Transcript of Ambush Interview of Sen. Leila M. de Lima

(On the administration's proclamation of national emergency)

De Lima: Dun muna po sa proclamation of national emergency on account of lawless violence, sa tingin ko naman, dun sa mga whereas clauses, may sapat na justification for such a declaration of national emergency on account of lawless violence focusing on terrorism.

Although, mas maganda ho sana kung inunan na muna na sa Mindanao lang muna kasi yung mga cited incidents naman, di ba sa whereases maraming mga cinite [cited] na incidents, including mga bombings, including mga...yung mga...let me just check again, yung abductions, hostage-takings, murder of innocent civilians, bombing of power transmission facilities, highway robberies, extortions, attacks on a military outposts, assassinations of media people, mass jailbreaks-although inaalam ko pa kung ano itong mass jailbreaks-may sapat na dahilan na there is an atmosphere of lawless violence, if we have all of those incidents.

The premise here-are all these incidents are validated incidents and occurring, or occurred in the area of Mindanao? So mas maganda po sana kung Mindanao lang. Pero, we can also give them the benefit of doubt when they say that these acts of terrorism are expected or may spill over the rest of the country, lalo na mga metropolitan areas like the National Capital Region.

So in that sense, sa tingin ko, defensible po ito kung merong magkuwestiyon about this, maaaring i-affirm ito ng Supreme Court dahil doon po sa...kung naalala niyo po, in the aftermath of the Maguindanao massacre, meron din, kinuwestiyon din yung naging declaration of state of emergency ng dating Pangulong Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Although, the difference is that, doon lang sa affected areas, including Maguindanao. Hindi ito nationwide. Now, sabi ng korte doon, ang pangulo o ang opisina ng pangulo, sila ang nakakaalam tungkol sa factual basis ng mga ganyang deklarasyon.

So if it is not shown na mali pala yung factual basis or there is no showing na the factual basis is wrong, ay hindi puwedeng pakialamanan ng korte ang ganyang desisyon o hakbang ng isang pangulo.

So in that sense, for as long as ma-justify nila yan, yung mga factual basis na yan-na siguro naman, many of these are really...alam naman natin yun, yung mga ganitong insidente, nababalita naman yung mga iba dito-then okay lang yun. But then again, the matter about national in scope, baka mag...titignan pa nang husto yan ng Supreme Court kung itong issue na ito ay makarating sa Supreme Court.

Now, having said that, gusto ko rin hong...ang umaano sa isipan ko nung nakita ko itong proclamation, including the implementing guidelines is that, di ho ba, bago nila nilabas itong written document na ito ay mismo na po ang Pangulo and maski na rin si Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Panelo, nababanggit nila na merong lawlessness, may lawless violence dahil sa mga killings. I think you can all check it out, yung mga naging statements ng Pangulo at ni Chief Presidential Legal Counsel na they mentioned killings.

And in fact, si CPLC Panelo, he was quoted in saying na 'meron na kaming draft' o 'nagda-draft na nga kami ng proclamation na yan bago pa man nangyari yung Davao bombing.' So kung meron nang draft o dina-draft na nila yung proklamasyon na yun bago pa man nangyari yung Davao bombing, ang posible lang na puwede nilang i-cite at that time, were the killings. At nadagdagan na lang dapat ang insidente ng bombing.

So bakit dun sa final version ng kanilang proklamasyon ay nakatuon na lang sa terrorism? Siguro, may mga nag-isip talaga sa Palasyo na malalagay sila sa alanganin kung ilalagay din nila as basis yung so-called lawlessness, lawless violence on account of the killings. Kasi di ba, may mga nagsasabi, ngayon lang tayo nakakita na safe na safe na tayo, na meron na tayong mga safe streets gawa ng all-out intensified war against drugs. So, tahimik na ngayon, natutuwa na ngayon yung ating mga kababayan na tahimik na, the streets are safe, free from drug pushers, free from drug users, from troublemakers. Right?

