Impeachment Proceedings
Prayer ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Roll Call ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Proclamation ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Approval of Journal .................................................................................................................................. 5
Calling of the Case .................................................................................................................................. 5
Appearances ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Results of the Preliminary Conference .................................................................................................... 5
Other Matters ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Opening Statements of the Prosecution .................................................................................................. 8
Rep. Belmonte ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Rep. Apostol .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Rep. Arroyo ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Rep. Gonzalez ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Rep. Tañada .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Opening Statements of the Defense ..................................................................................................... 28
Atty. Narvasa ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Atty. Mendoza ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Presentation of Prosecution Witnesses ................................................................................................. 42
Gen. Roberto Lastimoso........................................................................................................................ 45
Yolanda Ricaforte .................................................................................................................................. 64
Impeachment Trial, Day 1
Thursday, December 7, 2000
At 1:57 p.m., the Honorable Chief Justice, Hilario G. Davide Jr., Presiding Officer,
called the impeachment trial to order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Chief Justice Davide). The impeachment trial of His
Excellency, the President of the Republic of the Philippines, is now called to order.
May we request Senator/Judge Francisco S. Tatad to lead us in prayer.
Prayer
SENATOR TATAD. May I invite all to bow their heads in prayer.
Almighty and eternal God, supreme Judge, Lawgiver and Ruler of the universe;
Who has the final word on everything we do upon this earth;
Look kindly upon this Senate as it performs its task of doing impartial justice in this
trial of the President;
Fill the men and women of this Chamber with Your Wisdom;
So that they will forget all partisan and personal interests and act solely as one in
upholding the truth and in celebrating justice;
Bless the Chief Justice with the fullness of dignity, good health and good humor so
that he will not tire so quickly as the work piles up in the days ahead;
Bless counsel on both sides with utmost sobriety and rectitude so that they may use
their knowledge of the law to discover the truth and make it shine in all its brightness
rather than to hide it;
Bless the witnesses who will come forward so that their lips will speak only the truth
which no falsehood can quell in their heart of hearts
Bless the respondent with humility so that he may accept the judgment of this court
without gloating, if favorable, and without recrimination, if adverse;
And bless all our people within and outside this Hall with a special measure of
generosity and goodness;
So that they may look at this case and all those who have been called to take part in
it without any prejudices or prejudgment;
Remembering that God alone knows the entire truth about His creatures and their
deeds;
And that not even the holiest among us may judge that which is known only to God;
At the end of this painful process, heal our wounds and our brokenness with Your
spirit so that we may be one again, loving one another as You have always loved us;
But this time infinitely stronger in our faith and our hopes for having been touched to
the depths of our soul, by the love and mercy of God;
All these we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, Your only Son, our Lord, Who lives and
reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever,
Amen.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.
back to top
Roll Call
The Secretary will now call the roll of the distinguished Senators-Judges.
THE SECRETARY. (Reading)
Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta Present
Senator Robert Z. Barbers Absent
Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon Present
Senator Renato L. Compañero Cayetano Present
Senator Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng Present
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago Present
Senator Franklin M. Drilon Present
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile Present
Senator Juan M. Flavier Present
Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. Present
Senator Gregorio B. Honasan Present
Senator Robert S. Jaworski Present
Senator Loren B. Legarda-Leviste Present
Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay Jr. Present
Senator Blas F. Ople Present
Senator John Henry R. Osmeña Present
Senator Sergio R. Osmeña.III Present
Senator Ramon B. Revilla Present*
Senator Raul S. Roco Present
Senator Vicente C. Sotto III Present
Senator Francisco S. Tatad Present
The Senate President Present
*Arrived after the roll call
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With 20 Senators-Judges present, the Presiding Officer
declares the presence of a quorum.
THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
back to top
Proclamation
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask the Sergeant at Arms to make the
proclamation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will now make a proclamation.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of
imprisonment, while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment
against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
back to top
Approval of Journal
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that we dispense with the
reading of the Journals of the Impeachment Court dated November 28 and
December 4, 2000 and consider the same as approved.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the
motion is approved and granted. It is so ordered.
back to top
Calling of the Case
The Secretary will now call the case before this Impeachment Court.
THE SECRETARY. In the matter of Impeachment against His Excellency, Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000 for bribery, graft
and corrupt practices, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the
Constitution.
back to top
Appearances
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request that the parties to this
Impeachment Trial be now directed to enter their appearances.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are so directed to enter their appearance.
REP. BELMONTE. Your Honor, same appearances for the Prosecution.
MR. DAZA. For the Defense, Your Honor, Andres Narvasa, Estelito Mendoza, Raul
Daza, Jose Flaminiano and Cleofe Bersola.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The appearances are noted.
The Prosecution filed yesterday a reply to the plea answer of the President filed by
his lawyers. The Reply is hereby noted.
Yesterday, on a previous agreement, a preliminary conference was had between and
among the lawyers of both parties together with some Members of the Senate.
back to top
Results of the Preliminary Conference
The Presiding Officer will now make a declaration of the results of the preliminary
conference.
Present at the preliminary conference were the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer; the
Senate President; the Majority Leader, Sen. Francisco S. Tatad; the Minority Leader,
Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona Jr.; the Honorable Senators Anna Dominique M. L.
Coseteng, Franklin M. Drilon; Juan Ponce Enrile, Juan M. Flavier, Gregorio B.
Honasan, Robert S. Jaworski, Loren B. Legarda-Leviste, Ramon B. Revilla, and Raul
S. Roco; and House of Representatives prosecutors Feliciano Belmonte Jr., Joker
Arroyo, Sergio Apostol, Oscar Moreno, Clavel Asas-Martinez, Wigberto Tañada, and
Oscar Rodriguez; and counsel for the defense, namely, former Chief Justice
Narvasa, Atty. Estelito Mendoza, and Atty. Raul Daza.
At the start of the preliminary conference, the Presiding Officer distributed to the
senators, the prosecutors, and the defense counsels for the respondent the working
draft for the matters to be taken up at the preliminary conference. He then brought to
their attention as guide to their discussion thereon the fact that if the trial of the case
on its merits would start on 07 December 2000, there would only be 16 days for the
month of December 2000 with Saturdays, Sundays and Christmas Day excluded.
And for the month of January 2001, excluding the first day, Saturdays and Sundays,
there would only be 22 trial days.
After a very spirited discussion on the matters presented, the parties agreed on the
following issues:
Article 1. The bribery alleged in the Article refers to bribery as a felony. This
agreement does not include the issue concerning the quantum of evidence required
therefor.
Article 2. Whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be
guilty of graft and corruption.
Article 3. Whether the acts alleged therein, if proven, would constitute betrayal of
public trust.
Article 4. Whether the acts alleged therein, if proven, would constitute culpable
violation of the Constitution.
As to the number of witnesses to be presented in open court and probable duration
of their testimony on direct examination only, the parties agreed:
Under Article 1, for the prosecution, 10 witnesses, with one to testify for three days
and the rest for 30 minutes each. Probable number of trial days, one week;
Under Article 2, 25 witnesses. Probable number of trial days, 12;
Under Article 3, 7 witnesses. Probable number of trial days, 5 to 7; and
Under Article 4, 6 to 20 witnesses.
This number of witnesses may be reduced when depositions and oral examination
are taken or when the prosecutors, upon further evaluation, would dispense with the
presentation of witnesses whose testimonies would be corroborative in nature. And
for reasons explained during the conference, the prosecutors may not disclose the
names of their witnesses.
However, to give time for the defense to prepare for the cross- examination, the
cross-examination of a witness may be deferred for, at most, two days after the
completion of the direct testimony of that witness. Nonetheless, should the
prosecutors disclose to the defense the names of the witnesses to be presented at
least three days before their scheduled testimony, the defense shall immediately
cross-examine the witness after the completion of the direct testimony.
The Defense:
The number of witnesses to be presented would depend on the evaluation of
evidence adduced by the prosecutors and the duration of the testimonies of the
defense' witnesses may be about one-half of that estimated by the prosecutors for
their witnesses.
Witnesses whose testimonies may be by deposition:
For the prosecution, under Article 1, Three (3).
Article 2. Ten (10).
Article 3. At most, Five (5).
Article 4. Fifteen (15).
These witnesses could be among those mentioned to testify in open court.
The Senate President assured the parties that the Senate, at its subsequent
sessions immediately following the preliminary conference, would approve the
recommendation of the Presiding Officer that the latter be authorized to issue
applications for issuance of subpoena testificandum and subpoena duces tecum,
subject to the observation of the honorable Senator Roco, that if the application
would be for a subpoena for the President of the Philippines, the matter should be
taken up by the members of the Impeachment Court.
For the defense, none to be taken by deposition.
back to top
Other Matters
1.
The parties also agreed that to further shorten the duration of the trial, they
could submit stipulation or admission of facts or documents.
2.
The Senate President informed the parties that for the purposes of the opening
statement at the hearing this afternoon, the Senate is prepared to allow the
prosecutors and the defense five presentors at most on each side.
Time limit for each side is a maximum of two hours.
Senator Roco reiterated his view, however, that while in this specific instance he
would have no objection on this matter, the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings
approved by the Senate should be strictly followed.
3.
Immediately after the conclusion of the opening statement, the prosecutors will
start the presentation of the first witness; and
4.
The parties also considered the need to complete the trial on the merits in the
middle of January 2001. For this purpose, a trial calendar would eventually be
prepared after the parties shall have determined a more accurate number of
witnesses.
Those were what transpired yesterday at the preliminary conference reducing
effectively the time which may be consumed for the trial on the merits of this case.
We will now proceed to the trial proper.
back to top
Opening Statements of the Prosecution
The Majority Leader.
SEN. TATAD. Mr. Chief Justice, pursuant to the initial under-standing reached in
yesterday's preliminary conference, the Senate sub-sequently gave unanimous
consent to allow multi-presentors for a total of two hours each for the prosecution as
well as for the defense. The pro-secutors will now deliver their opening statements in
the following order:
First, Congressman Belmonte, to be followed by Congressman Apostol, to be
followed by Cong. Joker Arroyo; to be followed by Cong. Raul Gonzales and to be
followed by Cong. Wigberto Tañada.
I ask that they be recognized in that order.
back to top
Rep. Belmonte
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They are so recognized in that order, and now
Prosecutor Belmonte is given the Floor.
REP. BELMONTE. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, I am Feliciano Belmonte Jr. of the
4th District of Quezon City.
This afternoon, we, the House Prosecutors, are tasked to fulfill a duty. It is a duty that
none of us relish. It is painful. Painful because we will prove to the judges in this
proceedings that the faith and the trust that we have bestowed on our President had
been abused. It is a grave duty. Grave because we are asking the judges that
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, whom we elected as President, be removed from the
presidency at once for the sake of the country, for the sake of the people. It is a
burden that the Constitution has placed on the shoulders of the prosecutors and it is
a duty that we will faithfully fulfill.
When I make reference to the judges in this impeachment proceedings, Your Honors,
I am not addressing the senators here assembled alone because it is not only
Joseph Ejercito Estrada who has been put on trial here. We, the prosecutors and the
House of Congress that we represent, this Chamber, sitting in judgment, the judiciary
here personified by the Chief Justice, the moral values that we hold dear, indeed, the
entire structure of government and our society all are as much on trial in these
proceedings. The judges are the people, who even now watch our every move and
listen intently to our every word. It is they, Your Honors, whom we, the prosecutors,
also address because it is to them that we all are accountable for what we will do
here.
Hindi po lamang si Pangulong Estrada ang nililitis dito. Tayo rin po ay papasyahan.
Kami na kumakatawan sa Malaking Kapulungan, kayong mga maginoong Senador,
ang ating mga hukuman na kinakatauhan ng ating Punong Mahistrado, at maging
ang mga prinsipyo ng moralidad na ating dinadambana ay nililitis ngayon dito. At ang
magpapasya ay ang taong-bayan na walang puknat na nagmamasid sa bawat kilos
na nagaganap at nakikinig sa bawat salita na binibigkas natin ngayon dito.
They say that all trials have innocent beginnings. At ang panimula ng paglilitis na ito
ay noong ika-30 ng Hunyo, 1998 nang itaas ni Joseph Ejercito Estrada ang kaniyang
kanang kamay at sumumpa sa Bibliya ng ganito:
Ako, si Joseph Ejercito Estrada, ay sumusumpa na tapat kong gagampanan ang
aking mga tungkulin bilang Pangulo ng Pilipinas; na aking pangangalagaan at
ipagtatanggol ang Saligang-Batas; na ipatutupad ang mga batas; magdudulot ng
katarungan sa bawat mamamayan, at iaalay ang aking sarili sa paglilingkod sa
bayan.
Central to the oath taken by Joseph Ejercito Estrada before
then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, who is now here with us, are
the phrases "to execute its laws" and "concentrate myself to the
service of the nation."
Sa kaniyang pagsumpa na ipatutupad niya ang mga batas at ipasasailalim niya ang
kaniyang kapakanan sa kapakanan ng bayan, nangako si Joseph Ejercito Estrada sa
harap ng Diyos na pananaigin niya ang batas at walang sinuman ang
mangingibabaw sa batas maging siya man.
At ang mga sakdal na hinaharap ngayon ni Joseph Ejercito Estrada ay nakaugat sa
kaniyang matunog na pangako noon. Na sa kaniyang pamamahala, walang kamakamag-anak, walang kumpa-kumpare, at walang kai-kaibigan. The prosecution will
show that not only Joseph Ejercito Estrada not execute the laws, he was the first to
violate them.
Prosecutors will show that during his brief incumbency of barely over two years,
Joseph Ejercito Estrada has violated his oath of office. Had violated the law not once,
not twice, but regularly like clockwork. Patutunayan ng mga prosecutors na sa
kaniyang maikli pang panunungkulan, karamihan na ng kaniyang kamag-anak,
karamihan na ng kaniyang mga kumpare, karamihan na ng kaniyang matatalik na
kaibigan ang nakinabang.
Ang isinampang sakdal laban kay Pangulong Estrada ay apat. Unang Artikulo--ang
pagtanggap ng suhol na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen
Apostol, Baterina, at Libarios.
Pangalawang Artikulo--pagnanakaw sa gobyerno at katiwalian, or graft and
corruption, na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Arroyo, Moreno
at Belmonte.
Pangatlong Artikulo--pagtataksil sa tiwala ng bayan o betrayal of the public trust, na
patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen Gonzales at Rodriguez.
At ang Pang-apat na Artikulo--sadyang paglabag sa Saligang-Batas o culpable
violation of the Constitution, na patutunayan ng team na binubuo nina Congressmen
Tañada, Nachura, at Martinez.
Behind all these legalese, what do these charges mean? Simply that Joseph Ejercito
Estrada has failed the Filipino people, specially the poor, betrayed their hopes and
broke their dreams.
Sa kabuuan, ang apat na sakdal sa Pangulong Estrada ay nagpapatunay ng isang
malawakang pagkakanulo sa sambayanang Pilipino. And there is nothing mysterious
or arcane about this process. It is not about lawyers, it is not about technicalities.
Common sense in the light of a person's common experience is enough to appreciate
the evidence and to reach a knowledgeable, fair and patriotic conclusion.
I thank you, Your Honors.
back to top
Rep. Apostol
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol is recognized for Article I.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, Chief Justice of the Philippines, Your Honor, Senate
President of the Philippines, Your Honors, Members of the Senate, esteemed
colleagues of the defense, friends, ladies and gentlemen.
Members of the Senate, our team of Prosecutors will show that during his brief
incumbency, at barely over two years, Joseph Ejercito Estrada had violated the oath
previously mentioned by Congressman Belmonte, had violated the law not once, not
twice, but regularly like clockwork. The Prosecutors will again expose the existence
of a criminal syndicate directed from the highest office of the land. This is the
"gangland mob" that threatens to rule us. This, not the parliaments of the street, is
the mob rule--the mob rule that will salvage our Constitution and the very fabric of our
society. Unless we destroy it now before it destroys us.
I stated that we will expose the existence of the criminal syndicate again. I used the
word "again" because, fortunately for our panel, much of the shocking and sordid
details of this story have been unfolded before this very Chamber, before Your
Honors. And our task will be to simply present, in proper form, the evidence and
testimony which the Filipino people already know and have already evaluated for
themselves, and to link up some loose ends.
In our presentation, we will therefore focus only on the salient points. Gov. Chavit
Singson will reaffirm before Your Honors the following facts and events.
Sometime in August 1998, the newly elected President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
summoned Bong Pineda, Charlie "Atong" Ang, and Gov. Chavit Singson to his Polk
Street residence to discuss jueteng operations in the country. On that occasion,
President Estrada prohibited Pineda from continuing to deliver jueteng collections to
him as the latter was already identified as a jueteng lord. Instead, he appointed both
Ang and Governor Singson as his national jueteng collectors and delivery men. Of
course, we all remember who Atong Ang is, and his association with Joseph Ejercito
Estrada.
Barely two months later, however, after a heated disagreement over the President's
refusal to give in to Atong Ang's demand for a share in certain sugar allocations,
Atong Ang was stripped by President Estrada of his jueteng collection authority. This
left Governor Singson as the presidential appointee in charge of these illegal
collections. The testimony of Governor Singson will reaffirm that from November
1998 to August 2000, an average of P5 million, usually in crisp P1000-bill, was hand
delivered by him to President Estrada every 15 days either in his residence at Polk
Street, Greenhills, or in Malacañang or in the house of one of his mistresses, Guia
Gomez. And for accounting purposes, President Estrada assigned an auditor in the
person of Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte, wife of Tourism Undersecretary Orestes Ricaforte,
to monitor and deliver the receipt of the tong collections as well as the disbursement
therefrom in a ledger.
For a period until June 1998, the excess of the jueteng collections, after the P5
million for the President has been set aside every 15 days, would be earmarked by
Governor Singson, also on the orders of President Estrada, for the construction of
the Fontainebleu Casino in the former Clark Air Base. Although the true owner of the
Fontainebleu was the President, on his instruction, the stockholdings were placed in
the name of Jaime Dechavez, one of his cronies; Jesus Pineda, schoolmate of his;
and Edmundo Silverio, a nominee of Butch Tenorio, the president of Pagcor.
The President eventually opted to discontinue the Fontainebleu operation in favor of
Fontana Casino where his stakes have been greater and financial rewards higher.
When it was decided to abort the Fontainebleu Casino operation, Mrs. Ricaforte also
took over the duty of preparing the ledger and monitoring the collection and
expenses of the jueteng operations, including the sensitive task of depositing the
presidential share in various account. Thus, Governor Singson was instructed by the
President sometime in August 1999 to transfer to Mrs. Ricaforte all the accumulated
collections from jueteng including future collections. So, Mrs. Ricaforte opened
several separate accounts in different branches of Equitable Bank where she
deposited the collections. Governor Singson will reaffirm that this year, P200 million
was withdrawn by Mrs. Ricaforte from the said deposits in Equitable Bank placed in
various interim accounts to cleanse the dirty money before it was placed at the
disposal of the lord of all gambling lords.
The withdrawal of the amount also coincided with the shift of illegal gambling
operation from jueteng to a bigger form known as the Bingo-2 Ball where the stakes
are much higher, this time using Pagcor as front of the grand design to further
centralize the rewards of gambling operations. Just like in the shift from Fontainebleu
Casino to Fontana Casino, the shift from jueteng to Bingo-2 Ball was motivated by
the desire of greed for greater financial reward.
The testimony of Governor Singson will be corroborated by several witnesses,
including the jueteng collection ledger which Mrs. Ricaforte admits having
maintained. We will present the checks that Governor Singson surrendered to Mrs.
