Impeachment Proceedings
Prayer ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Proclamation ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Calling of the Case ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Appearances ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Trial Proper ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Impeachment Trial, Day 21
Friday, January 12, 2001
AT 1:57 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL TO ORDER.
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the
entrance of the Senator-Judges. Please remain standing for the entrance of the
Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The trial of the
impeachment of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now resumed.
The Honorable Senator-Judge Ramon Revilla will now lead us in prayer. Then the
Honorable Judge Raul Roco.
Prayer
SEN. ROCO. Para sa dasal po natin ngayon, hihiramin natin ang panalangin ni San
Ignacio de Loyola na isinalin sa Pilipino ng kapatid natin sa Senado, si Francisco
"Soc" Rodrigo ng Bulacan. Kung maaari po, maikli lang ito, pakisundan ang ating
panalangin.
"Pinakamamahal na Panginoon:
Turuan mong ako'y maging bukas-palad
Sa Iyo'y maglingkod nang karapat-dapat;
Magbigay, huwag sa gugol masindak;
Makibaka, huwag mag-inda ng sugat;
Magsikap at hindi pahinga ang hanap,
Gumawa at huwag maghintay ng bayad,
Maliban na lamang sa gunitang hanap,
Na kalooban Mo'y aking ginaganap,
Pinakamamahal na Panginoon. Amen."
back to top
Proclamation
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now make
the proclamation.
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of
punishment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment
against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.
back to top
Calling of the Case
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary is directed to call the case.
THE SENATE DEPUTY SECRETARY (MS. EMMA REYES). Impeachment Case No.
001-2000, entitled, In Re: the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, President of the Philippines, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of
Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, may I advise the
Members of the Court that the Journal of Tuesday, January 9, 2001 is still under
preparation and will be distributed shortly. I invite them to examine it as soon as it is
distributed so that we can approve it before we move for recess.
back to top
Appearances
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. And may I now invite the parties to this impeachment trial
to enter anew their appearance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are so directed.
REP. GONZALEZ. For the prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Court,
the same appearances.
MR. DAZA. Same appearances for the defense. Ready.
back to top
Trial Proper
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If you will recall, yesterday, we suspended the
testimony of Mr. Yasay and partly the testimony of Mr. Espiritu, pending resolution by
the Court of two issues. As to the testimony of Mr. Yasay, on the issue of
inadmissibility of any evidence tending to establish alleged pressure by the President
on him in relation to other acts than the BW Resources alleged in Article III of the
Articles of Impeachment.
And as regards the testimony of Mr. Espiritu, the issue was on the materiality and
relevance of documents sought to be produced by way of subpoena duces tecum by
officers of the Philippine National Bank and for the identification of these documents
by Mr. Espiritu in connection with an alleged loan of 500 million.
During the caucus which was also mentioned yesterday by the Members of the Court
at one o'clock this afternoon and continued until about a few minutes ago, the Court
agreed that insofar as the testimony of Mr. Yasay is concerned, he should limit the
so?called presidential intervention or pressures only to the BW Resources' alleged
manipulation of shares.
And as to the PNB, the Members of the Court resolved that the production of the
documents related to the alleged loan shall only be allowed until or after the
prosecution shall have, by evidence, parol or otherwise, established its connection to
the World Bank issue, rather the BW Resources issue. I'm sorry, I'm always
confusing these words. These are all foreign to me. So, in short, the production of the
documents would be withheld in abeyance until the necessary evidentiary link shall
have been established by the prosecution.
So we shall finish first with the testimony of Mr. Yasay. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. If I may raise another point actually, if Your Honors please.
We received copies of applications for subpoenas where several or many
applications for subpoenas on January 11 and January 12 and the applications for
subpoenas for January 12 include many applications for subpoena duces tecum to
several banks and several bank accounts. May we request, if Your Honors please,
that we be given until Monday within which to file our opposition?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When did you receive...
MR. MENDOZA. We should have been given three days, but we received these
applications only..mostly yesterday late afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you mention the banks involved.
MR. MENDOZA. Citibank, two subpoena duces tecums: President Estrada, Guia
Gomez; Citibank also, Jose Velarde..I do not know whether there is any. Citibank,
Kevin Garcia. Then, Allied Bank, Equitable?PCI Bank, Metrobank, Bank of Philippine
Islands, United Overseas Bank.
Frankly, it's not been easy for us even to appreciate the subpoenas because many of
them refer to account numbers without the names of the account holders. So before
the Presiding Officer acts on this, we would like to request for an opportunity to file
opposition, Your Honors please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request.. Prosecutor Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. It is a good thing that the defense raised that point, Mr. Chief
Justice. Yes, we filed request for subpoena concerning various banks and some of
them ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. This will already be for Article II?B?
REP. ARROYO. That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
Some of them, in fact, we asked that they be produced today. And the reason for
requesting that the production be today is to enable us to mark them so that by
Monday we don't interrupt the session by the .. asking for time to mark them.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chief Justice, this morning, from 9 o'clock up to 1 o'clock, we
pity Atty. Yap and his staff. It was a continuous marking, not on Article II?B, but on
the other articles, there was a long line there.
Now, what I'm saying is that it takes time to mark them and marking is not an exhibit,
is not evidence yet. If you mark a potential exhibit, it is just to mark them so that we
can make a .. an interrupt .. an uninterrupted presentation of evidence.
Now, if the subpoenas, whether it is ad testificandum or duces tecum, will be
delayed, the issuance, it will also delay the proceedings. Anyway, at the appropriate
time, the defense can always object to the evidence. But what we are trying to
implement is the marking because that is what takes time; the administrative,
mechanism of marking.
As a matter of fact, we will ask the Chair whether tomorrow the Secretary's staff
could be here because it will take us the whole morning to mark our exhibits for
Article II?B.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will address that to the Senate President for the
administrative staff.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And the answer is yes.
REP. ARROYO. Thank you very much, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honors please, these bank documents, I believe, are
particularly sensitive because even if you bring them for premarking, then they
become exposed already even if we had an understanding that they are not to be
made public.
So, it is our submission that it is essential that the defense be heard on these
applications for subpoena duces tecum. And that before the subpoena duces tecum
are issued, whatever opposition the defense may raise should be resolved.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule ...
REP. ARROYO. Could I, Mr. Chief Justice?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. ARROYO. Some banks do not raise the question of Bank Secrecy Law or any
law. If it's a subpoena issued by this Court, well, they comply.
Now, there are some banks that do. Their external counsel tells us that it cannot be
done. Well, there's not much that we can do about it, but take, for instance, the
Equitable Bank papers. The first envelope is already in the possession and had been
marked. The second envelope is still with the Secretary .. ah, with the .. I think, with
the Secretary's office.
We would even request the Senate President to have it .. ordered open so that we
can look ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. These were brought here voluntarily by the Equitable
PCI?
REP. ARROYO. That's correct, sir. Then the other banks, yes, some of them have
come with their lawyers and they say they are ready to comply with the ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, I think there is a possible compromise
here. We cannot also deprive the .. reject immediately the request of Atty. Mendoza.
REP. ARROYO. So, the problem, Mr. Chief Justice, is this.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What we should do would be, we will give them until 10
o'clock Monday to file the opposition, if at all.
REP. ARROYO. Then?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then, it can be resolved in the afternoon and the
marking can be done even overnight if, eventually, the Court will allow the markings.
REP. ARROYO. But we are anticipating to present our evidence on the markings to
be made.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can have that .. I mean, since these are bank
documents, perhaps if allowed already by the Court, the parties can even stipulate on
this.
REP. ARROYO. Well, Mr. ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the Chair would not foresee any difficulty in this
because the Senate staff can work overtime.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, what I find at least on the part of the
prosecution…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because in the first place, the request should have
been issued much earlier since the …
REP. ARROYO. Who can raise an objection? Is it the defense or the bank? That is
…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And in this particular case, the defense had been
allowed to raise some issues.
REP. ARROYO. On the Bank Secrecy Law?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And, as a matter of fact, in some instances, the
prosecution had to file a reply on the comment or on the opposition. So, this is just a
compromise adopted and we can work overtime.
REP. ARROYO. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MENDOZA. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.
So, we shall now proceed to the trial proper. We should finish … The Honorable
Senator-Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. With the permission of the Chief Justice. I just want to put on
record, Mr. Chief Justice, that at 10:30 this morning, my office received a letter
threatening death on my part with a bullet. Mr. Senate President, Mr. Chief Justice, I
was not in the office when this was received. It was contained in an LBC Airvelope
containing a letter that I have been tried and found guilty and will be executed. I ask
immediately, Mr. Senate President, Mr. Chief Justice, our Sergeant-at-Arms, and I
think he is here, to immediately go to my office and cause an investigation lest there
be any insinuation that this is something that was contrived by the undersigned or my
staff.
