Feb 13 Senate Impeachment Court Record

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Monday, February 13, 2012
AT 3:02 P.M. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan. Senator Pangilinan. Almighty Father, our Ultimate Lawgiver and the source of all power and authority, this Impeachment Court comes before You and our people today to fulfill our duty to render justice in these proceedings. Gabayan Niyo Po kami, O Diyos na makapangyarihan. Bigyan Niyo Po kami ng sapat na dunong, lakas at tapang na tiyakin na sa paglilitis na ito, mangingibabaw ang hustisya at katarungan para sa lahat. We seek Your infinite wisdom, O Lord, Your strength and Your courage to pursue accountability and justice for all. We pray that Your guiding hand leads us to the path of righteousness, to the path of the just and the truth. O Lord, as the nation wades through unfamiliar constitutional waters, we seek clarity of mind and a courageous heart to do what must be done to uphold the national interest. Where there is confusion, we pray for enlightenment. Where there is need for discernment, we pray for wisdom. Where there is overzealousness, we pray for restraint. Where there is dissension, we pray for unity for the good of our nation. Bigyan Niyo Po kami ng sapat na kakayahan na mabigyan ng linaw sa harap ng kalituhan; magkaroon ng pagkakaisa sa harap ng bangayan; mabigyan ng mapanuring
pag-iisip sa harap ng samut-saring mga posisyon at argumento upang masagot ang simpleng tanong kung nagkasala ba o hindi ang nasasakdal. As public servants, we pray too that as we pursue justice and accountability, we do so without neglecting the need to create jobs for our people, provide food for our hungry and to provide the atmosphere for the creation of wealth for our nation and our people. These we ask in the Name of Jesus. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will please call the roll of senators. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis J.G. Escudero .......................................................... Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren Legarda ...................................................................... Present Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present* Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................ Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present The President ..................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 22 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call
The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 9, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the February 9, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. Appearances. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. May we ask the respective Counsels to enter their appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the Prosecution panel, the House of Representatives, same appearances. And if I may, on behalf of the House also, we would like to greet the Presiding Officer advance happy birthday for tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. At this age, your Presiding Officer is no longer thinking about birthdays. He is thinking about the future which is dimming. So we proceed. The Defense. Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. May we recognize the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Mr. President, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada The Presiding Officer. Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. Senator Sotto. who the Prosecution should have greeted also a happy birthday because it is forthcoming. The Presiding Officer. The President ProTempore has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to denounce in the strongest possible terms the action of the Defense lawyers who called for a press con last night for a supposedly important announcement and only to later say that the source of their story cannot be disclosed.
Second, I take personal notice of the statement made by the Defense last night that they received very reliable information that Executive Secretary Paquito Jojo Ochoa, acting in behalf of President Noynoy Aquino III, was personally contacting and phoning Senator-Judges to persuade or pressure us to defy the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court in favor of the Philippine Savings Bank. Ayokong palagpasin ito without saying anything because the integrity, credibility and independence of individual senators as well as the honor of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court are at stake here. Thirdly, I do not want to speculate as to the reason of the Defense panel for coming out with this incredulous statement. But I challenge you, the Defense panel, to name your so-called source. Pangalanan ninyo kung sino, at nang sa ganoon ay hindi tayo nanghuhula. Magpakalalaki tayong lahat dito. Dahil itong ginagawa namin ay hindi biru-biro lamang. Ang kinabukasan, ang ikasasama o ikabubuti ng ating bansa, ang nakasalalay dito. Sa mga magigiting na abogado ng Depensa, hinahamon ko kayong lahat na pangalanan ang nagpaabot sa inyo ng kuwentong ito. If you believed the story, that is up to you. But when you faced the media and passed this story onto the public with little more than your faces to back you up, then you have crossed the line. And you are all wholly accountable for attempting to besmirch the reputation of this institution which has always stood as a bastion for democracy, truth, decency and integrity. Malaking insulto sa institusyong ito at sa aming mga Senator-Judges. And lastly, I stand before you as a duly elected Senator and I would like to look to all of you, straight in the eye and say, Walang tumawag sa akin upang ako ay hikayatin o takutin o bayaran. Kung meron man gustong magtangka o gustong tumawag o humikayat sa akin, ang masasabi ko lang, huwag niyo nang ituloy at mapapahiya lamang kayo. Salamat po, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Alan Cayetano and then Sen. Pia Cayetano. The Presiding Officer. Senator Cayetano. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer, sa Prosecution, Defense at sa mga kasama natin. Hindi po puwede nating hindi bigyan ng pansin ang issue na ito sapagkat ang integridad ho mismo ng KorteSo, I just like to ask some questions to the lawyers of the Defense panel. Any one of you can answer except the good Justice Cuevas for the simple reason The Presiding Officer. Ano bang position? Senator Cayetano (A). For the simple reason that he was not in the press con or at least I did not see him. Alas tres ng umaga ako natutulog kaya paulit-ulit kong pinanood ang press con. Can one or some of you please answer a few questions, please? The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel may respond. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we ask for authority for Atty. Jose Roy to make the explanation, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). At the onset, gusto ko lang ipaabot sa inyo na pilit kong iniintindi ang ginawa ninyo at pilit kong iniintindi na meron kayong kliyente na kailangan depensahan. Ngunit kayo na po mismo ang ilang beses nag-remind sa Korte na ito na kailangan respetuhin yung Korte. So, I would like to clarify some of your statements through some of these questions: Attorney Counsel, I assume that except for some very young lawyers in your panel, most of you have had extensive practice, tama po ba ito? Mr. Roy. Well, I do not know if extensive is the right word, Your Honor, but yes, I suppose for purposes of this question that Senator Cayetano (A). And I would assume ho that respect to the Court is given? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I wish to assure you that was foremost in our minds. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. What do you think would happen if you had a case in the Sandiganbayan, the CA or the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court and the night before an important decision was to be made, you would go on-air saying that some of the Justices are being bribed and being offered a hundred million? Mr. Roy. That is a terrible allegation, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). And do you Mr. Roy. But that is not the allegation we made. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Mr. Roy. What we said, Your Honor, was that we had received information that there were offers. We never meant to taint the integrity of the Senators, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. But by implication, did that not mean that some, if not all, or at least one of the Senator-Judges are susceptible to bribery by saying that, Tinatawagan at ino-operan (offer) ng 100 milyon. Noong una 100 milyon, hindi sinabing soft projects. Later on ay klinaro niyo na hindi cash ito kung hindi soft projects. Hindi po ba ang implikasyon nito or ang perception na ibinibigay sa ating mga kababayan ay para bagang hindi solemn oath ang aming tineyk (take) dito at puwede kaming tumanggap ng ganyang kalaki kapalit ng aming boto sa kahit anong issue. Mr. Roy. Humihingi po kami ng dispensa kung hindi po naging malinaw ang aming pahayag. Hindi po namin nais palabasin na kayo po ay nasuhulan o kayay tinanggap niyo ito. At iyon ang pinakamalayo ho sa aming layunin. Senator Cayetano (A). At this point, thank you for your apology or for your clarification and that is important for each member and this Impeachment Court. However, let me continue my questioning Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). or these questions.
If in fact you made that statement before the Supreme Court, do you not think that the Supreme Court would make you explain Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). or at least subject you to disciplinary action if ganun yung allegations na binigay niyo? Mr. Roy. That is correct, Your Honor. That is why we are here in full force to show you that there was no malice on the part of the Defense and to prove to you that what we did, we did as a matter of principle, of professional belief. Senator Cayetano (A). Is it not true also, Mr. Counsel, that inilagay niyo sa alangan yung Korte? Kasi kung ang dinesisyon (decision) namin ay huwag sundin yung TRO, eh di lalabas may tumanggap sa amin ng 100 milyon? Mr. Roy. Your Honor Senator Cayetano (A). Pagka hindilet me finish, Counsel. Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Kapagka namang sinabi namin, We should abide, lalabas namang natakot kami sa press con niyo. Of course, it is not limited to those two scenarios but byon the eve ofwe all announced last Thursday that magko-caucus kami at pag-uusapan namin yung TRO. And then suddenly, you are on television. That is why Sunday late afternoon all of the members of the media were calling us, not to even ask those questions, but making us or asking us to deny. Is it not an insult to us to even have to deny that we are susceptible to bribes? You put us in that situation, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Roy. In hindsight, Your Honor, perhaps you could view it that way. But please, I beg your indulgence. That was not our intention. Please hear me out. We had very little choice but to hold the press conference at that time. We received word late Saturday afternoon while we were in a conference with our client. We had been told that Senator Tatad announced this plan. I think he was with Senator Maceda at that time. We did not receive, Your Honor Senator Cayetano (A). We will deal with Senator Tatad or whether he is right or not separately. What I am saying is that we are talking about the Defense panel Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. I was going to that. Senator Cayetano (A). And, Counsel, just because I have limited time. That is not only what you said or what the group said; kasama po sa sinabi na hindi na patas, hindi na kayo makapresenta ng evidence. Can you answer this question? Turn niyo na ba na mag-present ng evidence or pagkatapos ng Prosecution saka pa kayo magpre-present ng evidence? Mr. Roy. We are being tried in public, Your Honor. Minamadali po kami. Senator Cayetano (A). Well, is that the fault of the Senator-Judges Mr. Roy. No, Your Honor.
Senator Cayetano (A). or is that precisely the system? My point, Your Honor, is that go ahead, engage in a trial by publicity with the Prosecution. Iyan po ang demokrasya natin. Iyan ang
sistema. We will try to restrain both sides. Senator Honasan has stood up so many times to try to restrain both sides. Pero bakit pati iyong referee gagawan ninyo ng intriga? Iyon po ang point ko doon. Kasi nung sinabi niyong hindi na patas, kung klinaro niyo na sinasabi niyo na nakikialam kasi ang Presidente, eh ang sinabi niyo, Nakikialam ang Presidente, inuutusan ang Senator-Judge. Ang implikasyon tuloy, kami ay nauutusan dito ng Pangulo. Mr. Roy. Paumanhin po muli. Ang pinapahiwatig po namin ay pini-pressure po kayo kaya hindi na ho patas. Kasi po ang unang pahayag ng Presidente na hindi ho daw siya makikialam. Pero nakita niyo naman sa mga nakaraang mga araw naging malinaw muli ang posisyon ng Presidente. Senator Cayetano (A). Pero, Mr. Counsel, hindi po ba obvious na marami naman talagang magpe-pressure eh, whether it is public opinion, whether it is your family, whether it is politics, pressure is always part of the game. Ang question, nape-pressure ba kami o hindi? At noong nag-oath kami, pinangako namin sa inyo at sa mamamayan at sa Diyos na hindi kami magpapa-pressure kahit kaninuman. I will ask a question on this point. Kung ngayon po may TRO before the Supreme Court, pumunta ako sa media, taposI am a lawyer at sinabi ko, Mayroon po akong balita na walong Justices po ay bibigyan ng tig-50 million para lang po patagalin iyong TRO, do you not think that the Supreme Court will ask me why I should not be held in contempt or they should not ask me why I should not be disciplined? Mr. Roy. Opo, I would expect that you will be asked to explain. Senator Cayetano (A). And would you not think that we are of the same level at least ng Supreme Court as far as impeachment is concerned? Mr. Roy. Yes, Senator. Precisely what I wanted to say is that, the reason we had to go to the media is because we wanted to send the very clear message to those who would try to subvert the process, that we will not allow it to go unnoticed. We will bring it to the light of day. We will expose it. We will protect the integrity of the proceedings here. Senator Cayetano (A). We fully understand that. And I, once, like Senator Arroyo, he was a Prosecutor, we did not reach the Impeachment Court. But when we were trying to impeach Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the former President, Senator Guingona, Senator Escudero, mga kasama namin, si Joel Villanueva, mga kasama namin sa House, sila Congressman Zamora, all of them, we would have done some things like that, but we would have stopped when it came to the integrity of the Court or casting doubts upon the Court. So let me go to my last few questions on the source. Are any of you, Defense Counsels, also members of the media? Mr. Roy. I amnot that I am aware of, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. So I asked that because we are all aware that the members of the media have the source privilege granted to them by a republic act. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Is the source privilege also given to members of the Philippine Bar, lawyers? Mr. Roy. There is a fundamental right, Your Honor, which we draw comfort from. It is found in paragraph (e), Section 20 of Rule 138, and essentially it states that the lawyers are under oath at every peril to themselves to preserve the secrets of the client, Your Honor.
Senator Cayetano (A). But you will confirm to me that the attorney-client privilege is only available when there is an attorney-client relationship. Mr. Roy. That is exactly the case here, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So unless your source is your client, then you are bound to reveal the source if this Impeachment Court asks you to reveal such. Mr. Roy. Your Honor, the reference to the attorney-client relationship pertains to the conduct of all the business of the client. Whenever we receive information in our professional capacities which relate to the business of the client for which we have been retained, Your Honors, then it is covered by the mantle of the privilege. Senator Cayetano (A). Well, I will not argue with you on that, Counsel, just because we do not have time. But I wanted to bring that to the attention, to the Court, because I have heard some of the Members wanting or you have heard Senator Estrada challenging you to come out with the names so that we can clear the air here and that is why I asked you these questions. Anyway, I took more than my time. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). But let me just make this strong statement also, that you put us in this situation. Mr. Roy. We apologize, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Isipin niyo po kailangan pa namin mag-deny. The mere fact na kailangan namin tumayo at sabihin, Walang isandaang milyon, walang lumapit sa amin, walang nag-o-offer. Eh paano po ngayon kung nagdesisyon kami kung pabor o hindi pabor sa inyo? Kayo naglagay sa alanganang ano ng Korte na ito. Buti na lang, ang tingin ko, ang mamamayan ay may faith and confidence sa Impeachment Court at nakikita nila na bawat desisyon namin ay may dahilan. We want to explain every single point thatevery single vote we have. But we are trying to save the Prosecution and the Defense time. But when you make allegations like that, Counsel, the net effect is that when we have voting, gusto naming magpaliwanag. Mr. Roy. Once again, Your Honor, we apologize and I wish to assure you that our view of the Senator-Judges has always been of the highest regard. Your integrity has never been in question in our eyes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). I just like to leave you with this short, short story. Mayroon nang gumawa niyan, yung pumunta sa pinakamataas na bundok. This is not original. Kinuha yung unan, tinastasan yung unan, nilabas lahat nung balahibo na laman nung unan, pinakawalan. Tapos bumaba siya. Tapos sabi sa kanya, Hoy! tsismoso ka, mga gossip at saka mga unreliable sources ang sinasabi mo. Sabi niya, Boss, pasensya ka na, mali pala ako or naging mapusok ang damdamin ko, sinabi ko kaagad. So sabi sa kanya, Umakyat ka sa bundok. Lahat ng balahibo habulin mo, kunin mo. Boss, hindi ko na magagawa yun, kalat na eh. So iyon din ang sinabi sa kanya. Unfortunately, yung tsinismis mo kalat na, hindi na makukuha. So sana po maisip niyo that when you make statements like that, it is easy to apologize but you cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube, ika nga no.
Anyway, Mr. President, there are some Members who would like to ask questions so I will stop there. But I hope that it is clear to all of us how sacred this duty is and we should be very responsible in anything we do in this Court or outside of this Court. And that goes both for the Prosecution and the Defense and even for the Senator-Judges. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Roy. You have my word, Your Honor, we shall heed what you said. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized. And then Sen. Franklin Drilon. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I take the floor for the same reason that our Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada and Senator Alan took the floor with respect to the allegations or the statements made by the Defense Counsel that Malacaang has offered a hundred million to Senator-Judges. Mr. President, in the landmark case of Salcedo vs. Hernandez, in Re: Contempt Proceedings against Atty. Francisco, the Supreme Court said in that case, A lawyer was reprimanded when he created an atmosphere of prejudice against the Court in order to make it odious to the public eye that the decision of the Court promoted distrust in the administration of justice. The Court further ruled: The reason for this is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guarantee, said institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Mr. President, like any other right, the right of a lawyer to comment or criticize the decision of a Judge or his actuation is not unlimited. It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide. To degrade the courts, destroy public confidence in them, or bring them in any way into disrepute, transcends the limit of fair comment. This is taken from the book of Justice Ruben Agpalo on Legal and Judicial Ethics. Mr. President, Counsels appearing before this Court must be sternly reminded that it is their duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court to which it owes fidelity, not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Faith in the courts, a lawyer should seek to preserve, for to undermine the judicial edifice is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people. I quote directly from the case Surigao Mineral Board vs. Cloribel. Mr. President, the Defense Counsel must point to the source of the information and reveal who was promised or who was given P100 million to influence our decisions. Otherwise, the statements made in their press con only serve to promote distrust in the administration of the justice of which this Impeachment Court had promised to uphold. Mr. President, I think my colleagues have discussed it at length and I leave this before this Honorable Court. I sincerely feel that this is athis issue has placed distrust in the eyes of the public and I trust that the Members of this Court will do what is right. Thank you. Mr. Roy. On behalf of the Chief Justice and the Defense panel, lady Senator, we apologize sincerely for any discomfort. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.
10
Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo.
Senator Drilon. Ilang tanong lang po, Ginoong Pangulo, kay Attorney Roy. Sang-ayon po sa inyong press conference kahapon, sinabi po ninyo, Kung bank account lang pino-prublema nyo po, huwag po kayong mag-apura. Bubuksan po lahat iyan ng Punong Mahistrado dahil hindi po niya ninakaw iyan. Relaks lang po, Mr. President. And one of the major dailies today translated this in English and said, quoting you: If your problem is the bank account, do not rush it. All of that will be opened by the Chief Justice because he did not steal them. Relax lang po, Mr. President. Does the lawyer confirm all of these statements? Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor, that is contained in the press statement that was released by the Defense Team. Senator Drilon. So we assume that the Chief Justice has agreed to open these accounts, these dollar accounts? Mr. Roy. At the appropriate time, Your Honor, he will disclose the information to the relevant bank account. Senator Drilon. Yes, at the appropriate time. Mr. Roy. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And when would that appropriate time be? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I take guidance from the words of Senator Alan that when it is our turn to present evidence. I suppose that will be the appropriate time. In fact, I think part of the sentiments of Senator Alan was that perhaps we were attempting to litigate the case in public and I wish to assure the good Senators that was not our intention. Senator Drilon. So the issue is whether or not he has agreed to open this account, but it is a question of when it should be opened? Mr. Roy. That is the authorization we were given by the Chief Justice to declare, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Because in that case, Mr. President, the Chief Justice, through his Counsel, has agreed to open these accounts. It is very clear from the admission of Counsel. And it is up now to the Court to require when these accounts should be opened because consent has been given by the account holder. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are ready to take up the business for the day, but I understand that it is the sentiment of the Court that the Senate President read the ruling. Senator Trillanes wishes to be recognized, Mr. President, before that.
11
The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Senator Trillanes. From Caloocan The Presiding Officer. from Caloocan Senator Trillanes. and Bicol, Mr. President. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. and the Republic of the Philippines, Senator Trillanes. Senator Trillanes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to wait for the answer to the questions of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and Senators Alan and Pia Cayetano. Who are the Senators you are referring to, Counsel? Mr. Roy. I am sorry, Your Honor. The information we received had nothing to do with the identities of the Senators, Your Honor. It was simply that the Executive Secretary was contacting some Members of this Court and that supposedly Senator Trillanes. No. Yesterday, I saw the press conference and you were so sure about your information. And it is completely unfair to the Members of this Body. So I would like to move Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I assure you, I would try to be of help but I simply do not have a name for you because there was none that was given to us. Senator Trillanes. So with that, Mr. President, I move that the members of the Defense Panel be made to explain why they will not be cited for contempt of this Impeachment Court, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Any objection? [Silence] The members of the Defense Panel will submit an explanation withinhow many days do you need? Mr. Roy. May we have until the end of the week, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Roy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Senator Pimentel wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. Attorney Roy knows the principle that the client is bound by the manifestations or agreements of counsel. Client is even bound by the mistakes of counsel. Mr. Roy. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. So I will give you a chance to extricate yourself from the admission that you made to this Court through the questioning of Senator-Judge Frank Drilon. So do you confirm his statement that you arethat your client is consenting through you to the opening of his dollar bank accounts? Mr. Roy. Your Honor, I confirm that the client has told us that he will release the information in due course. He did not authorize us to do it for him, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. So he will do it personally and in due course.