Ricaforte on instructions of President Estrada. We will present the branch records of
the separate bank accounts that Mrs. Ricaforte opened on orders of President
Estrada and where she deposited said checks and the succeeding jueteng
collections.
We will present to Your Honors the checks totaling P200 million which Mrs. Ricaforte
handed over, in turn to a lawyer by the name of Atty. Edward Serapio.
We will present the testimony of Atty. Serapio at the hearing
of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee where he admitted that he, indeed, was the
presidential assistant in Malacañang at the time; that he was the personal legal
adviser of President Estrada and of his family; that the P200 million was transferred
by him to the funds of a corporation that President Estrada ordered him to organize;
that the officers of this corporation, aside from himself, was Raul de Guzman, the
brother-in-law of the President; George Go, the majority stockholder of Equitable
Bank and the Presidents' banker; and two employees of Raul de Guzman in UP.
We will also show the open forum at the meeting of the Foreign Correspondents
Association of the Philippines or FOCAP, where President Estrada made admissions
corroborative of the accusations of Gov. Chavit Singson against him. It is certain that
the lawyers of the President will tell you that Governor Singson should not be
believed because he has admitted being a co-conspirator in the commission of the
crime. But the statement of a co-conspirator should still be accepted even if
uncorroborated when it is shown to be sincere in itself because given unhesitantly
and in the straightforward manner and is full of details which, by their nature, could
not have been the result of a deliberate afterthought.
Who is saying this? This is the pronouncement of our Supreme Court in the decision
where they handed down that decision only recently, last August. After you have
heard him, determine on the basis whether Governor Singson deserves to be
believed, especially after we shall have presented you the corroborating
documentary evidences in support of his testimony, Governor Singson will swear
under oath that he personally handed P5 million to the President every fifteen (15)
days commencing the end of 1998 until the beginning of this year. Once made, this is
an accusation that nobody except the President can deny it. It is a denial that nobody
but nobody can make for him under oath.
For the past month, President Estrada has gallantly promised time and again on
television, on radio, and the newspapers that when the impeachment trial begins, he
will face the people and his accusers and answer all charges point by point. Will the
President still do so?
Your Honors, as we have narrated, our evidence will be the testimony of the very
person who handed money to the President, P15 million, P5 million every fifteen
days like clockwork. It is a first-hand testimony. The rest of his story were bit
corroborated in other essentials, not by other witnesses but by the very statement of
the President himself. And after we are through with our evidence, we have no doubt
that you, Your Honors, will render a judgment of conviction with a clear conscience.
Thank you very much.
back to top
Rep. Arroyo
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (The Chief Justice). The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo
for the second article.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, if Your Honors please, I have never given much
importance to an oath but all of us have taken our oath. Our Chair, Congressman
Belmonte, has read the oath, but I will read the oath again of the President because it
is only now that I realized what this oath is all about.
When Joseph Ejercito Estrada took his oath, high noon of June 30, 1998, he said, "I
do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as
President of the Republic of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution,
execute its laws, do justice to every man and consecrate myself to the service of the
Nation. So help me God."
Except for his name, he violated every word of his oath. That is why the House has
impeached him, that is why the Senate must convict him. And I will proceed to show
why.
Your Honors please, there is a law, Republic Act No. 7171 which says in simple
language, "...that out of excise tax on tobacco, 15% must go to the tobaccoproducing provinces."
So when Vice President Estrada was campaigning in 1998, he promised the province
of Ilocos Sur that he would release the monies that were withheld by President
Ramos. Then on July 27, 1998 when all of us listened to his State of the Nation
Address, he said that the nation is bankrupt. But then here comes Gov. Singson and
tells the President, "Mr. President, could you make good the promise you gave the
people of Ilocos Sur?" The President said, "Yes." But he gave a condition. What was
that? He said that 15% of all those monies that he would send to Ilocos Sur should
go to him.
This was barely a month, one-and-a-half month after he took his oath and after he
declared that the government was bankrupt. But he provided money for Ilocos Sur.
So sometime in August, he released through the budget P200 million for Ilocos Sur.
Well and good. But then comes Atong Ang, Presidential Adviser and tells Gov.
Singson, "The President wants P130 million of the P200 million." Singson asks,
"Why? You gave only P200 million why should I give P130 million?" But Atong Ang
says, "That is the partial P130 million, you will get some more."
So it is on that basis that the prosecution will detail how the highest and supposedly
the most exalted official of our nation systematically diverted the peoples' money to
himself and his family. And we will show how it was; what transpired and what we
would show clearly indicates that the diversion of taxes to the President's pocket was
a planned and swiftly executed maneuver. In fact, the transaction was completed in
less than three days. Three individuals: Delia Rajas, Eleuterio Tan and Alma Alfaro
acted as fronts and dummies. They conspired with Atong Ang who was acting on the
President's behalf to divert to Mr. Estrada P130 million originally intended to alleviate
the plight of tobacco farmers of Ilocos Sur. The manner in which these individuals
accomplished was truly ingenious.
Let us start the first day:
Thursday, August 27, 1998 - Check No. 096750 for the amount of P170 million for
the cash advance approved by Provincial Board was released to Gov. Singson. Gov.
Singson authorized members of his staff, Maricar Paz and Marina Atendido, to
represent him in transactions with the Vigan branch of the Land Bank of the
Philippines.
From the P170 million, P40 million went to the curing barn supplier. While the 130-legitimate P40 million--while the P130 million that Atong asked, went to the President
and his family. You may ask why? How was this done? Governor Singson instructed
the Land Bank Vigan to remit to Land Bank Shaw Boulevard P50 million for the
account of Delia Rajas, P40 million for the account of Eleuterio Tan, P40 million for
the account of Alma Alfaro.
You ask the question; "How in the world can these private individuals become, open
accounts of public funds? They are private individuals. No connection with the
government, no connection with the tobacco industry. But accounts were opened on
their behalf. Now, with undue haste, Alma Alfaro tried to withdraw the P40 million in
cash on the same day or on August 27, 1998. But since the bank did not have the
cash, she was advised to go back the following day, 28 August. Alfaro returned on
that day and withdrew the P40 million in cash at around 10:00 a.m. Remember the
P40 million, that is already cash.
August 28, a Friday, with extreme haste, Eleuterio Tan withdrew the P40 million. With
indecent haste, Delia Rajas also withdrew the P50 million. Then with the P90 milllion-P40 plus P50--three cashiers checks were purchased from Landbank Shaw
Boulevard payable to Eleuterio Tan. Strange as it may seem, on the same date,
August 28, 1999, another person using the same name, Eleuterio Tan, opened a
savings account, this time with another bank, Westmont Bank Mandaluyong branch,
under Savings Account No. 201100772-7.
What must be emphasized, if Your Honors please, is that these two Eleuterio Tans
had two different faces, two different dates of birth, two different addresses, and two
different specimen signatures. Yet Eleuterio Tan No. 2 had in his possession the
same three cashier's checks purchased by Eleuterio Tan No. 1 and Delia Rajas. So
here is the money trail of what was originally public funds already messed up into
private funds.
The next day, Saturday and Sunday, so no transactions. The third working day,
August 31, Monday, Eleuterio Tan No. 2 deposited in his Westmont Bank
Mandaluyong branch savings account the three cashier's checks totalling P90 million
which came from Eleuterio Tan No. 1. The deposit was made at 9:52 a.m.
For those who are around, they could see the money trail, it is all there.
On the same day in an unprecedented banking transaction, the
three cashier's checks were encashed and the money was withdrawn from the
Westmont Bank, Mandaluyong Branch. These withdrawals were as follows: P20
million at 12:32 p.m.; P40 million at 1:55 p.m.; and P30 million at 2:48 p.m.--all in cold
cash, all in two hours. As to each withdrawal, the money, in thick bundles of crisp
bills, was brought to the nearby house of Atong Ang's mother in Mandaluyong City
where Governor Singson was waiting. Atong Ang had even to involve his mother in
this kind of transaction.
The brazen manner in which the President finally took custody of these public funds
shows the depths of shame and disgrace to which that Office has fallen. The
prosecution will prove that from the house of Atong Ang's mother, Governor Singson,
together with the President's intermediary, Atong Ang, brought the crispy bills,
totaling P130 million, the P90 million withdrawn from Westmont Bank, the P40 million
earlier withdrawn by Alma Alfaro from Landbank Shaw Boulevard, directly to the
President's home in 1 Polk St., North Greenhills.
At this juncture, Your Honors please, this P130 million is different from what
Congressman Apostol said. That is jueteng money. This one is tobacco money and
these are public funds. That is why the seriousness of how public funds got into the
pocket of the President is something we would request you to ponder very carefully.
After all, both Governor Singson and Mr. Ang were close friends of the President and
could be trusted to be complicit partners in this transaction.
Governor Singson will reveal in detail what happened at the President's house. He
will narrate how Mr. Estrada scolded Atong Ang for giving part of the money to the
First Lady and presidential son Jinggoy Estrada. Governor Singson will narrate how
the President also berated Atong Ang for pocketing a portion of the funds for himself
without the President's knowledge and permission. Governor Singson will also tell us
that the First Lady even expressed her profound thanks to him for the millions of
pesos she received. Governor Singson will give us a first account of how public funds
intended to alleviate the living conditions of our needy tobacco farmers in Ilocos Sur
instead found their way into the pocket of a greedy President.
These creative and bald-faced manner of diverting cash shows how the people's
money could be easily stolen. It couldn't be done, no way, unless it had been under
the instruction and under the auspices of the Office of the President. The amount is
just so big and the transaction so fast. In three days, public funds were converted into
private funds; in three days, from Vigan, in three days, they were in the pocket of the
President of the Philippines. By authorizing the release of public funds, with a clear
and deliberate intention of ultimately appropriating these amounts for himself, the
President must account to the people he has sworn to serve and protect. He is
clearly unfit to lead. He must go.
Article II consists of two parts. I will now proceed to the second part.
Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
"a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter
as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities,
and net worth." All of us here did that. All of them did it.
Republic Act 3091 and 6713 also require public officers to submit a sworn, true and
detailed statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and
sources of his income and financial and business interests.
On April 29, 1999 and April 28, 2000, Pres. Joseph E. Estrada filed his 1998 and
1999 statement of assets and liabilities respectively, disclosing under oath only his
wife's interests and financial connections in three corporations and making it appear
that he himself has no interest and financial connection in any company.
In the course of impeachment proceeding, we will prove him wrong. We will provide
indisputable evidence that President Estrada lied under oath because he deviously
concealed his interests and financial connections in the following corporations,
among others, but not limited to: St Peter's Holdings Company; Becks Resources
Company; KB Space Holdings Company; Verdant Resources Company; FVC, now
VFC Realty and Development Company; Valhalla Resources Company; JELP Real
Estate & Development Company; JE Films and Video 1 Corporation; Erap Youth
Muslim Foundation.
We will prove that in July 1999, President Estrada, through Presidential Counsel,
Edward Serapio,--remember, if Your Honors please, remember this name because it
will keep on recurring. It was mentioned by Congressman Apostol in the jueteng
thing--now he is also involved here. He is the President's personal lawyer. Serapio
caused the incorporation of St. Peter's Holdings and Becks Resources for the
purpose of acquiring real property. Now, remember this, under the Articles of
Incorporation, each of these corporations have identical stockholders, identical
directors, identical incorporators. All were partners and associates of President
Estrada's personal lawyer, Edward Serapio. All the companies also have the same
office address, the law office of Edward Serapio. In addition, they have the same
authorized capital of P1 million and a mere paid-up capital of P62,500. Remember
this, paid-in capital of P62,500.
We shall prove that on October 1, 1999, Jose Luis "Sel" Yulo-- again remember this
name--a close friend of the President, acquired all but four qualifying shares in St.
Peter's Holdings and caused the increase in the paid-up capital of the corporation to
P250,000. Then, as evident in a Deed of Sale, dated October 1, 1999, which we will
show in the impeachment proceeding, St. Peter's Holdings purchased from Vicente
and Gerardo Madrigal a 7,149-square meter property in New Manila, otherwise
known as "Boracay", for P86 million.
Now, pray tell me, how can a corporation with a capital of P62,500 acquired a
property worth P86 million. By no stretch of imagination can Serapio ever say or even
Sel Yulo say that his corporation has a paid-in capital of P62,500 and he can buy a
property from the Madrigal's for P86 million.
Now, we shall also prove that St. Peter's Holdings paid the P86 million with a BPI
cashier's check and more, which St. Peter's Holdings purchased, using funds from
his newly opened account in BPI. We shall show that St. Peter's account was funded
from Sel Yulo's personal account in BPI. And that Sel Yulo's account, personal
account in BPI, was in turn funded with Check No. 0110714951 issued by a person
whose signature appears on the screen.
We want you to see this signature. Study very closely. You will notice, look at the
lower portion which says an arrow. Look at the signature. Examine it carefully. It
purports, then look at the signature of the President in a P500 peso bill which is on
top. You need not be an expert to see the similarity. The name may be different but
there are unmistakable signs that the signature in that check is the signature, the
handwriting of the President of the Philippines.
Imagine, the President of the Philippines maintaining a fictitious account! How far can
he go or should he go? Look at it closely. We do not want to leave that matter.
Because that is how low the President has gone down in bastardizing and
prostituting even our banking system.
Look at the loops, look at the strokes, they are the same. So who owned? Who paid?
We are talking here of P142 million. Who is Jose Valhalla who could have P142
million? We do not even know him. But the President has P142 million. Who is this
mysterious person? It follows that President Estrada provided the funds. Look at the
pattern. In the case of Eleuterio Tan, you see two different persons. They always
come in pairs. That is the pattern of the President.
In the case of Eleuterio Tan, two different persons; one name. Then in the case of
two corporations of Serapio, St. Peter's and Becks. Different corporations, identical
incorporators, identical stockholders and identical paid-in capital. Here. Two persons
purportedly, but one signature.
It follows that President Estrada provided the funds as the real and beneficial owner
of St. Peter's Holdings to buy Boracay. It follows that President Estrada has interests
and financial connections in St. Peter's Holdings that he deliberately concealed in his
1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Such concealment is a clear violation of the
law.
Moreoever, we will show that President Estrada cannot explain how he was able to
purchase the New Manila property which is worth at least P86 million when his net
worth, according to his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities, was only P35
million. No mortgage appears on the title covering the property. Therefore, no loans
were obtained to buy it. Where did his money come from? To date, there is no
legitimate explanation.
In fact, we will prove that after St. Peter's Holdings purchased the property in New
Manila, massive and expansive renovations were undertaken of the house and
property. A unique swimming pool with white sand--please look at it--and artificial
waves was even constructed. Fit for a President. While Harvard Construction
appears to be the contractor, the actual contractor that financed the renovations was
San Jose Builders. The same contractor that was awarded the juicy government
housing project in Erap City, the improvement of the government-owned Lung
Center, and other government projects.
We shall also prove that President Estrada has interests in and financial connections
with Becks Resources that he did not disclose in his 1999 Statement of Assets and
Liabilities. This company--as I have said earlier, has a paid-up capital of only
P62,500.00--was initially intended to buy a 3,000-square meter property at exclusive
Forbes Park for P120 million as a gift for presidential daughter Jackie. At the last
minute, however, plans were changed. Instead months later, Becks Resources
purchased a 2,327-square meter lot in Wack Wack for P69 million.
We shall prove that the President has interests in and financial connections with KB
Space Holdings, which is the ostensible owner of another mansion in Wack Wack.
While President Estrada has been quoted as saying that his friends find it an honor to
host a short stay in their houses, this P150 million mansion was constructed
especially for a President with huge reception areas, several dining rooms, an
industrial kitchen fit for a hotel, a card room, massage room, beauty parlor, mini
theater, bar, room for memorabilia, a master's bedroom whose more than 200-square
meter area could very well be the dwelling house of 10 to 20 poor families. The
master's bedroom is 200 square meters.
More significantly, the plans for the rooms on the second floor indicate the names of
his children by Laarni Enriquez, namely: Jacob--you will see there--Jake, Jerica. Yet,
he disclaims. He says that is not his. But while the house was being constructed,
Jacob, Jake and Jerica have their footprints. They have their names there. During the
trial, we will show the architectural plans where their names are all there. So while he
says it is not his, why are his children's names there? President Estrada did not
disclose his interest in Space Holdings in his 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities
contrary to law.
Now, there are other mansions that the President has, but for time constraints, we
will not proceed. But just take a look at those mansions one after the other. While you
are looking at it, let me say that 20 years of the Marcos years, he never had this kind
of a mansion. Two years of Estrada, you have all these mansions in just two years. I
wonder who is the bigger crook. All of that could be the envy of any president.
There are other corporations in which President Estrada has interest and financial
connections which he concealed and which, for lack of time this afternoon, we shall
reveal later in the proceedings.
Finally, Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officers," requires public officers including the President to
divest in order to avoid conflict of interest. Thus, where a public official is a
substantial stockholder of a private corporation, has a substantial interest in a
business and the interest of such corporation or business may be opposed to or
affected by the faithful performance of his official duty, he must divest by transferring
the title or disposing of interest in favor of a person other than his spouse. Such
divestment must be made within 60 days from assumption of office. That is the law.
Now, here is the catch. The SEC records would show that President Estrada is the
majority stockholder of JELP Real Estate Development Company, a family
corporation engaged in real estate development. In the pursuance of its business,
JELP develops land and constructs apartments or houses for sale to the public. By
express provision of law, it must secure permits and may be regulated by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, among others. All these offices are directly
under the President.
The law required President Estrada to divest himself of his interest and holdings in
JELP within 60 days from assumption of office on June 30, 1998. Now, what did
President Estrada do? He did not comply with Republic Act 6713. He did not divest
himself of his stockholdings in JELP worth P8 million within 60 days from assumption
of office. Worst, when he tried to comply with the law, when he belatedly transferred
his shares in November 1998 well beyond the 60-day limit, he assigned his
stockholdings not to anyone in JELP worth P6 million but to his wife, spouse Luisa P.
Ejercito. This is prohibited by Republic Act 6713 and the Civil Code.
Since the transfer to his wife is not allowed and deemed void, President Estrada up
to now continues to be a substantial stockholder of JELP in violation of the law he is
borne to enforce. In fact, in constructing 36 townhouses in Antipolo without the
necessary clearances which he gets away with and permits from the HLURB without
the necessary environmental clearance from the DENR, without any authorization
from the water supply office and without the appropriate mayor's permit, without
permit from any agency, JELP, with President Estrada as substantial and dominant
stockholder, has flaunted the law the President is sworn to observe.
Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, because Joseph Ejercito Estrada is guilty of graft and
corruption, culpable violation of the constitutional laws and betrayal of public trust
and he is committing a continuing crime, we submit that President Joseph Estrada
should be removed from office the moment we conclude these proceedings because
we cannot have a country run by a thief like him.
Thank you very much.
back to top
Rep. Gonzalez
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable prosecutor, Raul Gonzales, for Article III.
REP. GONZALES. Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors: Twenty nine (29) months ago,
Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada right hand raised, left hand on the Bible, took an oath,
the sacred vow before God and country: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend
its Constitution, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. So help me God."
Your Honors, Joseph Ejercito Estrada wilfully, consciously and maliciously violated
that sacred oath by his acts of committing bribery, graft and corruption in all its forms,
betrayed public trust and culpably violated the Constitution.
I have been assigned, together with Cong. Oscar Rodriguez, to prove that
respondent Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada betrayed public trust.
Today, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished Judges of this Impeach-ment Tribunal, we
write history.