I am putting this on record, Mr. Senate President, because as a sworn member of the
Senate and this Impeachment Court, I really do not mind receiving death threats.
Yes, I fear for my life just like anyone else. I only hope that, huwag po nilang
idadamay ang aking mga pamilya sapagkat wala po silang kasalanan. I am
comforted by a passage in the Good Book that, "If God is with you, no one can be
against you."
Maraming salamat po.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. The request - yes, the Senate
President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, with your permission, Mr. Chief Justice. I am now
directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to send a team of the Senate Security to the Office of
Mr. Cayetano to investigate the matter immediately.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And the bullet, the bullet that was shown by the
Honorable Senator Rene Cayetano should be also turned over to the Secretary duly
marked and sealed in an envelope.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And also the letter is made part of the record.
The Honorable Judge-Senator Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to put into the record an information that
I received just now that the very subject of our discussion in camera in caucus
regarding the nature of the evidence that was supposed to be elicited through
questions involving the Philippine National Bank was actually discussed publicly over
the air lanes by a member of the prosecution. And so I would like to suggest that
fairness demands that evidence that the prosecution plans to introduce in this
Chamber ought not to be presented in public before they are presented in this Court
because that places a tremendous burden on me as a judge in this case. And I think
that that is most unfair and unprofessional for the member of the prosecution panel
that went out of his way to discuss precisely the very evidence that was the subject of
the caucus of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. I do not want to identify
the members of the prosecution panel that did this a while ago in order not to cause
an embarrassment. But, henceforth, may we request, as professional lawyers who
have had experience to try cases in a courtroom not to do this because this is
unethical, unprofessional, irresponsible.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation and the request are both noted and the
panel, both the defense and the prosecution, should consider the advisory that was
given already the other day through the Senate President in the matter of discussions
of the merits of evidence presented or yet to be presented. And it would be worse for
evidence yet to be presented and the matter which is still to be taken up by the
Impeachment Court in caucus as already announced yesterday.
Indeed, the Chair would reiterate for the record that the .. those in the prosecution
and in the defense are officers of the Court and they should therefore, faithfully,
religiously, and genuinely abide with the Canons of Legal Ethics and the Code of
Professional Responsibility which are all part of the Rules applicable to the
Impeachment Court.
Yes, the Honorable Senator Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. It is exactly the point I raised when
I made a motion.
But may I seek clarification from the Presiding Officer on Trial if the witnesses who
have already come under the jurisdiction of the Court, meaning those witnesses that
had been issued subpoena be included in this advisory?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Technically, out of a sense of justice, fairness and
equity, they should not at all discuss the evidence which they ought to testify before
this Court. It should be the Court that will receive the evidence. So, we appeal to their
sense of justice.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that is only insofar as witnesses yet to testify. But
witnesses who are still on the witness stand should not at all discuss the nature of his
testimony outside the courtroom because they're still under the jurisdiction of the
Court and could even be punished for contempt of court.
Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are now in the trial proper. The
prosecution will continue to present evidence. Yesterday, we suspended the
testimony of Edgardo Espiritu and Perfecto Yasay. I'm informed that the prosecution
would like to resume the testimony of Edgardo Espiritu.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call Mr. Edgardo Espiritu.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. The principal and assisting examining counsel are Private
Prosecutor Hernando Perez and Pamela Yabut; the principal and assisting
cross?examining counsel are Attorney Raul Daza and Atty. Jose Flaminiano,
respectively.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Former Secretary Espiritu...
REP. GONZALEZ. The witness is still in the holding room, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let somebody fetch him. Take your seat, Compañero.
You will be still on direct examination by prosecutor .. private Prosecutor Perez. The
latter is now directed to proceed.
MR. PEREZ. With the permission of the Honorable Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And reminded of what had been announced earlier as
the result of the caucus and the ruling of the Court.
MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor. I shall proceed in the manner that I have understood
the order of this Honorable Tribunal.
With the permission of the Honorable Chief Justice and the Honorable SenatorJudges.
Mr. Witness, as of July 1999, do you know the financial condition of BW Resources?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor. The financial condition of BW Resources at that
point in time showed a negative net worth, Your Honor.
MR. PEREZ. Will you explain to us the meaning of negative net worth?
MR. ESPIRITU. Well, Your Honor, it does not show any balance in terms of its capital
accounts.
MR. PEREZ. Kung wala pong balanse sa capital accounts ang
BW Resources, ano po ang kakailanganin nito para makapag?operate?
MR. ESPIRITU. Siguro po ay kailangang .. puwede naman pong mag?issue ng
additional shares, mag?call or manghiram. It can be in the form of a borrowing or
issuance of new shares or advances po from stockholders.
MR. PEREZ. Are you in a position to know or to tell us kung ang BW Resources ay
gumamit ng alin man doon sa pamamaraan na sinabi ninyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Alam ko pong nangutang po sila sa Philippine National Bank ng
halagang P600 million.
MR. PEREZ. Bakit po ninyo nalalaman itong utang na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ako po as Secretary of Finance ay mayroong pong tinatawag na
coordinating supervision over the GFIs at every two weeks po ay nag?mi?meet ako
with the heads of the GFIs to discuss affairs that need discussions particularly on
substantial matters.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. In an effort to help save time because obviously we would have to be
objective even under the ruling of the court, may I .. may counsel .. may prosecution
and I be allowed to approach the bench on this matter for just a few minutes
because...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How few would this few minutes be?
MR. DAZA. Well, five minutes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes. Make it ten.
MR. PEREZ. No objection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So trial is suspended for ten minutes.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 2:26 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 2:53 P.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is now resumed.
MR. PEREZ. With the permission of the Honorable Chief Justice and the Honorable
Senator-Judges, ipaliwanag mo nga sa amin kung bakit mo nalalaman itong utang na
anim na raang milyon na ibinigay ng Philippine National Bank sa BW Resources?
MR. DAZA. Objection, Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis?
MR. DAZA. …for being immaterial and lack of basis, lack of proof of competence.
There's no previous showing that this witness would be in a position to testify on this
matter. Moreover, Mr. Chief Justice, the ruling of the Court that was announced this
afternoon was that, prosecution must first establish connection between the loan and
the alleged stock manipulation. And we submit respectfully, Mr. Chief Justice, that it
is implicit in this ruling that this has to be proven by evidence aliunde or evidence
independent of the loan itself. Otherwise, if the loan itself would be used to prove the
connection between the loan and the stock manipulation, then the ruling, we
respectfully submit, would, in effect, enable the prosecution to do something that the
ruling seeks to prevent.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The ruling that was announced by the Chair at the start
of the continuation of the trial this afternoon was a ruling that was arrived at by the
Senators as announced, the Judges during their conference. The issue that was
resolved was on the defense's motion to quash precisely the subpoena duces tecum
for the production of certain documents from PNB officials. And after a very vigorous
discussion, extensive discussion and deliberation on the issue disposed, the
Senators-Judges agreed on what had been announced, meaning, that these
documents will not be presented. The issue thereof will not be allowed until and
unless the prosecution will be able to establish a link between the loan and the socalled manipulation in the BW Resources. So that is it. And so, I understand that the
prosecution is now beginning to show the connection. And as to the materiality that
was mentioned by you as a ground for objection, the matter will have to be
disregarded in the meantime precisely because of the attempt now on the part of the
prosecution to show the linkages.
MR. PEREZ. May the witness therefore answer, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Could you remember the question, Mr. Witness?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.
MR. ESPIRITU. In addition to what I mentioned a while ago that I coordinate certain
activities of the GFIs, the President has also issued a memorandum requiring all
GFIs to report to the President, through the PMS, all transactions of 50 million and
above, loan transactions, loan renewals, loan restructuring and any disbursement of
50 million and above with the instruction that the Department of Finance be given a
copy of all of these reports.
MR. PEREZ. What are these GFIs or government financial institutions you were
referring to?
MR. ESPIRITU. These would be GSIS, Social Security System, Development Bank
of the Philippines, Land Bank, and Philippine National Bank, Your Honor.
MR. PEREZ. Ipaliwanag nga ninyo sa amin kung bakit ang Philippine National Bank
ay nasama doon sa tinatawag nating "government financial institutions"?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ang dahilan po rito, e, ang pamahalaan po ay still in what we call an
"effective control over Philippine National Bank" because they still have 11 directors
nominated by the President and management is also under the appointment power of
the President by nominating them through the board of directors, him through the
board of directors po.