12
Mr. Roy. I suppose that is what he meant, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. That is your safety mechanism. [Laughter]
Mr. Roy. Your Honor, as you know, you yourself as student of the law, we are not authorized to compromise our client beyond that which they have allowed us to do. Senator Pimentel. Yes. Mr. Roy. The statement was quite simple, Relax lang po, Mr. President, kung yun lang ang pinoproblema niyo, huwag po kayong mag-apura. Senator Pimentel. Dahil? Mr. Roy. Bubuksan po naman lahat yan ng Punong Mahistrado. Iyun po ang statement na we were authorized to make. Senator Pimentel. Of course. And qualified with the manifestations you have made today. So okay, we will justwe will refer to the TSN as to the extent of the concessions, the extent of the admissions that you have made today. Mr. Roy. Let me be clear, Your Honor. This is the way we understood our instructions. The Chief Justice has informed us and authorized us to announce that he will disclose the bank accounts himself at the appropriate time. That is what we mean by in due course, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Okay. Let us leave it at that. Mr. Roy. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel. Thank you.
The Presiding Officer. Okay. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes. Mr. President, we are ready for the ruling of the Court. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Chair would like to make a statement. If you recall, there was an issue that arose out of the issuance by the Supreme Court of a Temporary Restraining Order upon petition of the Philippine Savings Bank with respect to the disclosure of alleged foreign currency bank accounts of the Respondent Chief Justice in the Philippine Savings Bank. And when that news reached this Presiding Officer, he made an appeal that we take heed of the alleged ruling or order of the highest Court of the land. And some Members of this Court suggested or advanced the opinion that the Supreme Court cannot exercise reviewjudicial review jurisdiction over this Courts proceedings. And because of that, the Chair opted to submit the matter for the consideration of the Impeachment Court in a caucus today at 12 noon. And this matter was thoroughly discussed. All Members of the Court were present either in person or through their representationsformal representations. And each Member of the Court explained his or her position. And a vote was taken on this matter. The Chair opted to divide the Court, meaning, to ask for a vote on this issue. And the result was that thirteen (13) Members of the Court opted to respect the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court on this particular issue regarding the matter raised by the Philippine Savings Bank with respect to the alleged Foreign Currency Deposit of the Respondent in that bank.
13
And I would like to read formally the Resolution of this Court on this particular issue: The Senate asserts that it has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide impeachment cases, all impeachment cases. This is very clear under Paragraph 6, Section 3, of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. After the deliberation on the issue, the majority of this Court has decided to respect the Temporary Restraining Order dated 09 February 2012 issued by the Supreme Court in the case filed by the Philippine Savings Bank insofar as the Foreign Currency Deposit accounts are concerned. Meaning, that we will respect the Temporary Restraining Order of the Court as far as deposits falling under Republic Act 6426, but not under Republic Act 1405, which refers to Local Currency Deposits because of the exception there contained. Nevertheless, the Senate reserves the right to vigorously defend before the Supreme Court the issuance of the subpoenas for the banks for the Foreign Currency Bank accounts. The Senate acting as an Impeachment Court in the trial of the Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is prepared to argue its case on the merits and to defend the legal and public policy basis underlying its ruling about the said subpoenas. SO ORDERED. The Floor Leader. Is the Prosecution prepared to proceed with the Trial? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, before we do so The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. A number of Members of the Court would wish to have the names of those who voted in favor and against the Temporary Restraining Order be read. The Presiding Officer. You may
Senator Sotto. So with your permission The Presiding Officer. You may proceed to read the vote of each Member of the Court.
Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Those who voted to respect the February 9 Temporary Restraining Order of the Supreme Court are Arroyo, Defensor Santiago, Villar, Recto, Escudero, Pimentel, Legarda, Honasan, Revilla, Marcos, Sotto, Estrada, and the Senate President. Those who voted otherwise: Drilon; Cayetano, Alan; Osmea; Angara; Lacson; Cayetano, Pia; Pangilinan; Trillaes; Lapid; and Guingona. For the record, Mr. President. Senator Guingona wishes to be recognized; then Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Bukidnon, Senator Guingona. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President.
14
Mr. President, lumabas na rin yung boto. At nais ko lang pong magsabi at ipahayag ang damdamin ng mga kababayan natin matapos na nagkonsulta ako tungkol sa botong nangyari. Dalawa po ang nararamdaman nila, Ginoong Pangulo, una: pangamba, fear, worry; pangalawa po, pagkabigo, disappointment, frustration bordering on despair, Mr. President. Bakit pangamba? Sapagkat mayroon pong TRO ngayon na ipinagbabawal ang pagtingin sa iilang mga bank accounts ng nasasakdal. At mayroon pang ibang TROmay isa pang TRO na nasa Korte Suprema. Ano daw po, ang tanong nila, ang pipigil sa Korte Suprema na magpalabas ng pangalawa, pangatlo? Later on, kahit anong galaw natin dito puwede silang tumakbo sa Korte Supremapang-apat na TRO hanggang sa mawalang bisa ang Impeachment Court. Pangalawa po, Ginoong Pangulo, pagkabigo. Heto na naman tayo, ayaw na namang ipakita ang buong larawan, ayaw na naman tayong bigyang access sa katotohananbigo at pangangamba. May dahilan pa po ba para hindi yumuko sa susunod itong Impeachment Court sa mga TRO na ibabato sa atin? At hindi daw po kaya ang TRO ay isa na namang paggamit ng teknikalidad ng batas para pahirapan ang paghahanap ng katotohanan? Hindi ba ito magkakaresulta sa bankruptcybankruptcy of accountability, bankruptcy of transparency? Mahirap tanggapin na magiging bankrupt ang buong prosesong ito sa transparency at accountability. Ginoong Pangulo, iginagalang ko po ang aking mga kapwa Senador-Hukom at iginagalang ko ang desisyon ng nakakarami. Pero mahalaga pong kahit sa ilang sandali ay madinig sa bulwagang ito ang damdamin ng ating mga kababayandamdamin ng pangangamba, damdamin ng pagkabigo, na isa na namang malaking pagkabigo, sa paghahanap ng katotohanan. Marami pong salamat, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental. Senator Pimentel. Thank you, Mr. President. I voted to respect that particular and specific TRO dated February 9, 2012, but subject to the Impeachment Courts modification that said TRO refers only to foreign currency deposit accounts. Since the TRO is only temporary and for the meantime only, there is no great damage to be suffered from respecting it also in the meantime only. And in that meantime, the Senate will also vigorously defend its sole power to try and decide impeachment cases before the Supreme Court. The matter of jurisdiction will be raised by the Senate before the Supreme Court. But I have noticed the attempt of the Supreme Court to enjoin the implementation of the entire subpoena dated February 6, 2012, including peso accounts, hence, the need to modify the wording of the TRO to be respected. May I, therefore, appeal to the Supreme Court to write or craft their decisions, resolutions or orders very carefully, clearly and accurately? But what ultimately swayed my vote to respect the said TRO is that I agree with the preliminary reading of the Supreme Court majority that foreign currency deposit accounts are of an absolute confidential nature. But I am still hoping that in the final disposition of the PSBank case, the Supreme Court will respect the constitutional power of the Senate to be the sole trier and judge of impeachment cases. Because if the Supreme Court does not, we will cross that bridge when we get there.
15
The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Trillanes earlier asked for the floor; then Senator Cayetano, Pia; then Senator Pangilinan and Sen. Alan Cayetano, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Trillanes. Thank you, Mr. President. I voted not to abide by the Temporary Restraining Order of the Supreme Court, and this is my explanation: We, the graduates of the Philippine Military Academy, are not taught to be saints. We do not even pretend to be one. And we do not even pretend to be self-righteous. But when faced with a dilemma involving our work as public servants, we have been trained to always seek the moral high ground. The issue we face is not a constitutional crisis but a moral crisis: on one hand, the Supreme Court who, through their TRO, threw that concept of judicial restraint out the window and intervened in the affairs of the Senate as an Impeachment Court to protect and cover up for one of their own; on the other hand, the Senate which is merely performing its mandate as clearly defined by the Constitution. To the ordinary Filipino, the choice is very clear. The Senate should not be a party to any policy that would provide sanctuary to alleged lawbreakers. Moreover, as a former soldier, I was taught to disobey unlawful orders. This TRO, in my uncomplicated mind, that of a soldier, this is an unlawful order. With that, Mr. President, while I respect the decision of the majority, I firmly believe that the Senate missed the opportunity to stand on moral high ground in this issue. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. We respect the opinion of all the gentlemen. But all of this will unravel in due time. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano and thenshe has withdrawn, therefore Senator Pangilinan and Sen. Alan Cayetano, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to abbreviate the proceedings, I will just manifest that I will submit a written explanation of my No vote. For the record, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Who else? Senator Sotto. Senator Alan. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, in casting my vote this afternoon, I did not get a hundred million pesos in cash nor in projects but I did have a hundred million reasons to vote that way. Mabigat po ang desisyon. Since Thursday afternoon, sinabi ko hindi muna ako mag-iisip pero noong Friday, Saturday, Sunday po talagang inisip ko, pinagdasal, diniscern (discern) kasi bilang
16
abogado napakahirap magdesisyon kung mag-a-abide or kung rerespetuhin ang isang TRO. Hindi po sapat ang ilang minuto para i-discuss ang napakabigat na issue so baka katulad ni Sen. Kiko Pangilinan ay magbigay na lang po kami ng extended written explanation. Ngunit gusto ko pong banggitin na we took into consideration the law, meaning the Constitution, existing laws, jurisprudence, iyon pong mga desisyon ng Supreme Court, hindi lang po ng Pilipinas kasi kakaunti pa lang po ang impeachment proceedings natin kung hindi iyong nangyari sa Amerika. Sa isang banda po, sinasabi na pag hindi nirespeto ang Supreme Court masisira ang Rule of Law. Sinasabi po na ito ay huling takbuhan po ng mga gustong protektahan ang kanilang karapatan pero tama din po ang sinabi ng isang senador kanina sa caucus na Eh ang Impeachment Court ay huling takbuhan ng mamamayan kung mayroong napakataas na posisyon o nanunungkulan na kailangang alisin. Nakakalimutan po yata natin na isang Chief Justice, isang miyembro ng Supreme Court ang ating tina-try ngayon at nagkakaroon na ng pag-iisip ang ating mga kababayan na ang Supreme Court po ay sila ay mayroong tulungan pagdating dito sa Impeachment. I do not want to cast any doubt upon the Supreme Court that is why I was hoping after asking last Thursday the witness, Mr. Garcia, Kung walang TRO, ilalabas mo ba iyong accounts? Ang sagot niya, Hindi. Meaning, kahit hindi nagbigay ng TRO ang Supreme Court, hindi pa rin naman ilalabas dito. So, I was hoping they would not issue a TRO even if they would go on with the case. But to expound, Mr. President, why I voted that way, totoo po, the highest court ang Supreme Court, the court of last resort. Pero madalas nating sabihin, ang Impeachment Court ay the very least, singtaas or equal, or some will say, higher in the sense that puwedeng kasuhan ang buong Supreme Court. Puwedeng lahat ng miyembro ay i-impeach, puwedeng paisa-isa. So, at the least, Mr. President, we all agree na pagdating po sa matters of impeachment, that should be left completely to the Impeachment Court. We have agreed po that all of us who graduated law school after the 1987 Constitution understand the expanded jurisdiction. Iyong parating binabanggit na grave abuse of discretion leading to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Pero tinuturo din po sa atin na hindi nawala iyong political question doctrine na kung klaro na sa isang ahensiya ng gobyerno o isang body o isang instrumentality ang kapangyarihan na iyon, hindi dapat panghimasukan ng Korte Suprema. Mayroon pong itinuro sa amin noong mahilig pa po tayo sa mga debate clubs in high school, in college. Iyon pong argumentum ad absurdum. You bring the argument to the absurd so that you will understand whether or not that argument is plausible. The Court agreed pag pinatigil ang hearing hindi puwedeng gawin ng Supreme Court iyan. The Court also agreed that iyong decision natin ay hindi puwedeng ibahin or baguhin ng Supreme Court. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin interlocutory orders, kung puwede poor mga points of laway puwedeng mag-issue ng TRO ang Supreme Court. Ang sabi po ng majority, Puwede. So, let me bring the argument to the absurd. What if the only ground to impeach a President, a Comelec chairman, chairman of COA or a Supreme Court Justice was a dollar account? Then the TRO will practically stop the whole impeachment proceeding. Or what if the one party suddenly decides each and every subparagraph, we will go the Supreme Court for a TRO. And what if the Supreme Court issues three (3) TROs a week, two (2) TROs a week, one (1) TRO a week? Hindi ba mayroon tayong doktrina sa batas, What you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? We cannot say later on, We will abide by this one; we will not abide by this one.
17
We have to face squarely the issue of jurisdiction. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction in matters of impeachment cases? And we have to look them in the eye and tell them, This is not a disrespect. Hindi ninyo field ito. Hindi ninyo po sakop ito. Dahil kapag sinabi po nating sakop nila ito, they can practically stop the Impeachment Court. So let me borrow po from our good friend, sinabi po niya ito sa kanyang church, si Pastor Doy Castillo, sabi niya, Ang TRO ay dapat truth, respect, obedience. Ito pong impeachment is search for the truth. Hindi ito criminal case. Hindi po makukulong ang Respondent dito. Ang pinaguusapan dito fitness, kung karapat-dapat. Dapat ho dito pagkatapos ng trial, dalawa lang ang resulta, either klaro sa atin na hindi siya fit at tanggalin siya o klaro sa atin na fit siya at lahat tayo ay suportahan siya bilang Chief Justice. Respect this two ways, Mr. President. We should respect the Supreme Court, yes. But did they respect us by suddenly issuing the TRO even if they could have taken judicial notice that hindi rin naman ibibigay ng presidente ng PSBank? Eh, tayo po bumoto pa tayo na huwag ipatawag ang mga justices dito, and then, they will issue a TRO just like that. Lastly is obedience, obedience to the rule of law. We are under scrutiny here. Binabantayan tayo. Kahit ano ang maging desisyon natin dito, may sasang-ayon, mayroong hindi sa atin. But the question is: Obedience to what law which will lead us to the truth? Will the TRO help us to find out what is in the dollar account, or will it hinder? So this is my humble submission, Mr. President. And that is why I votedMy vote really was that to uphold the jurisdiction of this Impeachment Court, that the Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction or it is a political question. They cannot issue TROs or orders that will, in one way or the other, affect how we try and how we decide this case. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Judge-Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The distinguished lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, if I had my choice I would not have wanted this to come to a vote. In the trial last week, I had hoped that one of the witnesses would, on his own, after contemplating and thinking of the repercussions of his refusal to provide the information on the foreign deposit, would come here voluntarily to disclose the same. But given that the decision of the majority was to bring this to a vote, I chose to cast my vote in favor of defying the TRO. Mr. President, I based my decision on the following. I think it is very clear to all of us that we are very young in terms of our jurisprudence when it comes to impeachment. We really have no firm cases to base our decisions upon. What we have is a constitutional provision that states that the Senate is the body that is charged to try all cases of impeachment. So we looked to the U.S., as we do in many similar cases, and there is a U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. United States. In this case, Mr. President, a United States federal judge was convicted of federal crimes and was sentenced to prison. After that, the House of Representatives adopted the Articles of Impeachment and proceeded with the impeachment. He was impeached, and the case was presented to the Senate. Judge Nixon then questioned the Senate proceedings. It then went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
18
ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that there are reasons why the judiciary has no role in impeachment. The Supreme Court stated that the framers of the Constitution recognized that there would possibly be two sets of proceedings, one would be a criminal trial, which in this case, the judge faced, and an impeachment trial. And therefore, the criminal trial already called for judicial interference, in fact, judicial supremacy. But the impeachment trial called for the impeachment court to be the sole judge. The respondent, Judge Nixon, argued that judicial review is necessary in order to place check and balances on the Legislature. He feared that if the Senate is given unreviewable authority to interpret the impeachment trial clause, there would be a grave risk that the Senate will usurp judicial power. On this matter, the Supreme Court ruled: The framers of the Constitution anticipated this objection and created two constitutional safeguards to keep the Senate in check. The first safeguard is that the whole of the impeachment power is divided between the two legislative bodies, with the House given the right to accuse and the Senate given the right to judge. This split of authority avoids the inconvenience of making the same person both accuser and judge, and guards against the danger of persecution from the prevalency of a factious spirit of either of thoseof a factious spirit in either of those branches. The second safeguard is the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement. And that is the same requirement that we have under our Philippine Constitution. Finally, Mr. President, I would just like to mention that there are lengthy discussions and I have taken the time to read, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis by Michael Gerhardt wherein it states, Judicial review of such an impeachment procedure would undermine the impeachments effectiveness as a check on executive and especially judicial abuse of power. Judicial review of the impeachment process would give judges the last word on the propriety of the procedure for their own removal and, thus, the chance to make their own or their colleagues removal virtually impossible by ensuring that Congress could achieve such outcomes only through the most complex and time-consuming ways. I have many more interesting points that I can put on record but I think I have covered the most important ones. And I thank the Senate President for the time to put on record my sentiments on the matter. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Chair... Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. Senator The Presiding Officer. ...would like to make a statement apropos the statement of the lady Senator from Taguig. I agree with what you stated, Madam Senator, but I would like to put on record that those pronouncements and decisions are based on the text of the United States Federal government. They are unlike the provisions of our Constitution. And I am sure that if those scholars and judges would have decided the cases in the light of our present Constitution, the 1987 Constitution, I am not sure that they would make those pronouncements as you have recited them. And I just want to put that into the record in order to guide future scholars and future lawyers and future historians to study this matter very carefully. Because while there are precedents in the United States along the lines you stated, those precedents are based on American law and not on Philippine constitutional law. Thank you. The gentle lady from Iloilo.
19
Senator Defensor-Santiago. Thank you. We are in the process of explaining our individual votes. I have already announced to the media priorly that I was going to vote in favorof obedience to the TRO for the following grounds. Now I will try to summarize them very quickly. Under the law, there is such a thing as a last clear chance doctrine. If both parties are at fault, perhaps in automobile collision, but one party had the last clear chance to avoid the collision but did not take that chance, then he is the one who is at fault. Today, we have a TRO issued by the Supreme Court against the Impeachment Court. The Supreme Court is what its name implies: the Supreme Court. This, by contrast, is just the high court of impeachment. If we do not obey the TRO, then we are engaged on a collision course. And it is now for the Senate to avail of the last clear chance to avoid a collision which will naturally result in a constitutional collision. That is the first argument. The second argument is this: Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with judicial power. There are two components of judicial power: One is the power to decide justiciable issues. Two, another component peculiar only to the Philippine Constitution is, that the Supreme Court has power over political questions. In that manner, therefore, the 1987 Constitution has already abolished the political question doctrine which is still observed in other democracies like ours, particularly in the United States. So, if that is the case, then the Supreme Court has a more comprehensive extent of judicial power than that possessed by the United States Supreme Court because of this constitutional provision. The case of Nixon v. United States involved a federal judge who, under American law, is authorized to be impeached by the Senate. Here, we do not have that system. Therefore, the ruling in U.S. v. Nixon does not apply to the Philippine jurisdiction. It is, of course, a valid decision to be cited in American law but not in Philippine law because our constitutional provision is markedly different. Third ground. The secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits Law is a child of this Congress. We passed that law and said the secrecy of foreign currency deposits is absolute except, and only except, when the depositor himself gives his consent. We have made that condition sole, alone and by itself. We made that law. Now, are we going to break that law? Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers. Fourth ground. The theory of checks and balances prohibits this Impeachment Court from claiming an exception unto itself. Under the theory of separation of powers, there are three branches of our government as enumerated in our Constitution. There is no specific provision in the Constitution that our governmental system is divided into three branches. But you can imply it from the fact that there are three separate and successive articles in our Constitution headed with the titles the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and then the Judicial Branch. So, by implication, we imply that our government has three branches. Now, under the system of checks and balances, our tripartite system of government, each branch has power to check or to modify the actions of other branches. That is the system of checks and balances. Even the Supreme Court is not final in its decisions. This Congress, for example, can go against the grain of a Supreme Court decision and in that way, overrule or overturn the decision of the Supreme Court. Who are we that we should claim an exemption from the principle of checks and balances which underlies the very system of government under which we operate? Who are we? Is the Impeachment Court illimitable? Are the powers of the Impeachment Court infinite? Are we almighty above all the three other branches of government? We are not even mentioned a separate article. We are the Impeachment
20
Court mentioned only under the article concerning accountability of public officers. So, if we do not recognize the Supreme Court, who therefore do we recognize? Nobody? Nobody is checking the Impeachment Court? Is that your theory? Fifth ground. Disobedience to the TRO violates the defendants human rights. The separation of powers doctrine was invented to protect the individual rightsthe individual and his rights, or in other words, his human rights. So, it becomes a question of how much judicial review should the Supreme Court exercise over the Impeachment Court. I humbly submit that it should not be full judicial review, that it can check us at any point. Those are the nightmares of someone who is not educated in the democratic process. I humbly submit that the Supreme Court has the power to exercise the most minimum judicial review. Who decides what is the most minimum judicial review? The Impeachment Court. Finally, sixth ground. In at least two (2) previous cases, the Supreme Court has already ruled it has power of judicial review over impeachment cases. These are the two (2) cases of Francisco v. Nagmamalasakit decided in 2003 and this very new case of Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives. If that is the case, then we follow judicial precedent. It is already a standing rule in law. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada wishes to be recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I voted to uphold the TRO of the Supreme Court. Mr. President, my family has been a victim of the past administration for not upholding the rule of law. In so many instancesin various instances, Mr. President, even the Supreme Court created a special court designed solely to convict former President Estrada. But, Mr. President, we have always respected and abided by the decision of the Court whether it is adverse or not. Mr. President, I am considered to be an ally of President Aquino. We have been very supportive of his projects but my primary concern here is the welfare of the administration of President Aquino. Can our country afford a constitutional crisis? Can our country afford political instability? Can our country afford a clash between the Legislative and the Judiciary? Mr. President, my answer is no. We want to see President Aquino succeed in his dreams for our country. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Chiz Escudero, finally, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon has the floor.