Last November 28 when this august Body made a resounding denial of the Defense's
Motion to Quash, its significant page in history was written. Expectations and hopes
for our people were raised to the skies, but it is in this trial where we will write
whether or not in a thousand years the Senate will have its finest hour.
During these historic and eventful days, the Senate will have the singular privilege
never tested in our nation's history which, hopefully, future generations of Filipinos
will read with pride that during the Eleventh Congress, the Senate, in fulfillment of
constitutional duty, rose to the occasion, and guided only by duty and conscience
and the truth, left partisan loyalties behind and decided against the President.
Your Honors, permit me to say that none of us in this hallowed Hall relish the task
before us. But we did not choose to be involved in such reckless and unbridled
misconduct as Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada is accused. It is thus a duty, though a
painful one, that I speak to Your Honors to find judgment against the President.
Indeed, the impact to the Constitution must be felt that if the President commits any
or all of these cited charges against him, the Constitution and our people must be
served. Hence, we have, today, to do our respective duties. We, to present the case
against the President and you, to rule under your best lights.
Your Honors, by voting on this Articles of Impeachment, the House of
Representatives is not attempting to raise the standard of ethical conduct to
perfection for our political leadership, nay for all of us. Such person does not walk the
earth today even after Jesus Christ redeemed mankind from original sin. Everyone
can sin, but when the Constitution provided for impeachment as a mode of removal
of the President, it is our bounden duty to prove the President guilty and, Your
Honors, to uphold that guilt as evidence will show.
Indeed, the impeachment, since the days of the English kings and ministers, has
been called the most powerful weapon in the political armory short of civil war. It
played the continuing role in the struggles between king and parliament that resulted
in the formation of the unwritten English Constitution.
In this respect, impeachment was one of the tools used by the English Parliament to
create more responsive and responsible government and to redress imbalances
when this occur.
In our jurisdiction, we borrowed from the U.S. Constitution with some minor
modifications our impeachment grounds. In the U.S., the framers sought to create a
responsible though strong executive. They hope, in the words of Eldridge Gehrig of
Massachusetts that the maxim would never be adopted here, that the Chief
Executive could never do wrong. No man is above the law and no man is below it.
Nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to
the law is demanded, thus the maxim ignorantia legis non fecit excusat.
In the case at bar, the President took a solemn oath before God and country to
uphold the law and preserve and defend the Constitution. Section 1, Article XI of the
Constitution states that: "Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives."
In many decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been ruled that any government
office is a trust for it is created for the sole purpose of effecting the end for which
government has been instituted which is for the common good and not for the profit,
honor or private interest of any man, family or class of men. Jurisprudence adds that
a public official or an employee therefore occupies a very delicate position which
exacts from him certain standards which are not demanded from or required of
ordinary citizens. He is truly the servant of the people and as such, he is enjoined to
serve his office with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, and at all times be accountable to the people.
Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, we will prove to you by competent, credible and
relevant evidence that President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is guilty of betrayal of public
trust. A noted author has opined that betrayal of public trust covers any violation of
oath of office involving loss of popular support even if the violation may not amount to
a punishable offense. Its inclusion is more a reaction to past experience than an
exercise in logic. It was the consensus in the Constitutional Commission that
culpable violation of the Constitution, the main ground for impeachment, would hardly
prosper in Congress even against an unpopular President. This new ground, betrayal
of public trust, serves to stress the desirableness of having a President who truly
regards public office as a public trust. How has President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
spent the fund of public trust? Who benefited and who was deprived?
Your Honors, we ask you to decide this case on the basis of law and evidence. We
ask you not to be swayed by the pomp and the power of the office or the political
interests involved but to look at the evidence that will be presented and the
magnitude of the betrayal of the public trust. The violation is very clear, the evidence
overwhelming, in fact, consistent, corroborated and more than substantial.
The defense constantly harps on the fact that the defendant is an elected public
official on vox populi vox Dei. But, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, so did all the
dictators of the world.
The voice of the people is the voice of God. Yes. But that voice is also spoken
through the Constitution. The Constitution is the expression of the people's sovereign
will. That Constitution lays down the framework of government, the powers of the
President, the different branches of government and the limitations thereto, and, as
important, the principles of accountability--mandate and accountability, power and
public trust. What the people make and elect, they can unmake and remove through
impeachment and conviction through their elected legislators and the mechanisms
set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme and the people's voice
sovereign.
Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, the prosecution shall show that President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada has not cherished the public trust and has squandered it for his
benefit and for the benefit of his cronies and kin. President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
has placed private interests above the interests of the public in violation of that oath
of office.
We will present overwhelming, detailed and corroborated evidence that on
September 6, 1999, Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada has ordered a quasi-judicial
agency, insulated by law from political pressure and influence, not to perform its
function in accordance with the law of its creation.
He issued a directive to the Securities and Exchange Commission not to allow an
independent department of that body to conduct investigations without the prior
clearance of the Commission en banc. For what ulterior purpose and for whose
benefit this directive was issued, was made apparent by subsequent events.
Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada's crony, businessman Dante Tan, became owner of
controlling stocks of a corporation called BW Resources Corporation at the time
when the shares of stock in the said company was undergoing a price surge never
before seen in the history of the Philippine stock market.
On January 1999, the price of BW shares was about P2.00 per share. By October
10, 1999, the price surged to a high P107 per share. When Dante Tan first bought
BW shares in 1998, its price was only P0.80 per share. BW shares rose from the
16th most heavily traded stock in the Philippine Stock Exchange in January 1999 to
the No. 1 among the top 20 companies by June with a total value turnover of
P7,139,972,175. Later, the Philippine Stock Exchange would report that Dante Tan
earned a profit of some P820 million during the period from January to May 1999
alone. The total value turnover of BW shares in October was P21, 619, 175,725
record that will never likely be surpassed decades into the future.
After October 10, 1999, the prices of BW shares underwent an abrupt and
ignominious fall. Last one week from October 10, BW shares have plunged to as low
as P22 per share and now very much lower.
These dramatic events pertaining to trading of BW shares in the Philippine Stock
Exchange alarmed responsible officials of that body as well as the Securities and
Exchange Commission which oversees the former. Both bodies undertook their
investigations which necessarily inquired upon whether the meteoric rise and sudden
fall and the prices of the shares was a natural occurrence dictated by market forces
or was the result of illegal schemes or manipulations.
While these investigations were being carried out by these agencies and in relation to
the very subject of such investigation, Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada made several
questionable phone calls to the heads of both agencies and made representations in
favor of his crony Dante Tan. Through less than subtle suggestions, the President
applied pressure on the chiefs of the PSE and the SEC to shield Mr. Dante Tan from
any unfavorable findings that the said agencies may come up with. The President
would constantly remind these officers that Mr. Dante Tan was my friend--is my
friend. The President clearly interfered with the discharge of the duties of these
officials by suggesting, nay ordering that Mr. Dante Tan be exonerated in the
investigations even as the investigations have yet to be finished.
We have evidence to show, Your Honors, that the President ordered the President of
the Stock Exchange that before the report of each investigation can be submitted to
the Board of Governors, the same should first be submitted to him. And we have
proof to show that indeed the President of the Stock Exchange and the head of the
investigating agency were called to Malacanang to present the advanced report of
that investigation. When the investigations were concluded, the reports had one clear
conclusion-all evidence that the PSE and the SEC gathered have pointed to the
culpability of Mr. Dante Tan for price manipulation and insider trading.
Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada said that Dante Tan was a victim. The evidence said
Dante Tan was the culprit. The investigators found that illegal transactions involving
Dante Tan were committed not once, not twice, not thrice, but hundreds and
thousands of times in myriad forms and ways. It is the interest of the public to bring
Dante Tan to court and make him face the rigors of trial.
The President showed interest in Dante Tan's immediate exoneration and obstructed
the course of justice. Why? As evidence seemed to suggest, more than friendship
with Mr. Dante Tan but has pecuniary interest in BW shares which went beyond mere
cronyism. The prosecution will show that the President's interference did impair the
course of justice despite the fact that the evidence against Dante Tan surfaced in the
report.
It will be noted that both the PSE and the SEC reports were partial and incomplete in
the sense that the reports did not cover all individuals and persons who may have
been involved in the illegal transactions or benefited therefrom.
The President's obstruction of justice prospered because he succeeded in cutting
short the investigations. Inciting fear in SEC and PSE officials, he succeeded in
confining the reports to incomplete results. He succeeded in having possible
damning evidence against the President's mistress Guia Gomez, his favorite son,
J.V. Ejercito, and his friends and relatives obstructed.
The denials of officials reeling under the awesome demonstration of coercive power,
made at a time when the President appeared omnipotent, hardly qualifies as
evidence of lack of pressure.
Mr. Chief Justice and honorable judges, it must be remembered that many traders in
the stock market are small businessmen and ordinary people.
In a country where majority of the people live in abject poverty, while small middle
class struggle to survive allowing the few to amass billions of pesos in profits through
manipulative schemes, further widens the disparities the few rich and the many poor
and middle class have.
The facts we will prove before Your Honors pertaining to President Joseph Estrada's
interference in the affairs of the stock market do not even come to close the gravity
and extent of the issues being raised by the workers and peasants among the
protesters outside these halls.
Price manipulations and insider trading fraud seems sophisticated and technical
compared with joblessness, hunger and displacement from farmlands. All concrete
symptoms of a deep crisis that the President exacerbates by staying in office and
imposing himself upon a people who has withdrawn confidence in his administration
and policies.
What is worst, Your Honors, there now appears substantive proof that respondent
Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada did not only pressure the SEC and the PSE to clear his
crony, Dante Tan, but violated his own memorandum to government financial
institutions not to approve or release loan applications in excess of P15 million,
without his prior imprimatur.
But in what appears like a manifest behest loan of P600 million, PNB, then
government-controlled, granted BW Resource this huge P600 million loan on
collaterals of almost, now practically, valueless BW shares in a Tagaytay property
said to be valued at not for a few millions of pesos. I wonder if the President's
counsel, then Chair of the PNB Board, Chief Justice Narvasa, was part of the
approval of the P600 million PNB loan to BW Resource.
Moreover, we have evidence of how the President exhorted pressure on his
Secretary not to proceed against a crony's tax case with this warning: "You will not be
Secretary if I am not President, and I am not President without the support of this
crony." Another strong illustration of tyrannical abuse of power which betrayed public
trust.
Your Honors, I pray to God that our labors as mandated by the Constitution will truly
bear fruit which the nation will accept. Let it not be, God forbid, bring us a reminder of
Phaedrus and his fables, and I quote: "A mountain was in labor sending forth
dreadful groans and there was the region of highest expectations, after all it brought
forth a mouse."
Permit me then to close my piece, Your Honors, by quoting a noted authority in
constitutional law, Willoughby, with these lines:
It is now, we believe, considered that impeachment is not confined alone to acts
which are forbidden by the Constitution or federal statutes. The better-sustained and
modern view is that the provision for impeachment in the Constitution applies not
only to high crimes and misdemeanors as those words were understood at common
law, but also acts which are not defined as criminal and subject to indictment, but
also to those which affect the public welfare.
Thus an official may be impeached for offenses of a political character and for gross
betrayal of public interest, also for betrayal of trust, for inexcusable negligence of
duty, for tyrannical abuse of power or as one writer puts it, "for a breach of public
duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, including conduct such as drunkenness, when
habitual, or in the performance of official duties, gross indecency, profanity, obscenity
or other language used in the discharge of an official function which tend to bring the
office into disrepute of an abuse or reckless exercise of discretionary power as well
as the breach on an official duty.
Mr. Chief Justice, Honorable Members of this Impeachment Tribunal, thank you and
God bless the Philippines.
back to top
Rep. Tañada
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from Prosecutor Tañada. The Prosecution
has only 48 minutes more of the two hours.
REP. TAÑADA. Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Halos nasabi na ang lahat na
dapat sabihin ng aking mga kasamahang Prosecutors. Subalit mayroon pa pong
naiiwan. Marami-rami pa po. Hindi po marahil kasing sensational o dramatic, pero
masasabi kong kasimbigat din pong mga kasalanan.
Mr. Chief Justice, Honorable Judges, the assignment of our panel of Prosecutors
consisting of Congressman Nachura and Congressman Martinez is, perhaps, the
simplest. Ang aming tungkulin ay patunayan na sadya at tandisang nilabag ni
Pangulong Estrada ang Saligang-Batas at ang kaniyang panunumpa nang gawin
niya ang mga sumusunod:
Una, noong utusan niya ang Commissioner of Customs na isuko ang 52 mamahalin
at maluluhong sasakyan na kinumpiska nito upang ipagamit sa mga miyembro ng
kaniyang Gabinete at iba pang mga opisyal ng Malakanyang. Ito ay labag sa
Saligang-Batas, sa Tariff and Customs Codes, at sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
Pangalawa, noong hirangin ni Presidente Estrada ang ilang miyembro ng kaniyang
Gabinete o ang mga deputy o tauhan nito sa iba pang katungkulan. Ito ay labag sa
Section 13, Article 7 ng ating Saligang-Batas at taliwas sa desisyon na rin ng ating
Korte Suprema sa kasong Civil Liberties Union laban sa Executive Secretary noon.
Pangatlo, noong hirangin ni Presidente Estrada and kaniyang
mga kamag-anak sa mga puwesto sa gobyerno tulad ni Raul de Guzman, ang
kaniyang brother-in-law; si Roberto de Guzman, ang kanyang pamangkin; si Capt.
Rufino Pimentel, isa pang brother-in-law; at si Cecilia Ejercito de Castro, isang
kamag-anak. Ito ay labag sa ating Saligang-Batas, sa ating Civil Service Laws at sa
ating New Revised Administrative Code.
Pang-apat, noong aprubahan ni Presidente Estrada ang P100 milyong donasyon ng
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office sa isang private foundation na pinamumunuan
ng Unang Ginang na ang tanggapan ng foundation na iyan ay nasa kanilang
tahanan. Ito ay tandisang paglabag sa ating Saligang-Batas at mismo sa charter ng
PCSO.
Ang mga ginawang ito ni Pangulong Estrada, at iyong iba pang nabanggit na ng
aking mga kasamahang prosekyutor, ay nabulgar na noon sa mga peryodiko at tiyak
na dokumentado. Kung ang may mga hawak ng mga dokumentong ito ay
magpapatotoo lamang, marahil ay hindi na kailangang magharap pa ng maraming
testigo at humaba pa ang paglilitis nito.
Mr. Presiding Officer, honorable judges, tatalakayin ko po ngayon ang dalawang
bagay na kailangang liwanagin upang lubos na maintindihan ng ating mga
mamamayan kung ano ba talaga ang buod ng paglilitis na ito. Una, ano ba talaga
ang paglilitis na naganap ngayon na kung tawagin sa wikang Ingles ay
"impeachment"? Ano bang klaseng usapin ito? Ito ba ay isang paglilitis na kriminal
tulad ng iginigiit ng mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada? Hindi na kailangang
pagtalunan pa ito, sa tingin ko, sapagkat ang kasagutan ay makikita natin at
mababasa natin sa record ng Constitutional Commission ng ating Saligang Batas.
Nilalaman ng nasabing rekord ang talakayan ng mga miyembro ng nasabing
Komisyon tungkol sa bagay na ito, kaya dito na tayo tumungo upang malinawan.
Pakinggan po natin ang pagpapaliwanagan ng mga miyembro ng Constitutional
Commission noong July 26, 1986. Tanong ni Komisyonado Maambong, and I am
quoting him now:
Ang aking tanong ay tutungo sa puntong ito upang hindi tayo mahirapan sa mga
susunod na panahon.
Ang aking tinutukoy ay ang tunay na katangian ng pamamaraang impeachment na
nagpahirap sa amin na mga miyembro ng Committee on Justice and Good
Government na sumakop sa sakdal na iniharap laban kay dating Presidente Marcos.
Ano talaga ang opinyon ninyo ngayon tungkol sa pamamaraang impeachment? Ito
ba ay isang paglilitis kriminal o hindi? At kung gayon, gagamitin ba natin ang mga
tuntunin na batas kriminal?
Pakinggan po naman natin ang sagot ni Komisyonado Romulo. Sagot ni G. Romulo,
and I am quoting him now:
Sa ganang amin, ang proseso ay may halintulad sa isang paglilitis na kriminal ngunit
ang buod ng katangian nito ay hindi isang pag-uusig na kriminal. Ang layunin ng
impeachment ay ang pagtanggal lamang ng nanunungkulan dahil sa mga
kasalanang kaniyang ginawa. At saka siya ay pananagutin sa hiwalay na pag-uusig,
maging kriminal o sibil, tungkol sa kaniyang mga ginawa.
Pakinggan rin natin ang pangalawang tanong ni Komisyonado Maambong at ang
naging sagot ni Komisyonado Romulo. Tanong ni G. Maambong, and I am quoting
him now:
Sa bagay na pagharap ng ebidensiya, halimbawa, kung ito ay pagtataksil o
pagsusuhol, gagamitin ba ang mga patakaran sa paglilitis kriminal ngayon na ito ay
mga pagkakasala na pinarurusahan ng ating batas kriminal?
Sagot ni G. Romulo, and I am quoting him now:
Ang aking opinyon ay maliwanag na sa hukumang kriminal gagamitin ang lahat na
pinakamaliit na detalye na ebidensiya at mga patakaran at ang karapat-dapat na
palakaran. Ngunit maaari tayong maging liberal sa paglilitis sa impeachment,
halimbawa, sa Senado, sapagkat ang habol lamang natin ay tanggalin ang nakaupo.
Ang mga hukuman ng katarungan na ang magiging bahala sa aspetong kriminal at
sibil nito.
Ang pangalawang bagay na dapat liwanagin ay kung anong antas at bigat ng
ebidensiya ang sapat sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas upang mapaalis sa puwesto ang
isang Presidente. Tandaan po natin na ang ating itinatanong ay ebidensiya tungo sa
pagtanggal ng nakaupo, hindi ebidensiya upang siya ay ipakulong, sapagkat idiniin
sa talakayan sa Constitutional Commission na kababasa lamang natin na malaki ang
kaibahan ng paglilitis na impeachment sa paglilitis kriminal.
Pakinggan po naman natin ang paliwanagan nina Komisyonado Davide at
Komisyonado Romulo noong July 26, 1986. Tanong ni G. Davide, and I am quoting
him now: "At pangwakas, upang hatulan ang isang tao sa impeachment, kailangan
ba ang sinasabing ebidensiyang walang kaduda-duda?"
Ang sagot ni G. Romulo, and I am quoting him now: "Muli, sapagkat ito ay hindi isang
pag-uusig na kriminal, sa ganang akin ay hindi po."
At sino si Komisyonado Davide na tinutukoy sa rekord ng Constitutional
Commission? Siya po ay walang iba kundi ang ating Kgg. na Punong Mahistrado ng
Korte Suprema, G. Hilario Davide Jr. na namamatnugot ngayon sa paglilitis na ito sa
Senado.
If Your Honors please, malaki ang kabuluhan ng mga bagay na ating liniwanag
sapagkat ang paglilitis natin ay hindi isang pag-uusig na kriminal, kaya't maaari
nating tanggapin ang ebidensiya na pumapalibot sa mga sakdal na kailangang
sagutin ngayon ni Presidente Estrada. Hindi ang aking tinutukoy ay ang pagsusuhol
kay Presidente Estrada ng limang milyung piso tuwing ikalabinlima at katapusan ng
buwan, para bagang regular na sahod ng karaniwang empleyado sa gobyerno.