MR. PEREZ. You stated yesterday that the standard practice of banks in granting
loans is that, it must have the three Cs, namely, character, capacity, and collateral.
Maaari bang ipaliwanag mo sa amin kung iyong kriteryang iyon ay nasunod dito sa
sinasabi mong utang?
MR. DAZA. Objection...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Basis?
MR. DAZA. ... for being immaterial and for calling for an opinion and also for lack of
basis. There's no showing that the witness participated in the processing of the loan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The first ground is rejected. The second ground is
sustained. Make another question.
MR. PEREZ. Dito sa utang na ito ng Philippine National Bank, ano ang partisipasyon
... ah, BW sa Philippine National Bank? Ano ang naging partisipasyon mo kung
mayroon ka mang partisipasyon dito sa pagkakautang na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, sapagkat po ito, e, lumalampas sa 50 million
transaction, ang kahulugan po niyan ay nai?report po. Nabigyan po ako ng kopya ng
report sa Pangulo.
At doon po sa aming regular meeting na dinidiskas (discuss) po namin itong mga
ganitong transaction, e, nabanggit po ito na isama sa report. At nagtanong na po ako
rito sapagkat iyon pong pangulo ng Philippine National Bank ay nag?report na ito
pong BW loan of 600 million ay medyo naiiba nga sa mga transaction na
ina?aprubahan ng Philippine National Bank.
MR. PEREZ. Nalaman mo ba kung ano ang pagkakaiba nitong pagkakautang na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Unang?una po ay ...
MR. DAZA. Objection. Witness is incompetent. He said that it was the president of
the bank who allegedly made that opinion or made that statement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is ...
MR. DAZA. And so, this calls for ... I'm objecting on the ground that the witness is
incompetent and, two, on the ground that it calls for hearsay evidence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness testified, is being asked for a particular
fact. And so the objection has to be overruled. The witness may answer.
MR. ESPIRITU. Iyon pong report na sinasabmit (submit) sa akin po, copy furnished
po ako, naka?indicate po roon ang details at breakdown ng mga facts behind the
grant of this loan. Nakalagay po rito, sino ang borrower, magkano, ano ba ang
collateral, at ano ang financial background. Naka?detail po ito raw sa report. Kaya
nalalaman ko po ang laman nitong report na ito.
MR. PEREZ. Doon po sa inyong pagsusuri nitong report na ito, ano po ang
kinalabasan ng inyong pagsusuri?
MR. DAZA. Objection on two grounds. The report which is a written document is the
best evidence of its contents; secondly, on the ground of parole evidence because
mere recollection of the witness of this written report might vary the terms of the
report.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The ground is sustained.
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, may I suggest something.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And insofar as the second ground is concerned, that
may be premature.
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, our predicament is that, they are objecting to the
presentation of the records. And then, when the records are not presented, they say
the best evidence would be the records. So, it is a question of: sino ba ang nauna,
'yong itlog o 'yong manok? Hindi namin alam tuloy kung ano 'yong gagawin namin
dito sa pagkakataong ito, Your Honor. But be that as it may, then I will go to another
point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.
MR. DAZA. Kailangan po maghanap ng ebidensiya labas sa itlog at sa manok.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The whole trouble was, the main... The primary basis of
the objection was that, the best evidence is the document itself.
MR. PEREZ. Sabihin nga ninyo sa amin kung ano ang nalalaman ninyo kung ..
tungkol dito sa pagkakautang na ito. 'Yon lamang nalalaman ninyo tungkol doon sa
pagkakautang na ito ng BW Resources sa PNB tungkol doon sa, unang?una, sa
collateral.
MR. DAZA. The same objections and grounds.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same ruling. The witness may answer because he
is being asked of facts of his own knowledge, if he has, at all, this knowledge.
MR. ESPIRITU. Sa collateral po, lumalabas pong ang ipinasok na collateral po ay
isang lupa na 51 hectares po na located sa Tagaytay ngunit sa report po ay binigyan
ng zero value sapagkat wala pong right?of?way.
Nakalagay po rin sa report na mayroong collateral na shares of stock ng BW
Resources po at 'yon po ang binigyan nila ng value na on the basis of 50 percent of
what was then the price in the market of BW Resources at binigyan po nila ng value
of P400 million. Lumalabas po na sa akin pong analysis na zero po ang value nito
sapagkat hindi po natin usually binibigyan ng collateral value pagka ang sinasangla
sa iyo ay shares of stock ng sarili mong kompanya. Ito po ay kino?consider as a
secondary collateral po. Hindi primary collateral,
MR. PEREZ. Noong panahong 'yon, noong kunin itong utang na ito ng anim na raang
milyong piso, nalalaman ba ninyo kung ano ang kapasidad ng BW Resources
tungkol sa pagbabayad nito ng utang?
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, we did not object to the previous question because we
were of the impression that the answers would go out of that .. of the details in regard
to the loan as appearing in the report. But now, Mr. Chief Justice, the prosecution,
through some way of asking questions, is bringing into the records the essential facts
of the loan contained in the report. We objected because we said the report is the
best evidence of its contents. And witness is testifying into values of the collaterals
that supported the loan.
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor. May I say something, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can make the reply.
MR. PEREZ. The question, Your Honor, is about the capacity of BW Resources to
pay. I'm not asking the witness about the report.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What has it to do with the issue under Article III of the
Articles of Impeachment insofar as BW Resources are .. no .. is concerned.
MR. PEREZ. It is very material, Your Honor. But I would not want to reveal the
purpose other than what I'm saying now, otherwise, I will be charged of signalling to
the witness the possible answer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, does the witness know already the answer?
MR. PEREZ. The only way to find out, Your Honor, is for the witness to answer.
MR. DAZA. So, Mr. Chief Justice, going to the...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. DAZA. ... what is an issue now here, the prosecution should not be allowed
further to ask any questions regarding data or qualifications of borrower or data or
values of the collaterals because these are matters ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean that the mere fact of securing the loan would
be enough to establish the connection or the link between that loan and the BW
Resources' issue under Article III of the Articles of Impeachment?
MR. DAZA. It is not enough, Mr. Chief Justice. But what we are fearful of is that what
would go into the record would be testimonial evidence on important data that are
contained in the report mentioned by the witness. Our problem would be that we
cannot verify this through the testimony of the witness no matter how knowledgeable
he is. And besides, we are, I think, Mr. Chief Justice, now straying farther and farther
away from the fact in issue and from the issue establishing the connection between
the loan and the alleged manipulation of shares.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, pursuant to the ruling made by the Court after
the caucus, and the commitment on the part of the prosecution that it would be part
of the evidentiary facts to establish the link prior to the production of the documents
that had been solicited by them, the Chair will have no other alternative but to allow
the witness to answer the question.
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, pinag-explain ko po ang presidente ng PNB dito po sa
transaksiyon na ito. Tinanong ko po kung ito ba ay naireport mo sa Pangulo o
naikuha mo ng prior approval sa Pangulo sapagkat malaki ang transaksiyon.
Ang sagot po ng presidente ng PNB hindi lang po report, ito pong loan na ito was
granted at the initiative of the President of Republic.
MR. DAZA. Move to strike the answer for being hearsay. The witness is saying-made that statement not on the basis of his personal knowledge but according to him
was told to him by another person.
MR. PEREZ. As part of the narration of the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not to prove the truth?
MR. PEREZ. Not to prove the truth.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice..
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it is very clear that the statement of the
distinguished witness is hearsay. It is not even a part of the res gestae so that it
cannot be an exception to the hearsay rule. I think we, who are lawyers in this
Chamber, understand the hearsay rule very well. And whether we say that it is a part
of the narration of the witness, it goes into the records of this case. How can we
distinguish between his narration of facts and that material information that is
inserted into the record which is testified on by the witness and supported by his oath
as a witness. And I do not want to present a motion to question the ruling of the
Chair, but I would like to state, as a matter of fairness, that we should be very careful
in transgressing the hearsay rule.
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. PEREZ. I am also very careful in not arguing with the Honorable Senator, so I
will not argue with him. I just stated my piece and I will not provoke any argument
with the distinguished Senator, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, for myself, I think the procedure is rather odd
because it has been agreed upon as a part of the decision of the caucus of judges,
that if there is any pressure or there is any instruction from the respondent in this
case for the loan to be granted, that pressure or that instruction must be proved by
an evidence aliunde, meaning, outside of the loan itself. But evidently, the situation
was reversed, that the loan must be established to infer that there was a pressure. I
don't think this is the rule of evidence aliunde.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Guingona. And after that, SenatorJudge Roco.
SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice, I heard the witness say that there was an order
that any loan beyond P50 million including the PNB should require the approval of
the President. And the President naturally extends this authority to review to the
Secretary of Finance who has supervision over the GFIs. So, I don't think that it is in
any way irrelevant for this witness to state in response to the questions showing the
link between this and the facts at issue.SEN. ENRILE. Then the question, Mr.
Chief Justice, since my fellow judge raised the question, did the President approve it
according to the instruction which is marked as an exhibit in this hearing? Because
then that ought to be the starting point of the proof that the President approved this
loan first. But evidently we are accepting the conversation between this witness and
the President that affects the interest of the respondent. That is very clearly a
hearsay evidence. And the question is, are we going to accept that as judges?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Senator-Judge Roco. And then after that the
Honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, what my two good colleagues are discussing are not
yet the one that is of importance. The ruling of the Chief Justice is very simple. Ang
kwinento, kung nag?default sa kanya, ang pagkadinig ko tinanong niya ang
presidente ng PNB, sinabi na ito'y sinabi ni Presidente Estrada. The fact na
ikwinento, 'yon isang testigo sinabi sa kanya. But whether or not talagang sinabi ni
Presidente Estrada, walang kwenta pa po 'yon, hindi pa 'yon ang pinag?uusapan.
Kaya lang ang dalawa kong kaibigan medyo ahead, mas mabilis ang isip nila. Pero
sa ngayon po, tama ang ruling ni Chief Justice na as part of the narration na
naikwento sa kanya ay talagang naikwento naman. E, kung paniniwalaan natin or
ano, at saka na po 'yon.So, I am just by way of supporting the ruling.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. Anything else?
Senator-Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. Gano'n po rin ang aking paningin sapagkat 'yon pong sinabi ni
witness Espiritu na sinabi sa kanya ng pangulo ng PNB na 'yon ay instruction ni
Pangulo, hindi po hearsay 'yon, as far as 'yong nalalaman ni witness Espiritu
sapagkat between him and the president of PNB ay mayroon pong personal
knowledge si Mr. Espiritu. Ngayon, totoo ba 'yon? 'Yon po ang hindi natin
matatanggap, 'yon pong hearsay sapagkat wala naman po si Pangulo at wala naman
dito 'yong pangulo ng PNB.
Kaya dapat po.. ako po'y naniniwala sa ruling ng ating Chair na hindi lang po ito'y
part of narration kung hindi independent relevant fact po ito.
Marami pong salamat.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, on decision, and I think we could, the Court could
resolve this issue. Among the other grounds that I invoked was the lack of basis, lack
of showing that this witness would not be able to testify on this transaction. I would
like to request the Court to take judicial notice of a memorandum from the President
to the Executive Secretary which was conditionally marked by the prosecution itself.
This is Exhibit "XXXX" dated 25 January 1999, and it reads:
"Memorandum
From: The President
To : The Executive Secretary
Date : 25 January 1999
"Please cause the transfer of all contracts above 50 million in value from the different
departments, offices and agencies of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations including their subsidiaries, as well as local government
units to the Legal Office of the Presidential Management Staff for review and
eventual approval by the President."
Then, signed "President".
There's nothing here, Mr. Chief Justice, about such transactions of over 50 million in
which the distinguished witness, whom I have respect, has any participation. And so,
I would like to request the Court to take judicial notice of this and put an end to the
issue in the sense that this witness would not be qualified to testify at all in regards to
this loan transaction of 600 million. This is, not only a matter of judicial notice, but an
exhibit that has been premarked by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just one final word from the….
Yes, Senator Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. Now, I see a light at the end of the tunnel considering the
recommendation by the distinguished counsel. I'm the one who has always been
pushing for judicial notice so that it simplifies. But if we take judicial notice at this, we
will now ask, and I'm clearing this now with counsel, we will now ask that all related
documents we take judicial notice of, because when you produce a document,
everything else will have to be produced to the extent that it is related. I'm calling
attention to it so that let us take judicial notice of all these documents and let it be
produced, if that is what will simplify matters.
MR. DAZA. Well, if the distinguished Senator-Judge is referring to the documents
sought to be brought in this…
SEN. ROCO. No, different. There are series, apparently, as I can understand the
process of government, this particular memorandum of the President is one; it cannot
possibly be alone. There are markings here that there are other memoranda that are
correlated. In fact, administrative orders or numbers, so that you can sequence them
and you can see the relationship. To the extent that we take judicial notice of
whatever it is that he is calling attention, Mr. Chief Justice, all related documents
should also be then taken. I mean, memoranda, memoranda…
MR. DAZA. No, judicial notice has to be invoked, unless it is a matter of what they
call as "ministerial" or "mandatory judicial notice". But…
SEN. ROCO. No, I agree with you.
MR. DAZA. … we are invoking this because we have been arguing and objecting
strenuously to the lack of basis of this witness to testify on…
SEN. ROCO. No, I'm saying only…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the matter has been sufficiently discussed.
MR. PEREZ. Except this representation, Your Honor, who has been raising his hand.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then we first would recognize the Honorable Miriam
Defensor Santiago. And after that, you can have the final say, Private Prosecutor
Perez.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it has become apparent that
in the course of the presentation of evidence for the prosecution, the prosecutors
habitually ask witnesses with questions or pose questions to witnesses answerable
only by hearsay answers, and then when objection is raised, habitually, the
prosecutors say, "We submit that it should be entered into the record as part of the
narration of the witness." I respectfully call attention to the fact that the offer of the
prosecutor that the hearsay testimony is merely part of the narration of the witness
cannot possibly admitted as a basis for all hearsay testimony. There is a difference
between saying, "as part of the testimony of the witness to prove the tenor of the
testimony" and simply saying, "as part of the narration of the witness," because
otherwise the rule will become so open-ended that there will be no more hearsay rule
left.
Therefore, I am constrained to quote from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
1993 in the case of Baguio versus Court of Appeals:
"Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the
proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay rule."
So let us revisit what are the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Rule 130, Sections 37 and those coming after it, enumerates what are the exceptions
to the hearsay rule.
Number one, dying declaration;
Number two, declaration against interest;
Number three, act or declaration about pedigree;
Next, family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
Next, common reputation;
Next, part of the res gestae;
Next, entries in the course of business;
Next, entries in official records;
Next, commercial lists and the like;
Next, learned treatises;
And last, testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
I respectfully submit that if none of these exceptions can be shown, then even as part
of the narration of the witness, hearsay testimony should be excluded, should be
expunged, and any question that is likely to be answered with a hearsay answer
should not even be allowed, even on the ground of part of the narration of the
witness. That is precisely what the Rules of Court want to prevent. They want to
prevent the witness from testifying as to facts on which his own physical senses do
not give him basis for testimony. That is the intent of the Rules of Court. And it is
error, I humbly submit, to say, "Let us admit hearsay testimony as part of the
narration of the witness." That is not what jurisprudence teaches us. We admit
hearsay testimony as part of the narration of the witness only if it is to prove the tenor
of what the witness is testifying to. Otherwise, it cannot be admitted as evidence of
the truth.
MR. PEREZ. May I say something finally, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very briefly, please.
MR. PEREZ. Thank you. I'll be very brief and direct to the point, Your Honor.
I will not argue with anyone. I will just read a portion of the decision of the Philippine
Supreme Court in the case of People versus Cusi, et al., found in Volume 14, SCRA,
Page 944. And it reads:
"The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if
intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is hearsay. But if
the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor
of such statement, it is admissible."
That is the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator Santiago.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. This is not a colloquy but an inquiry. What year was
the case decided?
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, the...
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. If you do not remember the year...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Volume 34?
MR. PEREZ. No, I have the volume. It's Volume 14, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen (14) of SCRA. Maybe 1962 or 1963.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, what volume of the SCRA are we
in now? It's 200 plus. That's the end.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Two hundred twelve (212). That's very recent. About
1999 or 1998.
MR. PEREZ. There is no showing that the Rules of Court has been changed since
that time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the issue is very simple. Was the answer of
the witness hearsay? The first part was not hearsay in the sense that he was talking
to the president. What may appear to be hearsay was the alleged statement of this
president regarding the instruction of the President. That may appear to be hearsay.