21
Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I voted with the majority to issue the subpoena insofar as the bank records are concerned, both local and foreign. I still stand by that decision, Mr. President. I believe the TRO issued by the Supreme Court is wrong. However, the place to slug it out is not here but in the Supreme Court. Hindi naman ho tayo mga tambay sa kalye na puwede tayong magpatigasan ng mukha dahil hindi tayo nagkakasundo. Ang tamang lugar para ipaglaban na tayo ay tama ay sa Korte Suprema na siyang nag-issue ng desisyon. Hindi po dito para pagbanggain ang dalawang institusyon ng ating pamahalaan. Mr. President, I am saddened by the fact that we even had to put this to a vote. Labis ang aking kalungkutan na kailangan pa bang pagbotohan ito. Ang katanungang, Susundin ba natin ang desisyon ng Korte o hindi? Natatakot at nangaganib na baka mamaya gayahin tayo ng ibang mga sanggunian sa buong bansa. Paano na lamang kung ang sangguniang panlalawigan, bayan o siyudad ng ibang probinsya, munisipyo at siyudad sabihin, Tingin namin mali ang desisyon ng Korte, eh. Pagbotohan nga natin kung susunod tayo o hindi dahil mali yan eh, illegal yan. As a student of the law, Mr. President, tama man o mali ang desisyon, tinuruan po kami na sumunod at ipaglaban na lamang ang aming karapatan sa loob ng Korte, hindi sumuway. Dahil ang kapalit po niyan anarkiya sa ating bansa at karapatan at kapangyarihan para sa bawat isa sa atin piliin alin ang desisyong susundin, alin ang desisyon na hindi susundin. Mr. President, when we speak of morality and doing what is right, I am of the firm belief that in our search for the truth, this does not in any way give us any right to violate the law. Sa paghahanap natin ng katotohanan wala naman siguro tayong lisensyang lumabag sa batas at hindi sumunod sa utos ng Korte. Sa paghahanap ng katotohanan, bakit tayo tutulad sa kanila na walang pakundangan kung ilabag ang batas? Kung pag-uusapan po natin kung ano ang tama at mali, dapat dito tayo tumayo, dito tayo naiiba dun sa iba na walang pakundangan kung labagin ang batas, tama man o mali, dahil kahit gaano kaganda ang ating motibo, wala tayong lisensyang lumabag sa anumang batas na tayo mismo ang pumasa. Bilang solusyon, Mr. President, Your Honors, ang akin pong nais ipanukala ay, una, to hold to task and hold to their word, the Defense and the Respondent as well as their counsels, in their promise to reveal in the course of the trial these bank deposits and bank accounts. Secondly, Mr. President, Your Honor, we have a Senate billSenate Bill No. 107 which is contained in Committee Report No. 2, the second Committee Report to be filed before plenary in this Chamber, and I hope our colleagues in the House will support this, too. It is a simple bill, Mr. President. It mandates that all public officials required to file SALN shall, together with their SALN, execute a waiver insofar as the secrecy of bank deposits are concerned. Perhaps this is the best time and this is the right time to remind our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, to pass this long overdue bill so that once and for all we will be able to do this legally. And should this occur again, we would be empowered and would have the arms and the necessary mechanisms in order to exact the truth not only from any respondent but from our banks as well. As a final point, Mr. President, Your Honor, lahat tayo ayaw na may daga sa loob ng bahay natin kahit gaano mang kaliit o kalaki iyong dagang iyon. Pero sa kagustuhan nating hulihin iyong daga, wala naman siguro tayong lisensiyang sunugin iyong buong bahay, idamay iyong ibang institusyon, idamay ang ibang tao na wala naman pong kinalaman dito. Our vote does not and cannot be compared with respect to the other votes of the Senate insofar as hiding the truth is concerned. Only that we want to do it properly, we want to do it in accordance
22
with law and at the end of the day we hope that we will be able to still find the truth legally respecting everybody his rights and in accordance with the Constitution and our laws. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Senator Legarda wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique, from Malabon and the Republic of the Philippines. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it is my belief that the Senate has a sole jurisdiction over the Impeachment Trial. That, we have no question. However, regarding the law covering foreign currency deposits, we must respect and implement the law unless and until we amend it. This action of the Senate, of the Majority, does not at all give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. We are simply following the law which this institution created. The law clearly states that only when the depositor allows the opening of the account can it be opened. The Respondent, through Counsel, already committed to submit his FCDU account to the Impeachment Court last week, to the media and in the Court today. Kung hindi po natin susundin ang batas na ginawa natin, papaano po natin sasabihin sa iba na sundin ang ating mga batas kung ang Senado na mismo ang lumalabag po nito? Sa puntong ito, hindi po masusupil ang katotohanan dahil sinabi ng Defense Counsel na bubuksan nila ng kusa ang dollar account and we take their commitment. Pinili ko pong sundin ang ating batas at ang pagsunod po sa ating batas hopefully ang magiging daan sa ating katotohanan. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Manny Villar, Mr. President, wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Las Pias, former Senate President of this Chamber, has the floor. Senator Villar. Maraming salamat po, Mahal na Pangulo. Marami po tayong pinag-uusapan sa larangan ng batas subalit ako po talaga ay nasa kaisipan na hindi naman natin dapat balewalain ang ating ekonomiya dahil ang ating pong mahihirap ay talaga pong tuloy-tuloy ang nangyayaring paghihirap. Tumataas po ang presyo ng bilihin, dumadami ang mga walang trabaho. Kaya kahit papaano hindi natin puwede hong sulyapan ano ba ang FCDU o iyong foreign currency deposit. Iyan po ay $31 billion na po ngayon iyan o P1.3 trillion. Iyan po ay kaya pinapangalagaan ng Bangko Sentral ay para naman maging stable po ang ating ekonomiya at hindi po basta-basta natin dapat isugal iyan, wika nga. Kung magkakaroon po ng problema ang FCDU, magkakabank run po iyan at napakalaki pong tama sa ating ekonomiya. Marami po sa atin dito ang mayayaman, hindi po maaapekto. Subalit iyong milyun-milyong mahihirap na naman po na wala namang kinalaman dito sa ating pinag-uusapan na diretso, iyon na naman po ang tatamaan.
23
Kailangan po ba naman, matanong ko po, na kailangan po ba naman na talagang labagin natin iyong batas diyan? Sa aking palagay hindi naman kasi kailangan, eh. Maliwanag naman po nasinabi nga po ng ating Defense na ilalabas naman at sinabi naman po na hindi naman natin kailangang banggain ang Supreme Court. Pangalawa po, ako ay natatakot din. Baka po wala tayong takbuhan. Iyon pong sa ating hangarin, sa hangarin po ng iba na ma-impeach ang ating Chief Justice ay marami pong institusyon ang nawawasak na po. Baka pati Supreme Court masama na diyan. Natatakot po ako doon sa mga maliliit o malalaki na balang-araw ay maaagrabyado. Saan po sila tatakbo kung ang Supreme Court po ay nawalan na ng karangalan at nabastos na? Kaya ako po ay naniniwala na hanggat maaari kung kaya naman nating gawing patas itong trial na ito nang hindi natin babastusin ang ating Supreme Court, eh bakit naman hindi po natin gawin. Ako naman po naniniwala sa aking sarili, kaya kong magdesisyun dito hindi lamang naman ang tanging basehan iyong FCDU account. Napakaraming basehan para kung i-impeach natin o a-acquit si Chief Justice Corona, hindi lamang po ito. Mahaba pa po ang trial, papakinggan pa po natin ang Depensa. Ang akin lamang hong hangarin, isipin din po natin iyong milyunmilyong mga kababayan natin lalong maghihirap din pag ang FCDU po ay nagka-bank run at iyon pong karapatan naman baka balang-araw po wala na tayong matakbuhan kung tayo po ay naagrabyado o nawawalan ng hustisya. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President, may we now proceed with the trial proper. The Presiding Officer. Before that, the Chair would like to announce that he has prepared a written explanation of his vote and he would like to submit this to the Clerk of Court and make it a part of the record for the scrutiny of anybody interested, the whole public who is interested to read the position of the Chair on this issue.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hereunder is the explanation of the Vote of Senate President Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, 13 February 2012, On the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on February 9, 2012 on the Foreign Currency Deposits allegedly belonging to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. I vote to respect the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court on February 9, 2012 on the foreign currency deposits allegedly belonging to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. It is important for the public to know the backdrop against which the essential and substantive issues involved in this case must be viewed. The Ruling issued by this Impeachment Court on February 6, 2012 was the result of our deliberations on the merits of the Requests for Issuance of Subpoenas both dated January 31, 2012 filed by the House of Representatives, through its appointed Prosecutors. It should be noted that in deciding to grant the subject Requests for Subpoena as embodied in the Ruling, this Court imposed specific limitations, as it applied the jurisprudentially accepted rule that in order to entitle a party to the issuance of subpoena duces tecum, it must appear, by clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified. Hence, the Court limited the coverage of the subpoenas it issued pursuant to the Ruling.
24
During our deliberations, the Senator-Judges were fully aware and carefully took into account the applicable laws and jurisprudence bearing on the issue of whether or not the use of the compulsory process which the Prosecution seeks to avail of to prove the charge contained in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment would violate existing laws on confidentiality of bank deposits as contained in Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and Republic Act No. 6426. Noting that RA 1405 clearly lists cases of impeachment as one of the exceptions to the general rule on secrecy of bank deposits, there was a general consensus that subject to the limitations set by this Court, there was no legal impediment to the issuance of the requested subpoenas pertaining to local currency deposits. To be sure, there was a contrary view expressed with respect to the disclosure of foreign currency deposits. I personally expressed the view that the nondisclosure provision of Republic Act No. 6426 is far stricter than the nondisclosure provision of Republic Act No. 1405. The only exception in Republic Act No. 6426 is the written permission of the depositor. Furthermore, I anticipated to the Members of the Court that a decision to require the disclosure of any detail pertaining to such foreign currency deposits may be legally challenged. There is no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Senate sitting as an impeachment court in matters concerning any case before it on the merits. No recourse to the Supreme Court can be sought from our decisions bearing on the merits of the case, much less, the final verdict of either guilt or acquittal which we shall render at the end of the trial. Section 3(6), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution unequivocally provides that The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. However, I cannot subscribe to the proposition that the Supreme Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over interlocutory matters that may arise in the course of an impeachment trial. Where a party, whether the respondent, prosecution, or any person or entity involved in the case, believes that the Impeachment Court has committed grave abuse of discretion, the judicial power vested in the Supreme Court to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government does not cease to exist. (Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution). Neither is such judicial power obliterated or diminished by the fact alone that the respondent may well be a member of the Supreme Court, as in this case, the Chief Justice himself. In carrying out our duty as an Impeachment Court, we remain under and not above, the Rule of Law. Indeed, even as the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment is lodged on this Chamber, the actual exercise of that awesome power is subject to the Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution. That said, allow me to state that I affixed my signature as Presiding Officer on the February 6, 2012 Ruling of the majority despite my reservations with regard to its application on foreign currency deposits. For the reasons stated below, I hereby stand behind the sound principles underlying the Ruling, even as, regrettably, the Supreme Court has found it necessary to issue a Temporary Restraining Order against this Impeachment Court: 1. The Impeachment Court did not act arbitrarily in issuing the assailed Ruling. The Court deliberated carefully and lengthily in caucus to consider the merits of the Requests for Issuance of Subpoena to BPI and PSBank, the opposition thereto filed by the Defense, the applicable
25
laws, the contrary views and concerns expressed by its Members, as well as existing jurisprudence to enlighten it in deciding the matter. As a result, the Court set specific limits to the subpoenas it issued and excluded certain alleged accounts which were not completely or sufficiently identified. 2. With respect to the foreign currency accounts, the Impeachment Court noted that the Supreme Court has ruled specific circumstances as constituting valid exceptions to the absolute secrecy of foreign currency deposits in several cases, to wit: In Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997, where the Supreme Court, citing Padilla vs. Padilla, 74 Phil. 377, ruled: In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. x x x This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. x x x Simply stated, when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience.
More recently, in the case of China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled: x x x Clearly it was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the law on secrecy on foreign currency deposits to perpetuate injustice. This Court is of the view that the allowance of the inquiry would be in accord with the rudiments of fair play, the upholding of fairness in our judicial system and would be an avoidance of delay and time-wasteful and circuitous way of administering justice.
3. In the instant case, this Court strongly believes that the ends of justice would best be served by allowing the foreign currency deposits or accounts alleged by the Prosecution to belong to Respondent Chief Justice Renato C. Corona to be disclosed. In the course of the trial, and in accordance with the Rules of this Impeachment Court, the Respondent is afforded the full opportunity to disprove the allegation that he has not fully and faithfully disclosed all his properties required by law to be disclosed under his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). In fact, counsels for the Defense have only too often stated in public that the Respondent intends to open and present these accounts, in due time. 4. Without prejudging the issue as to whether the foreign currency accounts bearing the account numbers which the President of PSBank had, under oath, admitted to exist in the banks records, actually belong to the Respondent, I am certain that in enacting the law (RA 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act), Congress did not intend to make such foreign currency deposit units as convenient legal shelters to hide sums of money that are otherwise required to be disclosed. 5. I am hopeful that the assertion by the Impeachment Court of its power to enforce its compulsory processes will serve to stress the extreme urgency of resolving the crucial issue that is now the subject of the Petition filed by Philippine Savings Bank, i.e. whether any foreign currency deposits maintained by impeachable officers constitute a valid exception to the absolute proscription against disclosure, and that the unintended effects of RA 6426 will not be lost on the Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of the Constitution and the laws of the land. 6. The Senate of the Philippines, acting as an Impeachment Court in trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, is prepared to argue its case on the merits, and to defend the legal and public policy basis underlying its questioned Ruling. Senator Sotto. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you.
26
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, in the last trial date, it was the turn of the Defense to cross-examine the witness of the Prosecution then. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago wishes to be recognized at the start of this trial proper, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo has the floor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you. Mr. President, these are questions for the lead Prosecutor. Counsel, do you still recognize me? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. I am sorry I cannot give you full time to explain your answers at length. But you see we are under time constraints, I only have two (2) minutes. Question one. One of the cardinal rules in trial technique is, Do not ask a question if you do not know what the answer is. You have been raising many questions on bank deposits with bank officials. You would now be ready to answer this question, excluding foreign currency because of the Supreme Court actuations here. What is your estimate, in Philippine pesos, of the total bank deposits of the Defendant? Remember, you should know the answers to the questions you have been raising. Representative Tupas. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. Magkano? Representative Tupas. So far for 2010, we discovered P31 million, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thirty-one million. Representative Tupas. For 2007, we discovered around five or seven million. But on 2007, the cash that was declared in the SALN is only 2.7. In 2010, Your Honor, we discovered P31 million in cash but the cash declared in SALN was only P3.5 million. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. So let us make that our working estimate. The Prosecutions estimate which is not, of course, binding is about P31 million in the bank deposits of the Defendant. Now, I ask you personally, what is your proposed benchmark for a total peso amount deposited in a bank or banks that would constitute evidence of betrayal of public trust? Ano sa tingin mo kung total nasuma-total na, huwag lang iyong dolyar dahil may Supreme Court ruling tayo doon. Sa pesos, ano sa tingin mo ang dapat na minimum na sabihin mo may betrayal of public trust, public official man o hindi, mga ano kaya? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, ang tingin ko dito pag sobra sa dineclare niya doon sa SALN niya, kasi dine-declare niya lang naman 3.5, pag sobra doon, that would already constitute betrayal of public trust. Senator Defensor Santiago. Sobra by how much? Halimbawa a few pesos, natural you can excuse that. But by how much?
27
Representative Tupas. Like for example Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. So in other words, give me a benchmark. Give me a benchmark figure. Representative Tupas. Ngayon po, yung Senator Defensor Santiago. Just pluck it out of the air. Representative Tupas. Yung napakita namin na P31 million na ngayon Senator Defensor Santiago. Thirty-one million benchmark. Representative Tupas. That would already a clear case of betrayal of public trust. Senator Defensor Santiago. Betrayal of public trust. All right. There is a saying those who come to court must come to court with clean hands. Hindi ba dapat lahat tayo dito na participants ng Kongreso sa Impeachment Court ay dapat suriin natin ang mga konsyensya natin at mga budhi natin. Meron ba tayong P35 million lahat-lahat? Pati itong mga tagapakinig sa gallery, meron ba kayong mga P35 million sa bangko? Ay, may betrayal of public trust pala kayo kung ganoon yon. Ang punto ko diyan ay ganito. Hindi mo masabi kung magkanong benchmark mo for betrayal of public trust in quantifiable amounts. Because it will depend how old is the person, how many children did you have to send to school and support, what is the record of accomplishments in his profession, is his wife working, et cetera, et cetera. Representative Tupas. Your Honor. Your Honor please? Senator Defensor Santiago. No. Representative Tupas. If I may be allowed to explain. Senator Defensor Santiago. This is my two (2) minutes. Representative Tupas. Okay, go ahead. Senator Defensor Santiago. They will also stop me after a while. Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Council may investigate any deposit in a bank upon order of a court and establish that there is probable cause of an unlawful activity. That is the provision of law. Now my question to you is, has this Council made such an investigation into the bank deposits of the Defendant? Answer yes or no. Representative Tupas. No. Senator Defensor Santiago. No. Representative Tupas. This Counsel, no. Senator Defensor Santiago. No, no, not you. I mean, do you know if the Anti-Money Laundering Council has asked a court to examine the bank deposits of Defendant. Because if it did not, then there is no probable cause. It seems very much like that.
28
Representative Tupas. We are not aware of that, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. No, alam ko eh.