Iyan ay direktong ebidensiya, direct evidence, hindi palibot na pangyayari lamang
sapagkat sinumpaan na iyan at susumpaan pa ulit ni Gov. Singson na ito ay personal
na dala-dala niya at personal niyang ibinigay at personal ding tinanggap naman ni
Pangulong Estrada. Hinggil dito, si Presidente Estrada ay tanging maaaring
tumanggi sa ilalim ng panunumpa kung hindi ito tutoo. Wala nang iba. Anuman ang
sabihin pa ng kanyang mga abogado, anuman ang kanilang ibibigay na dahilan, sa
bagay na ito, hindi siya maaaring magtago sa likod nang pananahimik sapagkat sa
batas may laya siyang magsalita tungkol dito sa Senado.
Ang ating tinutukoy ay ang ebidensiya halimbawa nang pagtanggap niya ng
P200,000,000 na pinadaan sa Foundation na ngayo'y sinasabi niya na kanyang
pinabuo sa kanyang Legal Adviser na si Atty. Edward Serapio para sa mga Muslim
scholars. Maari nating itanong kung bakit.
Batay sa ebidensiyang ihaharap namin kailangan pang ilihim ang pagbigay ni Gov.
Singson ng nasabing P200,000,000 sa nasabing Foundation kung malinis naman at
tutoo ang hangarin sa pagbuo nito. Bakit kailangan pang padaanin muna kay Gng.
Yolanda Ricarforte, ang asawa ng isang undersecretary ng pamahalaan? Bakit
kailangan ikalat muna ni Gng. Ricaforte sa limang hiwahiwalay na bank account sa
iba't ibang branch ng Equitable Bank?
At noong ilabas na ang salapi, bakit hindi na lamang inilagay ang tseke sa ngalan ng
nasabing Foundation? Bakit walang ano mang pangalan ang mga tsekeng ito sa laki
ng halagang sangkot sa mga tsekeng iyan? Bakit pinadaan pa ito kay Atty. Edward
Serapio, ang Legal Adviser ni Pangulong Estrada at hindi na dineretso sa
Foundation? Bakit diniposito muna ang mga tseke sa isang bank account na hindi sa
pangalan ng Foundation? Bakit pinaliguy-ligoy pa, pinaikot-ikot pa? Sa haba ng
prosisyon naman ay sa simbahan rin pala magtatapos.
Tungkol po naman sa pagmamay-ari ng lupa at mga mansion na tinitirahan ng mga
kinakasama ni Pangulong Estrada, bakit kaya nasa pangalan ng mga korporasyon
na walang kakayahang bumili nito? Bakit ang lahat ng mga nasabing korporasyon ay
tangan ng abogado at ng mga tsokaran ni Presidente Estrada? Kanino bang bank
account nanggaling ang puhunan na nilipat sa nasabing mga korporasyon upang
mabili nito ang mga lupa at mga mansion na itinayo diyan? Napakaraming
katanungan. Napakalabo ang mga transaksiyon. Napakahaba ang paikot-ikot at
paliguy-ligoy. Tiyak na susubukan ng mga abogado ni Presidente Estrada na
paghiwa-hiwalayin ang mga pumapalibot na mga pangyayari na ang tinutukoy ay si
Presidente Estrada upang maputol ang pagturo nito sa kanya. Huwag po tayo
sanang malito sa paikut-ikot at paliguy-ligoy na dinaanan ng mga transaksiyon na
yan. Ang mga sakdal na ihaharap sa inyo ay isang larawan na kinakailangan
matanaw sa kabuuan upang maaninawan at matunghayan ang buong katotohanan.
Mga ginagalang kong mga hukom, Mr. Presiding Officer, tanungin ninyo ang
sinumang estudiyante sa pagkaabugado at kaagad-agad sasabihin sa inyo na sa
ilalim ng Saligang-Batas ng Pilipinas, mas malawak ang kapangyarihan ng Pangulo
ng Pilipinas kaysa kapangyarihan na idinudulot ng Saligang-Batas ng Amerika sa
presidente nito. Kaya totoo lamang na hindi maiiwasan na ang personalidad ng ating
Pangulo ay magkakabakas sa buong pamahalaan at gayon din sa habi ng
sambayanan. Ang karakter ng isang pangulo, ang mga asal
at paninindigan na kanyang pinahahalagahan, ang kanyang ugali at pananaw sa
buhay at sa Diyos, ang kanyang pagkamatapat o ang kanyang pagkukunwari--ang
lahat na ito ay nagbabakas sa isip, puso't diwa ng bayan.
Hangang ngayon nararamdaman pa natin ang malalim na sugat sa ating isip, puso't
diwa na iniwan ng rehimeng Marcos. Hanggang ngayon, ito ay hindi pa naghihilom.
Kung ating mamaliitin ang mga kasalanan sa bayan ni Pangulong Estrada, ano ang
magiging mensahe natin sa ating mga kabataan at sa buong sambayanan? Na wala
nang kabuluhan ang panunumpa? Na ang makapangyarihan ay maaring
mangibabaw sa ating Saligang-Batas? Na ang pagnanakaw, ang graft and
corruption, ay hindi masama kung hindi ka pahuhuli, o may mga kakampi ka na
handang tatabing sa iyo ano mang mangyari sa bayan? Na walang masama sa
pagsusugal sa gitna ng matinding kahirapan bumabagabag ngayon sa ating bansa?
Ito ba ang magiging pamana natin sa ating kabataan at sa susunod na salinglahi?
May nagsasabi na ang pagpapawalang bisa sa nakasalang na mga sakdal sa
kapulungang ito ay pagbibigay tiwala kay Atong Ang. Huwag naman po sana.
Marami na ang kasalanan ni Presidente Estrada sa bayan. Malaki na ang
perhuwisyo na idinulot niya sa sambayanan kayat mabuti pa mag-resign na si
Presidente Estrada para sa kabutihan ng bansa.
Marami pong salamat.
back to top
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
The Majority Leader.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, with the consent of the court, I ask for a
ten-minute break.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? [Silence] The request is granted. A
break for ten minutes. It was 3:51 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:15 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS (Col. Saber). Please All rise. The Honorable
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is now resumed. The Majority Leader is
recognized.
Opening Statements of the Defense
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the defense counsel will now deliver
their opening statement in the following order: Former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa
and Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the order as announced, the Chair recognizes
defense counsel Narvasa. The defense, as earlier announced, also have two hours.
Since it is now 4:16, you will have until a maximum.... A maximum of two hours would
be 6:16. You may now proceed.
back to top
Atty. Narvasa
MR. NARVASA. May it please the Honorable Chief Justice and the Honorable
Members of the Impeachment Tribunal. I will take only five minutes or so simply to
draw attention to certain legal propositions which I take to be relevant to the
controversy at bar and certain political dimensions attending the same. And I will do
this by way of laying the predicate for the presentation in chief of former Solicitor
General Mendoza, my esteemed colleague.
Many of us here present will doubtless recall the story of a man of ancient Rome
named Julius Caesar whom the masses admired and wanted to be the leader of their
nation. He was assassinated by a group of plotters who considered him unfit to rule.
These plotters, by spreading rumor and gossip, had poisoned the minds of the
people against him. They said Julius Caesar was ambitious, avaricious, corrupt, and
they enlisted the aid of well-meaning citizens like the noble-minded Brutus who was
deluded into believing the sly insinuations of the plotters and had thus come to think
that Caesar was indeed unfit to rule. And so Julius Caesar was slain.
Caesar's friend, Mark Anthony, having learned of the conspiracy and how easily the
people had been made to believe the lies and innuendoes of the conspirators, was
moved to cry out as he mourned Caesar's death, "Oh judgment, thou art fled to
brutish beasts and men have lost their reason."
Today, 2,000 years after that tragic event, we take part in this impeachment
proceedings to pass judgment on another leader, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, a man
also admired by his countrymen who had elected him by an overwhelming majority to
the highest office of the land. We are here to determine whether he should continue
to lead the nation as its president. But unlike in Julius Caesar's case, we are assured
that in this forum, judgment will not flee to brutish beasts and reason will not be lost
but will attend every aspect and incident of this proceedings. For in the many
centuries that had passed, from Julius Caesar's time to ours, principles and tenets
have developed and come to be embraced in every enlightened society, foremost
among which is that the guilt or innocence of a person accused of some wrong shall
be determined not by passion or prejudice, nor hearsay or rumor but by such
evidence as the universal experience of mankind accepts as satisfactory proof of
facts presented in accordance with procedures that best conduce to full and free
ventilation of a controversy and ultimately to a fair and honest judgment. It is our
good fortune that in the course of time and in the full fruition of human wisdom,
definite rules and standards for conducting trials and hearings, as well as for
determining all questions of evidence, including questions of its materiality,
relevancy, competency have been formulated and met with general acceptance in
democratic States and that these specific norms have been adopted in our country. It
is our good fortune that this country of ours is governed by a Constitution and a set of
laws that guarantee to every person the fundamental right to due process and other
inviolable human rights and otherwise command full commitment to the rule of law.
It is in light of these familiar norms and precepts which we are certain this honorable
Impeachment Tribunal will uphold and apply that the respondent, the President of the
Philippines, now confidently faces his accusers. By your leave and with many thanks
for your kind attention, I now ask my colleague, Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, to outline
the case for the respondent.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The leave is granted. Atty. Mendoza is now recognized.
Atty. Mendoza
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate who now sit as judges in
this historic trial on impeachment charges against the President of the Philippines.
Before I proceed to deal with the specific charges, I would like to express
appreciation to the prosecutors for outlining their case with clarity and also with
eloquence.
But what I should also like to emphasize is that what the prosecutors have said and
have represented are not the truth--are not the facts. What they have represented is
what they propose to prove by evidence which they seek to present before this
august assembly.
Noon pong bago manapos si Congressman Tañada, dalawang bagay ang
ipinahayag niya. Ang tinatanong niya, "Ano ba ang sapat na ebidensiya para
magkaroon ng conviction?" And sinabi niya itong kasong ito ay hindi kriminal kaya
hindi kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ako po ay medyo nagulat nang
kaunti sapagkat hindi ko alam na pag-uusapan iyan ngayon. Ang akin lamang pong
pansin diyan ay ito. Nakinig po tayo sa mga prosecutors. Sinabi nila ang malalaking
kasalanan ni Presidente Estrada. Iyan ay halos publiko na iyan, eh. At sinabi nila,
matitibay ang kanilang ebidensiya. Bakit ba hindi pa tayo nag-uumpisa sa
pagprepresenta ng ebidensiya, para bagang sinasabi na nila ang ebidensiya nila ay
kulang. Hindi nila kayang probahan ito beyond reasonable doubt. Kaya sinasabi nila,
ipag-paumanhin ninyo ang ebidensiyang kailangan dito ay kulang sa proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Kung talagang malawak ang kasalanan ni Presidente Erap, kung talagang malakas
ang ebidensiya, siguro kung ako ang prosecutor sasabihin ko, "We will prove our
case not only beyond reasonable doubt but with absolute certainty." Siguro nga po
kailangan iyan, eh.
Sapagkat ano po ba ang kahulugan ng "impeachment"? President Estrada, or
President Erap to many, was elected by the largest number of votes ever received by
a President of the Philippines, more than 10 million votes.
Iyon pong higit na sampung milyon na iyon, ang sinulat nila sa balota ay "Erap." Pero
ang kahulugan noon, ang sinabi nila, manungkulan ka ng anim na taon. Iyon po ang
mandate ng mahigit na 10 milyong Pilipino. Hindi lamang malaking boto ang
tinanggap niya. Higit na anim na milyon sa pangalawa, si Speaker De Venecia. At
higit na pitong milyon sa pangatlo, si Senador Roco. Ganoon po ang mandate na
ipinahayag ng ating sambayanang Pilipino kay Presidente Estrada.
Ano ba ang kahulugan nitong "impeachment"? The impeachment process has the
objective of removing from office President Erap, of terminating that mandate to be
President for six years, earlier by more than three years.
Sampung milyon, ang sabi, "Presidente Erap, mayroon kaming tiwala sa iyo. Umupo
ka, mag-presidente ng anim na taon." Ito po ngayon, pinaglilitis natin, sasabihin natin
sa kaniya, "Umalis ka na riyan." Gayong mayroon pang mahigit na tatlong taon. That
is what impeachment means.
Kaya po kung gagawin natin iyan, hindi po ba kailangan na iyong ebidensiya ay
maliwanag at matibay? Should not a judgment to terminate that mandate be as
incontestable and as clear as the mandate which elected President Erap as
President? I think that is the intent of the Constitution. I think that is what every
reasonable thinking Filipino would say.
Kaya iyang amount of proof, siguro hindi na muna dapat nating pag-usapan iyan.
Pangalawa, ang napansin ko ngayon hapon, napakarami pong sinabing puprubahan
ng prosecution. Napakarami nilang sinabing kasalanan ni Presidente, na wala naman
sa demanda.
Iyong Articles of Impeachment na nanggaling sa House of Representatives ay
inirereklamo na nga namin kung papaanong nakarating ito doon sa Senado. Wala
namang ebidensiyang inihayag sa House of Representatives. Wala po. In other
words, there was no determination of probable cause.
In lieu of determination of probable cause, kaya po nakarating ito rito sapagkat
pumirma iyong mahigit na 100 miyembro ng House of Representatives.
Ayon sa Saligang-Batas, kung pipirma iyong one-third, puwede na ngang ipadala
iyong Articles of Impeachment sa Senado. Pero mayroon pong mahalagang
kinakailangang lumabas bago ipadala rito. Iyon pong mahigit na 100 na iyon o iyong
one-third na sinasabi ng ating Saligang-Batas, kinakailangang sumpaan nila na iyong
nilalaman ng Articles of Impeachment na ipapadala sa Senado ay totoo. Sapagkat
alam nilang totoo. Hindi po ganoon ang sinumpaan nila. That is not what the
verification says. Ang sabi lang ng verification na iyan, "Ayon sa aming pagbabasa,
ayon sa aming pagkakaintindi, sa nakita namin na nakasulat diyan, iyan ay
mayroong base sa katotohanan."
Kaya po ito ay dumating dito. Tinutulan po namin, kaya lang medyo nabigo kami. In
other words, what I seek to emphasize is that these articles are now before the
Senate without any finding of probable cause. Nonetheless, we will try the case.
After the Senate gave due course to this Articles of Impeachment, it issued summons
to the respondent, to the accused, whatever he may be, but to the President of the
Philippines. And we were asked to respond to these charges, to know these charges.
Medyo hindi nga po madaling basahin at intindihin, eh. Sapagkat hindi po
pangkaraniwan na complaint, eh. Marami pong annexes. Nanggaling sa Inquirer.
Kaya po pinag-aralan naman naming mabuti. Maliliit nga po iyong mga nandoon sa
news items, pero pinagtiyagaan na naming basahin para maintindihan kung ano ang
mga paratang kay Presidente Erap. Wala naman po kaming nakita rito tungkol doon
sa mga mansiyon na sinasabi. Iyon nga po ang pinagkatingnan-tingnan namin, kasi
palagi nang nasa peryodiko iyong mga bahay na sinasabi ngayon. Basahin po natin
ito maski na sampung beses, wala po tayong makikita dito na iyan ay kasama sa
mga paratang at akusasyon kay Presidente Erap. Kung wala po dito, hindi maaaring
bistahan iyan. Kaya po kami nagtataka. Siguro, wika ko, marahil kulang na nga ang
pruweba, kaya sinasabi na hindi na kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Hindi lamang pala kulang ang pruweba, iyon palang sinasabi at iniisip nilang may
pruweba, wala pala rito.
Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo, kung minsan siguro ang aking Tagalog ay hindi
kasinggaling nuong kay Congressman Tañada. Sapagkat si Congressman Tañada
po ay taga-Quezon, lalawigan po ni Presidente Quezon. Ako naman po ay
tagalalawigan ng Pampanga, kaya paminsan-minsan ay kinakailangang tulungan ng
Ingles. Sapagkat hindi ko maaaring tulungan ng kapampangan, hindi makukuha ng
stenographer.
Ngayon po, sa totoo po, anuman iyang mga pinag-uusapan nating charges, at
bottom the question really is: What is the truth about the facts alleged in this Articles
of Impeachment? The truth, ang katotohanan--iyon po ang mahalaga dito, eh.
Sa narinig po natin, ang central figure dito, ang central witness ay si Governor
Singson. Sa totoo po, itong mga ibang paratang dito, iyong nasa Inquirer hindi
naman....Matagal na iyan, eh. Hindi naman iyan masyadong inabala na ng mga
mamamayan, eh. Naabala lang ang mga mamamayan noong magkaroon tayo ng
impeachment dahil doon sa mga reklamo at ipinahayag ni Governor Singson, hindi
po ba?
Kaya po dito, tinatanggap ko. Ganoon na nga ang sinabi ni Congressman Apostol at
ni Congressman Arroyo--na ang mga kasong ito ay talagang nakabatay sa sinabi at
deklarasyon ni Gov. Chavit Singson. Kaya po, pareho na ito--charge 1, charge 2.
Governor Singson po iyon, eh. Totoo ba iyong sinabi ni Governor Singson? Iyan po
ang magiging isyu. Sino naman po ang kailangang magpatunay na totoo? Itong
prosecution, eh. Iyan po ang burden of proof sa kanila.
Maliit pa po ako noon. Ang sabi ng aking nanay: "Anak, magsasabi ka ng totoo.
Sapagkat kung ikaw ay mahuli kong nagsisinungaling, hindi na kita papaniwalaan
kailanman." Kaya po isang beses, ang sabi ko sa nanay ko: "Puwede bang
makahingi ng diyes?" Matagal na po iyon. Mahalaga pa iyong pera noon, eh. "Eh,
bakit?" ang wika. "Eh, ibibili ko po ng sorbetes," ang sabi ko. Mabait naman ang
nanay ko noong oras na iyon, kung minsan ay mahigpit sa pera 'yan, binigyan ako ng
diyes. Hindi po niya nalaman kaagad, pero nayaya ako ng aking mga kaibigan, nagcara y cruz kami. Natalo. Hindi ako nakabili ng sorbetes. Nalaman po ng nanay ko,
ang sabi niya: " 'O, nahuli kita. Sa susunod hindi na kita bibigyan ng pera. Ikaw ay
nagsinungaling."
Kaya po tingnan natin si Governor Singson kung makakahingi pa nga ng diyes. Ang
hinihingi niya dito mas malawak pa roon. Hinihingi niya sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang
pangungusap, 'Tanggalin si Presidente Erap bilang Presidente ng Pilipinas.'
Marami po sa sinasabi ng prosekusyon, hindi naman si Presidente Erap, eh. Gawa
lahat 'yan ni Governor Singson. Kaya po noong nagpapahayag si Congressman
Apostol at si Congressman Arroyo, ang parang pumasok sa akin: Sino ba ang
akusado dito? Si Presidente Erap ba o si Governor Singson? Sapagkat karamihan
po sa sinabi nila ay hindi naman si Presidente Erap ang gumawa. Ang gumawa ay si
Governor Singson.
Dahil hindi po mahaba ang ating panahon, tingnan natin iyong....Ito po kasi ay mas
maraming papel, maraming dokumento. Mahirap po iyong walang dokumento dahil
sasabihin, sinabi niya ang ganito, ang sabi naman noong isa ay hindi naman ganoon.
Iyon pong RA No. 7171, unang-una, ang sabi ay nag-release ng P200 million under
that law sa probinsiya ng Ilocos Sur. Maaari nating sabihin, dahil Budget ang
nagrelease noon, mayroon sigurong kaalaman si Presidente. Ganoon pa man, hindi
naman nila sinasabing si Presidente ang nag-release ng P200 million, ano po?
Ngayon po, pag-release ng P200 million para sa tobacco subsidy, ano ang nangyari
doon sa P200 million? Nag-cash advance po si Governor Singson. Maliwanag po .