But the ruling of the Chair was that, it should not be..it should be made of record not
necessarily to prove the truth of what the President have said but merely as part of
the narration of the witness to prove the tenor of what had been said. Then again, in
matters of giving probative value, that is entirely different. Whether the Court will
consider this finally as hearsay without any probative value, in the sense that it is not
corroborated by the testimony of the president himself who supposedly talked to and
was instructed by the President, then it is up for the judges now in the final
deliberation of the case on the merits to disregard completely this uncorroborated
statement supposedly coming from the President testified to by the witness. And that
is exactly the meaning of making a part of it merely making it as a part of a narration
of the testimony and not to prove the truth of what have been said by the third party
purportedly quoted by another party who was in direct conversation with the witness
now.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, I submit to the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
MR. PEREZ. May I proceed on another point, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On another point.
MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Better yet.
MR. PEREZ. Because that has been answered and there has been a ruling on the
answer given by the witness.
Now, Kagalang?galang na Testigo, ipaliwanag nga ninyo sa amin kung mayroon
man na koneksyon 'yong sinasabing stock manipulation dito sa stock market at saka
'yong pagkakautang sa PNB, kung nalalaman ninyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ang..ang akin pong sariling analysis, on the basis of the report, is
the fact that hindi po qualified ang BW na humiram ng 600 million at hindi po
ma?justify ng BW kung papaano nila mababayaran itong loan sapagkat masama nga
po ang financial statement nila. At ang isa pong naitanong ko doon sa meeting na
'yon ay ito ba ay nai?disclose sa..sapagkat listed po, ay ito ba ay nai?disclose sa
Philippine Stock Exchange. Hindi rin po naman nasagot ng presidente 'yon sapagkat
hindi niya..hindi yata po napasama 'yon sa condition na i?report muna bago
ma?grant 'yong loan.
MR. PEREZ. Ano po...
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief..Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.MR. DAZA. I move to strike theanswer on two
grounds:
First, because it is an expression of an opinion and there is no..no basis has been
laid to qualify this witness to express an opinion on the report which is not even
before the Court.
Number two, the..it also is conjectural because part..in the answer, in Tagalog, it
says, "daw", which means, "maybe" or something to that effect. So, on these two
grounds, I move to strike the answer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The second ground is sustained. It's conjectural and
therefore may be stricken off the record.
The first portion stay as a mere opinion of the witness, not as evidence.
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, I just want to make it of record that as found in Exhibit
"LLLLLLL?15," which is the comparative statements of income of BW Resources, the
deficit at the end of the period June 30, 1999 for the month immediately before the
loan was granted was 43,954,610. This has already been...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that document prepared by the witness?
MR. PEREZ. I have no further question of the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I have no further question.
MR. PEREZ. Of the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now. You are ending your direct testimony.
MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. I move to...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross?examination.
MR. DAZA. No, I just want to move..I just would like to move to strike that
manifestation...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That...
MR. DAZA. …because it is..it is from a piece of prosecution exhibit on which this
witness never testified at all.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was precisely the reason why the Presiding Officer
asked Private Prosecutor Perez if that document was prepared by the witness.
MR. PEREZ. No, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. No.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, since it was not prepared by the witness, the
manifestation really would seem to be out of order and would be improper. You can
take that up in due course.So, in the meantime, your manifestation has to be stricken
off the record.
MR. PEREZ. Then, in that case, Your Honor, may I just state that we have just
presented evidence as to the financial condition of BW Resources through another
witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, it had been presented earlier. You don't have to
make a manifestation on that when another witness is testifying.
MR. PEREZ. Yes, Your Honor. We have no further...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross?examination.
MR. PEREZ. We have no further question and the witness is ready for cross.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the defense was already asked for
cross?examination.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just request some ten minutes to confer with my
co?counsel on the...?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whether you will cross?examine or not?
MR. DAZA. For the cross?examination.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.
MR. DAZA. We are definitely going to cross?examine.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection from the prosecution?
The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Since defense counsel is asking for ten minutes and we
are close to our first break, I move to suspend until four o'clock.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Until four o'clock. Any objection? (Silence). There being
none, the trial is suspended until four o'clock this afternoon.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:33 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:05 P.M.
THE SERGEANT?AT?ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable
Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is now resumed. Cross?examination of the
witness. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. If it pleases the Court...
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Gonzalez.
REP. GONZALEZ. May I just request for two minutes so that Prosecutor Perez can
come. I don't know why he is not yet here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He is coming in.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. If it pleases the Court, there will be no cross?examination.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No cross.
Questions from the Members of the Court.
The Honorable Senator-Judge Juan Flavier had earlier made a reservation, then the
Majority Leader, the .. Senator-Judge Guingona.
I noticed the -- yes. Okay, Cayetano, Biazon, the third...
Since the Honorable Senator-Judge Flavier is not around -- oh, on time, you just
arrived on time, Your Honor. This is now your turn to ask questions on the witness.
SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I think, for a change, the order of questioning is done according to height. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You made the first reservation, Your Honor.
SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the reasons given in your note.
SEN. FLAVIER. I wrote a note to the Chief Justice that I am signifying my desire to
ask questions only in writing because many times he fails to see me when I raise my
hands. (Laughter)
Just two questions, Mr. Secretary. First, when you had your exit conversation with the
President, you alluded to three reasons why you resigned. One was not too
explained and it was the reason na mabigat, tungkol sa BIR at saka sa Bureau of
Customs. Can you elaborate for my understanding, please?
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, the direct responsibility of raising the expected
revenues for government as part of my role in the fiscal management side of
governance, mayroon po kaming mga goal na ini-establish at pagka hindi po kami
umaabot doon sa goal namin for a particular period, eh, medyo -- I have to answer
for the shortfall. But with regards to achieving this goal, there are a number of
hindrances which definitely would affect your role in the raising of revenues.
Ang isa pong gusto kong sabihin dito, eh, the Bureau of Internal Revenue po, for
example, dumating po ako sa -- nag-join po ako ng pamahalaan na basta naandoon
na po lang ang bagong commissioner of Internal Revenue nang hindi ko po
nalalaman kung papaanong siya ang na-decide na i-appoint doon. And yet,
napakabigat po ng responsibility natin. At nalaman ko na lang na ito, eh,
recommended ng ibang tao.
Sa Bureau of Customs po ay ganoon din, naandoon na rin po iyong head ng Bureau
of Customs at na-appoint po dahil sa iyon pong in-appoint na commissioner eh -iyong ina po ng commissioner na in-appoint ay kaibigan ng ina ng mahal na Pangulo,
at hindi na po tayo nabigyan ng pagkakataong magkaroon man lang ng kaunting
opinyon tungkol dito sapagkat very vital po itong dalawang agency na ito.
Isa pa po, eh, ang mga appointments po ay dumarating na lang sa akin po na
nanggagaling na sa Malacañang. Eh, maliwanag po naman iyong batas na, lalunglalo na iyong Bureau of Internal Revenue ay dapat dumadaan po sa Department of
Finance. Alam ko po noong nabago iyang batas na iyan na dapat dumaan sa
Finance. At iyon pong pagre-reorganize, paglipat ng mga tao, kung minsan po
mayroong mga -- hindi po vacant ang position, mayroon na lang dumarating doon.
Iyon pong appointment ng insurance commissioner, hindi po bakante, mayroong
nag-oath. Iyon pong mga ganoon ang medyo nakakasira sa gusto po nating sana
mag-succeed sa ating objective sa… at lahat naman po ito ay sinabi ko sa Pangulo
at sinabi ko naman po na ako ay kasama naman dito na may kasalanan sa nangyari
kaya lang, eh ang akin pong objective naman po ay para mabago. Hindi naman po
ako nagbibigay ng sama ng loob sapagkat exit na naman po na ako sa pamahalaan,
eh.
SEN. FLAVIER. Eh yung tungkol sa smuggling sa Bureau of Customs, isa ba ito sa
naging dahilan kung bakit nagbitiw ka?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh yun pong smuggling, eh while this has been going for many,
many years, eh nakita ko po lamang ang laki ng smuggling activity noong ako po ay
mapapasok sa Department of Finance. At ang mabigat po rito eh napakaraming mga
tao na nakikita ko naman po sa mga social activities at kung minsan po ay sa
Malacañang na nasa mga listahan ng mga involved po sa smuggling. Meron pa nga
hong nahuling, alam kong smuggling…major smuggling of rice, sugar and fertilizer
na nahuli ng EIIB, ngunit po gusto ko ngang ma-abolish po ang EIIB, pero na-abolish
sa maling paraan. Sapagkat po yung pagka-abolish ng EIIB ay dahil po sa mukhang
ang nahuli po ay medyo malapit sa pamahalaan.
