TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
Cayetano discusses procedures to be undertaken by the Senate Ethics Committee in tackling pending cases

Reporter: Sir, may nagfile daw ng letter of concern, si Atty. Macalintal. Ano pong bearing noon sa ethics case?

ASC: Anyone can file anything. Pwede namang tingnan ng mga miyembro ito. But as I said, we have to finalize the rules. The rules cannot be tailored for any case or for any senator. It should be fair to all.

As I said, we will balance everything. Hindi naman pwedeng mag-away away ang mga senador dahil napakahalaga ng mga tinetake up natin. On the other hand if you suggest that we not convene the ethics committee or that we just disband it, it will send a message that senators are above the law.

Itutuloy po natin ang plano na i-convene next week ang committee para i-approve ang rules. The week after, we'll look at all the cases filed for their substance and form.

Kung hindi nasunod ang form or substance, isasauli ito sa nag-file para mairefile nila. Kapag tama naman ang form and substance, pupunta na sa preliminary determination kung mayroon ngang pagkakamali at kung magkakaroon ng hearing tungkol dito.

Reporter: May weight po ba ang mga letter of concern of parties who are not involved in the case?

ASC: In the sense that it's not purely a legislative process. Kung baga kung nagbukas ka ng Twitter o ng Facebook during the impeachment na nakakarating din sa aming mga senador, para ito sa publiko at di lang sa mga miyembro ng committee. There are many ways to bring it to the members kasi controversial yung issue. Kaya siguro nagkakaroon din ng interes yung iba.

For me, it's very important that senators are not considered above the law. Hindi pa nga natatapos ang rules, meron nang dalawang opinion - Senator Sotto at Senate President Enrile - na hindi pwedeng i-hold responsible ang isang senador kapag sa loob ng sesyon ginawa yung speech. But you heard Senator Santiago and Senator Drilon give the contrary view that if you do this in the committee or the session hall then you can be held liable by your colleagues through the committee on ethics or the plenary.

Reporter: Wala bang fixed rules?

ASC: Naging desisyon din ng korte yan na hindi continuing ang Senado as far as its rules are concerned. I don't see any delay because we've already had two hearings and a technical working group, all the members have been given copies of the rules. Na-overtake lang talaga kami ng mga mahalagang bagay noon. Ngayon mayroong need na ipakita sa ating mga mamayan that we can also regulate ourselves. So we will push through with this.

Reporter: Kayo ba ang magdedecide doon sa letter of concern o buong committee pa rin yun?

ASC: Depende sa rules yun. Kasi kung wala naman sa rules yung "to quash", ibang usapan yun. As I said, anyone can give the committee anything. So far, kung ibabase ko sa mga dating rules, walang ibang party dito - yung complainant, yung committee, at yung defendant.

I just don't want to be biased because the rules are not yet final.

Reporter: By voting ba ito?

ASC: Hindi. Yung form at substance, process lang yun. Sa dating rules kasi chairman ang magsasabi sa determination kung may kaso. But I've expressed my preference before this case was filed that the majority of the members be involved in the process of preliminary determination. Kasi kung paparusahan ang isang miyembro dadalhin sa plenary yan. Whether ang penalty mo ay simpleng reprimand o expulsion.

Kung ang magdadala dito sa floor ay mas kaunti pa sa majority ng mga miyembro, it will be unfair to someone who is accused. Halimbawa, sasabihin mong guilty at later i-overturn, lumabas pa rin sa mga tao na guilty. Kapag sinabi mong inosente ay may bearing na rin yun. I'd rather it will always be a matter of the majority in the recommendation of the committee.

Pag dating naman sa plenary, depende yun. Malinaw din naman sa Constitution na kailangang more than a majority kung expulsion ang magiging ruling.

Reporter: Ano ang implication noong nagiging battle ng pro-RH at anti-RH?

ASC: No implication whatsoever. Yung motibo kung bakit gusto o ayaw has no relevance.

Reporter: Yung pagsagawa niyo po ng hearing now ay pagrerecognize ba na pwedeng sampahan ng ethics case si Sen. Sotto despite the parliamentary immunity?

ASC: Malinaw kasi yung Osmena vs. Pendatun case. Yung congressman nagbigay ng speech, sinabi ng majority na may bad faith siya at hindi naman niya mapatunayan yan at mukhang masama yung intention. So he was held liable.

Because of this case, I would like to believe that any questionable act done inside the session hall or committee can be called a case of disorderly behavior and be held against a senator. The question now is what constitutes disorderly behavior.

According to the Supreme Court, it's up to the body to decide. That's why when I was doing some research, I found out in the past that there were those who attempted to file a code of ethics for legislators. Aside from the generic law for all public officials laying down ethical standards, walang specific code of ethics para sa senado.

And that would be good if we have something like that. Halimbawa, in aid of legislation, who can meet the parties? Ngayon, case per case basis. Pero kung may code of ethics ka, magguide ng husto yung bawat senador. Katulad ngayon, isang magiging debate diyan ay what constitutes plagiarism and anong penalty nito. Obviously sa layman o sa iba, klaro sa kanila kung ano ang mali at tama. But without a code of ethics, the definition is just up to the majority.

Kinicriticize natin yung impeachment. Yung impeachment ay sinasabi na numbers game. So we don't want it to be a numbers game in this case. But without a code of ethics, it will fall unto the members of the committee to make a first determination and then the plenary to decide what is or what is not a violation of ethical standards and disorderly behavior.

Reporter: Yung plagiarism ay iddetermine niyo if pasok sa disorderly behavior?

ASC: Yun ang technical na nakasaad sa constitution. Yung kaso nga ni Osmena vs Pendatun ay sabi nila na paano magiging disorderly behavior yun kung nagspeech ka. Pero ang pinunto nila dun kung bad faith yung speech niya.

Ang Constitution kasi ang sinasabi ay di ka pwedeng kasuhan sa labas para sa isang bagay na ginawa mo sa loob ng Session. So hindi ka pwedeng kasuhan ng libel sa korte. Pero baliktad naman kung sasabihin mo na hindi ka pwedeng kasuhan sa ginawa mo sa loob, para saan ka pa may ethics committee?

Sabi nung iba kasi kapag may ginawa ka sa labas ng sesyon, edi i-eethics ka. Mali rin naman yun kasi kapag sa labas ng sesyon ka gumawa ng mali pwede kang kasuhan ng normal na tao, sa normal na paraan.

Reporter: Sa plenary po ba pagtitibayin ang rules o sa committee level?

ASC: Sa committee level na kasi empowered na yun ng rules ng senate.

Reporter: Iaakyat pa ito (rules) sa plenary?

ASC: Hindi na. At wala naman akong nakikitang problema na doon. One of the challenges would really be time.

Reporter: May nagsasabi kasi na kinocompare ito doon sa time na nakasuhan si Senator Villar sa ethics committee na hindi naman siya nasuspend, ano naman kung plagiarism lang. Would you like to comment?

ASC: I don't want to comment on the merits because I don't want to be biased and risk being forced to inhibit.