kaibigan na congressman, pwede ba na ang gawin mo ay mag-appeal via impeachment? Ibig sabihin, sampahan mo ng impeachment, at dito natin i-discuss ang kaso.

On the other hand, wala nang appeal sa Supreme Court. Your only remedy against the Supreme Court justices, if they betray the public trust, is to bring them to the impeachment court. I also agree that we can call some of them here so we can look at the documents, but I want the prosecution to show us very clearly what makes it different.

What makes it different from a case that has an erroneous decision but is not impeachable, and to a case where in it has reached a point where the only option of our people to deal with the actions of certain justices, or maybe a division, or one of them, is to go into an impeachment process.

You have answered some of the questions but I think that is very important. Madami po kasi ang nagsasabi na ongoing ang cases na 'yan kaya bakit pinag-uusapan ngayon.

Daza said that they will be able to show the whole picture in their summation.

ASC: I appreciate your answer at nalinawan po ako nang kaunti. I was hoping that you will present on "excessive entanglement" kasi sa tingin ko nakakabit iyon dito. Dahil kung maipapakita mo kung gaano kalapit kay dating pangulong Arroyo, masusundan ng iba. Pero hindi na ninyo ipinresinta iyon. Hindi naman kayo nag-flip flop. Nagdesisyon lang kayo na huwag nang ipresinta iyon. That's why medyo pinangunahan ko lang nang kaunti. Mayroon kasi tayong tendency na kung saan-saan napupunta minsan ang mga mahahalagang issue dito. That's why I stood up to clarify this.

Also, concerns ng defense ito at ilang beses nilang sinabi na ongoing ang kaso. We have to be careful that after this impeachment, we still have to give all the respect to the Supreme Court.

Daza said they don't have to prove the closeness of the chief justice to the Arroyos, because they already have documents to show that.

ASC: But we cannot take judicial notice of the closeness of the chief justice to Arroyo, at kanina po, sinabi ng kasama ninyo dito na hindi na ninyo ipi-presinta ang "excessive entanglement". Kaya kung ako ay magre-review sa files na ito bago ako gumawa ng desisyon, hindi ko pwedeng tingnan ang allegation n'yo lang.

Daza explained that the prosecution has evidence that will clearly show the closeness of the chief justice to the Arroyos.

ASC: If you are going to present that later than that, ang sabi po kasi ninyo kanina, at ang understanding ko, ang "excessive entanglement" ay hindi na ipi-presinta. But of course, even he was very, very close to them, normal lang naman na i-appoint ng pangulo ang close sa kaniya. Hindi normal na ang i-appoint niya ang kalaban niya. You still have to show a link that that closeness has led to partiality.

On that point, Mr. President, thank you for the extension, and may I thank this opportunity also to thank the senate president and Sen. Gringo for what they did in 1986. It is February 22 today and we have not forgotten.

The Senate President thanked Senator Cayetano and said that everyone's looking towards the future.

News Latest News Feed