SEN. FLAVIER. Finally, kahapon ay you alluded to a number of meetings. Were
these in the nature of pressures for you not to testify in this Impeachment Court?
MR. ESPIRITU. Well, medyo po yung sinabi po kasi ni Presidential Spokesperson
Maceda, lumabas po sa… nabasa ko po at narinig ko kagabi, na ako raw po eh yun
daw pong anak kong si John ay may kaso sa Department of Justice kaya raw po ako
nagte-testify against the President. At ito po ay ire-relate ko on the basis of what
transpired po over several days since I started appearing here. Hindi ko lang po irerelate sa sinabi ni Spokesman Maceda dahil ang pagkakatingin ko po doon sa sinabi
niya ay parang threat po ito sa akin dahil alam po naman niyang magte-testify pa ako
ngayon, eh. But I would like to relate this to the events of the past few days.
Kahapon po ay tinawagan ako ni Executive Secretary Angara, mga alas-dose po,
papunta raw po siya sa FOCAP at tinawagan ako sa cellular phone at sinabing, "Ed,
may ipinagbilin ang Pangulo na yung kaso ng anak mo ay aayusin na. At ako,
personally, I will also attend to the case." Ang sabi ko kay Mr. Angara, kay Executive
Secretary Angara, "Hindi naman ako humihingi ng tulong diyan sa kaso na iyan.
Matagal na yan, magsa-sampung buwan na, I have never asked anybody for
assistance sapagkat po ang anak ko mismo ang nagsabi sa akin, "Dad, I don't like to
get any help with regards to this case. I want this case decided on the basis of its
merit." So hindi ko na po inano yan. So sinabi ko kay Mr. Angara na pasensiya na
lang at ako ay hindi ...at ako ay magte-testify ngayong hapon.
Noon pong Miyerkules ng gabi, meron din pong pumunta sa akin sa bahay, at ang
pangalan po niya ay si Carmelo Santiago at ganoon din po ang sinabi, na "yang kaso
na yan ay aayusin." Eh ang sinabi ko rin po ay hindi naman ako nakikiusap tungkol
sa kaso ng anak ko, eh. At it's based on the merits, kaya pasensiya na lang tayo.
Magkaibigan tayo at sinabi po niya, mag-renew kayo ng pagkakaibigan ng Pangulo.
Noon pong Martes ng gabi eh nagpunta rin po sa akin si former Congressman Mike
Romero kasama po si Rolly Macasaet, ang presidente po ng PNCC, at ganoon din
po naman ang pinapakiusap sa akin tungkol din po roon. Eh medyo, para pong
medyo po lalo pa akong nagkaroon ng deliberate decision na mukhang ako'y dapat
talagang mag?testify.
At iyon pong sinabi ni Senator Maceda eh palagay ko, this is.. sama?sama na po
lahat ito, Your Honor.
SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you for your material and relevant reply. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.
The Chair will now recognize the Honorable Majority Leader for his questions.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ginoong Espiritu, kayo po'y isa sa mga orihinal na kasama sa gabinete ni Pangulong
Estrada. Nag?umpisa kayong maglingkod June 30, 1998 at kayo'y nagbitiw ng
a?singko ng Enero noong isang taon. Kayo ba'y kusang umalis o inalis?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ako po'y nag?file ng irrevocable letter of resignation at effective po
immediately. But before that po, mayroon po kaming tinatawag na "courtesy
resignation" sapagkat ni?require po kaming mag?file ng "courtesy resignation".
Ngayon po, nabanggit din po ni Spokesman Maceda na ako raw po eh ipa?fire
noong November, at ginawa ko po kagabi, dinig?up (dig up) ko iyong records kung
ano bang nangyari noong November aside from the event of BW, ay kung talagang
galit sa akin ang Pangulo eh nakita ko po na may relasyon siguro doon sa sinabi ko
sa Presidenteng "Ito na siguro 'kako, Mr. Presidente, gusto nating maayos ito, pero
mukhang ito 'kako ngayon ang pinakamalaking scam sa ating pamahalaan at ito po'y
walang iba kundi ang privatization ng Philippine National Bank."
Alam ninyo po kasi, nagpunta sa akin si Mr. Lucio Tan, kasama po iyong kapatid na
si Mariano Tan. Nag?meeting po kami kasama rin po si presidente Benjie Palma?Gil
at iyon pong aking undersecretary. At ito po siguro ang tinutukoy ni Mr. Maceda na
nagalit sa akin ang Presidente sapagkat pinapakiusapan po ako ni Mr. Tan na, "ayaw
ko na".. sabi niya, "Ayaw ko nang bilhin ang PNB, gusto ko eh merger na lang ng
Philippine National Bank at Allied Bank."
Eh, medyo po nagkataasan po kami ng boses, nagalit po ako sapagkat ang
commitment ko po na sinabi sa Pangulo eh "Tulungan si Lucio Tan pero kailangan
dadaan sa public auction at transparent." Eh noong sinabi niya pong merger, eh sabi
ko eh "Pag ganyan ang pinagawa sa akin ng Presidente, magre?resign na ako."
Sinabi ko po kay Lucio at mukhang nakarating iyan sa Pangulo at pinatawag po ako,
eh ang sabi ko, "Eh gusto eh merger, eh". "Ed kung ano ang gusto ni Lucio, di
sundan mo."
Ang sabi ko, eh talaga pong dahil diyan eh medyo made up na po ang mind ko na
ako ho'y magre?resign, Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Noong panahon pong iyon nababalita na mayroong mga
usapin tungkol sa inyong naging record sa PNB at sa ibang bangko na inuungkat ng
mga kasama ninyo, ito ba'y may katotohanan?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ah, panahon pa ho ni Presidente Aquino noong ako po eh
nag?resign at ang resignation ko po naman din ay irrevocable bago nag?election po
ng '92, eh totoo pong marami naman akong nakaaway at nagkaroon ng mga report
na hindi daw tama iyong profit ng PNB at kailangang imbestigahan at napasama pa
nga ito po roon sa aking confirmation sa Commission on Appointments at lumabas
po itong mga objections na na?furnish si Senador Serge Osmeña. At sinagot ko po
naman lahat ito at on record, ang amin pong income ay mas mataas pa ho sa
income ng San Miguel at PLDT noong panahong 'yon. At over a period of five years
po, nakapagbigay naman kami ng cash dividend sa pamahalaan na umaabot po yata
ng mahigit na 6 billion at stock dividend po na malaki rin. And, of course, 'yong
privatization po ng PNB na inimbistigahan po ni Senador Maceda ay nagkaroon
naman po rin ng decision na tama naman po 'yong ginawa namin.
Nabanggit po ni Senator Maceda 'yong na ako raw ay may problema sa Westmont
Bank, ako po ay tatlong taon wala na sa Westmont Bank at kung nagkaroon po ng
problema ang Westmont Bank ay nangyari po ito sapagkat ang Westmont Bank po,
historically, was Associated Bank. Ang may?ari po nito ay Development Bank of the
Philippines at APT na binili noong mga Malaysian investors at ako po ang kinuha
nilang presidente on the basis of a management contract of ten years.
Ito pong rehabilitation ng Associated, mayroon na pong mga existing utang po ito sa
pamahalaan at ito po ay ni?restructure over 13 years at nag?assign po ang PDCP ng
permanent comptroller with assistance. Ang Central Bank po, nag?assign din ng
comptroller and several people during the management of Westmont Bank. At
mayroon pong limitation na hindi ka puwedeng magbigay ng 30 million loan or higher
without getting the approval of PDCP. Hindi ko po malaman kung ano 'yong sinasabi
niyang anomaly. Nagkaroon daw po ng run ang ano .. nagkaroon po ng run ang
Wesmont Bank noong 1997 nang in?accuse po ng pamahalaan ni Ginoong Ramos
ang Allied Bank po, ang Westmont Bank at Security Bank ng economic saboteur
dahil po nag?report daw na pinakamataas na interes ang sinisingil ng tatlong bangko
at nagkaroon po totoo ng run. Pero ito po, nangyari 1997 at tumulong ang Central
Bank.
Pero po noong 1998, nag?assume ang .. ako po sa pamahalaan ay wala hong
problema ang Westmont Bank, tumaas ang deposit at nabili pa nga po ng Singapore
Bank. 'Yon po ang ...