Hindi po si Presidente Estrada ang nag-cash advance. Ang nag-cash advance ay si
Governor Singson. Ang sabi niya, "To cash advance the amount of P170 million for
partial payment of the equipment for the flue-curing barn and redrying plant."
Samakatuwid, "cash advance," sinabi ni Governor Singson, para bumili ng flue-curing
barn and redrying plant. Pirmado po ni Governor Singson. Kung hindi niya ibinili ng
flue-curing barn, hindi po ba nagsinungaling na siya? Kumuha siya ng P170 milyon,
sino ang niloko niya? Di niloko niya ang gobyerno. Hindi po ba? "Falsification" sa
pangungusap ng criminal law.
Ngayon, una po iyon, tandaan ninyo. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang gumawa niyan.
Pangalawa, pumirma po siya ng request for allotment of that money, P170 million.
Pirmado rin po ni Governor Singson. Di pangalawang kasalanan na, falsification din.
Kaniyang pirma ito, hindi kay Presidente.
Pangatlo, nagpagawa po siya ng tseke payable--ako nga po ay nagtataka, hindi
naman ito Governor Singson-payable to Luis Chavit Singson, tseke, P170 million.
Sino ang nakapirma? Si Luis Chavit Singson. Kung sabagay, kasama rin po iyong
tesurero. Ito po ay mahalagang bagay. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang pumirma sa
tseke, si Governor Singson, para flue-curing barn. Kung hindi pala, sino ang
nagpalsipika? Sino ang nagsinungaling? Si Governor Singson. Pangatlo na po iyon.
Pagkatapos niyan, alam ninyo, marami pong sinabing mga babae, nagkaganoonganoon; iyong tseke kung saan-saan pumunta. Papaano po ba nangyari iyon?
Sumulat po ng isang authorization si Governor Singson. "This is to authorize Maricar
Paz and Marina Atendido, both employees of this office, to officially transact business
with the Land Bank." Pirmado po ni Governor Singson iyan. Iyan ang pinagmulan ng
maraming palit-palit, pagka-cash cash at saan-saan nanggaling at napunta iyong
tseke. Pirmado naman ni Governor Singson iyan. Kung hindi niya pinirmahan ito,
hindi niya pinabayaang mapunta ang tseke kung kani-kanino, di hindi nangyari iyon.
Pang-apat po iyon.
Panglima. Pumirma po si Governor Singson ng purchase request for flue-curing barn
uli. Kung hindi pala siya bibili noon, bakit siya pumirma ng purchase request?
Panglima nang kasalanan, panglima nang pagsisinungaling.
Pagkatapos noon, eto po ay makikita ninyo. Purchase order pa. Para bagang
mayroon talagang bibilhan, ano po, sapagkat may supplier po. "GOME", nakalagay
dito. Bakit pipirma ng purchase order kung pala iyong pera ay ibibigay kung kanino.
Pero pirmado ni Gobernador Singson. Pang-anim na po iyan.
Pagkatapos noon, purchase order, alam nating hindi na binili pero pagkatapos ay
mayroong lumabas na papel, "Acceptance of delivery." Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin
niyan? Ang ibig sabihin ay tinanggap ng probinsiya iyong binili. Pirmado rin ni
Gobernador Singson. Ngayon pampito na iyon.
Pagkatapos ay may certificate of inspection siya, ininspek iyong binili. Natanggap
pala in good order. Pagkatapos may Memorandum Receipt pa, binili, tinanggap,
Memorandum Receipt to him na sa kanya pumunta, pirmado rin ni Gobernador
Singson. Pampito na po iyon--pangwalo na; nagkakamali--naghihirap na ako sa
pagbibilang, marami na po masyado ang pina-falsificate.
Pero this tops it all. Pagkatapos po niyan mayroong ginawa si Gobernador Singson-ito po iyong dokumento, Settlement of Cash Advance for the amount of P170 million,
pirmado rin ni Gobernador Singson. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang ibig sabihin
nito nag-cash advance siya ng P170 million mayroon daw siyang biniling ganito at
pagkatapos dahil tinanggap na iyon, tinanggap na niya, di wala na siyang cash
advance, sini-settle na niya ang P170 million. Mayroon pa pong official receipt na
parang binayaran iyong P170 million.
Iyan po ba ang testigo ng prosecution? Sabihin nating totoo lahat itong sinabi ni
Gobernador Singson dito sa mga dokumentong nandito. Di hindi pala kinuha iyong
pera. E, anong binigay kay Presidente Erap? Ibinili ng flue-curing barn, e.
Ngayon, kung sabihin naman natin na pinalsifika niya ang pirma, mahigit na
sampung beses, ibinulsa niya iyong pera, iyon, maliwanag-- siyang kumuha, siyang
tumanggap, sa bulsa niya pumunta. E, sabi, sasabihin ng prosecution "Binigay
naman kay Presidente Erap." Ano ang ebidensiya noon? Ang ebidensiya na iyon-dahil sabi ni Gobernador Singson.
But as far as the irreputable documents and papers show, he was the one who got
P170 million from the province of Ilocos Sur, but as far as whether this went to
President Erap, it was only--it is the word of Gobernador Singson. After he has
falsified 13 documents, does he have any credibility left? Are you to impeach the
President, terminate the mandate of more than 10 million people on the word of
someone who has himself and cannot possibly deny that 13 times he falsified
documents?
Siguro po hindi na dapat pagusapan iyan, e. E, ako, diyes lamang ang hiningi ko sa
Nanay ko, hindi ko lang binili ng sorbetes, hindi na ako makahingi, uli. E, eto pa.
Kaya po, ano po bang leksiyon na nakikita natin dito? Magnakaw ka, lakihan mo
kung gusto mo pa, pagkatapos, para wala ka nang pagkakasala, wala ka nang
pananagutan, sabihin mo ibinigay mo kay Erap. Hindi po ba ganoon ang nangyari?
Hindi lang wala ka nang pagkakasala, e, marami namang sasama sa iyo, e,
maniniwala kaagad sa iyo, e. Lalung-lalo na iyong mga mamamayan na mula sa
mula ayaw nilang manalong presidente si Erap. Hindi po ba ngayon sa nakikita natin
sa rally, lahat naman iyan na tinatanggap nilang katotohanan ang sinasabi ni
Gobernador Singson, e, iyong mula sa mula ayaw nila na mahalal na presidente si
Presidente Erap.
It is a settled axiom in evidence, that the testimony of a person who is himself a party
to the offense has no probative weight, it has no credibility, because he is motivated
by desire to exculpate himself. Sa katotohanan po malaki po ang problema ni
Gobernador Singson, sapagkat mayroon po akong nakita ring papel o dokumento na
lumalabas pala sa government of Ilocos Sur as of December 31, 1999. Governor
Singson and persons working immediately under him have unliquidated cash
advances of P162, 145, 860. 55. The last unliquidated cash advance of Governor
Singson drawn in December 1999 was P100 million. Kaya po sa nangyari, siguro
pinaninindigan na nga ni Governor Singson. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang sasabihin
niya pagka nandidiyan na siya at nakasumpa na siya. Naging bayani na siya.
Speaker na siya sa mga rally. Mga Rotary Club ay imbitado na siya. Siguro ang
kanyang iniisip, libre na ito sapagkat si Erap naman ang babagsak, eh.
Ngayon po, 'yung tobacco subsidy, medyo itabi na natin po. Pupunta naman ako sa
jueteng.
Sabi po ay si Presidente Erap daw ay protector ng jueteng, ano po. Si Presidente
Erap po, siguro may ilan sa mga senador, maski ang mga iba pa, maalaala nila na
bago siya naging bise presidente ay naging senador po siya.
Noong pong 1987, senador po siya at nagtalumpati po siya rito, privilege speech on
November 25, 1987. Tungkol po sa jueteng, eh. Kaya po mayroong kaugnayan ito sa
pinag-uusapan natin. Ako po ay kukuha lamang ng four points he read. Babasahin ko
po I hope I do justice to his language. Sa Tagalog po, eh. Una, sabi niya: "Ginoong
Pangulo, ang kahirapan ay laganap sa ating bansa. Kahit saang sulok ng Pilipinas ay
matatagpuan natin ang maraming naghihikahos." That is his first premise. Maraming
pong kahirapan dito sa ating bansa. Hanggang ngayon naman.
Pangalawa: "Kung P170 milyon buwan-buwan ang kinikita ng Pagcor mula sa mga
casino na kanilang hinahawakan at pinamamahalaan, paano po ang libu-libong ilegal
na mga pasugalan na nakakalat sa buong kapuluan na ang pinakamalaganap dito ay
ang jueteng." Second premise.
Pangatlo po: "Kung ating pagsasamasamahin ang kinikita sa araw-araw ng mga
ilegal na pasugalan sa buong Pilipinas, makatitipon tayo ng napakalaking halaga na
sapat upang makatulong sa pagpapagaan sa kahirapan ng ating maraming malilit na
kababayan." Yan di po ang hangarin niya. Pero ipinagpatuloy po ito. Ano ang sinabi
niya? "Isa pa," sabi niya. "Kung ating magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na
pasugalang ito, mababawasan o masusugpo ang pagsasamantala at pang-aabuso
sa tungkulin ng mga OIC." Noon po ay walang mayor, OIC, po.
"Sa pamahalaang-lokal, bukod pa rito ay matutulungan nating mahango sa kahirapan
ang marami nating kababayan." Finally, ang sabi po niya, "Kaya Ginoong Pangulo,
bilang pagtatapos, nais kong imungkahi na bilisan ang pagsisiyasat na ginagawa
ngayon ng ating Committee on Games and Amusement at isama nila sa kanilang
pag-aaral kung papaano magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na pasugalang ito nang
sa ganoon ay mauuwi sa ating pamahalaan ang malalaking halaga na ngayon ay
pinakikinabangan lamang ng mga corrupt na OIC at ilan pang mga pulis.
Iyan pong pinaninindigan ni Presidente Erap, senador pa siya. Iyon po kasing
jueteng, mayroon po akong kaunting kaalaman--hindi po ako marunong, pero
sapagkat po ako ay taga-lalawigan ng Pampanga--dati-dati po bago nalahar ang
aming bahay doon, tuwing Sabado ako ay nauwi. Pag-uwi ko, unang-una na pong
bisita ay ang kubrador sa jueteng. Ako po ay nataya ng kaunti-kaunti. Pero sa nakita
ko po sa mga mamamayan, sila pa po ang nagagalit, eh, kung hindi pupunta ang
kubrador sapagkat po sa kahirapan ng buhay, lahat po ng ating kababayan ay
humahanap ng pag-asa. Hope springs eternal. Kaya po maski papaano naging
paraan ang jueteng para sila ay maaaring managinip at may pag-asang iyong
panaginip na iyon ay maging totoo. Kaya po napakahirap pigilin iyang jueteng.
Ang aking buong paningin, si Presidente Erap, ganoon na nga po ang nakita niya,
eh. Kanya lang, ang masama sa jueteng, eh, masyadong marami ang kumikita na
hindi naman dapat kumita dahil po illegal, eh. Kung illegal, kailangan maglagay ka
diyan, maglagay ka doon, maglagay ka diyan. Kung hindi, huhulihin.
Kaya po ng sinasabi ni Presidente noon ay gawin na nating legal para iyang lahat ng
kitang iyan hindi pumunta sa bulsa ng kanino man kundi sa bulsa sa kaban ng
gobiyerno. Iyan po ang paniwala ni Presidente na noon at hanggang ngayon iyan pa
rin po ang kanyang pinaninindigan. Kaya nakakagulat po itong sinasabing nilalagyan
siya para proteksiyunan ang jueteng.
Ngayon po, nandidiyan po sa rekord ng House of Representatives. Napakarami na
pong bills. Mayroon na nga po akong listahan na ipinayl to legalize jueteng and some
other forms of gambling. Pero hindi po natutuloy iyan, eh. Not any of those bills has
been enacted. Bakit po? Mayroon pong reklamo sa sektor ng ating kapuluan na
sugal, eh. Hindi dapat gawing legal. Pero ang akin pong suspetsa kanya hindi umiiral
iyan sapagkat nga tinututulan ng mga nagpapa-jueteng. Kakayahin nilang mag-lobby
sapagkat marami naman silang nanunungkulan na tinulungan pagdating ng
eleksiyon. Kanya po siguro alam ni Presidente Erap iyan, eh, na walang pag-asa na
magkaroon ng batas. Kanya po ang ginawa niya, hanapan ng kalaban ang jueteng
na legal. In other words, introduce a game which will compete with jueteng and which
will put it out of business but which is legal and whatever earnings would go to
government.
Sa panahon po ng kanyang panunungkulan, marami pong sinubukan, eh. Mayroon
pong "Quick Pick 2 Bingo." Mayroon pa pong pinag-aralan na small-town lottery
kagaya ng small-town lottery noong panahon ni Presidente Aquino, yata. Hanggang
dumating tayo doon sa "Bingo 2 Ball." Iyan pong "Bingo 2 Ball" parang jueteng na rin,
eh, sa katotohanan. Kanya naman siguro idenisayn ng ganoon para nga mawala ang
jueteng. At sa naririnig po natin, galing na rin kay Gobernador Singson, ay mukhang
magtatagumpay iyan, eh. It will put out of business the jueteng operators. Kaya po
noong narinig ni Governor Singson iyan, siya na rin ang nagsasabi eh, ipinakiusap
niya o ipinakikiusap niya kay Presidente Erap na huwag sanang isama diyan sa
Bingo 2-ball ang Ilocos Sur. At noong hindi pumayag si Presidente, nagalit pa sa
kanya. E, bakit naman niya tututulan ang Bingo 2-ball kung hindi siya nakikinabang
nga sa jueteng?
At kung naman si Presidente nakikinabang nga sa jueteng at siya nga ang binibigyan
ni Gobernador Singson, bakit naman ipapatigil ni Presidente ang jueteng at palitan
ng Bingo 2-ball? Iyan po ang hindi madaling maintindihan, e.
Ngayon, marami naman po silang sinasabi. Personal nagbigay daw si Gobernador
Singson kay Presidente, pero kagaya rin po noong 7171, sabi po ni Governor
Singson, iyon bang sabi niya basta paniniwalaan na lang? Ngayon sabi nila, e
talagang meron niyan sapagkat nadeposito iyan sa account e, sabi ni Governor
Singson sa affidavit niya, sa account pa niya. Pagkatapos, wika niya, inilipat kay
Yolanda Ricaforte. Pagkatapos kinuha doon nagbigay ng P200 million doon sa Erap
trust fund. Samakatuwid merong pera, ano po? Pero iyon bang perang iyon dahil
may pera ang ibig sabihin noon pera ni Presidente Erap iyan? Sabi ni Governor
Singson, e.
Ngayon, ito naman po ang tanong natin: kanina po ang sabi ko, kung si Presidente
Erap ay protektor ng jueteng, bakit naman niya papatayin ang jueteng? Kumikita, e.
Mukhang katakataka iyan. Ngayon, kung naman siya tumatanggap ng pera at para
sa kaniya na nga iyan, e bakit naman niya ipagkakatiwala pa kay Gobernador
Singson? Bakit niya pa ipadedeposito sa pangalan ng account sa pangalan ni
Gobernador Singson? O bakit naman, sa palagay mo na, si Yolanda Ricaforte, bakit
pa ilalagay doon? Kung sa kaniya na nga iyan. At kahuli-hulihan, kung sa kaniya na
nga iyan, e, ari na niya iyang pera e, bakit gagawa pa ng tsekeng P200 milyon
ibibigay sa foundation, hindi po ba? Sa iyo na, eh. Kung sabagay sabi po noong iba,
mabuti 'ika iyan napunta na nga sa foundation kung galing man iyan sa jueteng.
Kung hindi kanino-kanino lang napunta iyan, eh. Iyon po ang hindi natin maaaring
tanggapin nang madalian lang eh.
Samakatuwid, sa ganitong sitwasyon, one must weigh the evidence carefully. One
cannot just take the word especially of someone who has admittedly falsified no less
than 10 documents as the truth.
Sa kabila naman noon na si Presidente Erap eh gusto niya ngang mawala ang illegal
na jueteng, iyan naman, that decision of the President is incontrovertible. Nandiyan
po sa records ng PNP kung ilang raids na ang ginawa. Ang utos ni Presidente i-raid
iyan. Ipasara iyang jueteng. Marami pong magtetestigo diyan. Kaniya nga lang,
kagaya na nga ng nakita ng mahabang panahon, maski gaano pa ka-determinado
ang mga pulis, mukhang hindi nila talagang kayang ipasara lahat ang jueteng. Kung
hindi man iyon organized, sinasabi nila, meron pang guerilla jueteng diyan, eh.
Napakahirap talaga.
Iyan po iyang sa charge 1, charge 2 na sinasabi.
Ngayon po, pupunta po ako sa charge 3. Iyan po iyong Betrayal of Public Trust. Ito
po ay mayroon po kaming kaunting problema, sapagkat sa pagpapahayag po ni
Congressman Gonzales, parang mayroong mga sinasabing papatunayan nila na
wala naman sa demanda. Sapagkat dito po ....
I beg your indulgence. I have to go back to Charge 2. Iyon po ay tungkol sa
Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Doon po sa Charge 2, marami pong sinabi rin si Congressman Arroyo na mga
interes daw ni Presidente sa mga korporasyon na wala sa kanyang Statement of
Assets and Liabilities. Marami po siyang korporasyon na sinabi: St. Peter's Holdings,
Becks Resources, KB Space, et cetera.
Pero dito po sa demanda, ganito po ang nakasulat. Sabi niya: "He filed his Statement
of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and and his wife
and children have business interests in only three (3) corporations. The President by
that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth
because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have
other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his Statement of
Assets and Liabilities." Pagkatapos po naka-bracket, (Annex "C" hereof).
Ngayon po, iyong Annex "C", sapagkat po kami ang pagkakaintindi namin noong
sinabi nilang "he has other interests in other companies" at pagkatapos naka-bracket
(Annex "C"), ang ibig nilang sabihin, at iyon ang aming naintindihan, nang hindi niya
idineklara sa Statement of Assets and Liabilities iyong mga interes niya sa mga
korporasyong nakalista dito sa Annex "C". Iyon po ang aming pagkakaintindi, at
maliwanag naman iyan, eh. Bakit ba ngayon sinasabi nila si President daw ay
committed perjury sapagkat iyong interes niya sa St. Peter's Holdings, Becks, KB
Space, Verdant, at kung anu-ano pa, mayroon pang ipinahayag doon na tseke, ay
wala daw sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Ang sagot ko naman, wala
sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities, wala rin sa inyong demanda. Bakit
ba ninyong gustong prubahan iyong wala sa demanda? Dahil ba iyong nasa
demanda hindi ninyo kayang prubahan?
Kaya po, iwanan ko naman po iyong Article II. Babalik na po ako sa pangatlo.
Ito naman pong pangatlo. Marami po ito, eh. Iyong sa PAGCOR, hindi naman sinabi.
Sabi dito, "The President referred only." Wala namang masama sa pagre-refer, eh.
Siguro ang mga senador nasa pulitika eh, sanay na sanay kang mag-refer. Hindi
naman sasabihin ni-refer mo, ibig sabihin aprubahan mo iyan. Hindi po ba? Kaya
iyong nasa sa first paragraph ay maari na po nating itabi iyan.