So, kung sasabihin nila na rason yan to declare a national emergency or a state of lawlessness, that would be engaging in self-contradiction. Correct? So may nag-isip na hindi maganda na ilagay din nila as basis, as reason yung killings.

Q: Ma'am, with those concerns, may balak po ba kayo na humingi ng Senate inquiry to look into this or kung ano man, i-analyze...?

De Lima: Kung gagawin ko na naman yun, katakot-takot na naman na gagawin sa akin. Ito lang ang Senate inquiry sa killings eh sobra na yung ginagawa sa akin, ano pa kaya kung meron pa akong mga hakbang. But it won't deter me from taking any step or any move within the confines of my mandate as elected senator na mag-isip ng kung ano pa, ano ang puwedeng gawin kung may mga questions diyan sa hakbang na yan.

But let me again make it clear, na the way it is drafted, the way that it appears now, mukhang magiging defensible given the existing jurisprudence nung sinabi kong kaso, yung sa state of emergency in the aftermath of the Maguindanao massacre. Ang magiging issue na lang dito is the nationwide scope, if that is also defensible o puwede nilang ma-justify.

Now, dun naman sa implementing guidelines, meron din akong napansin-and I think, napansin na rin ito ng ilang mga mambabatas lalo na sa House of Representatives-yung tungkol sa warrantless arrest.

Walang problema dun sa first three na cinite [cited] nila, you know, yung a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, yung mga in flagrante delicto, yung mga ganun, or a crime has just been committed in a matter of hours, a few hours, puwede pang arestuhin yung salarin kahit walang aresto. Saka yung pangatlo, yung kapag tumakas ang isang preso, hindi na kailangan uli ng warrant of arrest bago siya i-aresto ulit.

Yung pang-apat ang medyo problematic po sa akin. "When the person arrested or to be arrested has voluntarily waived his right against warrantless arrest." We're talking here about warrantless arrest, na dapat, kapag warrantless arrest, yung tatlo lang na situations yan. So bakit dadagdagan ng ganito?

Well, of course, it can be perceived, taken to mean, or to refer to situations of the so-called voluntary surrender, di ba. Meron din naman talagang instances of voluntary surrender. Pero, ang pagkakaalam ko po, kapag sinabing voluntary surrender, karamihan ng mga kaso ng voluntary surrender ay kapag meron nang warrant of arrest. So ibang usapin naman yung sa warrantless arrest.

Saka paano na natin malalaman na kung yung tao inaaresto na hindi naman covered doon sa tatlong recognized instances of warrantless arrest, ay tunay na nag-waive? Siyempre, kapag inaaresto ka na, papalag ka pa ba, di ba? At saka madali namang pilitin ang isang inaaresto na, 'O, inaaresto ka namin. Wala kaming warrant.' 'Bakit niyo ako inaaresto?' 'Kasi meron kang ginawang kalokohan nung last week, meron kang pinatay last week o meron kang ninakawan last week. Inaaresto ka na namin ngayon kasi nakita ka namin ngayon. O, waive na ha, waive.' Papalag pa ba yun?

So my point here is that, there may be some legal rationale for this, and may be referred to that concept of voluntary surrender, pero ibang konteksto po yung voluntary surrender na alam ko. Pero, kung hindi po ito...hindi nila malinawan o hindi nila ilinaw ito, I am afraid that this is going to be prone to abuse.

Ganun din sa warrantless searches and seizures. Okay lang yung 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-yung first six. Yan naman talaga ang mga recognized instances of warrantless searches and seizures, are thereby the rules of criminal procedure, under the rules of criminal procedure, or jurisprudence. Kasama itong stop and frisk.

Pero yung 'search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances,' again, mukhang bago na naman ito. Sino magde-define? I think they should first define itong 'exigent and emergency circumstances'. Baka maging prone to abuse rin po ito.