At gusto ko po ring sabihin na hindi po ako ang .. hindi po pamilya namin ang
may?ari ng Westmont Bank. Ang original holdings ko po diyan ay hindi lumalampas
ng 10 percent. At alam po din ng Commission on Appointment na ako po ay
nag?divest dito. Wala pong isang share na naiwan, sinabi niya, nilipat ko raw sa
anak ko. Iisang share po ang naiwan sa anak ko as a qualifying share para lang po
maging director at ibinenta ko po talaga 'yang aking holdings sa Westmont Bank,
Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Samakatuwid po, noong kayo'y Secretary of Finance,
wala na po kayong interes sa Westmont Bank. Malinaw po 'yon, ano po?
MR. ESPIRITU. Katunayan po ay, by tradition po, ang Secretary of Finance ay
ginagawang member ng Monetary Board. Ako po ay nag?waive niyan, hindi ako
nagpa?appoint sa Monetary Board sapagkat ayaw ko pong magkaroon ng
pagdududa na dahil nga po ako'y nanggaling sa isang bangko.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. At hindi po nagkaroon ng accommodation 'yong
Westmont Bank sa BSP.
MR. ESPIRITU. 'Yon pong .. noong nagkaroon ng run noong 1997 po ay nagkaroon
ng emergency loan in the same manner that all banks are given assistance by the
Bangko Sentral po.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Sa BW na po tayo. Nasabi po n'yo na si Dante Tan pala'y
partner ni Pangulong Estrada. Ito ba'y nasabi n'yong pabiro o seryoso po ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Noong una po, hindi po ako naniniwala. Noong sinabi niyang
inutusan siya ng Presidente na i?give up 'yong management sa mga tao ni Mark
Jimenez ay medyo po nagkaroon ako ng kaunting suspetsa pero hindi naman po ako
naniniwala until nga po noong mangyari noong nagkaroon ng increase, -- 'yong first
increase po, na nagkaroon ng malaki raw income ang ano, naniwala na po ako nang
sabihin ng Pangulo na, "Ed, malaki na ang kinikita ko dito sa BW Resources".
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Noong sinabi po niyang malaki na ang kinikita niya, sinabi
rin po ba niya na siya ang talagang tunay na nagmamay?ari ng BW Resources?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, iyon pong subsequent event, nakapagbitaw po siya ng salita
noong sabihin niya doon sa nangyari pong..nalugi na doon sa susunod na October
event naman po na tinamaan sila, eh, nalugi naman kami diyan. So, ibig sabihin, eh,
nawalan ho siya as a stockholder unless..Hindi ko ho alam.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. May mga senador pong kumita dahil nagbenta. Pero,
halimbawa, you stayed with your shares, pagbagsak maaari kayong nalugi. Hindi
kaya ganoon lang ang sitwasyon? Mayroon pa bang ibang katibayan na
nagpapatunay na si Pangulong Estrada ay talagang siya ang partner in legal terms ni
Dante Tan?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, siya lang naman po ang nagsabi noon at hindi ko rin naman po
ma... you know.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Nililinaw po natin, napaka?importanteng punto kasi, Mr.
Chief Justice, ano...
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. ...itong puntong ito. Sinabi niya na, "Ed, malaki na ang
kinita ko diyan sa BW." Eh, siyempre kung nagnenegosyo tayo sa shares, at
kumikita, talagang kikita. Labag po ba sa batas para sa isang Pangulo ang
mag?negosyo sa stocks...
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, bawal po iyan, at...
THE MAJORITY LEADER. ...ang tumaya sa stocks?
MR. ESPIRITU. ...ako po as Secretary of Finance, ay bawal din po. So...
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Pero sa senador, hindi?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, palagay ko, hindi po dahil alam ko, in the past noong nagkaroon
po ng investigation sa PNB, government shares na po iyan, eh naungkat po iyang
bagay na iyan. At alam ko po, mismong si Senador Maceda nga noon bumili ng mga
PNB shares, eh, hindi naman daw po bawal. Pero sa amin po, bawal at kaya po
masasabi ko na ako'y hindi bumibili ng kahit anong share na listed since the time I
was with government po.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Ah, isang katanungan lang dahil wala na po tayong
panahon. Noong kayo po'y mag?usap tungkol doon sa problema sa float ng Stock
Exchange, ang sinabi n'yo, "Hindi man lang siyang gumawa ng kahit na isang
instruksyon..."
Ah, with regard to the problem of Stock Exchange, tatapusin ko lang po, Mr. Chief
Justice, ang katanungan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you can finish the question.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Hindi po ba sa gabinete..at ako po'y nagsilbi din ng
sampung taon sa gabinete..tayo po ang nagri?rekomenda sa Pangulo kung ano'ng
dapat gawin. Hindi po natin sinasabi na, "Eto ang problema, bahala na kayo.
Maghihintay na lang ako ng utos". Hindi po ba kayo nagbigay ng rekomendasyon
kung ano ang dapat gawin?
Marami pong salamat.
MR. ESPIRITU. Kung hindi po inalis sa akin ang supervision ng Securities and
Exchange Commission, marahil po nagawa ko iyan. Pero po noong nagkaroon po
ng..?may panahon pong tinanggal sa Department of Finance iyan noong ako po'y
nasa Department of Finance, inilipat po sa Office of the President. Alam ko nga po,
eh, pagka?resign ko ibinalik ho uli sa Department of Finance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now recognize the Honorable SenatorJudge Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ginoong Espiritu, sinabi mo kanina na inamin ni Mr. Dante Tan na siya eh hindi ang
may?ari kung hindi partner lamang sa Pangulo. Correct po ba iyan?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ah, hindi po ganoon. Sila po ay mag?partner, mayroon po siyang..si
Dante Tan ay mayroon ding malaking stockholding.
SEN. GUINGONA. Mayroon din?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. GUINGONA. Itong klaseng admission, eh, admission ito against self?interest,
hindi ba? Sapagkat parang isang magsasaka, sasabihin niya, "Itong sinasaka kong
lupa, one hectare, hindi ako lamang ang may?ari nito kung hindi mayroon akong
partner." Hindi po ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, ganoon na nga po iyon, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. Against self?interest?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ni Dante Tan po.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. At sinabi mo kanina na iyan ay bawal para sa Pangulo. Iyan
ba'y pinagbabawal sa ating Saligang Batas...
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. GUINGONA. ...na makibahagi ang Presidente sa isang negosyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Very particular po iyan sa..lalong?lalo na po sa listed stocks.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. At dahil mayroong conflict of interest, hindi po ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. At hindi niya puwedeng matulak 'yoong kanyang personal
interest, halimbawa, kung tatawag siya sa telepono sa Philippine Stock Exchange
para ipilit niya 'yung kanyang personal interest versus the interest of the public, hindi
po ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Totoo po. Kaya nga po ng almost nag-collapse ang ating stock
market ay sa palagay ko dahil po nagkakaroon ng conflict ang judgment ng isang
nagsu-supervise particularly po ng Securities and Exchange Commission.
SEN. GUINGONA. Okay. Mapunta tayo doon sa PNB loan. Noon sabi mo ay kulang
ang collateral, negative ang net worth, noong nagkakaroon ng trading ang BW at
mayroong obligasyon na i-disclose itong klaseng sitwasyon, sino ang may
obligasyon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Kung sino po ang officers ng BW, whoever is the concerned officer is
supposed to make a disclosure.
SEN. GUINGONA. And this was not disclosed to the public?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam 'yun sapagkat July po ng ma-grant 'yang loan ng
BW sa PNB. 'Yun naman pong pagtaas ay nangyari po ng May and June, dalawang
board meetings po ng PNB na ang approval process ay pinag-usapan dito sa
dalawang board meetings na ito.
SEN. GUINGONA. Okay. 'Yun pong lack of collateral, negative net worth, lahat 'yan
na sinabi mo contained in the report napadala po ito sa Pangulo?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be the last question, Your Honor. Answer
the question.
MR. ESPIRITU. Ito po ay verbal ang report sa Pangulo.
SEN. GUINGONA. Verbal.
MR. ESPIRITU. Verbal po ito.
SEN. GUINGONA. Pero nalaman niya?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ilang katanungan po, Ginoong Espiritu. Nabanggit po ninyo sa inyong testimonya na
ang PNB po ay nagbigay ng 600 million loan sa BW, hindi ba ho?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Kung inyong naalala, kailan po ito na-approved and
under whose authority sa PNB? Sino po ang Presidente sa PNB sa panahon na
'yon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Si Benjie Palma-Gil po.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, the Court will note that I have never risen to object to a
question of a Senator-Judge. But in view of the ruling made by the Impeachment
Court which includes the Distinguished Lady Senator-Judge, and in view of the
rulings made during the testimony of this witness, I would like to respectfully object to
this line of questioning.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Mr. Chief Justice, these questions are related to my
questions on BW. And I believe that I must be clarified on these matters.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it would be related to the BW issue which we allowed
even to the - to Prosecutor Perez, I think the Honorable Senator-Judge can ask the
question.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
May I have the answer please?