Now, answer this question. What is evidence on motion? Evidence on Motion, define. I will supply the answer. Evidence in motion is evidence that is not given inside the court. It is given outside the court. There are two lawyers there from each of the panels. There is a Clerk of Court from ourthis court and a stenographer and you ask exactly the same questions that you would ask in court. Except that you do not take the time of the court. Doing it in the courtroom but outside the courtroom. That is also called a deposition. Kaya ang punto ko dito ay, bakit hindi ka mag-evidence on motion para matapos na ito? Question No. 3. Under the doctrine of judicial precedent, kung mayroong kaso ang Korte Suprema, yang kaso na yan puwedeng gagawinghow do you saycompulsory. If there is one case decided by the Supreme Court, all other cases in a certain category must be decided in the same way as that case. That is called the doctrine of judicial precedent. Question: What is the determining criterion for the applicability of judicial precedent? That is very easy to answer. Representative Tupas. Well, the issues and the party should be the same. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is right. Correct. A precedent is a judicial decision which contains inside itself a principle. Ang problema natin dito ay, na you cite a case only for its ratio decidendi and not for its obiter dictum. What is the ratio decidendi of a case? Representative Tupas. That is the meat of the case. Senator Defensor Santiago. That becomes applicable to all? Representative Tupas. Yes. That is the meat of the case. That is compared to obiter dictum. Senator Defensor Santiago. Excuse me? Representative Tupas. It is the meat of the case. Senator Defensor Santiago. It is the meat? What do you mean by that? Representative Tupas. The ratio, the reason. The reason or rationale, is the ratio decidendi. Senator Defensor Santiago. It is the very Representative Tupas. The reason. Senator Defensor Santiago. reason Representative Tupas. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. ..for the rule in that case. Representative Tupas. Yes, Maam. Senator Defensor Santiago. What is obiter dictum? Representatiave Tupas. Well, it just cited a case but it does not decide a case. It is outside of the
29
Senator Defensor Santiago. It is also persuasive but it is not as significant or as vital as the ratio decidendi, right? Representative Tupas. Correct. Senator Defensor Santiago. So we are taught in law school that when you cite a case, cite the ratio decidendi of the case. Do not cite the obiter dicta of that case. Because obiter dictum is just like saying in plain English by the way, hindi ba? Representative Tupas. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. Ngayon, patunayan mo sa akin, ratio decidendi ba ang binigay mo doon sa kaso ng Salvacion, China Banking and Ejercito that the Prosecution cited as its cases so that the foreign currency deposits of the Defendant should be opened. Yun ang argumento mo eh. Inutos na yan noon ng Korte Suprema di sundin natin. But were you citing the ratio decidendi or not? Representative Tupas. If I may explain. Can I explain na? Senator Defensor Santiago. Pleaseas short as possible because, you know Representative Tupas. Okay. We cited that case because that was one of the instances wherein the Supreme Court Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, hindi mo nai-cite ang ratio decidendi. Representative Tupas. made an exception. Senator Defensor Santiago. If we had cited our ratio decidendi, di sasagot ka ngayon sa akin ng oo. May paliwanag ka pa, eh. Ngayon sa Salvacion, kamo kanina judicial precedent applies when the facts are the same. Right? All right. Answer this one question: In the case of Salvacion where the Supreme Court ruled that the foreign currency deposit could be scrutinized, what was the main offense charged? Representative Tupas. It was rape, Your Honor Senator Defensor Santiago. Right. Representative Tupas. by a foreigner of a Filipina child. Senator Defensor Santiago. Is rape, by any stretch on the imagination, the same as impeachment? Do not answer the question. China Banking. Dito sa China Banking naman, the Supreme Court ruled, In view of the distractivemeaning to say, distracts the attention, circumstances attendant to the present case were constrained to render a limited pro hac vice ruling. What is the meaning, Counsel, of pro hac vice? Representative Tupas. Only in this case. Applicable only in this case. Senator Defensor Santiago. O. Iyon lang pala, eh. Alam mo naman pala, eh. O, alam mo pala na doon sa China Banking, the Supreme Court said: This ruling applies only in this case. And yet, you cited it in this case. O, ikaw naman, oo. Next. Ejercito exception. The third dollar deposit case is Ejercito vs. Sandigan. Remember your reply to me earlier? You said: We can cite the doctrine of judicial precedent if the facts are the same. Now in Ejercito, what was the offense there? Do you remember?
30
Representative Tupas. Yes. It was the officials of the Ombudsman. Yes, the officials of the Ombudsman. Senator Defensor Santiago. It was plunder. Representative Tupas. Plunder, yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. This is an impeachment case for betrayal of public trust, et cetera, which is a case for plunder? Nooh, iyan, di nakita mo na. Iba-iba pala ang mga pinagsasabi mo, eh. Ngayon, Intengan case, which you did not cite in our debate on foreign currency. Intengan, the Supreme Court ruled under R.A. No. 6426, there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits. That is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. What was the subject matter of the case in Intengan? Representative Tupas. We did not cite that, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Foreign currency deposit. Representative Tupas. Foreign currency. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. Exactly. So there is only one case on record which is on all fours with the facts of this case in the Impeachment Court. All your three other cases are absolutely irrelevant and you cannot cite them as judicial precedent. Ngayon, bilisan ko na lang ito. Ito. The Rules of Court provides for disputable presumptions. These are presumptions which are satisfactory if uncontradicted but they may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. That is why they are called disputable. The presumption is in favor of one party, but the other party might produce evidence. Then the presumption no longer holds. One disputable presumption is that evidence willfully suppressed is evidence adverse, would be adverse if produced. According to a long line of cases, this presumption applies only if the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. In other words, if it does not lie within the discretion alone of the defendant but is related to some national interest, then the presumption does not apply. For example, inyo itong pagsasagot sa pagtatanong, eh kung wala tayong tinatago, bakit hindi niya ipalabas. Iyan ang sagot sa batas. Because he is not allowed to do that. By law, it does not fall exactly on his personal discretion alone. For example, it is reported that when one bank official testified against President Estrada in his impeachment case, her testimony was followed by massive withdrawals from her own bank. That is a fact. It is discussed sub rosa, secretly by banking community dahil takot na takot sila sa bank run. Iyan ang nangyari. Mayroong isang opisyal pumunta dito, dinaldal niya lahat tungkol sa kaso ng akusado noon kaya lahat ng depositors nila nag-withdraw. Now, my question to you is: What is your guarantee that insisting on testimony from bank officials will not be followed by bank run? Representative Tupas. Because this is impeachment, Your Honor, and we are only asking this because of the impeachment proceeding and the respondent is the Chief Justice, we believe. Senator Defensor Santiago. In other words, you have no guarantee? Right? Puwede mo magarantiya na hindi ito ma-follow ng bank run pag pinilit nating umupo iyong opisyal doon na hala, daldal siya nang daldal tungkol sa pera?
31
Representative Tupas. With due respect, Your Honor, there are only few officials who are subject to Impeachment. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Representative Tupas. And our argument is that this should be one of the exceptions to this foreign currency deposit. Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, yun ang mahirap, yung mga exception na yun. Ngayon, nagmamadali lang kasi ako, pasensiya ka na. Under the rules of evidence, a witness is entitled to certain rights. Hindi naman sukat umupo siya diyan, puwede mong gawin ang gusto mo. One of this is, quoteI am quoting from the Rules of Court, Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. Under the Foreign Currency Deposits Law, if the bank president refuses to answer a question concerning a foreign currency deposit, will he incur a penalty? Representative Tupas. If there is a justifying circumstance, then he will not incur. Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, you are temporizing. I give you a grade of 3. [Laughter] In UP, as you know, that means 3, warning. I pass you but I warn you. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Senator Defensor Santiago. Question 7. On the one hand, the Paris Task Force of the International Anti-Money Laundering Treaty tries to pressure every government, open all its bank deposits to the public. Dahil yun ang kanilang mission in life eh, to avoid people from hiding illegal wealth in bank deposits. But on the other hand, those in favor of bank secrecy argue that no one will deposit his money in any bank unless confidentiality is guaranteed. O, ilalagay ba natin yung pera natin sa bangko kung hindi tayo sigurado na sikreto iyan at hindi niya ibabalita sa madla? Many business leaders fear that if this Impeachment Trial opens bank records, then the depositors will transfer their deposits to stricter countries like Switzerland. I have already said, Switzerland is now gaining a reputationI mean, Singapore is now gaining a reputation as the new Switzerland of the world because they have such strict laws about bank secrecy. They will never reveallike a very, very complicated legal procedure. So, kung ganyan pala na ilalagay mo ang pera mo sa bangko, puwede palang iladladhow do you say in Tagalog? Puwede palang iladlad iyan ng kung sinong opisyal diyan sa bangko. Aba eh, kukunin ko pera ko, ilagay ko dun sa bangko na hindi niya ibabalita sa buong mundo ang pera ko. So, the question: Is the Prosecution panel willing to assume responsibility for substantial hardship on the Philippine banking industry? I will educate you as part of my prerogative as a Judge that that is the present concern of the Makati Business Community. Representaive Tupas. Your Honor, we believe that the public policy here is public policy of accountability and transparency. And the impeachment proceeding of the Chief Justice should be an exception to that. It is only an exception and hindi ho kasama diyan yung bank run, yungkung
32
hindi sa isang tao lang po ito at ito ay Chief Justice na kailangan natin buksan ang kanyang bank accounts. Senator Defensor Santiago. Kaya nga. Hindi naman iyon ang sinasabi ko sa iyo eh. Sinasabi lang sa iyo pag nakinig ang mga taga-TV at mga radyot iba pa dito sa gallery, baka magiging ganun ang resulta. I heard that bell, maybe it is intended for me. May I just have permission to read one last question? Representative Tupas. Before that, Your Honor, just can I say something? Senator Defensor Santiago. No, because you are taking up my time. Ask him. On the one hand, it is our view that absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposit will attract non-resident depositors. Kaya tayo pumasa ng batas na iyan na hindi puwedeng sabihin ang maski ano tungkol sa foreign currency deposit, para yung mga dayuhan pupunta sa Pilipinas at ilagay nila ang pera nila dito. Ngayon, kung bubuksan natin iyan, hindi na sila pupunta dito, pupunta na sila sa Singapore at iba pang mga bansa. But on the one hand, it is now argued that foreign currency deposits might become a haven for the ill-gotten wealth of crooks, terrorists and other criminals. Aba eh, kung ganyan pala na hindi pala mabuksan-buksan yung mga foreign currency, eh tayong mgahow do you saynangungurakot sa gobyerno, di duon natin ilagay ang pera natin, huwag na sa peso deposit, dito na sa foreign currency dahil safe tayo doon. The Presiding Officer. May I request the lady to wind up? Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, I am winding up. Insofar as Filipino crooks and criminals are concerned, would you be willing to file an amendment to the Foreign Currency Secrecy Law to provide the proper exception allowing the scrutiny of foreign currency deposits only when the Filipino citizen is depositor? Because if you allow public scrutiny for all kinds of depositors, foreign depositors will naturally no longer deposit their money. Oh, ngayon kung ang habol lang natin ay yung mga nagnanakaw sa gobyerno, gusto mo bang i-amend ang batas na ang mga Pilipino puwedeng suriin pero ang dayuhan hindi? Now, question: If so, how would you then answer the issue of discrimination against Filipinos in their own country? Representative Tupas. Una sa lahat, Your Honor, willing tayong mag-file nun given iyong nangyari ngayon sa Korte Suprema because we thought na iyong mga whereas clauses ng republic acts regarding the Foreign Currency Deposit Act and Bank Secrecy Law, akala natin iyong whereas clauses ay para lang iyonyung public policies, para lang iyon sa foreign depositors, lenders and investors, so we are willing to file. And hindi ho made-discriminate iyan because there should be sufficientdifferentiationiyong distinction sufficientlydapat mapakita lang natin na may distinction at hindi po madi-discriminate iyong mga Filipinos. And we are thinking about that, Your Honor, because of this ruling of the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer. All right, Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. We are ready for the cross-examination by the Defense for the witness of the Prosecution from the last time. So The Presiding Officer. Is the witness subject to cross-examination around? I am asking this from the Prosecution?
33
Representative Tupas. Yes. We are not yet through with our direct examination with the witness from the PSBank President, Mr. Pascual Garcia. But before that, Your Honor, just one The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. If you are not through with the direct examination, are you ready this afternoon to present him for direct examination? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor, we are ready. The Presiding Officer. Then bring him into the courtroom. Representative Tupas. Okay. May we now call on our witness, Mr. Pascual Garcia, president of the PSBank? And may we request, Your Honor, that Atty. Demetrio Custodio be recognized to conduct direct examination for the Prosecution? Senator Sotto. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. While the witness is coming to the courtroom, session suspended for Senator Sotto. May we request 15 minutes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Fifteen minutes. The trial was suspended at 4:44 p.m. At 5:29 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the present witness was summoned by the Prosecution. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness take the witness stand and testify under the same oath. Mr. Cuevas. Unless there are additional direct, Your Honor, we would like to announce on record for the Defense that we have no further crosswe have no cross, rather, on the said witness. Because the matters that we wanted to be touched on our cross-examination had been the subject of this resolution of this Court... The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. ...relative to the dollar account, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. I was made to understand, Your Honor, if my memory serves me right, that the witness had been ordered to bring with him the branch manager of his branch. The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Cuevas. And that to find out how the information had been leaked... The Presiding Officer. That is correct. Mr. Cuevas. ...to the outside world.
34
The Presiding Officer. That is correct. So, we will Mr. Custodio. I will say something. The Presiding Officer. The Mr. Custodio. May I be recognized, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
Mr. Custodio. This is Atty. Demetrio Custodio Jr., Your Honor, one of the Private Prosecutors under the control of the Public Prosecutor. Records will bear me out, Your Honor, that I suspended and interrupted my direct examination when it came to the dollar accounts, Your Honor. And we were intending to continue with that trend of examination. But in light of the ruling of the Impeachment Tribunal made this afternoon, Your Honor, we are foregoing with further questions on direct examination insofar as the witness is concerned subject to the reservation, Your Honor, and we are putting it on record, that when the time comes, we will examine the witness insofar as the dollar accounts are concerned only. But insofar as todays hearing is concerned, Your Honor, we close the witness. There being no cross-examination, we will have no redirect examination. The Presiding Officer. You are not going to examine him anymore on the local currency deposits. Mr. Custodio. We have finished the questioning on the local currency deposits, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. But still the Court required the president and the branch manager to appear regarding the leakage. Mr. Custodio. I understand, Your Honor, that from the records that there are a couple of Senator-Judges who would want to continue with their examination. I would just like to put on record that insofar as the Prosecution is concerned, we have completed the testimony of the witness. The Presiding Officer. We note that. Now, the Defense also has no further question on cross? Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. So, may we have the witness come to the witness stand? Senator Sotto. Yes. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo? Senator Sotto. Yes, Senator Drilon, Mr. President. Senator Drilon. Just for clarity, Mr. Senate President. We are talking here about the witness, Mr. Garcia. We are not talking about Ms. Annabelle Tiongson against whom a subpoena was issued. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
35
Is the Prosecution going to present Ms. Tiongson? Mr. Custodio. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Well, regardless of what the Prosecutions position is, a subpoena was issued by the Senate President addressed to Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, Branch Manager, PSBank, to bring with her the original and certified true copy of the bank statements showing the beginning balances for the following accounts in the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona: 089121017358, 089121019593, 089121020122, 089121021681 and 089121011957. These are all peso accounts, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. These are all local currency accounts. Senator Drilon. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Is the manager here, Mr. President? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the manager is here, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So she is here. So, anybody who would want to ask questions among the Judges? The gentleman from Cebu, Senator Osmea. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, good afternoon. Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon. Senator Osmea. Mr. Garcia, the PSBank normally has several other investment programs that they offer to their clients. Am I correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Aside from checking accounts, you have savings accounts, correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. You have PSBank ATM Savings, PSBank Regular Passbook, PSBank Dollar Savings, PSBank Overseas Filipino Savings Account, PSBank Premium US Dollar Time Deposit Accounts, PSBank Euro Savings Account. Am I correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. And normally, a depositor would have a large amount of deposits which he does not need for his operations. If it were a business or for his household needs and personal needs would normally be invitedshould be shift to a higher interest paying account. That would be standard for the bank, would it not? Mr. Garcia. That is the experience of some of our depositors, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. That is what the bank usually askinvites the depositors to do. Correct?
36
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, they do.
Senator Osmea. Yes. Your website promotes all of these types of accounts. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. So, therefore, it would make sense and it is probable that if the respondent have a large deposit and in one case he had, at the end of December 2010, in excess of 12 million, he would have probably been invited to shift it to an account that was going to make him more money in terms of interest payments than keeping it in a current account. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia. I cannot comment on that, Your Honor, because I was not a party to the particular process. Senator Osmea. That is right, that is why we ask your branch manager to come here. Is she here today? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, she is here today. Senator Osmea. All right. We will ask her that question. But in the meantime, what is a settlement account? Mr. Garcia. A settlement account for some of our products, Your Honor, is an account where the proceeds of the mother account is deposited to, no. For example, you have a settlement account for certain transactions whether they are for loans or for investments, there could also be settlement accounts for time deposits where instead of paying out the time deposit direct to a depositor, a depositor could choose or elect to open a settlement account where at the end of the tenor of the investment, the investment is credited to the settlement account. Senator Osmea. Is the settlement account, by nature, a savings account? Mr. Garcia. It could be a savings or a current account, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. So this is like a catch basin. Pag nag-mature na yung time deposit mo, the bank would automatically pay it to the settlement account? Mr. Garcia. Depending on the instructions of the depositor, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Depending upon the arrangements, yes Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. with the agreement of the depositor. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. What about mutual funds, does PSBank offered mutual funds? Mr. Garcia. At this particular time, Your Honor, we do not. Senator Osmea. All right. Do you offer the mutual funds of your mother bank? Mr. Garcia. At this particular time, we do not, Your Honor, we are not allowed to by the Bangko Sentral.
37
Senator Osmea. Okay. So therefore, this Representation, Mr. President, would like to include, aside from the current and savings account and time deposits that we had mentioned earlier, for a subpoena these all settlement accounts in PSBank under the name of the Respondent, investment management and trust accounts and mutual funds. In pesos, of course, but you can give us the dollars if you wish. The Presiding Officer. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare a subpoena duces tecum as requested by the gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmea. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. The Presiding Officer. According to his request. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is the manager around? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, she is. The Presiding Officer. Are you through with the president of the bank? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor, we move to discharge the witness. The Presiding Officer. The president of the bank is discharged. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Will you please call the manager of the bank to enter the Chamber and take the witness stand and be sworn as a witness. The Secretary. Ms. Tiongson, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this impeachment proceeding? Ms. Tiongson. Yes. The Secretary. So help you God. The Presiding Officer. Anybody who wants to ask questions from this witness? The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson, you were subject of a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum to bring the original and certified true copies of the bank statements showing the beginning balances of the following accounts in the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona and the five (5) peso accounts were enumerated. Do you have these opening statements, opening documents and the beginning balances?
38
Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) The Presiding Officer. Ms. Tiongson, the Chair would like to inform you that this Chair will allow only questions on peso accounts. Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) The Presiding Officer. And we will not allow you to answer questions on foreign currency deposit accounts because of the TRO of the Supreme Court. Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. Yes. The subpoena, Sir, specified five account numbers which are all peso accounts. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Senator Drilon. So do you have these opening documents and the opening balances? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Ah, all right. Can you please submit this to the Court? Can we have a copy of this, Mr. President, so thatfor reference? The Presiding Officer. Please submit to the Clerk of Court a copy of the document requested. Senator Drilon. Subpoenaed. The Presiding Officer. Subpoenaed. Did you bring all the documents covered by this subpoena addressed to you? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) The Presiding Officer. Will you submit them all to the Clerk of Court Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) The Presiding Officer. all the documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Can we have a copy of this from the Clerk of Court, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. The Clerk of Court is directed to furnish the gentleman from Iloilo copies of the documents.