Ngayon, ito naman po sa Securities and Exchange Commission, tungkol po kay
Chairman Yasay. Nakalagay din po rito by reference iyong affidavit ni Chairman
Yasay, Annex "E", sabi sa complaint. Samakatwid po, sa ang aming pagkakaintindi,
sapagkat itong complaint na ito ay hindi po pangkaraniwan ang pagkakagawa, ang
reklamo nila, si Presidente pinakialaman iyong problema ng BW sa SEC dahil dito sa
sinasabi ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit na Annex "E" ng complaint.
Ngayon po, ano po ba ang sinasabi dito ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit?
"That I further testified"--dito po sa Senado yata ito--"that soon after I ordered said
investigation, President Joseph E. Estrada called me several times, at first
complaining about the investigation and later ordering me to immediately terminate
the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan, the head of Best World
Resources Corporation, of involvement in any anomaly."
Let me underscore, perhaps, the critical clause in this sentence, "ordering me to
immediately terminate the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan."
Marami po silang iba pang sinabing ipu-prove daw nila--si Dante Tan, iyong presyo
ng stock market--pero hindi naman po si Dante Tan and akusado dito, e. Hindi
naman kasali si Dante Tan dito. Ang totoo, mayroon pong preliminary investigation
na ngayon sa Department of Justice tungkol dito, tungkol nga diyan sa mga BW
shares. At iyan nangyari, napadala iyan sa Department of Justice for preliminary
investigation not during the time of Chairman Yasay but during the time of Chairman
Lilia Bautista.
Ngayon, ito pong bagay na ito, iyon ang aming pagkakaintindi. Kaya lamang po
siguro, sa aking palagay, parang iniiwasan na ng prosecution iyan. Ganoon pa man,
iyan ang nasa complaint. Sapagkat si Chairman Yasay, tatlong beses pong ininterview sa iba't ibang radio station at program at sinabi niya, tinanggihan niya ang
katotohanan noong kaniyang affidavit.
Sabi niya doon sa program ni Tina Monson-Palma:
Palma: In that telephone conversation, he did not tell you to clear Dante Tan?
Yasay: Yes, he did not specifically tell me clear Dante Tan or clear BW or he did not
specifically tell me to stop my investigation. No, emphatically, no.
Palma: And that does not mean or interpreted when it becomes a formal legal case
as a formal interference by the President?
Yasay: Well, some people might argue. They say it was interference but what I point
is only that he did not specifically tell me to clear Dante Tan or clear BW.
Hindi ko na po babasahin. Mayroon pa rito. Pare-pareho po iyan.
Samakatwid.... Ewan ko kung kailangan pa naming prubahan sapagkat mukhang
hindi naman nila puprubahan na sinabi ni Presidente kay Chairman Yasay. Pero iyon
po ang nasa demanda sapagkat itinanggi na nga ni Chairman Yasay na sinabi niya
iyan, e.
Ngayon, mayroon pa po rito sa charge 3, na ito sa akin ay maliit
na kahulugan lang ito. Iyon daw kay Jinggoy Estrada. Nakialam daw si Presidente sa
kaunting alitan sa Cardinal Santos. Sa palagay ko naman po, ito ay hindi na
kailangang pagkaabalahan sapagkat itong mga kuwentong ito ay hindi rin natin
nalalaman kung ano talaga ang nangyari roon.
Naririto rin po iyong charge. Sabi nila, si Jude Estrada nag-iwan ng hindi bayad na
bills sa hotel sa Cagayan de Oro. Ewan ko po kung impeachable offense iyon. Pero
ang sabi naman ni Jude Estrada, binayaran naman daw niya iyon. Pero ano kaya
ang pananagutan naman ni Presidente roon? Pero nandidiyan po sa reklamo.
Eto pong appointment naman ni Cecilia de Castro. Ang akin pong natatandaan,
sinabi na po ni Presidente na siya ay nagkamali, hindi niya nalalaman na kamaganak iyon. Sa kinarami nang pinirmahan ay hindi niya napansin. Palagay ko, hindi
naman po impeachable offense iyan.
Ito pong marami pa doon sa Inquirer, hindi ko na po iisa-isahin. Meron naman po ito,
e. Nandito po sa charge na ito pero sinakop po ni Congressman Tañada, iyong kay
First Lady. Ang pagkakaalam ko, inimbistigahan na po dito iyon. At sinabi po, wala
namang pagkakasalang masama si First Lady doon. Kaya hindi ko na rin po iisaisahin iyan. Iyan po iyong Charge 3. Pupunta na po ako sa Charge 4.
Ito pong Charge 4 sa aking palagay ay hindi masyadong mahirap. Sometimes water
is a little more variable than a reading material.
Iyon pong mga kotse. Iyan po ay totoo. Matagal na pong ginagawa iyan. Sa
katotohahan po, ako rin po noong Solicitor General ay mayroon din po akong
Mercedes Benz. Ang sabi po ni Presidente Marcos sa akin, "Madalas ka ika na
nabiyahe sa Pampanga, pagka naman kailangan ng konting kotse iyong matatagtatag"... Pinahiram po ako ng Customs ng Mercedes Benz, S pa. Kaya lang laspaglaspag at pinagawa ko naman. Sa akin pong palagay, wala namang masama roon.
Sapagkat po noong ako ay na-EDSA, ang ibig kong sabihin, natanggal na nga dahil
sa EDSA, iyong aking awto ay napunta naman sa isang Associate Justice ng
Supreme Court. Siya naman ang gumamit. Hindi naman siguro masama iyon
sapagkat minana pa nga ng Justice ng Supreme Court. Siguro natuwa pa at nasa
kondisyon. Pero po iyang kotseng iyan, nagkaroon na po ng kaso iyan. These
precise cars which were supposedly used by Cabinet members under President
Erap's time brought about a case entitled, Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Hon. Ronaldo
Zamora as Executive Secretary, et. al., G.R. No. 139852, before the Supreme Court.
Ito pong si Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales na petitioner dito, siya po ang abogado ng
complainants, nang pumirma ng complaint dito sa impeachment na ito. Ano po ang
nangyari doon sa kaso ni Ramon Gonzales na sinasabi nga niya for a writ of
prohibition, for certiorari, lahat ng relief, hinihingi niya roon.
Ano po ang sabi ng Supreme Court? "The petition is dismissed for being insufficient
in form and in substance." Ni hindi naka-first base. Sa amin pong mga abogado,
kung nadi-dismiss iyong petition mo ng ganyan, e medyo malungkot kang talaga,
sapagkat hindi man lamang pina-comment, na-dismiss na. Papaano naman
magiging impeachable offense, ang sabi ng Supreme Court, iyong petisyon na kiniquestion iyong transaksiyon ay nai-dismiss. Kaya po siguro iyan ay madali na ring
itabi.
Ngayon, iyong pangalawang pong fourth charge, ang sabi po sa complaint, iyong
pong multiple appointments of Cabinet members-- multiple positions. Ayon daw sa
desisyon ng Supreme Court, sa Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194
SCRA 317, these multiple appointments are unconstitutional. Pero marahil po,
kinulang ng kaunti ang research sapagkat po ang Supreme Court, in a subsequent
resolution in the same case, the decision was rendered on February 22, 1991
upholding the question raised as to those multiple positions. The Supreme Court
issued a resolution on August 1, 1991 in the same case, not really reversing its
earlier decision, but qualifying it in the following manner. It says and I quote:
Another point of clarification raised by the Solicitor General refers to the persons
affected by the constitutional prohibition. The persons cited in the constitutional
prohibition are the members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants, whose terms
must be given their common and general acceptation as referring to the heads of the
executive department, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries.
Samakatwid po, ang interpretasyon ng Supreme Court doon sa probisyon ng
Konstitusyon na sinasabi, the proscription applies only to the Cabinet members who
head executive departments. Sapagkat sa ating gobyerno, mayroong Cabinet rank
na parang member ng Cabinet pero wala naman siyang departamento. Ang sabi po
ng Supreme Court doon sa resolution which was subsequently promulgated is that it
refers to those only who head executive departments. Kaya po, siguro naman, kung
si Presidente ang ginawa niya ay sabi na nga ng Supreme Court hindi masama, lalo
naman sigurong hindi culpable violation ng Constitution.
Ngayon, sa katotohanan po, ito pong.... Palagay natin, gaya po ito... Isa pa po sa
binabanggit nila itong kay Magdangal Elma. Inaasunto pa rin iyan. Nasa Supreme
Court. Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Magdangal Elma, G.R. No. 138965. Ito ay
pending pa sa Supreme Court. Samakatwid, hindi pa decided iyan. Samakatwid, at
the very least, there is a problem of interpretation of the Constitution. When there is a
problem of interpretation, a wrong interpretation even can hardly be considered a
culpable violation of the Constitution.
Marami pa po ang oras ko, pero siguro wala namang Charge 6. Hanggang Charge 4
lang.
Perhaps, I may conclude with a few general observations. I would like to be candid
and say that when we undertook to take this case, one of the problems which we had
to face was whether, first, to make representations to the Blue Ribbon Committee to
stop its hearings. And, subsequently, whether to seek to inhibit some of the members
of the Senate sapagkat po nalalaman naman nating lahat na ang pinagumpisahan ng
Blue Ribbon investigation ay isang senador ang nagtalumpati entitled, "I Accuse!" Si
Senador Guingona tumitingin po sa akin. Iyong mga charges doon sa "I Accuse!",
iyon din po ang charges na bases of impeachment. Sinabi ni Senator Guingona na
he was accusing the President.
Pagkatapos po, mayroon pong dalawang miyembro ng Senado, mayroon silang
formal resolution na ang sabi, mag-resign na si Presidente. Pagkatapos po, mayroon
namang mga ilan na senador na sumasama sa rally, sumasama sa sigaw na
"Resign." Mayroon naman pong isang senador habang nagdedeklara iyong isang
testigo sa Blue Ribbon Committee at ang sabi "nagsisinungaling ka, hindi ka
maaaring paniwalaan." At iyon yata ay magiging testigo rin dito. Kaya po aming
inisip, kung ang mga senador ay huwes, judges, under settled jurisprudence, they
also have the cold neutrality of a judge, complete objectivity. Kaya baka naman sabi
namin pagdating eh, meron na silang prejudgments. Pero matagal po naming pinagisipan iyan. At ang aming naging desisyon sa nakita ninyo, hindi po kami nag-file ng
anumang motion at hindi naman namin sinasabi ngayon na ang mga senador na iyon
ay mag-inhibit.
The members of the Senate have taken an oath to do impartial justice in this case. I
am actually struck by this oath because it does not only say "justice"; it says
"impartial justice." I had always believed that to be just requires one to be impartial.
But the oath that the members of the Senate have taken--has taken--bind them to do
impartial justice. So as we continue with this proceedings on the part of the defense,
all these notwithstanding, we are confident that the senators will do impartial justice
and as we are equally confident that when the time comes to render judgment, and
as they do impartial justice, a judgment of acquittal will be rendered.
Sabi po ng mga prosecutors ay nalulungkot daw sila sa trabahong ito, mahirap daw.
Kami rin po ay hindi naman nalulungkot, pero we consider this as a challenge
because to us this impeachment case does not only involve defending the honor, the
integrity, and the dignity, of President Estrada. It also involves preserving the
mandate of more than 10 million Filipinos who voted for him. President Estrada is our
client but in a real sense, we seek also to preserve and uphold the mandate of the 10
million Filipinos who voted him as President to hold office until the year 2004.
Sometimes all these rallies around even now they say the "walls of Jericho," sabagay
po hindi yata ako masyadong magaling sa Bibliya, hindi ko po naiintindihan iyan. But
we are also strengthened, and I would like to close by narrating to you a personal
experience.
Isang umaga po, umagang-umaga po, ako ay nasa isang McDonald nag-aalmusal,
hotcake lang naman sapagkat ang sabi po ng aking maybahay ay bawal iyong mga
hamburger, mayroon pong lumapit na isang babae sa akin, very modestly dressed.
Ang sabi niya sa akin, "Kanina ko pa kayo tinitingnan, eh" ang sabi niya, "kinikilala ko
kung kayo si Atty. Estelito Mendoza o kamukha lamang, eh." Eh, ang sabi ko ay,
"Hindi," kako, "kamukha lamang, eh. Iyong totoong Atty. Mendoza mas magandang
lalaki sa kin." Pero sabi ko, "ako nga po, eh, bakit po ba?" sabi ko. "Attorney" sabi
niya, "gusto kong malaman ninyo na ako po ay nagdadasal para sa inyo, sapagkat
alam ko po idedepensa ninyo po si Presidente Erap. Ibinoto ko po siya. Marami pong
hirap ang hinaharap ninyo sapagkat po katakut-takot po iyang mga rally, katakuttakot ang sigaw na "Resign."
So I close to share with you a feeling of confidence that does
not only arise from the justness of the cause of President Estrada but also comes
from the prayers of many Filipinos, who, I am certain, will also be heard.
Thank you very much.
back to top
Presentation of Prosecution Witnesses
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That ends the opening statement for the defense. As
agreed upon yesterday and as related earlier regarding the report of the Presiding
Justice on the preliminary conference, we shall now proceed to the presentation of
the first witness for the prosecution.The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed to the calling of the
first witness, may we place it on record that Your Honor, as presiding officer of this
Impeachment Trial, by unanimous consent of the Senate, was given authority in
yesterday's session to issue subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad
testificandum, subject to the small reservation previously noted by the Chair in his
preliminary conference order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so recorded.The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the prosecution will now call their first
witness to the stand. May we ask the Secretary to administer the oath to the first
witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecution please, call your first witness.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. APOSTOL. We are ready, but may we ask for ten minutes recess?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Recess is granted for ten minutes. It was 5:32 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:50 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS (Col. Saber). Please all rise. The Honorable
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is now resumed.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Apostol.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that the private prosecutors be allowed to sit down
with us, anyway, some public prosecutors are not taking their seats here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly enumerate the names of the private
prosecutors. Have they officially entered their appearance by way of a written notice
of appearance as private prosecutors?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. We have Atty. Marcelo, Atty. Sanidad...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Full names for the record.
REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Simeon Marcelo, Atty. Pablito Sanidad, Atty. Edcel Lagman,
Atty. Prospero Nograles, and Atty. Augusto San Pedro, and the lawyer of Gen.
Lastimoso, Atty. Romeo Igot, only for the appearance of Gen. Lastimoso.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the latter will not be representing as private
prosecutor?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only as counsel for a witness.
REP. APOSTOL. Only as counsel for a witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request to allow the private prosecutors to sit at the
back of the public prosecutors is granted.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, there is an intimation from the defense counsel
that they would like to go home. Looking at their faces, I think their age demands that
they should be allowed to go home.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is that?
REP. APOSTOL. It would seem they are intimating now that if we can have a
continuance today, and we will, of course, we are ready, we will just request that the
witnesses who were subpoenaed be called and if they are around, then after that, we
are ready to ask also for continuance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don't we finish first with the first witness before you
can ask for a continuance? The witness
is ready.
REP. APOSTOL. Well....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that was the agreement yesterday, that the first
witness would be presented today after the opening statement. You may now present
the witness.
REP. APOSTOL. No, no, I have, I have, Mr. Chief Justice, a great respect for the
defense counsel, but they were the ones intimating to me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they did not express....
REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Mendoza is my godfather; Atty. Narvasa is my mentor and....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, it is only an intimation but we have to
follow the agreement we had yesterday.
REP. APOSTOL. All right. If the defense counsel is willing to hear our witness, we
are ready.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense would have no choice because this is an
agreement that the first witness would be presented today.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request if the other two witnesses which
we subpoenaed--may I know if they are here?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are they?
REP. APOSTOL. Anton Prieto and Yolanda Ricaforte.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Anton Prieto?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto, are you here?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other one is Yolanda Ricaforte--and the return of
the subpoena indicated that the three
were served.
REP. APOSTOL. There is a lawyer allegedly representing
Mr. Prieto, I don't know, if Your Honor will allow him to say something.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But where is Prieto? Because if he is not inside the
courtroom, we may not allow the lawyer of Prieto to stay in the courtroom. He may be
allowed only at the time that Prieto will be on the witness stand.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I just inform the impeachment court that both Mr.
Prieto and Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte are here. They are at the holding room in the Office
of the Deputy Secretary of the Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in the meantime that they are there, there lawyers
should also be there.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. In that case then, since they are here, I will no
longer ask any inquiries on them, except that if they will not be able to testify today,
the documents which we requested for Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte to bring that these
documents be deposited with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is reasonable. That may be granted.
REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And so the Secretary will have to get these records
which were the subject of the subpoena duces tecum and to keep these in his
custody.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To be kept very, very securely and safely.
back to top
Gen. Roberto Lastimoso
REP. APOSTOL. So our first witness will be Gen. Roberto Lastimoso. The one who
will conduct the direct examination is Congressman Roan Libarios .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please administer the oath on the witness. The
Secretary of the Senate is thus directed.
MR. NARVASA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, defense counsel.
MR. NARVASA. May I be allowed to enter on record the appearance of another
counsel for the defense panel in the person of Mr. Siegfred Fortun.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record without prejudice to the filing of the
formal notice of appearance. Yes, administer the oath now, Mr. Secretary.
MR. NARVASA. Just one more minute, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. NARVASA. I am told that the written entry of appearance has been made.
MR. FORTUN. If Your Honor please, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I have just received it here.
MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be recognized, Sir.?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of the gentleman?
MR. FORTUN. I should like to know from the Prosecution panel whether they have
witnesses inside the courtroom whom they wish to present in the next hearing. If
there are witnesses intended to be presented by the prosecution...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would prosecutor Apostol answer the query? Do you
have other witnesses?
REP. APOSTOL. We have two witnesses, Your Honor. But according to the Senate
President, they are in the holding room. So they are not here.
REP. FORTUN. So aside from Mrs. Ricaforte, and Mr. Anton Prieto, and Gen.
Lastimoso, you have no other witnesses inside the courtroom?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. Because the other one which we subpoenaed left
for abroad. So, I am sure he is not here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say yes, who are they?
REP. APOSTOL. We requested subpoena for four. One for Gen. Lastimoso, one for
Anton Prieto, the other one for Yolanda Ricaforte, and the fourth one is a certain
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. But he left for abroad.
MR. FORTUN. May I kindly also inquire whether you have other witnesses to testify
on the three other charges--Articles II, III,
and IV?
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I just make it very clear that we are presenting
this witness in support of our allegations on Article I. If he will be mentioning and
testifying on other Articles, we will make it known to the Body, Your Honor.
MR. FORTUN. We move for the exclusion of other potential witnesses for the
prosecution whether it will be Articles I, II, III, and IV, your honor. That is what we...
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we have no potential witnesses.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Either witnesses to be done by subpoena or voluntarily
appearing?
REP. APOSTOL. The only potential witnesses that we have, we have not decided
whether to ask them to testify or not, is Sen. John Osmeña and Sen. Tessie Oreta.
But we have not yet decided whether we will ask them to testify. But they are
potential witnesses.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay then. You may now proceed to administer the
oath.
THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder please.
THE SECRETARY. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this case, now
pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the
Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
GEN. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol, you may now qualify your witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am formally entering my appearance, your honor, as the
prosecutor on Article I, Congressman Roan Libarios.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be the one to conduct the direct examination?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may may now proceed to qualify the witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. The prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, is
offering in evidence the...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, qualify first the witness before you
make an offer.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can we ask the officer of the Impeachment Court to make the
appropriate qualifications?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will just do that. Would you please
state your name and other personal circumstances.
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Your Honor. I am retired police Deputy Director General
Roberto T. Lastimoso, 56 years old and presently residing in Roxas City, Capiz. I am
married, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, you may now proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. With the kind permission of this Honorable Impeachment Court. Mr.