Q: So puwedeng kuwestiyunin ito, ma'am?

De Lima: Puwede pong kuwestiyunin. And I think, baka may mga nagbabalak na, especially mga human rights advocates.

Q: How should Malacañang review this resolution for their defense?

De Lima: First, let them explain muna siguro, let them clarify ano ba itong mga circumstances na ito, bakit nadagdagan na itong tatlo, naging apat na. And then dito din sa warrantless searches and seizures, bakit merong...yan ang stranger sa akin, yang last na yan, 'search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.' Let them explain that first. Let them clarify that further. Saan ba nanggaling itong exceptions na ito? Sa jurisprudence ba? Bago ba ito or what?

Q: Ma'am, martial law ba yun, yung mga nadagdag na yun?

De Lima: Kasi, since it's a declaration of national emergency on account of lawless violence, alam naman nila na ibig lang sabihin niyan, under the Constitution, is that puwede ngang mag-augment ng forces on the ground. Hindi lang yung PNP as law enforcers, but even AFP. Deployment of more forces. Yun ang ibig sabihin lang ng call-out provision or call-out powers na yan ng Pangulo. Hindi pa nga ito martial law. Klinarify naman po nila yan, na hindi ito martial law.

So ang pananaw ko lang diyan, ingat naman sila na wag silang nagdadagdag ng mga patakaran na hindi na magiging sakop ng call-out powers na yan.

Q: Ma'am, yun kayang...itong mga nadagdag, especially itong voluntary surrender, etc., etc., hindi kaya puwedeng magamit sa anti-drug war, kasi di ba ang daming sumusuko daw?

De Lima: Yun na nga ang mangyayari at yun nga yata ang nangyayari. Yun kasi ang nangyayari ngayon eh. Hindi na natin alam kung yung mga so-called na nagsu-surrender ay number one, are they aware of their rights? Kapag meron silang pinipirmahan, nag-a-admit sila na sila ay either drug pusher or drug user, aware ba sila na bago sila mag-admit ng ganyan ay kailangan meron munang assistance of counsel? Hindi naman nila alam yan. Ginagawa ba yan? Are they providing, are the authorities providing them counsel, PAO, or what kapag nag-eexecute na sila ng kung ano-ano diyan?

Q: Ma'am, ano kayang puwedeng gawin ng mga tao na maaaring maging subject dito sa karagdagang conditions ng arrest, lalo na yung number 4? Yung sa voluntary surrender, yung nag-waive ng right, ano kaya yung puwedeng gawin ng mga tao na maaaring subject sa ganun? So they won't fall victim to abuse, para hindi maabuso yung number 4?

De Lima: Yung dapat, kung magwe-waive sila ng so-called, you know, iwe-waive nila yung right against warrantless arrest, kailangan alam na muna rin nila kung ano ang wine-waive nila. And number two, dapat pag ganyan, kailangan din ng assistance of counsel yan ah.

Q: You can't waive without a lawyer, ma'am?

De Lima: Yes.

Q: Ah kailangan may lawyer.

De Lima: Remember, nung second day of hearing na nandun yung dalawang Pasay policemen, di ba many times I had to intervene and say, 'Are you sure that you are waiving your right to counsel?' Meron bang counsel diyan na nag-a-advice sa kanya kung ano ibig sabihin ng waiver of right to counsel? Kaya hindi ko na nga pinapatuloy kasi hindi ako sigurado if they were knowingly waiving such right. Kasi hindi dapat basta-basta nagwe-waive ng mga ganyang karapatan.

Q: So, ma'am, sa resumption ng hearing ninyo, iko-cover na rin itong isyu ngayon?

De Lima: Tignan natin. Pag-aaralan ko na muna po nang husto yan. But, baka lang kasi maka-complicate pa kung isasama rin. But, may I also take this opportunity to announce that we are resuming the inquiry on Thursday, next week, September 15.