39
Senator Drilon. You have a copy of what you submitted to the Court, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. Now, on Account No. 089121017358, Account Name: Renato Coronado Corona; Account Type: Peso Time Deposit; Opening Date: 1-26-2009; Opening Balance: P2,100,000. Do you confirm that this is your record? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Now, Account No. 089121019593; Account Name: Renato Coronado Corona; Account Type: Peso Time Deposit; Opening Date: December 22, 2009; the Opening Balance is P8,500,000. Do you confirm that that is your record? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. I am sorry. Account No. 09121020122; Account Name: Renato Coronado Corona; Peso Time Deposit; Opening Date: March 4, 2010; Opening Balance: P3,700,000. Do you confirm that that is so recorded in your documents? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Yes, the account number, the last one that I mentioned, is 089121020122; P3,700,000? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. That is as of opening date of March 4, 2010, is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Now, Account No. 089121021681; Renato Coronado Corona; Peso Time Deposit; September 1, 2010; Opening Balance: P7,090,099.45. Is that a correct reflection of your record? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Now last, Account No. 089121011957; Renato Coronado Corona; Peso Time Deposit; Opening Date: May 16, 2007; Opening Balance: P2 million. Is that a correct reflection of your records? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. By the way, this certification does not contain any signature. And there is a statement here: This is a system generated certification and requires no signature. Even if without any signature, you confirm that this is a document coming from your bank? Ms. Tiongson. (Stricken off the record by order of the Presiding Officer) Senator Drilon. Now, in the last hearing, Senator Osmea asked that any and all accounts: time deposits, certificates of deposits and other such financial instruments offered by the PSBank be produced. Are you aware of this
40
The Presiding Officer. The gentleman is given an extension of two minutes. Senator Drilon. I have no more questions, Your Honor. I was just asking that in behalf of Senator Osmea. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, may we be allowed to be informed whose witness is the witness on the stand, Annabelle Tiongson? Because the Prosecution never claimed that this witness is their witness, Your Honor. Neither is the Defense. All the while I thought, Your Honor, we were of the impression that she was summoned in order for this Honorable Court to gather information as to whether there had been leakage of the bank records despite the confidentiality of the said records pursuant to the Bank Law. The Presiding Officer. That is true. The purpose of calling this witness is to explain the leakage. But a Member of the Court, the gentleman from Iloilo, asked from this witness whetherbecause she was the one subpoenaed by the Court to bring here the documents whether she brought the documents subpoenaed and that is why he was asking questions. Mr. Cuevas. I am only asking, Your Honor, if it is allowable under the Rules of this Impeachment Court whether this witness is a witness for the Prosecution because she is not our witness. So she must be the witness of Senator Drilon, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Can I respond, Sir? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. The witness was subpoenaed not for the purpose of examining her on the alleged leakage. Pages 17 and 19 of the Records of the Senate of the last session will clearly show that the ruling of the Chair was that the subpoena issued was for the purposewas included, the original and certified true copy of the opening documents and the numbers and the account numbers were enumerated. And the Senate President ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the subpoena. This is not a subpoena asking the witness whetheron the matters pertaining to the alleged leakage. We were asking the questions, in the course of our time, as to whether or not she complied, the former witness complied with the subpoena on bringing the original and certified true copies of the opening documents. And that was precisely the subpoena issued by the Senate President. So it has nothing to do with the leakage and, we said, we need this information. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please. I do not know whetherDefense panel, the Defense lawyer will be allowed to engage in an argument with the Honorable Impeachment Judge. Because if we argue, then we will be ruled as out of order. But here is a witness who have been examined by the Honorable Drilon. We do not know whose witness she is and what will be the value of her testimony. Otherwise, Your Honor, we will move to strike out all the testimony of the witness. There is nobody. We cannot even prosecute her for perjury or falsification because nobody claims her to be a witness. We are not in conformity to the fact that the only purpose in calling this witness is to produce the documents mentioned in the subpoena. We are very clear and we stand pat on this manifestation, Your
41
Honor. That in fact, the president of the PSBank was ordered to produce Mrs. Tiongson. Because allegedly, the Court has information to the effect that there were leakages in this case, and therefore if there were, there is therefore that violation of Bank Secrecy Law, and any and all evidence presented towards that direction is subject to a motion to strike out, Your Honor. That is the rules of evidence we have understood, that is the rules of evidence in this country, and I suppose even this Impeachment Court will be governed. The Presiding Officer. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. That is the recollection also of the Chair. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The records will bear that out. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, just on that point. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, it is good that the good Justice Cuevas brought that out because that is the point I missed out a while ago on the Defense panel press con last night. Umangal din sila na may nagsabi po, hindi ko lang maalala kung sino sa kanila: O, tingnan niyo yung mga Senator-Judges pag nagtanong yung iba cross-examination na, yung iba ganito o ganyan ano, giving our people the idea or the impression that something irregular is happening here. And I do not blame the good Justice Defense Counsel, the good Justice Cuevas and the Defense Counsel for asking ano. But let me put on the record. This is the rule that we followed during thethat this Senateand we were not here yetduring the Erap Estrada Impeachment. When we formulated these rules, we were aware that these Rules will be applicable to anyone impeached. The Constitution says, you can impeach the President, Members of the Supreme Court, some people, for example, the Comelec chairman, COA chairman, et cetera. When the Ombudsman, Mercy Gutierrez, was to be impeached, we would have followed the same process. So, Mr. Chair, in the response to the question of the Counselthis is a regular procedure for Impeachment Court. Let us not confuse the procedure in a regular court of justice, in a criminal or civil case, our procedure in impeachment case because the rules clearly provide that each senator can ask questions in a two-minute time limit, and I think this is the third time that the good Defense Counsel questioned some of the questions being asked by Senator Drilon. And in the first instance, the Presiding Officer already explained their questions are clarificatory questions but it can be framed in any manner a Senator-Judge would like to ask it. So I do not blame you, Sir, for asking whose witness is this. Pero po, iyung tendency ng tanong na sinundan niyo pa po na, Witness ba to ni Senator Drilon? Pasensiya na po kayo, Sir, but medyo na-offend ako doon kasi just because one Senator-Judge is more active than the other, or ask one question thatas I said po last time, na nagsalita ako dito, di ba sabi ko maghintay lang ang Defense. Kasi pag kayo na magpiprisinta, kung paano ako magtanong na akala ng iba kampi sa Prosecution, ganoon din ako magtatanong na akala ng iba kampi ako sa Defense naman, dahil gusto ko malaman ang katotohanan.
42
But that is our right under the Rules. Hindi ito ordinary criminalhindi ito ordinarythis is not a court of justice wherein we follow strictly the rules in criminal or civil cases, Sir. Dito magtatanong talaga ang Senator-Judges. Lastly, the good Judge, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, mentioned, the first time she stood up, that Judges also ask questions like this, and that is the prerogative of the Judge and that was repeated by our Presiding Officer. So, sana po ma-settle natin ito. Pero sana, hindi na po ganun ang ano natin pag nagtatanong ang isang Senator-Judge. Mr. Cuevas. Wala po kaming hindi The Presiding Officer. Just to finish this discussion. Precisely, I asked a law firm to research for me the nature and powers of a grand jury. Because I remember that under American law, the House of Representatives in conducting an inquiry and in determining the sufficiency of that inquiry to warrant the filing of Articles of Impeachment is similar to the power of a grand jury in ordinary criminal prosecution. And I have the research here. Normally, the Prosecution, even in our ordinary system, gathers the evidence without the participation of the Court in the preparation of the criminal information. And this witness is a witness of the Prosecution. They were the ones who requested this Courtfor the Court to issue a subpoena precisely to bring those documents. The purpose of the Court in calling her here also was only for purposes of determining how those documents leaked but this witness is none other than a witness of the Prosecution. They requested her under a compulsory process of this Court to be brought here. Now, I am sorry to bring this up. Henceforth, if the Prosecution will disown witnesses that they request to be subpoenaed, then I will not, as a Presiding Officer, unless I am ordered by the Senate as an Impeachment Court, issue a subpoena duces tecum or subpoena duces ad testificandum unless you have a reason to present the witness. It is your responsibility. In fact, I will tell you thatand I am sorry to say this publiclyyour procedure seems to suggest to me, as a Presiding Officer, that you did not have any evidence. You are just gathering it through subpoenas issued by this Court. And I warn you that this is going to be a fatal error on your part. Mr. Custodio. May I be recognized, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. The witness now on the stand was not called by the Prosecution, precisely because the evidence she is going to present is the very same records that was presented already by The Presiding Officer. Yes. But you asked this Court to subpoena her. Mr. Custodio. Yes. And therefore, Mr. President The Presiding Officer. You should have manifested to the Court that We want the subpoena to that witness quashed already. Mr. Custodio. Mr. President, may I, therefore, make a formal manifestation The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. that pursuant to the subpoena issued by the Honorable Tribunal that we are adopting this witness as our own witness and we will conduct additional direct examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay.
43
Mr. Cuevas. But, if Your Honor please, may I be allowed even one minute only, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Cuevas. They are now speaking of a subpoena requested by them. I hope I will be pardoned with using the word, that is a falsity, Your Honor, because the very subpoena said, acting on the request for issuance of subpoena of Senator-Judge Franklin M. Drilon. There is no mention about the Prosecution, Your Honor. That is why I wanted to know, Your Honor, whether whose witness is the witness on the stand. Because under our rules of evidence, it is very clear, The Court shall not consider any evidence presented unless formally offered, Your Honor. And when we speak of documentary evidence, it must not be merely offered but rather it must be identified, marked and then offered in evidence. The Presiding Officer. But, Counsel, I have here a copy of the subpoena that I issued. I cannot remember the Mr. Cuevas. That may be the The Presiding Officer. I cannot see the date. Mr. Cuevas. That may be the first one, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct, but this isI am talking of the subpoena. I did not issue any other subpoena Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. against this witness. Mr. Cuevas. In that connection, Your Honor, may we ask permission to read the statement appearing here, Witnesseth Honorable Juan Ponce Enrile, Senate President and Presiding Officer of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court at City of Pasay, this 9th day of the Year of our Lord 2012, Your Honor, then signed, The Honorable Juan Ponce Enrile. So, this is a February 9 Subpoena, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Mr. President The Presiding Officer. Well, I am sorry, I forgot about this. You seeyes, I will own this Subpoena. Yes. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, can I have the floor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Drilon. Mr. President, the subpoena that the Senate President issued last is only consistent with and in pursuit of the previous subpoena issued by the Senate President. This is a subpoena issued February 6, 2012, a Resolution dated February 6 or February 7, 2012. I have here the unsigned copy but the recordsbut the original is in the records of the Senate. It is a Resolution and let me read part of that Resolution, Letter (b), the Branch Manager and/ or Authorized Representative of the Philippine Savings Bank, Katipunan Branch, Katipunan Avenue,
44
Loyola Heights, Quezon City, is commanded to bring before the Senate at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012 the original and certified true copies of the account opening forms, documents for the following bank accounts allegedly in the name of Renato C. Corona. Now, during the last session of this Court, we asked whether or not the opening documents and the opening balances for Account No. 089121017358 which was included in this Resolution of February 6 was complied with and there was no compliance because the witness was under the impression that it was only the ending balance which was subpoenaed when, in fact, the Resolution of the Senate President clearly stated opening forms and documents and since it was not this witness whoit was not Mr. Garcia who had knowledge of this, this Katipunan Branch Manager was subpoenaed here and that is clear on Page 17 of the records of the previous hearing and also on Page 16on Page 17 and Page 18. So, it is very clear that the subpoena now issued again is in pursuance of the Resolution of the Senate President dated February 6, 2012. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. I would like to be heard, Your Honor, if I will not be ruled out of order,
The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. The subpoena being read by the Honorable Drilon, Your Honor, refers to appearance on the 8th. The subpoena refers You are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the Philippines at 2 oclock in the afternoon on the 13th day of February 2012. So this is later. This cannot be altered anymore. I am not after the testimony of this lady, Your Honor. I am heavily thankful for her responding favorably to honor the subpoena of this Honorable Court. What puzzles me is this: our rule of evidence states, The Court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered. Any lawyer of this Impeachment Court will agree with me that that is the rule. All right, Now insofar as testimonial evidence is concerned, the offer is made the moment the witness is called to the stand. She is now called to the stand The Presiding Officer. What is your pleasure? Mr. Cuevas. My pleasure now, Your Honor, why I went to that extent ofher testimony, therefore, should be stricken from the record. She is not a witness for the Prosecution, neither she is a witness for the Defense, neither she is a witness for Senator Drilon. Mr. Custodio. May I be heard, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please. Mr. Custodio. Our earlier manifestation, Mr. President, is that we are adopting this witness as our witness pursuant to the subpoena, and a ruling was already made by the Senate President. We would like to proceed with this witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. Well, this will be a curative act, Your Honor. Because the witness is through testifying already after the testimony The Presiding Officer. All right. I order the striking out of the testimony of
45
Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may I be heard? The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, so that we can resolve this.
Since nobody owned the testimony of this witness prior to your accepting him as a witness, I now grant the motion of the Defense to strike out the testimony of the witness and order you to direct your question to the witness. So ordered. Senator Drilon. We reserve our right to appeal the ruling on the floor later on, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, we are offering the testimony of Ms. Annabelle Tiongson to prove, Your Honor, and to identify documents that were subpoenaed by the Senate sitting as Impeachment Tribunal. We will offer her testimony to identify the five accounts that were identified in the subpoena and ask her to identify the opening statements and the opening balances pertaining to these five accounts, Your Honor. And we will be presenting also related questions insofar as these are concerned. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Custodio. You are here pursuant to the subpoena of the Honorable Impeachment Court? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The witness is a very intelligent witness. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Witness, you are commanded by the subpoena to bring certain documents, do you have the documents that you were asked to bring? Mr. Cuevas. Vague, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Let her answer. She is an intelligent witness. Mr. Cuevas. Certain documentsGo ahead. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Witness, did you bring the documents you were required to bring to this Court by virtue of the subpoena issued by this Court on February 6? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. I have with me the statements The Presiding Officer. You have the documents? Mr. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed.
46
Mr. Custodio. May I approach the witness, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
Mr. Custodio. Witness, Your Honor, presenting to Counsel a bank certification from the PSBank Katipunan dated February 10, 2012. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we request that we be allowed to examine the document first before any question is propounded. The Presiding Officer. The Defense is allowed to examine. Mr. Custodio. I understand that a copy is available. The Presiding Officer. Identify the account number to which that document is connected. Mr. Custodio. May I proceed and read into the records the description of the document, Mr. President? Mr. Cuevas. We will object, Your Honor, because manifestation is no evidence whatsoever. The Presiding Officer. Just ask the question to link that document to any of these local currency account numbers stated in the subpoena. The contents are covered by the documents themselves. Mr. Custodio. Can you point to the bank certification, Ms. Tiongson, the entry pertaining to Account No. 089121017358? Mr. Cuevas. We admit that the witness can point, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Will you describe, Ms. Witness, the kind of account pertaining to this account number? Mr. Cuevas. And the best evidence will be the document itself, Your Honor, since it will be presented as evidence. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document, 089121017358, Your Honor, is a peso time deposit. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Thank you. Can you state for the record if it appears in this document when this account was opened? Mr. Cuevas. Which account? Very vague, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, we were referring particularly to the first account. We read already into the records the account number. Mr. Cuevas. Very vague, Your Honor. We wanted to object but we have nothere is no basis to the question. The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of the objection? Mr. Cuevas. Vague, Your Honor. Will you tell us what account is this?
47
The Presiding Officer. The understanding of the Chair of the question is only to ask the witness when the account was opened. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. To identify the date Mr. Cuevas. There are several accounts mentioned in the certification. So which of these accounts The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Madam Witness, will you state to what account number that document is related? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, can you repeat the question, please? The Presiding Officer. What peso account number or deposit account number is that document related? Ms. Tiongson. This document covers all the account numbers that were requested, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What are those account numbers? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the subpoena, Your Honor, the account numbers requested were 089121017358, 089121019593, 089121020122, 089121021681, 089121011957. The Presiding Officer. Why is it that that document is related to all these five bank deposit numbers? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, we issued bank certification showing all the five accounts and their opening balances. The Presiding Officer. And that certification is that document? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what is the date of that certification? Ms. Tiongson. The date of the certification is February 10, 2012, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And who signed that bank certification? Ms. Tiongson. Our bank certifications do not bear any signature, Your Honor, it is system generated. The Presiding Officer. And it contains the details about these account numbers? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Mr. Custodio. May I proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Ms. Tiongson, can you refer to your record and particularly Account No. 089121017358. Can you tell us what kind of account this is? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document 089121017358 is a peso time deposit account.
48
The Presiding Officer. It is a peso time deposit account? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by that?
Ms. Tiongson. Peso time deposit account is a peso denominated account that earns higher interest for a period of time, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. With a periodwith a period. Ms. Tiongson. For a period of time. The Presiding Officer. Interest bearing. Ms. Tiongson. Interest bearing. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Can you tell us, Ms. Tiongson, when this particular account was opened? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document, 089121017358 was opened on January 26, 2009, Sir. The Presiding Officer. 2009? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Can you tell us, Ms. Tiongson, under whose name this account was opened? The Presiding Officer. That isthe Mr. Cuevas. This will be the document, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, when you are dealing with the document, remember the best evidence rule so that we will not tarry. Objection sustained. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you tell us, Ms. Tiongson, what was the opening balance of this particular account? Ms. Tiongson. Account No. 089121017358, based on the document was opened onthe opening balance was P2,100,000, Your Honor, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Thank you. Ms. Tiongson, will you refer now to Account No. 089121019593. Can you tell us what kind of account this is? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document, the Account 089121019593 is a peso time deposit account. Mr. Custodio. Can you tell us on what date this account was opened? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document, this was opened on December 22, 2009. Mr. Custodio. And can you tell us, please, the opening balance of this particular account?
49
Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document, the opening balance of this particular account with number 089121019593 is P8,500,000, sir. Mr. Custodio. Can we move to the third account which is, Account No. 089121020122. Can you tell us, Ms. Witness, what kind of account this is? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the certification, Account No. 089121020122 is a peso time deposit account, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Can you tell us when this particular account was opened? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the certification, the opening date is March 4, 2010 for this account. Mr. Custodio. And for this account, can you tell us the opening balance, Ms. Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the certification, the opening balance for this account is P3,700,000. The Presiding Officer. Also a time deposit account? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What is your answer? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Let us go, Ms. Witness, to the fourth account which is 089121021681. Can you tell the Court your records as to what particular account this is? Ms. Tiongson. account, Sir. Based on the record, Account No. 089121021681 is a peso time deposit
Mr. Custodio. Can you tell us when or what particular date this account was opened? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the record, Sir, the opening date for this account is September 1, 2010. Mr. Custodio. And can you tell us, please, the opening balance of this particular account? Ms. Tiongson. Opening balance for this particular account, Sir, is P7,090,099.45. Mr. Custodio. Thank you.
Let us go now to the last account, Ms. Tiongson, which is 089121011957. Can you tell us what kind of account this number pertains to? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, this account with number 089121011957 is a peso time deposit account. Mr. Custodio. Peso Time Deposit Account. Can you tell us when this account was opened? Ms. Tiongson. This particular account, based on our record, was opened on May 16, 2007, Sir. Mr. Custodio. And lastly, can you tell us the opening balance of this particular account? Ms. Tiongson. P2 million, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Based on our record, for this particular account, the opening balance is Does your record show when a particular account was closed?