Chief Justice and members of the Senate, the prosecution is offering in evidence the
testimony of the witness, the former retired police general Roberto Lastimoso to
establish two vital factum probandum or proposition of facts.
1.
That sometime in the latter part of 1998, a few months after he was
designated as the chief or acting chief of the PNP, he was called to Malacañang and
was given instruction by the President to coordinate with Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis
"Chavit" Singson in relation to or with regards to the jueteng operations in Luzon.
2.
We are offering the testimony to establish that the President is involved and is
a beneficiary of illegal gambling operations, particularly jueteng in Luzon.
Mr. Witness....Can I now proceed?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can you please brief us again about your educational background?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I am a graduate of the Philippine Miltary Academy, Class
'67.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about your professional background? Can you please inform
the members of the Body about your educational and professional background?
MR. LASTIMOSO. After I graduated from the PMA, I was commissioned to the
defunct Philippine Constabulary and I was immediately assigned to Mindanao,
starting as a Second Lieutenant in Sulu and in various places of Mindanao. I served
in various capacities from Junior Officer, Company Commander, Staff Officer,
Provincial Director, Battalion Commander, and Regional Director. And recently,
before I retired, I was the OIC of the Philippine National Police from July up to
sometime December of 1998. Later on, designated as Acting Chief of the Philippine
National Police, and in April of 1999, as the permanent Chief of the Philippine
National Police. I went on leave effective May of 1999 until I retired last January of
2000.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Witness, do you know a person by the name of Luis "Chavit"
Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.
REP. LIBARIOS. What do you know about Luis "Chavit" Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I know that Chavit Singson is the Provincial Governor of Ilocos
Sur. At one time he was a congressman. And I also know that he is quite close to the
President.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you say that Chavit Singson is close to the President.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I always see Governor Singson, even when I was still being
considered as the Chief of the Philippine National Police, in the residence of
President at Polk Street in Greenhills and I always see them together near the
President or sitting beside the President and freely getting inside the receiving room
or the sala of that house.
REP. LIBARIOS. When was this, if you can recall?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was going to the house of the President in Greenhills when
I was still being considered sometime between May to June of 1998.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about a certain person by the name of Jaime Dechavez. Do
you know this person?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Like Governor Singson, I also see Mr. Dechavez in Polk Street. I
cannot exactly recall how many times but he introduced himself to me and we
became quite close because he offered to....he said since I am being considered,
that he can help me. He said he is close to the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. How many times did you see Dechavez in the residence of the
President?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot exactly recall, sir, how many times I have seen him there
because I cannot also recall how many times I have been there but, I think, it is about
two or three times.
REP. LIBARIOS. All right. Aside from meeting Governor Singson in the residence of
the President in Polk Street, Greenhills, did you have any other occasion to meet the
governor?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. sir.
REP. LIBARIOS. When and where was that?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I recall that when I was summoned one time by the President to
Malacañang, I saw Governor Singson there.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said you were summoned by the President to Malacañang,
how were you summoned? Can you please clarify?
MR. LASTIMOSO. My office received a call from one of the secretaries--I cannot
recall anymore--of the President that I should immediately proceed to Malacañang
and see the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you proceed to Malacañang as instructed or requested?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. And which part of Malacañang did you proceed?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I was directed to proceed to the Guest House of Malacañang.
REP. LIBARIOS. Upon arriving or reaching the Guest House in Malacañang, what
else transpired, if any?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I remember I was ushered immediately to the room of the
President, the Guest House, and I went inside and greeted the President and saluted
him.
REP. LIBARIOS. When you said you went inside, where, in what particular place in
the Guest House?
MR. LASTIMOSO. There is a room there where the President is holding office. I think
that is an extension of his office in the Palace.
REP. LIBARIOS. When you say that you greeted the President, was he alone or was
there anybody inside the room?
MR. LASTIMOSO. At that time, he was with Governor Singson.
REP. LIBARIOS. And when you saw the President and after greeting the President,
what happened next?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was introduced to...ang sabi po ni Presidente sa akin e, "O,
kilala mo naman si Governor Singson?" I said: "Yes, sir. I know him already." "O,
tulungan mo siya, ha. Siya ang mamamahala ngayon sa jueteng dito sa Luzon.
Tulungan mo siya at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa."
REP. LIBARIOS. And after that statement made by the President, what did you do
and what else happened?
MR. LASTIMOSO. After this instruction, very brief instruction, we were told to talk to
each other, go out and talk, for me and Governor Singson to talk the matter.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you get out and talk with Governor Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. I remember I did. I went out of the room and Governor
Singson was with me.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what transpired after that, after you talked with Governor
Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I told Governor Singson, of course, he confirmed, sabi niya:
"Narinig mo naman iyong sabi ng Presidente. Tulungan mo ako dito." I said: "What
you can do, Governor, since jueteng is really a local activity, hindi dapat iyan
pakialaman ng chief PNP, why don't you coordinate with the local officials, the local
police commanders or even the regional director. And if there is any problem, you
just call me and maybe we can solve the problem."
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, aside from that instruction which you received
from the President, did you take up any other matter with the President in
Malacañang at that time?
MR. LASTIMOSO. That particular instance, I cannot remember of any other matters
that were taken up.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, after this matter was taken up inside the room, what was the
next action taken by the President?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor please, we have to object. The question has no
basis. It assumes that there was something done.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the witness already mentioned that the
President gave him an instruction. So after the instruction, what else happened? I
think it follows, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer.
MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again on the question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Rephrase the question.
REP. LIBARIOS. After the President gave you that instruction, what else did the
President do, if any?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Are you referring, sir, to the same instruction?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, instruction, inside the room.
MR. LASTIMOSO. As I have said, I was told to talk with General Singson outside of
the room, and after we talked, then I cannot remember whether we proceeded.... I
don't think we proceeded back to the room, we just separated ways.
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, in connection with your testimony this
afternoon, can you remember if you also testified concerning the same matters that
you testified today in any other tribunal or body?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I was also made to testify in the Blue Ribbon Committee
of the Senate in connection with the charges of Senator Guingona.
REP. LIBARIOS. Did you execute an affidavit in connection with your testimony
before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that
affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize the affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am showing to you, General Lastimoso, this affidavit.... I am
presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso, an affidavit consisting of three pages. Kindly go
over the affidavit and inform the Honorable Chief Justice if that is the affidavit which
you mentioned?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The three pages, I can recognize my signature here. But the
second page, because this is only xerox copy, the signature appearing here is not
full. So I do not know whether this is mine. But the last page is my signature also.
REP. LIBARIOS. For the record, Your Honor, that is a certified true copy, certified by
the officer of the Senate. Anyway, there is a signature appearing at the last page of
that affidavit, can you please examine this signature and inform this Honorable
Impeachment Court if you can recognize or identify that signature?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. This is my signature.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, may I request that the affidavit or the original
copy which is now being under the custody of the Senate be marked as Exhibit "A"
for the....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which would you want to be marked as Exhibit "A", the
original or that one just identified by the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. We have a certified true copy, Your Honor. But according to the
witness, page 2 of that certified true copy is not very legible. So to avoid, Your Honor,
any doubt on the legitimacy of page 2, we are requesting that the original copy be
produced, which is now under the possession of the Senate, and be duly marked in
evidence, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senate be ready to produce the original for
purposes of marking? Would the defense be willing to have this conditionally marked
as Exhibit "A" to be replaced later by the originals so we will not waste time?
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we take a look at the affidavit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, do that please. Because that can be conditionally
marked as Exhibit "A" to be replaced later by the original.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We agree to the conditional marking of the exhibit, Your Honor.
REP. LIBARIOS. With the manifestation of the defense panel, Your Honor, we are
requesting that the affidavit consisting of three pages be marked in evidence for the
prosecution. The first page as....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify it first.
REP. LIBARIOS. The first page as Exhibit "A"; the second page as "A-1"; the third
page as "A-2"; and the signature of the witness as "A-4".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked conditionally. Exhibit "A", page 1;
Exhibit "A-1", page 2; Exhibit "A-2", page 3.... Is there a page 4?
REP. LIBARIOS. The signature.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The signature on page 4 as Exhibit "A-4".
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, since the marking is only conditional, may I
request that the Senate shall produce the original copy tomorrow to avoid any delay
in the proceedings.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Follow up the request afterwards. Since this is an
impeachment court, the request should be directed to the Senate sitting as a Senate.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Mr. Lastimoso, aside from that affidavit which you already
identified, did you execute any other affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that
affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I will recognize the affidavit if that is my signature.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso or General Lastimoso, a
supplemental affidavit consisting of two pages. Kindly examine this affidavit and
inform us if this is the same affidavit which we are referring to?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Again, this is a certified true copy, but I can recognize my
signature on the first page and on the second page.
REP. LIBARIOS. In the meantime, Your Honor, we are requesting that the
supplemental affidavit duly identified to by the....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certified true copy.
REP. LIBARIOS. Certified true copy. First, may I request if the defense panel would
allow the prosecution to dispense with the production of the original copy so that we
can mark it without any conditions.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have no objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. So considering that the defense is not making any objection, Your
Honor, then we are proceeding with the marking in exhibit of the said documents.
May we request, Your Honor, that the first page of the supplemental affidavit be
marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution; the second page as Exhibit "B-1"; and the
signature as Exhibit "B-3".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Request granted. Let them be so marked, respectively,
as Exhibit "B", "B-1", "B-2".
REP. LIBARIOS. The signature as "B-3".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only "B-2", the signature.
You may now proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Director Lastimoso, you said you executed that affidavit dated
October 12 of year 2000. Can you explain to us why did you execute that affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, Your Honor, it was upon the advice of my lawyer.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about the second supplemental affidavit? Why did you
execute that second or that supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I also executed that on the advice of my lawyer to clarify some
statements I made during a press conference in Club Filipino.
REP. LIBARIOS. What particular statements did you wish to be clarified in this
supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. In that press conference last... I am not exactly sure of the date
now. Sometime October, I was late in the press conference. I did not know what
transpired there. But when I was ushered inside the room, I saw Governor Chavit
Singson denouncing the President and there was a charged atmosphere there.
Everybody was emotional. When I was asked how I can corraborate the statement of
Governor Singson, I mentioned that the President told me to go easy on jueteng.
Then upon reflection, since that was a press conference and I was asked to testify in
the Blue Ribbon Committee where I was under oath, I asked the lawyer that I should
correct that statement because that statement did not exactly come from the
President. It was only my interpretation that I should go easy because they told me to
coordinate with Governor Singson. That was the only statement I corrected in that
second affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can I have the second affidavit?
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Your Honor, just on an inquiry because I am not quite sure-- Inquiry
under 17--what the counsel is trying to do. Is he trying to prove that there is an
affidavit? Or, is he trying to prove the contents of the affidavit? Why not just ask the
witness whatever it is that you want to find out? And then, we will all know what we
are talking about. Otherwise, you are just talking about two pieces of paper and it is
totally....
REP. LIBARIOS. Maybe, the last question, Your Honor. Actually, the affidavit will be
considered as part of the testimony of the witness. We are presenting this affidavit
later on to form part of the testimony of the witness.
SEN. ROCO. Well, we leave to the counsel, Mr. President, but we are totally in the
dark. We have not been furnished copies of the affidavit. We do not know what they
are talking about and he wants it to be part of the narration. And I suggest that, for
clarity purposes...
REP. LIBARIOS. We will be asking the witness actually, Your Honor, to affirm the
contents of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, probably, that is the strategy of the counsel.
REP. LIBARIOS. And then later on, we will be considering this to form part of the
testimony of the witness, Your Honor, just to avoid any insinuations of other
testimonies or affidavits being executed by the witness. Only to clarify, Your Honor,
the series of events that transpired prior to the testimony of the witness in today's
investigation. Anyway, we will only have two last questions, Your Honor, to affirm and
then to explain. That is all, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, we leave to the counsel whatever he wants to do, but
it certainly is not adding to the clarity for the senators. For me, certainly, it is not
becoming clearer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. You may now proceed with your last two
questions.
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, under paragraph 4 of this affidavit, there is a
handwritten entry which states, which I also presume as coordinating pertaining to
jueteng. Can you remember who made this entry and upon whose instruction?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The lawyer who notarized that, Your Honor, upon my instructions.
REP. LIBARIOS. And can you clarify why did you make this entry in the
supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Because that was not included in the paragraph and I feel that it
should be corrected also.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you feel it should be corrected?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Because we have to tell the truth, Your Honor, and this is the
truth. I am just trying to correct and tell what exactly what happened.
REP. LIBARIOS. What exactly what happened or the truth when you ...
MR. LASTIMOSO. I corrected. As I have said, I was trying to correct the statement I
made in the press conference because I might be misconstrued. So I corrected, I
clarified that in that affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. Do you affirm and confirm, General Lastimoso, on the correctness
and the veracity of the affidavit as well as the supplemental affidavit which you earlier
identified before this honorable Body?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination. Who will conduct the crossexamination?
MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, would you identify yourself?
MR. FORTUN. My name is Siegfried Fortun, Your Honor. I am one of the counsels
for the defense.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the cross-examination will be conducted by Atty.
Fortun.
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor. Director General Lastimoso, if I may borrow
the affidavit which you have just identified this evening, I would like to show you your
Exhibits A and B, Sir, particularly your Exhibit B, and I ask you, Sir, if you could again
confirm before this Tribunal whether you have read this affidavit and understood the
contents and the implications of the statements made therein.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I do.
MR. FORTUN. You had confirmed also this evening, Sir, that the handwritten
notation appearing in paragraph 4, and for the record, if I may be allowed by the
Chief Justice to read this particular portion of General Lastimoso's affidavit, I quote
paragraph 4. This is of Exhibit B:
"That after retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above
statements that the President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to
go easy on jueteng but that was only my presumption when the President told me to
coordinate with Governor Singson." And here comes the handwritten intercalation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Atty. Fortun, may we know the
pleasure of Senator and Judge Drilon?
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, I am sure my 21 other jurors would share this
concern that we do not know what the witness and the counsel are talking about
because we do not have a copy of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need time for the reproduction of the
affidavit?
SEN. DRILON. We would. At least, for me, and I am sure that my other colleagues
would share the same view. If we can call for a one-minute recess, reproduce these
affidavits and give us copies so that we can follow the testimony.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was exactly the point of the Honorable SenatorJudge Roco.
MR. FORTUN. I am returning, Your Honor, copies of the exhibits so that it can be
reproduced.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation of the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon
is well-taken. We suspend the trial for five minutes for the production of Exhibits A
and the submarking, and Exhibit B with the submarkings.
The session is suspended for five minutes. It was 6:28 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:42 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is resumed. Before Atty. Fortun proceeds
with the cross-examination, the Chair would like to request, for and in behalf of the
Impeachment Court, that henceforth, whenever a party here, whether the prosecution
or the defense, would be presenting documentary evidence to be identified by a
witness, sufficient number of copies thereof be given immediately the honorable
Senator-Judges, as well as the Chair.
You may now proceed, Atty. Fortun.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor. General Lastimoso, I again show you Exhibit
B and I present the copy to you. I would like to read paragraph 4. It says: "That after
retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above statements that the
President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to go easy on jueteng,
but that was only my presumption when the President told me to coordinate with
Governor Singson." And here, Your Honors, is the handwritten intercalation, and I
quote: "which I also presumed as coordinating, pertaining to jueteng." When you
made this particular paragraph, Sir, and upon the assistance given you by your
counsel and at the time that you put in the handwritten statement which appears in
paragraph 4, you, Sir, understood exactly the import of this particular paragraph,
didn't you?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, counsel is referring to Exhibit B.
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.
MR. FORTUN. Accordingly, the instruction of the President to you, in respect to
coordinating with Governor Singson and the matter of coordination in respect to
jueteng, was not exactly a matter directly given you by the President but you simply
presumed that what he said was for you to coordinate on the matter of jueteng. Is
that what you are saying, Sir?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Sir.
MR. FORTUN. Will you tell us, General Lastimoso, when it was that you first met with
the President on this matter of coordinating with Governor Singson at the
Malacañang Guest House?
MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again?
MR. FORTUN. When was it that you met with the President at the Malacañang Guest
House where Governor Singson was also present?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot remember the exact date. And even the time I cannot
remember. But it is some time a few months after I took over.
MR. FORTUN. And you took over, Sir, as Acting Chief-PNP in April of 1998. Is that
right, Sir?.
MR. LASTIMOSO. No. July of 1998 as OIC.
MR. FORTUN. And if you are saying that the meeting took place after about the time
or immediately after you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP, it could have been
in July also or August of 1998?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I am not sure now. It could be later than that.
MR. FORTUN. It could be later than that. But will you tell us, Sir, whether you recall
the President having given you direct instruction to coordinate with Governor Singson
on the matter of jueteng? A direct instruction from the President for you to coordinate
with Governor Singson on jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. The word he said, was: "Tulungan mo at mag-coordinate
kayong dalawa."
MR. FORTUN. But there was nothing in respect of coordinating because of jueteng
or for jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I presumed it was for jueteng.
MR. FORTUN. You presumed. There was nothing therefore explicit from the
President asking you to coordinate with Governor Singson on the matter of jueteng.
Is that what you are saying, Sir?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The word, he said, was: "Tulungan at mag-coordinate kayong
dalawa."
MR. FORTUN. I see. And that was all that he had said?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes.
MR. FORTUN. And you presumed therefore that it was a matter relating to jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. It was....We were talking about jueteng.
MR. FORTUN. I see. We request Your Honor that the Exhibit B of the Prosecution be
marked as our Exhibit 1 and paragraph 4 including the handwritten intercalation
admittedly made by counsel for General Lastimoso be marked as our Exhibit 1-A.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are adopting Exhibit B as your Exhibit 1?
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And paragraph 4 thereof with the additional statements
in handwriting--the handwritten additional statements as Exhibit 1-A. The request is
granted. Let Exhibit B be marked as Exhibit 1 for the defense and Paragraph 4
thereof as Exhibit 1-A.
MR. FORTUN. Let me get this clear for the record, General Lastimoso. Your
recollection of meeting with the President at the Malacanang Guest House was after
you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP which could have been either in July or
August of 1998?
REP. LIBARIOS. Objection, Your Honor. I think the question is now becoming
repetitive. It was already answered by the witness clearly, Your Honor.
MR. FORTUN. May we know the answer of the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. He said that it could be later than that.
ATTY. FORTUN. It could be later than that. Okay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you withdrawing the question?
MR. FORTUN. No, Your Honor. I will follow from where I left off.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer for
clarification.
MR. LASTIMOSO. It could be later than the months mentioned.
MR. FORTUN. I see. Do you recall, Sir, having issued an order to all Regional
Directors of the PNP in respect of illegal gambling, including jueteng after about July
of 1998?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot recall but I must have issued an order.
MR. FORTUN. I show you, sir, a memorandum dated July 31, 1998, signed by a
certain Roberto T. Lastimoso, police director, on the subject of continuing conduct of
illegal gambling all over the country addressed to all regional directors, provincial
regional officers for Regions I to XIII, CAR, ARMM, and NCRPO a copy of which we
are currently distributing to the honorable jurors; judges, I am sorry.
I show a copy to you, sir. It begins with paragraph 1 and it reads: "References". Item
B says: "Verbal Instruction of His Excellency, President Joseph E. Estrada, on July
20, 1998."
Paragraph 2. It reads: "This pertains to the directive of President Joseph E. Estrada
in pursing relentlessly the fight against jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling
throughout the country.
"Paragraph 3. "ICOW, the above-Ref: You are reminded to enforce strictly the
instruction of President Joseph E. Estrada in addressing these illegal activities."