50
Ms. Tiongson. The record I have, Sir, only discloses the opening balance. I believe that our president has already given you that before. Mr. Custodio. All right. May I approach the witness, Your Honor, to look at the document? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Witness handing to Counsel, Your Honor, the bank certification dated February 10, 2012 which, after authentication and identification, we would like to mark as our QQQQQQQ, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. We object to the use of the word authentication. I have not had any question towards that effect, Your Honor. So it has no basis. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Prosecution, answer the objection. Mr. Custodio. We will proceed, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. Why are youyou want it authenticated? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Your Honor, because this Witness had already testified that these are her records and these are what she brought pursuant to the subpoena, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. According to what I heard, that document was unsigned. Mr. Cuevas. Unsigned, yes, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. May I propound additional questions, Your Honor, to clarify? The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. Witness, is that document unsigned? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, it is unsigned. The Presiding Officer. And who prepared that document? Ms. Tiongson. This document was prepared by our bank, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who in the bank? Ms. Tiongson. Our IT. The Presiding Officer. Who is your IT? Who? Talpulano, Talpulana? Who? Mr. Cuevas. May we request, Your Honor, that the lady beside the witness be ordered to refrain from discussing anything or talking with the witness? The Presiding Officer. The Chair is asking, clarifying a questiona matter. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, normally, when we prepare bank certifications, it is systemgenerated because we have our own system that covers the document. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by system-generated? Ms. Tiongson. It is owned by the bank, Your Honor, and we call it the bank certification system, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Why do you call it
51
Ms. Tiongson. And it has anoit is bar-coded, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Why do you call it system-generated? Is that drawn from your computer system? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Recorded by your computer system. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. By your Accounting Department. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And who operates that computer system? Ms. Tiongson. Each of our branches has their own computer The Presiding Officer. Who in your branch is operating your computer system? Ms. Tiongson. We havethe one encoding is the Customer Service Associate and then it is approved by the officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who is the officer that approved it? Ms. Tiongson. Normally, it is the BRAT Service and Control Officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Now, was that document generated from your system on your request? Ms. Tiongson. May I consult my Counsel? The Presiding Officer. Was it on your request or on the request of your president or on the request of San Antonio? Ms. Tiongson. May I consult my Counsel, Sir? The Presiding Officer. You go ahead, consult. Mr. Cuevas. For the record, Your Honor, may we request that the identity of the lawyer referred to by the Witness be placed on the record, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who is the lawyer advising the witness? Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Same appearance. I am Atty. Ritchie Ramos Pilares of Puno and Puno Law Offices, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are here to advise her as a Counsel? Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Yes, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. together with Atty. Regis Puno and Atty. Vincent Bayhon, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you a part of the Prosecution? Ms. Ramos-Pilares. No, Your Honor.
52
The Presiding Officer. All right.
Ms. Ramos-Pilares. We are just counsels for PSBank, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, can you please repeat the question, if you may? The Presiding Officer. Was that document generated from your computer system on your orders? Ms. Tiongson. Upon the receipt of the subpoena, Your Honor, we requested our The Presiding Officer. I am asking a simple question. Was it generated on your orders? Ms. Tiongson. On my order, Sir? The Presiding Officer. You were subpoenaed. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Who ordered the generation of that document if you did not order it? Ms. Tiongson. More or less, Sir, you may say that I did. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by more or less I did. You better be definite. Why are you hesitating? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, it was generated by our head of IT. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But did you order the generation of that? Ms. Tiongson. I requested to produce because we do not have any record of this particular account or for this particular depositor. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. You did not have a record of that particular account? Ms. Tiongson. If I may, Your Honor, all of the documents were already sent to the head office even before I came here, Sir. The Presiding Officer. They were all in the head office. Why was it that your office does not have the record of that account when it is maintained in your branch and you are the manager of that branch? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, since this is the subject of the Impeachment Court, we sent all the documents to the head office for safekeeping, Your Honor, by senior officers. The Presiding Officer. How did you send the documents? Ms. Tiongson. It was brought byit was picked up by a senior officer, Sir. The Presiding Officer. By hand? Ms. Tiongson. By hand, Sir. The Presiding Officer. I thought these are system-generated documents. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir, it is, this one.
53
The Presiding Officer. Then the Chair could not understand how couldyou have your own system Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. in Katipunan Branch? Ms. Tiongson. It is a centralized system, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Do you havehuh? This is a centralized system? Ms. Tiongson. Uh-huh. The Presiding Officer. But you do not have any system of your own assigned to your branch linked with your system in the central office? Ms. Tiongson. For this particular account or depositor, Sir, we do not have. The Presiding Officer. Why? Ms. Tiongson. It is no longer in our record. Sir, may I consult again? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.
Ms. Tiongson. Sir, actually, upon the receipt of the subpoena, I showed it to our president and he also ordered for the generation of this. The Presiding Officer. When you received the subpoena, how did your president know that you were subpoenaed? Did you report to your president? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then he told you to transfer the account to the head office?
Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. He just requested the generation of this document that was requested by the subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Must be cleared by the head office?
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You did notso this document was not generated upon your order; it was generated upon the orders of your president. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, proceed. Mr. Custodio. Last question, Mr. President. All right.
Did you have a chance, Ms. Tiongson, to go into the records after you received the subpoena of the particular accounts mentioned in the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Can you please clarify your question, Sir? What records are you pertaining?
54
Mr. Custodio. Thank you.
After you received the subpoena, did you look into the records pertaining to the five accounts mentioned in the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Custodio. All right. Will you confirm that this bank certification that you now are testifying on is accurate and correct based on the records that you say you looked into at the time you received the subpoena? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You know Mr. Cuevas. And secondly, that will be asking for an opinion, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You better lay the basis.
You know, you are asking too many details in your question without any basis. You better lay the basis. Mr. Custodio. Ms. Witness, what documents did you examine before or after you received the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. This particular document, Sir. Mr. Custodio. And what document is that, Ms. Witness? Ms. Tiongson. This is a bank certification of the opening balance of the requested accounts, Your Honorah, Sir. Mr. Custodio. And this bank certification pertaining to the details of the five accounts mentioned therein, you had the chance to compare that with the records in your bank? Mr. Cuevas. Very leading, Your Honor. That is practically putting the answer into the mouth of the witness, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Why is that leading? Let the witness answer.
The Presiding Officer.
Ms. Tiongson. Personally, no, Sir. But because this was ordered by our president and it was generated from our system, it can be considered genuine. Mr. Custodio. Thank you.
That would be all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right, cross.
Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Madam Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Sir. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
55
Senator Sotto. With the permission of the gentleman from the Defense, may we recognize Sen. Jinggoy Estrada before the cross-examination? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Because originally, Mr. President, just to set the record straight, although Senator Drilon was correct about the report earlier on the testimony or the witness, it was Senator Estrada who initially or originally asked for the presence of the witness. But that has now been adopted by the Prosecution The Presiding Officer. May I suggest that for an orderly handling of the witness, let us first allow the Counsel for the Defense to cross-examine her. And after that, the distinguished gentleman from San Juan will take the floor to ask his questions. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I submit, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. I was about to yield to him, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, it is okay. The Presiding Officer. Proceed, cross-examine. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, before you came over in todays proceedings, I suppose you have conferred with the lawyers of the Prosecution, am I right? Ms. Tiongson. The lawyers of the Prosecution, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. Right. Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. No. You never had any conference with any of them, more particularly Attorney Custodio, Representative Tupas. You have never Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. The first time you had a talk with them is today only. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Cuevas. So, before this case was filed, which was last December 13, 2010, you never did have a conference with them. Ms. Tiongson. I never did have a conference with them. Mr. Cuevas. And I suppose you had never shown them any copy of the documents you have testified on this afternoon. Ms. Tiongson. I have never shown any document to anyone, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. No, but I am asking a particular person. Ms. Tiongson. I did not Mr. Cuevas. To Attorney Custodio?
56
Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.
Mr. Cuevas. No. To Congressman Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.
Mr. Cuevas. All right. As of now, had they already examined these documents before questions on direct examination were propounded to you? No also? Ms. Tiongson. Sorry, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. As of now, today. Ms. Tiongson. Okay.
Mr. Cuevas. Did they have a talk with you in connection with these documents you identified? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, they do not know anything about this. Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And that is the kind of preparation that you have had before testifying in this Court in connection with the matters touching your direct examination, am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Sorry, Sir, I did not understand your question. Mr. Cuevas. And that is the kind of preparation that the Counsel for the Prosecution had when they call you to the stand now. Yes? Ms. Tiongson. If you say so, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Kindly answer, so that your answer will be reflected in the record. Ms. Tiongson. May I consult, Sir? I could not understand. Mr. Cuevas. Go ahead. Go ahead, please, if the Court allows. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. You can confer. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. I never met with them. Mr. Cuevas. We asked that question to you because the Defense together with the Honorable Chief Justice Corona were of the impression that the production of these records were merely what is known as fishing expedition. Do you confirm that? Ms. Tiongson. I cannot comment on that, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, she would not know the meaning of fishing expedition. She might think that she is going to the act Mr. Cuevas. Ano ho ba ang katapat ng fishing expedition, mangingisda? Ano ho ba ang katapat noon, mangingisda? The Presiding Officer. Nangangalap. Nangangalap ng ebidensiya. Mr. Cuevas. Nanalakab sa malinaw.
57
The Presiding Officer. Nangangalap. Mr. Cuevas. Ano po ang sagot niyo? No answer?
Ms. Tiongson. I cannot comment on that, Sir. I would not know. Mr. Cuevas. I see. Now, a while ago, prior to your being under direct examination by Attorney Custodio, Attorney Custodio never mentioned that you are one of the witnesses for the Prosecution. Do you agree with me? Mr. Custodio. Objection, Your Honor. She would not know that. She would be incompetent for that question. Mr. Cuevas. I am only asking her to affirm or deny. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Ms. Tiongson. If you mean him recognizing me as a witness, Sir? Sorry? Mr. Cuevas. Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito. Bago kayo nagpunta sa witness stand ngayon, walang sinasabi si Attorney Custodio na kayo ay isa sa testigo ng Prosecution. Tama ho ba yon? Tama yon. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And you were merely adopted as a witness for the Prosecution after you were subjected to direct examination by the Honorable Drilon. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Cuevas. Now, kindly look around and tell us whether you are familiar with Congressman Tupas. Will witness look? Ms. Tiongson. I see him on TV, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. How about in your bank, you have not seen him there? Answer please, for the record. Ms. Tiongson. If I have seen him in my bank? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Sa premises ng bank po ninyo.
Ms. Tiongson. May I confer with her? Mr. Cuevas. Simpleng-simple lang yung question nagko-confer pa kayo. The Presiding Officer. Witness, you address your request to confer with your Counsel with the Chair. Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. Sir?
The Presiding Officer. Henceforth, when you want to confer with your Counsel, please address the Chair. Ms. Tiongson. Sorry, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Proceed.
58
Ms. Tiongson. Based on my lawyers advice, that is not covered by the subpoena, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. No, but I am not asking you whether that is covered by the subpoena or not. Iyon ho ba ang sinabi sa inyo ng abogado ninyo? Iyon ho ba ang sinabi sa inyo? No, we just wanted the The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. The question is simple. Do you know the congressman mentioned, Congressman Tupas apart from seeing him? Ms. Tiongson. Okay. No. I do not not know him, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor. May I be allowed to proceed, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.
Mr. Cuevas. We have reliable information that he is one of the most important bank clients of your branch. Am I right? Mr. Custodio. Objection, Your Honor. Misleading. The Presiding Officer. What is the ground for Mr. Cuevas. Leading? Mr. Custodio. Misleading, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Misleading? Mr. Cuevas. We are asking the witness to confirm or deny, Your Honor. We are not telling that he knows it. The Presiding Officer. You may answer. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I ask my Counsel please because that is already Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. That is against my Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, may I be recognized? The Presiding Officer. Who is theidentify yourself. Mr. Custodio. The private prosecutor, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Are you the one propounding the question to her? Mr. Custodio. I have an objection, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Custodio. The objection is that this questioning is already beyond the scope of the direct examination which was limited only, Mr. President, to the contents of a document.
59
Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Mr. Custodio. Whatever pertained to matters before the issuance of that certification or afterwards is beyond the realm of correct cross-examination, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, may we be allowed to inform Counsel that cross-examination may deal with any matter taken up in the direct or connected therewith with sufficient fullness and freedom to determine bias or want of bias on the part of the witness and, thirdly, to elicit admissions pertinent to the points. Mr. Custodio. When we The Presiding Officer. Objection overruled. Proceed. You know, in cross-examination, the Chair allows a wide latitude to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not. And anything that is suspect is open to cross-examination. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I refer to my Counsel? The Presiding Officer. You may. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, can you please repeat your question? The Presiding Officer. Are you through? Are you through with your Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Then answer the question. Ms. Tiongson. I was requesting theSir, to repeat the question. Mr. Cuevas. My question, I think is, whether he is one of the most valuable clients or important clients of your bank. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, if you are asking if he has accounts with our bank. Is that the question? Mr. Cuevas. Just kindly answer the question. I had a very simple question. You conferred with your lawyer, I did not object. Siya ho ba ay isa sa importanteng Ms. Tongson. Sir, if I confirm or deny, then I will be in violation of 1405 so Mr. Cuevas. Ah, I see. You will be Ms. Tiongson. I cannot either confirm nor deny. Mr. Cuevas. But you are not denying? Is that what you wanted to tell the Court? Ms. Tiongson. I cannot comment on any question if he has a bank account or not with us or if he is a client. Mr. Cuevas. If we request for the issuance of a subpoena directing you to produce the bank accounts of Congressman Tupas in your bank, will you be able to do that? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, if there is an order for us, yes. Mr. Cuevas. So, you will be able to produce it. In this connection, Your Honor, then we request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
60
Mr. Tupas. Your Honor, can I
Mr. Cuevas. in order to test the bias, the lack of interest and so on on the part of the witness, Your Honor. Mr. Tupas. Your Honor Mr. Cuevas. Because impeachment may deal on the credibility of the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The bank account, if any, of the Prosecutor has nothing to do with this case. He is not a party to this case. His bank account is not in dispute. And so, this Chair is constrained to deny the request. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But this may tend to show the credibility on the part of the witness and bias or want of bias. The Presiding Officer. Well, the fact that the witness answered that she neither denies nor confirms, then it tells you a great meaning. She does not want to say anything because she is invoking precisely the Bank Secrecy Law. So she will not invoke the Bank Secrecy Law if the person alluded to does not have any bank account in the bank. Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor. That is why we followed it with a request to this Honorable Court for the production of any and all The Presiding Officer. That will be going against the Republic Act 1405. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Now, when was the last time you saw Congressman Tupas in your bank for banking transactions? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I have never seen him personally. Mr. Cuevas. At any time? Ms. Tiongson. This is the first time I have seen him personally. Mr. Cuevas. So you do not know him personally? So, he had not talked to you in connection with these matters of deposit of Chairman Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. That is even prior to the filing of the case before the Supreme Court on December 13, 2010? Mr. Custodio. That has been asked and answered already, Your Honor, repeatedly. Mr. Cuevas. How can it be answered? I have not asked it yet. I am definite now. I am asking a definite date, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. The records will bear that it had been asked already. The Presiding Officer. I will sustain the objection. The lady answered already that she met the person mentioned. Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. I did not get the ruling of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I sustained the objection of the Prosecution.
61
Mr. Cuevas. Okay then. Thank you. Now, in your capacity as branch manager of your bank, had you been asked to testify in similar matters, like the one you are testifying now, impeachment case? Ms. Tiongson. There was only one instance that I testified in a court, Your Honor, about BP 22. Mr. Cuevas. But it is not an impeachment case? Ms. Tiongson. No. This is the first time, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And what case are you referring to? Violation of the Anti-Bouncing Check Law, is that what you wanted to tell the Court? Ms. Tiongson. If I remember it right, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Anti-Bouncing Check. It has nothing to do whatsoever with your capacity as I withdraw the question. Why were you asked to testify if it is only a case of prosecution or violation of the Anti-Bouncing Check Law? Ms. Tiongson. My assistant manager could not go, so I was the one who went na lang. Mr. Cuevas. And you merely testified on records? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, based on records. Mr. Cuevas. Not on personal knowledge similar to this case now? Ms. Tiongson. No. Mr. Cuevas. That is all with the witness, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. No redirect, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada. Senator Drilon. Just a moment, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. After the manifestation of Senator Drilon, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Just a manifestation, Your Honor. Just to clarify on the record. I am in receipt of the Notice of the Clerk of Court, Emma Reyes, dated February 13, 2012. It says: For Honorable Senator-Judges. Subject: Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum. Date: February 13, 2012. Please be informed that per request of the House Panel of Prosecutors, the Honorable Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court issued a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum to the following: No. 3. Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, Branch Manager, PSBank. So this was requested by the Prosecution and there was a statement in the later subpoena that it was upon my request. Yes, it was upon my request because the previous subpoena was not complied with. The misrepresentation of Counsel for the Defense is certainly notis certainly clear because the subpoena is requested by the House of Prosecutors.
62
Mr. Cuevas. In this connection, Your Honor, and fearful that this Counsel, Your Honor, may again be ruled as out of order, we will just request for the marking of the subpoena, Your Honor, dated February 9, in the year of our Lord as... The Presiding Officer. If there is no objection, mark it accordingly. Mr. Cuevas. ...Exhibit 61 for the Defense, Your Honor, and the date acting on theand the entry acting on the request for issuance of subpoena of Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon be underlined and marked as Exhibit 61-A, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If there is no objection, mark it accordingly. Senator Drilon. Yes. Just a manifestation that that statement is clearly an error because that subpoena was requested by the panel of Prosecutors. The Presiding Officer. All right. Let all those statements stay in the record. The gentleman from San Juan. Mr. Cuevas. 62.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. I am through with the witness, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Witness, just for the record, you were issued a subpoena on February 6. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. The first one, Sir? Senator Ejercito Estrada. First subpoena. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. And just for the record, puwede bang malaman kung bakit hindi kayo naka-attend noong kayo po ay pina-subpoena noong February 6, 2012? Ms. Tiongson. Yes. When we received the subpoena, I was in the head office at that time. And I got to talk to our president, Mr. Garcia, and he offered to go to the stand in my behalf. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. Well, based on his explanation, it was to protect me from any possible criminal liability. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, you mean to tell us that the president... Ms. Tiongson. And, thus, he was the president. Senator Ejercito Estrada. ...of PSBank took the cudgels for you? Ms. Tiongson. I believe so, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Before you were promoted as bank manager, have you been a bank manager before?
63
Ms. Tiongson. Before I was a bank manager of PSBank? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes, yes. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir, in a different bank. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Have you been assigned as an accountant or a teller or a cashier of any bank... Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. ...before you were promoted as a branch manager? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Never? Ms. Tiongson. Never.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, what are your qualifications that made you qualified for the post that you are holding right now? Ms. Tiongson. When I joined my former bank, I joined as a management trainee. And right after the training, I was already promoted as a senior assistant manager. I was not assigned in a branch beforeright after the training. I was an account officer... Senator Ejercito Estrada. Where? Ms. Tiongson. ...for consumer loans. Senator Ejercito Estrada. For PSBank? Ms. Tiongson. In my former bank, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Of course, you are now a branch manager. What are the duties of a bank manager? Can you please educate this Representation, please? Ms. Tiongson. For PSBank, Sir, I am primarily responsible for the growth of our deposit and loan portfolio, the overall management of the branch and to ensure that the branch is operating smoothly and efficiently and that good quality service is being delivered to the clients... Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Ms. Tiongson. ...among others. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What are the steps in opening a bank account? Ms. Tiongson. For new clients, Your Honor, we require them to fill out our forms and then we request them to give us their original IDs depending on what they present. So, if it is a primary ID, we require one or if it isif she has or he has secondary ID, we require at least two (2). And then we validate and verify their signatures. And we ask them questions as to their personal details like the name, the address, telephone number, contact details, employer, business, the address, Sir, source of funds and TIN number. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, you, as a bank manager, do you supervise the opening of bank accounts of your client?
64
Ms. Tiongson. Not normally. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right.
For example, if a VIP enters your bank and wants to open an account in your bank, do you supervise the opening of his or her bank account? I am referring to a VIP, Madam Witness. Ms. Tiongson. When you say, Sir, VIP, a person who is known or anybody? The Presiding Officer. Very important person. Ms. Tiongson. Very important person. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. For example Ms. Tiongson. Actually, we consider all our clients very important, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. For example Ms. Tiongson. Sir, even if I do not know them, sometimes I personally attend to them. Senator Ejercito Estrada. For example, one of the senators here goes to your bank and opens an account, are you going to personally supervise the opening of a bank account of that particular VIP, for example. Ms. Tiongson. Most probably, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you usually do it? Ms. Tiongson. I would probably do it ... Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Ms. Tiongson. ... so I could be introduced. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Is there any difference on the way you treat a special client and an ordinary client? Ms. Tiongson. As I have said earlier, Your Honor, we treat everyone as valued... Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, if you treat everyone as a valued client, is it not that a bank manager attends to his special client rather than a clerk? Ms. Tiongson. Not necessarily, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Not necessarily. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Siyempre, pag alam mong VIP yung kliyente mo, ipagpalagay mo isang sikat na artista o mayaman na pulitiko alam mong may pera, pag pumunta yun, hindi niyo ba aasikasuhin? Ms. Tiongson. If I am there, Your Honor, I would assist. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Excuse me. I did not get your answer. Ms. Tiongson. If I am in the branch, I would assist in the opening.
65
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ah, you will assist. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. idideposito, ganun ba? Pag VIP, pag sikat, pag alam mong mayroong malaking
Ms. Tiongson. Even iffor as long as I haveif I am not really that busy, I go to the New Accounts Section most of the time to assist them and be introduced to our clients. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, pag busy ka at mayroon isang tanyag na personalidad na pumasok sa bangko niyo, hindi mo aasikasuhin. Is that my impression? Ms. Tiongson. When I finished what I am doing, I would probably go to that person, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Okay. Let us go to the documents that are being kept in your branch. Could you identify the forms being filled out in opening an account? Ms. Tiongson. For new clients, Your Honor, they are required to fill up their information in the specimen signature card. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. And then they are asked to sign the agreement. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. I was asking your president last week regarding the attachment made by the Prosecution with regard to their request for subpoena and I got hold of a copyof a xerox copy of the Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card. If I show this to you, do you have the original copy of this particular Specimen Signature Card? Mr. President, permission to approach the The Presiding Officer. You are free to approach the witness. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I consult? [Senator Ejercito Estrada showing the document to the witness] The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Handa na po kayo sa sagot?
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Sagutin niyo po yung tanong ko. Ms. Tiongson. The question again, Sir? Sorry. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You know, Madam Witness, you keep on smiling, I do not know what that smile is for. Ms. Tiongson. It isI am nervous. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I have already shown you a copy of aa xerox copy of a Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card from PSBank.
66
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Ms. Tiongson. Can you produce the original copy of this particular specimen card? Did that come from your bank? Ayun. Galing ba ho sa bangko ninyo ito? Ms. Tiongson. I will just compare it, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Counsel, ask permission of the Chair to approach your client otherwise I will be compelled to ask you to leave this room. Ms. Tiongson. For the signature card, Your Honor, it is the copy of the original. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Excuse me, I did not get your answer. Ms. Tiongson. The signature card is the copy of the original. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Are you willing to bring that original copy here in this Court? The Presiding Officer. Are the originals in the possession of your bank? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And those documents are faithful reproduction of those originals? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So dala niyo yung anois it my understanding na dala niyo yung original? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Do you have the originals with you? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I consult my Counsel? The Presiding Officer. You may consult. Who is the other lawyer approaching the witness? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, these were marked as exhibit already. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. Madam Witness, do you consider thosethe documents that you have as confidential documents? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. If soMr. President, can you give me at least three (3) minutes? The Presiding Officer. You are given five (5) minutes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. If so, Madam Witness, where do you keep these particular documents?
67
Ms. Tiongson. Sir, after Senator Ejercito Estrada. In a safe, in a vault Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir, in a vault. Senator Ejercito Estrada. or your drawer? Ms. Tiongson. It is in a filing cabinet inside the vault, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Filing cabinet inside the vault. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Who are those entrusted for the safekeeping of these documents? Ms. Tiongson. It is under the joint custody of one officer and one Customer Service Associate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Excuse me, one officer? Ms. Tiongson. And one Customer Service Associate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And one service? Ms. Tiongson. Associate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Service Associate? Ms. Tiongson. Customer Service Associate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ah, Customer Service Associate. The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Who are they? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, for my particular branch? The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Name them. Ms. Tiongson. Name them. Right now, Your Honor, the primary custodians The Presiding Officer. Who? Ms. Tiongson. are the BSCOour BSCO right now is Almond Raquiza. The Presiding Officer. Since when? Ms. Tiongson. SinceI do not recall, Your Honor. Sorry. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay. You mentioned these two (2) people, no. The Presiding Officer. Who is the other one? Senator Ejercito Estrada. One officer, Mr. President, and one Customer Service Officer. The Presiding Officer. Yes. I wantthe Chair would like to know the identities of these two (2) persons and I will ask another question. Ms. Tiongson. Okay.
68
The Presiding Officer. Witness, answer the question. Ms. Tiongson. The other custodian is Emilyn Dizon, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Huh? Ms. Tiongson. Emilyn Dizon.
The Presiding Officer. And the filing cabinet could not be opened without the two of them using a key? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. There is a combination. The Presiding Officer. For safety, for security purposes? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Not one of them can open the filing cabinet without the other? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. They cannot open without the other. It is a joint custody. The Presiding Officer. And all of these signature cards would be in that filing cabinet? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In your branch? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And they are the only one who have access to those signature cards? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And can you access those signature cards?
Ms. Tiongson. I can also access, Your Honor, with their presence because they have to open the vault. The Presiding Officer. Can you access them alone? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor, because I need them to open the vault. The Presiding Officer. So if the manager access those signature cards, you have to ask the officer in charge and the other person to open the filing cabinet? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But either of them could not access without the other? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, they cannot access without the other. The Presiding Officer. Both of them must be present to open the filing cabinet? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. They can access it without your permission? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor.
69
The Presiding Officer. Okay. Proceed. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. So kung mayroong mga xerox copy ng opening deposit account documents, ito lang dalawang sinabi mo, sila lang ang makakaalam kung puwedeng maglabas ng kopya. Tama po ba ako? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So if there are photocopies made from the opening deposit accounts document, only these two officers that you mentioned, or employees, would know and they should be responsible. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And you mentioned earlier to the Senate President that you too, as a bank manager, has access to the vault? Ms. Tiongson. I am the alternate custodian, Your Honor, of the primary officerthe primary custodian, the officer. And then, the other one has also an alternate custodian. The Presiding Officer. Who is the primary custodian? Ms. Tiongson. The other officer of the branch, Your Honor, is the primary custodian. The Presiding Officer. And what is your role? Ms. Tiongson. I am the alternate custodian. The Presiding Officer. Alternate to whom? Ms. Tiongson. To the officer, Your Honor, to the other officer. The Presiding Officer. You are the only alternate custodian? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No other one? Ms. Tiongson. No other one. The other custodian also has an alternate. So parang there are four. Two primary and two alternate custodians. The Presiding Officer. One primary and two alternate. Ms. Tiongson. Two primary custodians and two alternate custodians. The Presiding Officer. Who is the other alternate custodian? Ms. Tiongson. Another customer service associate, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who is that person? I am not asking the position. Ms. Tiongson. Sorry. Right now, it is The Presiding Officer. You are evasive and I warn you be candid. You are under oath. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. It is Irene Dizon.
70
The Presiding Officer. What is her name? Ms. Tiongson. Irene Dizon. The Presiding Officer. Irene Dizon. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can I continue, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Yes, please, go ahead.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Is it not part of your procedure that when you retrieve a document, for example, from the vault or from the filing cabinet or steel cabinet, whatever you want to call it, you have to log the date, the time and the type of document and the name of the person retrieving that particular document? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you have that with you? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can you show us such record, Madam Witness? Ms. Tiongson. I do not have it with me, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. So in this case, you mentioned Almond Raquiza and Irene Dizon. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, but Irene is just the alternate. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kaya nga. So kayong tatlo lang ang may access diyan sa vault o apat? Ms. Tiongson. Four of us, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Irene Dizon at sakasino ba itong Emilyn? And parehong Dizon? Emilyn Dizon and Irene? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, po, but they are not related, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. They have same surname? Ms. Tiongson. Yes. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Ito bang si Irene or Emilyn Dizon maliit na babae ba ito? Ms. Tiongson. They are shorter than I am. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So do you consider them as small ladies? Ms. Tiongson. It is relative. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Paano nag-leak out itong dokumentong ito? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Your Honor, but I can say that it did not come from our branch or from our bank. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You saidyou showed me the original copy of the Customer Identification Specimen Signature Card a while ago and you said you brought those particular
71
documents with you. All right. Paano na-xerox copy iyong dokumentong hawak mo at lumabas sa Prosekusyon at naibigay sa ibang tao particularly iyong Prosecution panel? Kasi in-attach nila ito sa request nila for subpoena eh. Ito nga ang naging basehan nila para malaman nila ang mga account numbers ni CJ Corona. Ms. Tiongson. This one, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. Ikaw ang bank manager di dapat alam ninyo po, di ba ho? Ms. Tiongson. This did not leak out to them. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ito nga xeroxdi ba parehong xerox copy ito? Ipinakita ko nga sa inyo. Iyong hawak ninyong naka-mark na exhibit. Ms. Tiongson. Oo.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can you check please, if it is the same? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Pareho. Paano nga nakapag-xerox copy itong mga sinasabi mong ano kung hindi ho ninyo alam? Can you just present the log book to be brought by Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I refer to my Counsel? The Presiding Officer. The question is very simple. Can you explain the fact that according to your testimony so far, only two souls can open that cabinetit is a steel cabinet, is it not? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And also you, upon your orders, with the presence of those two. The question is, how was it possible that documents inside that cabinet with that security measure could be copied by anybody? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I have not seen the one that the Prosecution has. Is this the one also? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Exactly what you have right in front of you. The Presiding Officer. With the permission of Senator Jinggoy, I will ask you this question. Do you have any signature cards replica of those signature cards in that steel vault, steel cabinet in other portions of your bank, yes or no? Ms. Tiongson. Sorry, Your Honor, please repeat the question. The Presiding Officer. You did not understand, you are getting nervous. Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. The question is simple. Your signature cards in a bank are in a vault. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. Because they are important documents. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
72
The Presiding Officer. They are not supposed to be exposed to anyone. They are very confidential documents as far as the bank is concerned. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. And that is why they are placed in a vault, a steel vault as usual in a bank and two persons can open that vault, not one but two? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. And if you access it as a manager, you need the two. Now the question is, are those documents inside that vault have copies in other parts of your bank corporation? Ms. Tiongson. The original signature cards, Sir, they are also sent to the head office upon the initial account opening. The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of sending the signature cards in your head office when the account is with you? What for? There is no transaction by the depositor in your head office. Come on. Ms. Tiongson. It is for the scanning of the signature, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Scanning of the signature for what? Ms. Tiongson. For our system. The Presiding Officer. And after the scanning, they are brought to yourthe originals are brought to your office back? Ms. Tiongson. There is a vault also, Sir, that keeps the signature card, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Office and Ms. Tiongson. The signature cards that were sent to the head office stay in the head office. And then we also have our own copy. The Presiding Officer. Is it a practice of Philippine Savings Bank that for every account, whether it is a branch account or a central office account, all the signature cards must have copies in the central office? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Are you sure? Ms. Tiongson. The original, Sir, the original. The Presiding Officer. Because if we check and you are not telling us the truth, you are subject to the disciplinary powers of this court. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Are you sure? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. That?
73
Ms. Tiongson. That the other original copy of the signature cards are also in the main office. The Presiding Officer. Are forwarded to the head office. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. And who would be the custodian in the head office. Ms. Tiongson. It is a department, sir. The Presiding Officer. Department head? Ms. Tiongson. CBRCD. The Presiding Officer. Do you know the department head in your Head Office in charge of signature cards? Ms. Tiongson. I am sorry, Sir, I do not know. The Presiding Officer. Are those signature cards, from your knowledge, are treated, security wise, in the same way that they are treated in your branch? Ms. Tiongson. I would like to believe so, Sir, yes. The Presiding Officer. Huh? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Or also two persons could only open the depository vault? Ms. Tiongson. I do not really know their practice, Sir. The Presiding Officer. You do not know the practice. Ms. Tiongson. The procedure, yes, Sir, of the head office. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you. You just mentioned earlier that that particular document did not come from your bank. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. And now you have the original document and the xerox copy and you said it is both the same, identical. Am I correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Eh kung pareho iyan, xerox copy at saka yung original, eh kanino ba ho manggagaling yon, hindi ba ho sa bangko ninyo? As simple as that. Ms. Tiongson. This document did not come from ourI mean, the document that is floating around did not come from our bank, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have the original with you? The Presiding Officer. Why?
74
Senator Ejercito Estrada. You have the original with you. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor please, may I consult her? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer. It is a question of procedure in your bank. We are not asking about the deposits. Senator Ejercito Estrada. This is very, very important because this violates Republic Act 1405, the Bank Secrecy Law. Kaya gusto naming malaman kungis it a normal practice for your bank to just, you know, to just give information of the clients bank accounts to any strangers? Ms. Tiongson. It is not, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So kanino nga galing ito? Ms. Tiongson. I would not know, Sir. The Presiding Officer. It could only come from your bank. And the source could only be your branch, in this case, in this particular case, or head office. Correct? Correct? Ms. Tiongson. Possibly, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean, possibly? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I ask something lang with my counsel. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I just clarify regarding the document that you showed me. Because this was The Presiding Officer. Regarding the what? Ms. Tiongson. The document, Sir, that the Honorable Senator showed me because this was the same document that was brought by our president when he testified. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. It is the same. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Did you compare it to your original? Ms. Tiongson. Is this the document that was presented by the Prosecution, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Is that the one attached Ms. Tiongson. I am just confused, Sir? The Presiding Officer. to the request for subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Per my counsel, it is not, Sir. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Eh, bakit sagot ka pa nang sagot na pareho?
75
Ms. Tiongson. Because, Sir, this was what you said, hindi ba? Senator Ejercito Estrada. Ay, sinagot mo na nga ng pareho. Identical, eh. Ms. Tiongson. But it is not the document that was floating around, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Will you show her the document which was the basis of the request for subpoena addressed to this Court? Senator Ejercito Estrada. It is with her, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Do you have the document which was attached to the request for subpoena to this Court? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, ito iyong pinakita ninyo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Sir, may I approach the witness? The Presiding Officer. Yes. For what purpose? Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Sir, to ensure that she is able to identify the document that was being referred to by the Honorable Senator Estrada, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is that the document that was attached to the letter of the Prosecution to request a subpoena of this Court? Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Answer. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Sir, no, Sir. The Presiding Officer. No. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. The one that she was referring to were the signature card and the opening document that were brought by Mr. Garcia pursuant to the... The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay. You can approach her.
Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, I have seen the document that Ms. Tiongson has. I think it is quite different but the form is similar but the contents of what is written in that form are quite different. Well, anyway that is not the point, Mr. PresidentMadam Witness. The Presiding Officer. No. The Chair is interested in this. The ProsecutionCongressman Tupas, your panel requested a subpoena from this Court and you attached a document to your letter of request and that attachment is now in issue. You marked that as an exhibit. Did you mark it as an exhibit? Representative Tupas. We did not mark it, Your Honor, as an exhibit.
76
The Presiding Officer. You did not mark it. Representative Tupas. We did not mark it. The Presiding Officer. Where is that document now? Clerk of Court, do you have a copy of that document? Representative Tupas. We have a copy of that document.
The Presiding Officer. No. I am talkingI am asking the Clerk of Court if we have a copy of that document when the subpoena was prepared. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we attached it to the supplemental request for subpoena, that was an attachment. The Presiding Officer. To the original request or to a supplemental request? Representative Tupas. To the supplemental request, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And so, it was forwarded to this Court? Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. I am asking now the Clerk of Court to find that document. Trial suspended for one long minute. The trial was suspended at 7:26 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., the trial resumed. The Presiding Officer. Trial resumed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the witness, it might be the best time, as any, to submit to the Court the report of the Sergeant-at-Arms on the CCTV of February 2, 2012, concerning the manifestations of Representative Umali about the lady. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Sotto. Yes, we hereby submit it to the Court including the copies of the CCTV itself. We are going to furnish each Member a copy of the report. It does not contain any little ladies giving anything to Representative Umali from the time he arrived at one oclock up to the time that he boarded his vehicle around 3:19. Thank you, Mr. President. We submit for the record. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. PresidentI think the Senate President has a hanging question. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan has the floor.
77
Senator Ejercito Estrada. I think, Mr. President, you still have a hanging question that ought to be answered by the witness. The Presiding Officer. Will you show Annex A of the supplemental request for subpoena reply dated 12 February Is this correct, Secretary Emma, 12 February? The Secretary. Yes, the request for subpoena. The Presiding Officer. Yes. The attachedthe Annex A show it to the witness. And Madam Witness, tell us whether this document came from your bank? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, this did not come from our bank or my branch. The Presiding Officer. This is not the bank record of the Philippine Savings Bank? Ms. Tiongson. This is a photocopy, Sir, andthis is not our bank record.
The Presiding Officer. Yes, it is a photocopy. But is it a photocopy of a document in the possession of Philippine Savings Bank? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the document that I have here, Sir, it is not. The Presiding Officer. It is not. Do you have the original of the document similar to this document? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, this is the The Presiding Officer. I am asking you a question and please understand. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Can you please stop whispering, Madam Counsel? The Presiding Officer. Counsel, I warn you. I will send you out of this room if you are not going to observe decorum in this Chamber. I will repeat my question. Is this Annex A a replica, a photocopy of a similar document in your bank, in Philippine Savings Bank? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I could not say because I do not have the same copy with me, Sir, or the same kind of document that shows the same details, Sir. The Presiding Officer. You do not havedo you have the original of this document supposedly in the name of Corona, Renato Coronado dated October 31, 2008? And then there are other impressions below this document with figures. Will you show, Madam Clerk of Court, will you show this document to theno. May I finish first my question? Will you kindly show this document to the witness? This document that I am holding, all of these attachment, and find out whetherno, show the supplemental request, the complete documents. Examine all those documents covered by Annex A. There are several of them and tell me if you have similar documents like that in your bank.
78
Ms. Tiongson. Sir, if you mean the exact replica, we do not have it, Sir. But if you are asking for the standard form that we use for those who open, it is the standard form. The Presiding Officer. Are you saying that these documents are false documents? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. It seems fake. The Presiding Officer. Huh? Ms. Tiongson. They are fake documents, Sir. The Presiding Officer. They are fake documents. Are you sure? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Now, Counsels Ms. Tiongson. These did not come from our bank. The Presiding Officer. No. But I want to know whether those are replica of genuine documents in your bank or they are not? Ms. Tiongson. No, sir. The Presiding Officer. They are not. What do you mean by No, Sir? Ms. Tiongson. They are not, Sir. The Presiding Officer. They are not replica of genuine documents in your bank? Ms. Tiongson. They are not replica of genuine documents. The Presiding Officer. Please clearly state your answer. Are those documents attached to the supplemental request for subpoena filed by the Prosecution faithful reproduction or replica of documents in your bank? Ms. Tiongson. They are not the same, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Are they false documents? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, sir. The Presiding Officer. All right. Then we want an explanation from the Prosecution. You know, gentlemen, we are all lawyers here. There are ethical standards to be observed by us. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Mr. President, I think we need an explanation from the Prosecution panel on how they got these allegedly fake documents they presented into the Court and attached it to their supplemental request for subpoena. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Tupas. Last Monday, we explained it here. The Presiding Officer. No, explain it again.