Paragraph 4. "Explore all possible means to identify and effect the arrest of those
behind the illegal activities and pursue their cases in courts. Likewise, implement
drastic measures, actions, including the relief of COPs, PDs found negligent in the
performance of their mandated duties to stop illegal gambling in their area of
responsibility."
Paragraph 5. "Your performance in this campaign will be closely watched and
evaluated, hence, you must come up with tangible results".
Paragraph 6. "This memo serves as an ultimatum for you and your subordinate
commanders to stop/eradicate illegal gambling, especially jueteng, in your respective
AOR immediately."
Paragraph 7. "Be guided accordingly."
Will you say, sir, that this directive came from you and that the signature appearing
thereon is yours?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize my signature and I could have issued this
directive.
MR. FORTUN. You could have.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I could have issued this.
MR. FORTUN. I see, sir. We request, Your Honor, that this memorandum which the
witness identified as probably emanating from him be provisionally marked as our
Exhibit 2. And the clear reference to a verbal instruction of His Excellency, President
Joseph E. Estrada, to relentlessly fight jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling
throughout the country be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-A.
MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor's please...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit 2. What is the particular
portion which you are requesting to be marked as Exhibit 2-A, what paragraph?
MR. FORTUN. It is the portion, Your Honor, in paragraphs 1 and 2, particularly the
heading references which thereafter continues to paragraph 2 in respect of the
directive of the President to eradicate jueteng.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it also be marked as such.
MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor's please, may I request the counsel for the defense to
furnish us the original copy so that we can go over the original copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is only for conditional marking. Did the
Chair get it correctly?
MR. FORTUN. That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. LIBARIOS. But in order for us, Your Honor, to make an intelligent evaluation of
the contents, we should be furnished the
original copy.
MR. FORTUN. We will do that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With that assurance, perhaps the attorney...
MR. FORTUN. We also request that paragraph 6 which gives an ultimatum for all
commanders and subordinate commanders to eradicate illegal gambling, especially
jueteng, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-B.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit
2-B.
MR. FORTUN. And the signature of the witness appearing on the lower right hand
corner of the document be further bracketed and sub-marked as Exhibit 2-C.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.
REP. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor please, can we ask the counsel for the defense as to
why he cannot produce the original copy of this document?
MR. FORTUN. What we can do, Your Honor, is to produce a certified copy perhaps
of this document. But in light of the admission made by General Lastimoso this
evening that he identified....
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, there was no admission. It's misleading, Your
Honor. The witness only mentioned that it could have....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably.
REP. LIBARIOS. Probably, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably for the production of the original of the
memorandum, it can be done during the redirect.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is why it would be to the best interest of the witness that he
should be presented with the original copy because he is only presented with a xerox
copy, and we know the technology now, Your Honor. Just to inform the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, the defense counsel was only
seeking the marking.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is correct, Your Honor, provisional marking but the witness
was presented with a copy. I am raising an issue, Your Honor. What if this copy
happens to be--because it's only a xerox copy, a machine copy, the signature of the
witness and the witness was presented with a copy that is not certified, and asked if
he is familiar with the signature. And the witness mentioned, "I think that is my
signature." This could be a misleading presentation of evidence, Your Honor,
although we are not yet in the offer of evidence. But the way it is presented to the
witness, where the evidence, the original is not available, it could create an
impression on the part of witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us wait for the next question when it comes to the
substance of the memorandum. In the meantime, I think he is only asking for the
marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor please. We are objecting to any question on that
alleged exhibit because that is just a xerox copy.
MR. FORTUN. I have no further questions on this exhibit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, the cross-examination is terminated. Would you
request for a deferment of the redirect until the production of the original document?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor. And in the meantime, we would like to request
the Secretariat to also furnish us the same equipment they furnished to the defense.
They are given movable microphone.
MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, this is not supplied by the Senate.
REP. LIBARIOS. This is unfair, Your Honor, we are forced to stand here for hours
while they can relax.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just inform Congressman
Libarios that that is not property of the Senate.
MR. FORTUN. This is our own microphone.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The defense provided that for themselves. So provide
yourselves with the same microphone.
MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, we would like to put on record that we are returning
Exhibits A and B to the gentleman from the prosecution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be recorded, and can we have the
acknowledgment by counsel.
REP. LIBARIOS. I acknowledge the receipt, Your Honor. And considering, Your
Honor, that the counsel for the defense has terminated the cross-examination, and
considering our earlier manifestation that we want a copy, the original copy of this
alleged memorandum, then we are moving for the deferment of the redirect subject
to the submission of the original copy of the said memorandum.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in effect, you are moving for a continuance until
tomorrow. It's already 6:58 anyway in the evening. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Just to facilitate proceedings such as the problem we now have
encountered, I think it should be really appreciated that the original would be difficult
to produce except by subpoena, Your Honor, because it is a PNP document. What
we would endeavor to do is get a certified copy. But if we get into a situation such as
this and each time we ask for the originals even if on its face it is fairly authentic and
then ask for deferment until cross-examination or redirect, this would delay the
proceedings. Well, earlier, there was an affidavit also, Your Honor. It was only a
xerox copy; the original also was not produced and we continued the proceedings
notwithstanding that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a certified true copy. Probably you could also
secure a certified true copy of what is conditionally marked as Exhibit 2.
MR. MENDOZA. But we will not be able to secure that by tomorrow. So we will
redirect the...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, we can defer further the redirect
examination and tomorrow anyway, we will have two witnesses who had been
subpoenaed even to appear today..
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the document we feel is
vital and with all due respect, Your Honor, we will not be satisfied, at least on this
document, Your Honor, with a mere certified true copy. The defense is representing...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, under the rules, a certified true copy of a public
document would be enough.
REP. LIBARIOS. It is regularly done, Your Honor, but this is not a document that is
regularly done, Your Honor. So we can only rely on certified true copies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, your redirect has been deferred. So let
us see...
REP. LIBARIOS. That is why we are requesting if the defense could present to us the
original copy. At least a duplicate original copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense should try its very best to do so. And if it
cannot be produced tomorrow, we will proceed with the other two witnesses.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, before we adjourn, we have requested for a subpoena
duces tecum to two witnesses for them to produce certain documents. And earlier,
we requested that those documents be returned and deposited with the Secretary
General. May I request now that at least Yolanda Ricaforte be summoned to this
Body to produce the documents so that we will know what kind of documents she
has produced.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request a page of the Senate to notify Yolanda
Ricaforte and to bring them here....
REP. APOSTOL. Including the other witness, Anton Prieto.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. --and the other witness, Prieto, to bring them here and
to turn over the documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum for each one of
them for safekeeping by the Senate Secretary.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, are we made also to...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, on a procedural matter, I am trying to facilitate.
Yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice, during the preliminary conference, we had objected as
a judge to all this use of affidavit that cannot be seen. And it was agreed upon by the
parties that affidavit in fact should be avoided. And that they should therefore be
narrated by the witnesses because affidavits can be prepared by lawyers or it can be
prepared by whomsoever and affidavits do not speak. The narrations in the affidavits
should be asked from the witness, and that was agreed upon in the preliminary
conference, Mr. Chief Justice. And we suggest that counsels should take note of the
preliminary conference agreement otherwise we will really be delayed.
So if we may, we are asking as a judge, that we adhere to the agreements of the
preliminary conference. They should have been made to narrate whatever it was that
you want to be narrated. Now, Mr. President, I think, just by way of manifestation, to
adhere to what we agreed on yesterday.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the counsel, both for the proseuction and the
defense are so advised accordingly to adhere strictly to the agreement yesterday to
avoid any further delay.
REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Your Honor, but I also remembered that the draft of
what have been agreed yesterday should be furnished both parties with the copies of
the same. We have not seen the draft of the copies of what have been agreed
yesterday.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, for the information of counsel, the
copies were distributed yesterday. And if by any chance, he did not get a copy, don't
blame me but you can get your copy as soon as we are through. We have copies for
all of us.
REP. APOSTOL. I appreciate the Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And maybe, Mr. Chief Justice, we can excuse Mr.
Lastimoso from the witness chair because I saw
Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte come in, as well as Mr. Anton Prieto, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the request is granted.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Osmeña.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may we request that...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For awhile, the Chair had recognized Senator Judge
Osmeña.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, the affidavit of Gen. Lastimoso refers to a
ledger. May we know if we will be furnished with that ledger? Because we are now
given an affidavit which refers to a ledger and certain amounts in the ledger and we
still have not received the ledger. May we know if the prosecution will be furnishing
us with the ledger soon?
REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting for a copy of that ledger from Yolanda Ricaforte
so we can reproduce them and we will distribute… Whatever we will get today from
Yolanda Ricaforte, we will reproduce them for an average of about 25 copies and we
will distribute them to the Judges.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you.
back to top
Yolanda Ricaforte
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, witness Lastimoso is excused in the meantime and
the Chair calls for the subpoenaed
witness, Yolanda Ricaforte.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, of course we are ready to present our next witness but
it is already seven o'clock. So, we will just check on the documents as per our
request.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. We will make formal the turnover of the
documents. Let her first take the stand.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Secretary should administer the oath.
THE SENATE SECRETARY. You, Yolanda Ricaforte, do swear that the evidence
you shall give in this case now pending
between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines,
shall be the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
MS. RICAFORTE. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify your witness, Prosecutor Apostol.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know your name please?
MS. RICAFORTE. I am Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Filipino, married, I am residing at
Quezon City, and I am married to Undersecretary Rex Ricaforte of the Department of
Tourism.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The specific address please in Quezon City.
MS. RICAFORTE. No. 25 Freedom Avenue, Veterans Village, Barangay Pasong
Tamo, Quezon City.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we requested this witness to sit down on the witness
stand merely to produce the ledger. We will conduct our direct examination tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Would you just lay the predicate for the production
of the documents now for the formal turnover to the Secretary?
REP. APOSTOL. If Your Honor please.
Mrs. Ricaforte, we requested for a subpoena duces tecum for you to produce the
original of the ledger which was brought before the Senate before in the hearing on
October 30, 2000. Did you, in fact, bring this ledger?
MS. RICAFORTE. I have here the listahan from August ....
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that there be an interpreter upon the request of the
witness because she would like to testify in Tagalog.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony, is that in Filipino or Tagalog?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog po.
REP. APOSTOL. Tagalog. It is not official.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if it is in Filipino, I understand that the
Stenographers can take down the notes in
Filipino, being a national language. So, do you need an interpreter? I understand you
can speak in English. Why don't you directly testify in English or in Filipino?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog na lang po. I prefer Tagalog, Sir. Yes Sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then testify in Filipino or English.
REP. APOSTOL. She said, Your Honor, that she would like to testify in Tagalog and
she needs an interpreter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, if you can really speak in English, why don't you
speak in English to avoid any delay. It is only the production of a document and the
marking, after which the turnover thereof in the meantime to the Secretary of the
Senate.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I now ask the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. APOSTOL. Did you bring with you the ledger which we requested per
subpoena duces tecum?
MS. RICAFORTE. Opo, nandito po ang original copy noong listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that this ledger be marked as Exhibit C and the
succeeding pages be marked as Exhibits C-1, C-2,and so on.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many pages?
REP. APOSTOL. We will count, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable....
SEN. ENRILE. I would like to clarify the question. The question of the distinguished
prosecutor is, he was asking about a ledger but the answer of the witness is listahan.
Is there any identity between the listahan and the ledger?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is query now.
MRS. RICAFORTE. Oho. Ito ho ay....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it directed to the prosecutor or to the witness?
SEN. ENRILE. I want an explanation whether the....Because the question asked for a
ledger, and then the answer of the witness is she brought a listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor....
SEN. ENRILE. Because a ledger in accounting is a very special kind of a material, of
a document.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor, if the question of His Honor, the Senator,
is directed to this representation or to the witness?
SEN. ENRILE. I want a clarification regarding the question of the prosecutor and the
answer of the witness. Because, as a judge, I would like to know whether the ledger
that has been subpoenaed is the same as this listahan or that listahan is the ledger.
REP. APOSTOL. Then, I will ask the question, Your Honor.
I ask you the question to produce the ledger and you produced the so-called listahan.
What do you understand by ledger? Is it the same as listahan?
MRS. RICAFORTE. Sa akin po, ordinaring listahan lang po itong aking hawak. I don't
consider this as ledger.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who has been designated as interpreter?
REP. APOSTOL. Nobody. But I would like to volunteer if she is talking in Waray.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, we should get the permission from the honorable
Senators-Judges if you'd be allowed also to act as interpreter. Anybody from the
Senate who can act as interpreter?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice… I am sorry.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. DRILON. If the witness will testify in Tagalog or in Filipino, we do not need an
interpreter because all of us here understand Tagalog or Filipino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The problem is, can this be taken down in stenographic
notes?
SEN. DRILON. I think, it can be taken down.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have the assurance that whether the testimony be
in English, Tagalog or Filipino, it can be taken in stenographic notes, then probably
we can allow.
SEN. DRILON. Yes, our stenographers, Mr. Chief Justice, in the Senate can take the
stenographic notes in Tagalog, in Filipino, in English.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then, you may proceed.
REP. APOSTOL. So, if Your Honor will allow, we will have the so-called listahan be
the one marked as Exhibit "A", I mean, "C", then "C-1", "C-2", "C-3" and so forth.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will complete the marking of the pages because that
will be left with the Secretary.
REP. APOSTOL. Just a minute, Your Honor, the problem is, well, there is another
question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is another question from Honorable Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. I would like to beg the indulgence of the Chair. Mr. Chief Justice, the
subpoena duces tecum that was requested and served referred to a ledger. Now,
what we are being presented with is listahan. Is the prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice,
satisfied that their request for a subpoena duces tecum is properly served with the
presentation of this listahan?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. We will be satisfied, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be satisfied. So you will have it marked now.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request now, Your Honor, that this so-called listahan be
marked as Exhibit "C" and we will count the pages....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. Let the entire document be
marked as Exhibit "C", then the succeeding pages as Exhibit "C-1" up to the end,
whatever will be the number. Please initial after the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, may we be allowed to compare, in the meantime, the
so-called listing or journal that we have in our possession which is actually a certified
true copy coming from the Senate and the so-called listahan or ledger which was
brought by the witness?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we be clarified on that manifestation?
REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting, Your Honor, that we be allowed to compare
with the so-called listahan or ledger that we are...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To compare?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, because ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be done later. Because the only purpose now
for the production of the witness before us is for her to produce what is the subject
matter of the subpoena duces tecum in order that the same be, in the meantime,
deposited.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. In the meantime, since we have not compared with our copy
which we got from the Senate, we will defer our request for marking of this exhibit
which the witness has brought.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, because she brought it pursuant to a subpoena
duces tecum and you want it to be kept in the custody of the Secretary, and we have
it to be marked in order that the Secretary may not be blamed later on of whatever
may happen to the exhibits. You can take the proper move later on.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. The Secretary can put his own signature or
marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that's it. We will proceed with the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. But we request that we defer this exhibit to be marked as our
own exhibit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed with the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. The Secretary, Your Honor, is marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please announce later up to what
number is the submarking.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, in order to prevent any wrangling later on, may I ask
the prosecutors if they would put into the record that indeed, what they requested via
the subpoena duces tecum that was issued was for the presentation of a ledger, and
that what the witness has brought is not a really a ledger but a listahan consisting of
several pages.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We will put it on record that what we requested
per subpoena duces tecum is a ledger.
SENATOR ENRILE. But what was presented now is a document which the witness
calls a listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing to have that on record.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
REP. APOSTOL. Our request for subpoena is a ledger. I think she understands what
is a ledger because, I understand, she is a Commerce graduate and she brought it
and says this is a listahan.
SEN. ENRILE. In addition, I would like to find out if the distinguished prosecutor
would want to correct his statement that he also calls the document a "journal" and I
do not think that is a journal.
REP. APOSTOL. Well, I remember I have not said any "journal" but if....
SEN. ENRILE. No, the record will bear me out.
REP. APOSTOL. If I did utter that word, I am withdrawing
that word.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Withdrawn.
SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. I hope I will not add to the confusion. But what we understood,
Mr. Chief Justice, was that the prosecutor asked for time to compare whether the
document that they asked for subpoena is indeed the same as the listahan and I
think the honorable Presiding Officer granted that request already.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The idea really of the marking now would only be forSEN. GUINGONA. Yes, preliminary, but....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. --identification of the documents once deposited.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, under that condition, Mr. Chief Justice, because that was
what they requested as far as I recall.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. LIBARIOS. Since we have already caused the marking of the.... We will wait
until the final marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair has been waiting for it. It is about to be
finished.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the marking is from.... Actually, it is 13 pages.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen pages. So that means "C", "C-1" to "C-12".
REP. APOSTOL. So may I reiterate our request that this document which the witness
calls a "listahan," which we call a "ledger" be, in the meantime, kept here for
safekeeping with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As earlier stated by the Chair, the motion will be
granted and is now granted. The witness is directed to turn over the marked exhibits
to the Secretary of the Senate for the latter to keep. However, the witness is advised
to come back tomorrow for the continuation of her testimony.
REP. APOSTOL. So may we request now, Your Honor, that if it is possible for the
Senate to have these xerox-copied, if not, we will do it, of course, if the defense is
willing too.
May I know if the Senate will copy these?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, we volunteer to do that but probably,
we will be ready with the copies tomorrow. Is that all right with the members of the
court?
REP. APOSTOL. We would like to have a copy, Your Honor, today so we can
actually study it.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, immediately after adjournment, we will
provide the prosecution copies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much for that assurance.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we are ready with two witnesses but I understand
that....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean tomorrow?
REP. APOSTOL. Even today but I do not want to....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is already 7:24 in the evening.
REP. APOSTOL. In that case, then we will move for the continuance.
REP. LIBARIOS. One last item, Your Honor. Since the exhibits are already marked
by the prosecution, may we request, Your Honor, that the exhibits be now turned
over to prosecution -- the original exhibits, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibits are you referring to, the exhibit produced
by the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. The listahan, Your Honor, the listahan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the other Counsel- Prosecutor Apostol is
only to have this deposited in the meantime. So it should be deposited.
REP. LIBARIOS. Under the Rules, Your Honor, once the exhibits are already marked
by either party, then that party requesting the exhibits be marked should now be in
the proper custody of the said documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you trying to overturn the request of Prosecutor
Apostol? [Laughter]
REP. LIBARIOS. No, because we would like to review, extensively the original, Your
Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can come tomorrow early morning.
REP. LIBARIOS. It belongs to the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will stick to the earlier request which was
already granted by the court.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, aside from this witness, may we request that Anton
Prieto be also directed to be present tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Mr. Prieto?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto is there.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Prieto is directed to come back tomorrow at two
o'clock in the afternoon and to be ready to testify. Okay then, the Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before I move to suspend, may I
manifest that in connection with the resolution of this court denying the Motion to
Quash, the following Senators have filed concurring opinions: Senators Cayetano,
Legarda-Leviste and Ople on the December 1, 2000; Senators Enrile and Sotto on
December 4, 2000; Senators Aquino-Oreta, Tatad and Honasan on December 5,
2000.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The concurring opinions announced are noted.
SUSPENSION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Unless the Chair has
something more to say, I move that the Impeachment Trial stand in recess until
tomorrow, Friday, December 8, 2000, at two o'clock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of the Chair will be suspended until tomorrow
afternoon.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the witness is still sitting on the witness stand.
[Laughter] May we...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, I am sorry. The witness is excused, but to come
back tomorrow at two o'clock. [Laughter]
Suspended. It was 7:27 p.m.
back to top