79
Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. It was a Thursday, that was February 2, at around 7 to 7:30 in the evening, the Prosecution met at a hotel along Roxas Boulevard and Congressman Umali gave me the document and this is the document. The Presiding Officer. Roxas Boulevard? Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Where in Roxas? Representative Tupas. Midas Hotel. The Presiding Officer. Midas Hotel. Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Who were there? Representative Tupas. Myself, Congressman Umali, Congressman Abaya, some of the spokespersons, I think it is Congressman Angara and Congressman Miro Quimbo, Congressman Colmenares. The Presiding Officer. Did you meet there for the purpose of waiting for Congressman Umali to bring those documents? Representative Tupas. No, Your Honor, we meet regularly. At Thursday, we meet after the trial. The Presiding Officer. In that place? Representative Tupas. In that place. And it so happened that Congressman Umali approached me and he handed to me The Presiding Officer. Approached you where? Representative Tupas. Inside the hotel. The Presiding Officer. Midas Hotel. Representative Tupas. Midas. And he gave me this brown envelopeI think we have here and he opened it beforeit was already opened and he showed that to me. The Presiding Officer. It was already opened. Representative Tupas. Yes, he opened it. The Presiding Officer. Who opened it? Representative Tupas. Congressman Umali. The Presiding Officer. And then? Representative Tupas. Then he gave that to me and I examined the documents. And it turned out to be the annexit turned out to be the Customer Identification Specimen Signature Card in the name of
80
The Presiding Officer. And now there is a statement here under oath that it is a fake document. It is being disowned. So explain to us how you will treat these documents that you subpoenaed. Representative Tupas. The only explanation that I can make, Your Honor, is how we got the document and that is how we got the document. After the document was given to me by Congressman Umali, I conferred with Congressman Abaya, then we called our lawyer. We set a meeting the following morning around 10 oclock and in that meeting we decided to attach it in our supplemental request because before that, Your Honor, in our original request that was a Monday, before that, that was last week, Monday, we did not have the account number. We only had the one million winning in a promo raffle bywon by Renato Corona Coronado that signifies that he has bank accounts in that particular branch of PSBank, which is the Katipunan Branch. And then we met with our lawyer on Friday and we decided to attach it in our supplemental request because it was very clear to us that the Senate President said that we need specificity. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Specificity. Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now when Congressman Umali, as a member of your panel, presented the witness for the first time bearing on that document, I asked him how he got it. He said he went to the Department of Public Works. And I asked him whether the document was given to him in the Department of Public Works. He said, No. And I asked him, Where did you receive that document? I do not know whether the records will bear this out but I asked him, Where did you receive that document? And he said, I received it from a small lady, I think, inside this building. And we have the records of the CCTV of this building regarding the movement of Congressman Umali and it does not show anybody meeting Congressman Umali in this building. So explain to us. You are ordered to explain to us in twenty-four (24) hours. Representative Tupas. We will do that, we will comply, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, may I continue with one last question? Mr. Counsel, Congressman Tupas, mukha yatangmahirap yatang paniwalaan ang script ninyo, no? Mayroong nagbigaymay maliit na babae na nagbigay, nag-abot or whatever. Be that as it may, Mr. Counsel, assuming na totoo o genuine itong mga dokumentong ito, and you know for a fact that you are a lawyer and you know for a fact that that particular document was illegally obtained, and that is in violation of Republic Act No. 1405. My question is, if that particular document was illegally acquired or illegally obtained, why did you have to attach that in your supplemental request for subpoena? Alam ninyo, ako po ay hindi po abogado, no, pero noong binasa ko po yung batas, alam ko pong illegal iyan and I know all documents that are illegally acquired or illegally obtained are not are inadmissible in court. That is as far as mywhat I learned from my law school. Representative Tupas. Your Honor please, we were in good faith when we attached it. In-attach po namin ito dahil, unang-una, in our supplemental request, and I will read it: Moreover,
81
it seems that the media itself also has information pertaining to these PSBank accounts. Ito yong newspaper articles with Mr. Jake Macasaet in Abante the day before and Mr. Conrado Banal III in the Philippine Daily Inquirer also dated February 2. At tungkol naman ho doon, doon naman ho sa sinasabi ng ating Senador na illegally obtained, ang pagkakaalam po namin na walang exclusionary rule doon sa Foreign Currency Deposit Act. At the same time, wala ring exclusionary rule doon po sa Republic Act 1405 or yung Bank Secrecy Law. Kaya po in good faith po kami na in-attach po namin ito at it turned out naat least the 10 bank accounts turned out to be existing and accurate. At least yung 10 bank account numbers stated or covered by the subpoena, naging accurate po yung sampung yon. Senator Ejercito Estrada. I will yield the floor to Senator Escudero. But one last question before I yield the floor to Senator Escudero. Madam Witness, are you related to any member of the Prosecution panel? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. The Defense panel? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. For that matter, to any Senator-Judge? Ms. Tiongson. No. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Were you pressured or duly influenced to release the documents in question? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Are you sure? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I actually wanted to raise a point of order earlier. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, based on our Journal of Thursday, February 9, 2012, the Presiding Officer ordered the president of the bank to produce the originals of the annexes attached to the request for subpoena by the Prosecution. And if I may read, Page 35 thereof: Then produce the originals. Mr. Garcia goes, Yes, Your Honor. And the Presiding Officer asked Mr. Garcia, Does this particular account exist? Without asking for the details? And he gave the particular number of the account mentioned by Senator Estrada. Page 37, Mr. Presiding Officer. All right. Lastly, Account No. 089191000373, does this account exist in your bank?
82
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.
And second point, Mr. President, Your Honor, the Presiding Officer also asked the president of the bank. If I may quote, on Page 39: I am asking whether they would exist in other branches of your bank, referring to the records, the signature card and the contract. I am not delving into the details of the account. I do not even know the owner of these accounts. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, when an account is opened in one branch, it is domiciled in that branch. It will not exist in other branches. And an order was given again by the Presiding Officer for the originals to be produced. Clearly, Mr. President, Your Honor, the documents she is comparingusing to compare the attached annexes are different. May I ask the witness: In accordance with the undertaking of Mr. Garcia, did you produce the originals of Account No. 089191000373 which is domiciled in your branch, according to the president of your bank? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, Sir, that account number pertains to a dollar account so that is not part of the subpoena. Senator Escudero. If I may reiterate, Maamwe know it is a dollar account and we are not delving into it. All we wanted to do was for you to compare it with the xerox copy attached as an annex in the request for subpoena to find out if it is a faithful reproduction of what is in your records, to find out where that document came from. Hindi naman ho namin titingnan yung account; ni hindi nga ho pinamarkahan as ebidensya, eh. Nais lang namin makumpara. Galing ba talaga yung dokumentong yun sa inyo? Dahil ang sagot po sa amin ng presidente ninyo, hindi raw niya masabi kung galing sa kanila dahil wala sa kaniya yung original. Kaya po hiniling na dalhin sana yung original dito. Dala niyo po ba yung original nung account na nabanggit ko? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the subpoena, Your Honor, we were only asked to bring for peso accounts. Senator Escudero. May I refer to the records, Mr. President. May we request the corresponding clarification to be made with respect to the documents we asked of this witness and of Mr. Garcia. Again, not to look into the dollar accounts, Mr. President, Your Honor, but for the witness to be able to compare whether or not the annex attached to the request for subpoena is indeed a record that came from your bank. Madam Witness, Maam, ito po ay wala nang kinalaman sa dollar account, may kinalaman po ito sa paglabag sa 1405 dahil may kumakalat pong dokumentohindi nga ho kumakalat, eh, isinumite po sa amin. And it turns out that that account is an account that actually exists in your bank. Ms. Tiongson. I am sorry. I was not religiously following the proceedings. So, I am not Senator Escudero. May we request, Mr. President, to reiterate the ruling of the Chair for the witness to bring the original of the account referred to in the annex attached to the request for subpoena. The Presiding Officer. All right. Madam Witness Senator Escudero. Only for comparison purposes, Mr. President.
83
The Presiding Officer. you are the manager of Kalayaan Branch of Philippine Savings Bank, you are ordered by this Court, no longer by a subpoena, you are orally ordered by this Court to bring the original of the document that was shown to you, if it exists or a document of similar nature in the possession of the bank for the examination of this Court to compare it with this document attached to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena and to bring it here at two oclock tomorrow afternoon during the trial of this case and also to notify your president to come back here to be examined by any Member of this Court who wishes to examine him on this document because you said the head office of your bank carriesdoes your head office carry these documents? Does your head office carry the documents annex to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. This document, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Madam Witness. Ms. Tiongson. All documents pertaining to this account are in the head office, Sir. The Presiding Officer. When? As a matter practice from the time it was opened, copies of these documents were sent to the head office? Ms. Tiongson. Especially because of this impeachment. The Presiding Officer. No, no. I am asking you a direct question. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. I expect you to answer it. When this account was opened, were these documents that were shown to you as attachment to the Supplemental Request for a Subpoena given to the head office or they were only asked later on? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, all the original documents are with the head office right now. The Presiding Officer. The original documents Ms. Tiongson. I cannot say if it is the exact because it looks different. The Presiding Officer. I am not asking you whether exact orthis document, I am asking you, whether a similar document like what has been attached to the Supplemental Request for Subpoena bearing on this alleged account of Chief Justice Renato Corona in your bank was supplied to the head office when the accounts were opened? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. What is the meaning of Yes, Sir? Ms. Tiongson. The head office has copies. The Presiding Officer. They were given copies? Ms. Tiongson. I mean the original copy. The Presiding Officer. The central office was given the original? Ms. Tiongson. The original copy, they have the original copy. The Presiding Officer. Alsoand that is a normal practice.
84
Ms. Tiongson. The copies The Presiding Officer. Ms. Tiongson.
Is that a normal practice of the bank for all customers?
Yes, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. All right. Then you tell yourso there are only two sources of these documents Ms. Tiongson. Well The Presiding Officer. If these are replica of the documents in your possessionbut you say they are fake documents. But we want to be sure. The only two sources would be your records or the records of your central office. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I consult myI will just ask The Presiding Officer. Ms. Tiongson. For what?
If I can ask something. For what? For what?
Ms. Tiongson. May I just say that wethere was an audit of BSP in 2010... The Presiding Officer. And then?
Ms. Tiongson. ...in our branch and they were able to The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of the audit in 2010?
Ms. Tiongson. I believe they were able to see the records. The Presiding Officer. Who are they?
Ms. Tiongson. The BSP, Sir. And as required by the AMLA, the The Presiding Officer. The BSP?
Ms. Tiongson. Bangko Sentral, Sir. They can examine the banks records during... The Presiding Officer. So
Ms. Tiongson. ...annual or special audits. The Presiding Officer. It was shown to the Bangko Sentral?
Ms. Tiongson. I am not quite sure, Sir, but there was an audit of our branch. The Presiding Officer. Ms. Tiongson. Who audited your branch?
The Bangko Sentral, Sir.
The Presiding Officer. The superintendent of banks, the banking division or whatwho? Bangko Sentral is a very big organization. Who? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I will just have toI will verify the exact details. But as far as I recall there was that audit, Your Honor.
85
Senator Escudero.
Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President, just a few more questions. Madam Witness, hindi naman po namin kayo inaakusahan na kayo yung naglabas o opisyal ng bangko yung naglabas. Kaya nga po hinihiling sana namin yung original dahil sabi ng presidente ninyo mukhang hindi daw yun eksakto at may pagkakaiba daw doon sa nasa records ninyo. Kaya hiniling po namin na madala sana yung original, hindi para bulatlatin yung dollar accounts pero para tingnan kung magkapareho nga ba o magkaiba. Dahil kung magkapareho ay di ibig sabihin faithful reproduction yun nung nasa record ninyo at kung sino man ang may access dunngayon ang sinasabi niyo BSP. Kayo man o kung sinumang opisyalsila yung maaaring tanungin kung saan nakuha itong dokumentong ito. Ayaw lang ho kasi naming maakusahan kami na bahagi kami ng paglabag ng 1405 bagaman ginamit naming basehan ito sa pag-issue ng subpoena. Sana po naintindihan niyo kung saan kami nanggagaling. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, with all due respect, if we produce the original for thisI think this is covered by the TRO. Senator Escudero. We are not asking you to show it to us. We are asking you to use it as basis and compare it with our photocopy to be able to answer if indeed it is a faithful reproduction of what you have on hand. Secondly, maliwanag naman na nagbotohan na po kami kanina. Hindi po namingagalangin po namin yung TRO ng Supreme Court. Subalit tinatanong po namin ito nang may kinalaman sa paglabag sa 1405, hindi po sa 6426. Ito po ay may kinalamanbakit may dokumentong kumakalat? At hindi po namin puwedeng panghawakan lamang ang salita ninyong hindi galing sa inyo. Dahil kung eksakto po yun, eh di nanggaling po dun. Ang tanong na lamang ay sino? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I consult with my Counsel? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.
By the way, I address these remarks to the Prosecution. At one point during the trial of this case, I requested a memorandum from the Prosecution about the particular duties of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Have you submitted that memorandum? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, we submitted it at three oclock this afternoon. The Presiding Officer. All right. I will find out from the Clerk of Court if they received it. Representative Tupas. Thank you. Senator Escudero. My last question, Mr. President, may we get a response from the witness? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, the document that you showed me based on Annex A seems to have information on dollar accounts that wouldif ever presented, would be in violation of the FCDU Law. Senator Escudero. Madam Witness, we are not asking you to present it and it will not be presented as evidence. Sige po, pasimplehin ho natin. Ikumpara niyo ho pag-uwi niyo mamaya
86
o bukas sa original na nasa file ninyo yung nasa Annex. At sabihin niyo po sa amin bukas, yan ba ay may pagkakaiba dun sa record ninyo o wala? Huwag niyo na hong dalhin yung dokumento rito. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Escudero. Puwede po yon?
The Presiding Officer. You know, you said that this document is fake. If it is a fake document, then I think that it is proper to cancel the subpoena. Senator Escudero. Yun lamang po ang layunin namin, Maam. Kung sa palagay ninyo ay may paglabag sa batas kung dadalhin niyo rito, as long as you will be able to competently answer our question na, Yan po ba ay may eksaktong kopya sa inyo o wala? Yun lamang po. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Your Honor, may I be allowed to explain our side? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. With all due respect, Honorable Senator Chiz Escudero. Senator Escudero. Maam. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. If we confirm or deny that it is an exact replica, it would be akin to admitting that the information there about the dollar account is accurate, Your Honor. So it is already covered by the TRO. Senator Escudero. Maam, your bank president already admitted that that account exists, under oath. Now, all we are asking is, if that is a faithful reproduction of what you have in the bank, to find out. Binigyan ba kami ng peke ng Prosecution? Niloloko ba kami ng mga ito? O ito ba ay dahil sa isang leak? Nais din naming protektahan yung bangko ninyo. Ms. Ramos-Pilares. Yes, Sir. Senator Escudero. Dahil kung peke yan, eh di ibig sabihin walang paglabag sa 1405. And the Prosecution will be made to account for it. Pero kung faithful reproduction yan, still there would be some liabilities attaching to whomsoever may have been part of that leak. That is all that we are trying to drive at here. Again, she does not have to bring the document. All she has to do is, say under oath, Ito po ay hindi katulad nung nasa amin. Ganoon lamang po kadali yon. Kung hindi, eh di peke yon. Tapos ho ang usapan. Thank you, Mr. President. That will be all for the witness. Thank you, Maam, and good evening. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, just very quickly, Mr. President. Thank you.
To the witness, is it my understanding that while the bank account is domiciled in one branch, which is in this case your branch, the peso account, can the bank records be accessed by other branches? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Can it be accessed by the main office? Ms. Tiongson. It is kept under a very safe
87
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, but can it be accessed by the main office? Ms. Tiongson. I would not know, Sir. Probably. Senator Pangilinan. You would not know. Probably. The Presiding Officer. No, only the president will be able to answer that question. That is why the Chair wants the president to be back. Senator Pangilinan. Because of the lateness of the hour. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. So, we will pursue it perhaps with the president maybe tomorrow, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Pangilinan. The other point is, you mentioned there was an audit by the BSP in 2010, and you mentioned AMLA. Ms. Tiongson. There was an audit of the bank, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. In 2010? You said 2010? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. When in 2010? Ms. Tiongson. Around November. Senator Pangilinan. November 2010. And then you also mentioned AMLA. AMLA made an audit or Ms. Tiongson. I think it is required by the MORB that BSP can Senator Pangilinan. Do a special audit. Ms. Tiongson. Is allowed to go to any bank and do a special audit or an annual audit. Senator Pangilinan. So, is it the BSP or the AMLA? Ms. Tiongson. I will confirm, Sir. Senator Pangilinan. Can you please double-check? November 2010. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, we will just check first. Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Double-check the information, the facts, November 2010, BSP, AMLA, special audit or regular. What do you call it? Regular audit, whichever, no? Ms. Tiongson. I dont Senator Pangilinan. And just to be able toand your point being that they were able to access these bank records. Okay. So we would like to get the facts perhaps at the next setting, Mr. President. Thank you.
88
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Senator Osmea wishes to have the floor, and then Senator Cayetano, the Minority Leader. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Cebu. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Tiongson, sabihin mo lang sa Court kung itong limang account na ito, ending, I will just give you the four numbers. Alam naman natin, 7358, 9539, 0122, 1681, 1957, the five peso time deposits. Are they still open up to this day? Do they still exist? Ms. Tiongson. May I refer to the previous documents that were submitted in the previous Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Go ahead. Senator Osmea. Go ahead. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I answer for some of the accounts. For 089121, 011957, it was closed sometime 2008. I do not have the exact date, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Go ahead. Ms. Tiongson. For 1681for Account No. 089121021681, it was still open as of 2010, Your Honor, but if it is closed as of now, I do not have the record, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Would you please find out and let us know at the next hearing? Yes, I mean, you know Ms. Tiongson. It will be subpoenaed naman, Sir, so we can have a basis also. Senator Osmea. No. Ms. Tiongson. Sorry. Senator Osmea. We do not want to issue anymore subpoena and bother the Court. This has to do, anyway, with the account which has been identified and we would like to know if it is still existing today. Ms. Tiongson. All right. The Presiding Officer. Is that a peso account or? Senator Osmea. It is a peso account. The Presiding Officer. All right. Under 1405, the Impeachment Court has the power to require the reproduction. Ms. Tiongson. Okay, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. I have the same question for the account ending 0122. Ms. Tiongson. For 0122, based on the record, Sir, I think it is closed already because it is zero here. Senator Osmea. It is zero. Ms. Tiongson. I will confirm tomorrow, Sir.
89
Senator Osmea. All right. As far as Account 9593. Ms. Tiongson. For 9593, as of 2010 ending December 31, it is still open, but as of today I will not confirm. Senator Osmea. Thank you. And Account No. 7358. Ms. Tiongson. For 7358, I will just confirm, Sir, tomorrow because zero Senator Osmea. Now, will you also bring information as to the tenor of the time deposit? Because he had an opening deposit of P8.5 million. It is registered as a peso time deposit per your testimony earlier. We would like to know how long the time deposit is supposed to run. All right? Ms. Tiongson. All right, Sir. Senator Osmea. Okay. Ngayon po, are you aware of any other accounts that the Respondent would have with your bank including Investment Management Funds, Investment Trust Funds, Unit Investment TrustI am not referring to any foreign currency deposit, just peso denominated deposits Mutual Funds. Ah, wala namang mutual fund, Mr. Garcia said earlier. So, are there any other accounts existing? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I only have information on the subpoenaed documents. Senator Osmea. No. You do not have only information on subpoenaed documents. You have information also of other accounts that exist in the bank. Ms. Tiongson. I could not say right now, Sir. Senator Osmea. Okay. So will you bring that information tomorrow and give us a categorical answer if there are any other existing accounts? Because earlier, the Court approved the subpoena of all other related sister accounts and we expect that to be handed to the Court tomorrow. So we would like you to give us more complete information on those accounts. Ms. Tiongson. It will be covered by a subpoena, Sir? Senator Osmea. It is covered by a subpoena, yes. Now, Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Senator Osmea. Of course, you are familiar and you have been trained on how to abide by the Anti-Money Laundering Act? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
Senator Osmea. All right, some of these accountswhat is the covered transaction limit on the Anti-Money Laundering Law? Ms. Tiongson. Above P500,000, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Five hundred thousand. Did your branch submit the covered transaction report to the Anti-Money Laundering Council on these accounts? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. On all of these deposits that were in excess of P500,000?
90
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The time of the gentleman is extended. Senator Osmea. All right. That would be all for now. Thank you very much to the witness and The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. The Minority Floor Leader. The Presiding Officer. The Minority Floor Leader. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang gabi po, Mr. President.
Mr. President, if the witness is coming back tomorrow and bringing those documents, I would ask my questions tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. All right. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there are some housekeeping chores we have to do, but because of the lateness of the hour, I will do that tomorrow. And may I just ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement for today? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, beforeplease. Senator Sotto. Yes. Representative Tupas. Before we adjourn, Your Honor, with respect to our other witness, Ms. Leonora Dizon of BPI Ayala Branch, may we ask Your Honor to direct her to come back tomorrow also two oclock in the afternoon? The Presiding Officer. Well, let Ms. Leonora Dizon come back tomorrow afternoon at two oclock to join the hearing of this impeachment case. Two oclock in the afternoon. Mr. Tupas. Thank you so much. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make an announcement, Mr. President. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move to adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 14, 2012, the birthday of the Senate President. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The trial is hereby adjourned until two oclock of Tuesday, February 14, 2012 The trial was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

Feb 13 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feb 13 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

______________ *Arrived after the roll call

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

The Presiding Officer.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

Mr. Cuevas. No. To Congressman Tupas? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012