MR. ESPIRITU. Puwede po bang ulitin 'yung tanong?
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Tinanong ko po, una, na mayroong in-extend na 600
million credit facility. Maaari pong malaman kung under whose authority sa PNB at
kung kailan po na-approve itong credit facility na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. 'Yun pong ganitong kalaking loan 600 million po ay board of
directors po ang mag-a-approve nito and upon the recommendation siyempre po ng
presidente ng Philippine National Bank.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Noong panahong 'yon po ay hindi ba ho ang BW ay nagregister ng net loss kumbaga nalulugi ang BW noon noong panahong 'yon. At that
time na pinautang ng PNB ng 600 million, ano ba ho ang standing ng BW?
MR. ESPIRTU. Masama na po.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Masama na ang kalagayan…
MR. ESPIRITU. …balance sheet…
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Oho.
MR. ESPIRITU. …ng BW.
SEN. LEGARDA-LEVISTE. Ano ang justification noon sa pag-extend ng credit facility
sa BW noong panahong iyon na sinabi nga n'yo ang collateral ay hindi pa sapat para
sa utang na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ako po, eh, ang evaluation ko noong nag?report po si Mr. Palma Gil
doon sa aming meeting, eh, this is a violation of the rules with regards to, or the
policy with regards to loan approval, at sa Philippine National Bank po. At ang
dahilan po rito, eh, hindi nga po qualified sa basic three Cs requirement of credit.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Daza.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, this particular question or question of the same tenor
was asked, answer of the same tenor was made, and the Court will recall that we
moved to strike the answer because the answer was an expression of an opinion,
and also because ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The same ruling is made. The witness is advised to
answer just directly the question and not to render any opinion thereafter.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Sa inyong kaalaman ba ho ay ang loan na ito ay ginamit para sa expansion ng
kumpanya o para suportahan po iyong pagbaba ng stock price ng BW?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Okay. Maiba naman po tayo para hindi magalit ang
defense counsel na si Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. Hindi po ako nagagalit, Your Honor. Kayo po ay may tungkulin diyan at
ako po ay may tungkulin dito.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Opo, I just see the agitation.
MR. DAZA. Hindi po. Ako po ay ginagalang ko kayo.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Maiba naman po dahil tapos na po ang aking
katanungan.
You are eating into my time, Defense Counsel.
Ang aking katanungan po ay, ayon sa inyong mga sinabi na, "Malaki ang kinita ko sa
BW at nalugi kami diyan." Ayon po sa inyong testimonya ay ito po ay sinabi ni
Pangulo sa inyo, hindi ba ho?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. In what context did you hear the statements made? May
ibang kaharap ba ho? O, one?on?one kayo nag?uusap noon ni Pangulo?
MR. ESPIRITU. One?on?one po, at saka iyon pong pagkakasabi kong kumita at
nalugi, eh, dalawang event naman po ito.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Alam ko ho iyon.
MR. ESPIRITU. Ito po iyong May?June increase in transaction...
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Opo.
MR. ESPIRITU. ... at iyon pong October drop.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Yes, I just lumped them together.
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Ibang instance iyon. But in what context? Was it a formal
conversation? Was it a discussion with other witnesses who heard that statement
uttered by the President?
MR. ESPIRITU. Kaming dalawa po lang sa kanyang kuwarto at malimit naman po
kaming nagmi?miting na one?on?one. Kung minsan po, kasama iyong ibang mga
economic managers. Regular naman po ang pagpunta namin sa office ng Pangulo.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. At out of the blue, ay binanggit lang niya sa inyo ito. At
ano po ang inyong naging reaksyon noong binanggit ni Pangulo sa dalawang
instances na iyon na siya ay kumita, at iyong pangalawa, na siya ay nalulugi na
doon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Medyo nga nagulat po ako noong binanggit niya ito. Nasabi ko na
nga po ito kahapon at it confirmed my ... na iyong doubt na nasa aking ulo noong
hindi po ako basta naniniwala kay Dante Tan na totoo palang ang Pangulo ay isa sa
mga may?ari ng BW Resources.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Ngunit wala naman kayong pruweba o past experience
na magpapatunay po na si Pangulo ang may?ari ng BW or co?owner? Bakit po n'yo
naisip just on his mere utterance that he was a part owner of BW?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, papaano pong kikita ng... kung hindi naman po, kung walang
investment, unless mayroon ibang kumita na ibinigay sa kanya. Iyon lang po ang
nakikita kong ibang paraan para kumita sa BW Resources. Either you are a
stockholder or somebody else gave you the profit out of the BW transaction. Pero
iyon pong events of... different events ang medyo nagbigay ng ano sa akin na
talagang siya po ay kasama sa BW Resources.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA?LEVISTE. Salamat Ginoong Witness. Maraming salamat, Chief
Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Espiritu, sabi mo doon sa airport noong ikaw ay
magbabakasyon before Christmas ay tinawagan ka ni Pangulo, hindi ho ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. CAYETANO. At binanggit mo sa amin, more or less, iyong words. Ano ang
impresyon na ibinigay sa iyo ng pagtawag na iyon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, ang impresyon ko po, eh, huwag akong mag?testify. Parang
iyon po ang kanyang pinapakiusap siguro. 'Yon po ang aking impression pero hindi
ho niya categorically na sinabing "Huwag kang mag?testify."
SEN. CAYETANO. Sinabi mo kagabi ay tumawag sa iyo si Secretary Angara. Tama
ba 'yon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Kahapon po ng tanghali.
SEN. CAYETANO. Kahapon. At sinabi nga tungkol sa anak mo na may kaso na okay
na raw 'yon.
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ano'ng impression mo dito sa sinabi ni Secretary Angara?
MR. ESPIRITU. Sinagot ko po ang bilin po ng anak ko diyan ay let it be judged on
the basis of the merits. At saka hindi pa po pina?file naman 'yong kaso, eh. It's
something that has been pending for many many months with the Department of
Justice po. Na?postpone lang po na na?postpone. Wala naman pong naano, eh.
Ewan ko po kung bakit ganoon.
SEN. CAYETANO. Si Melo Santiago, sino po ba ito? Carmelo Santiago, sino po ba
ito na binanggit niyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ito po 'yong isang matalik na kaibigan din ng Pangulo na kasama rin
po namin noong nangampanya at .. ewan ko po, dating naging director po ng
National Power Corporation under .. during this period. Ewan ko lang po kung
hanggang ngayon ay siya pa 'yong director.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nakipagkita rin sa inyo. Ganoon ba iyon?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. CAYETANO. At ano hong message?
MR. ESPIRITU. Pareho rin po na tutulungan daw doon sa kasong sinabi ni
Spokesman Maceda at ang sagot ko naman po ay pareho rin. At sinabi pa ho ni Melo
na, "Puwede naman ulit kayo mag?renew ng acquaintance." Parang ganoon po.
SEN. CAYETANO. At sinabi mo tumawag din itong former Congressman Romero?
MR. ESPIRITU. Pumunta po rin.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, pumunta.
MR. ESPIRITU. Sila po ay parehong pumunta sa akin.
SEN. CAYETANO. Sa bahay mo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Sa bahay ko po.
SEN. CAYETANO. At ano naman ang sinabi ni Congressman Romero?
MR. ESPIRITU. The same po. Pareho rin doon sa kaso at aayusin daw po. At kung
puwede, huwag nang mag?testify.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, dito sa pagtawag sa iyo ni Angara, pakikipagkita sa iyo
ni Santiago, pakikipagkita sa iyo ni Romero, ano ang impression na ibinibigay sa iyo
nitong mga taong ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ang akin pong pakiramdam ay parang .. sa akin po, ang aking
interpretasyon, na pag pinagsama?sama ko lahat pati 'yong sinabi ni Mr. Maceda ay
para pong pini?pressure na ako. At ang tingin naman po ng aking mahal na asawa
ay tini?threaten po ako.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mayroon ho bang loan ang BW Resources sa GSIS or SSS?
MR. ESPIRITU. Sa mga report na nasa?submit po, wala.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mayroon ho silang ano .. kung walang loan ay mayroon ho bang
investment ang GSIS or SSS?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, hindi mo alam. Okay.
Ngayon, noong sinabi sa iyo ni Pangulo na .. ang sabi mo nga excited siya at kumita
siya, nabanggit ba niya kung magkano?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi po.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ulitin mo nga ang pagkakasabi?
MR. ESPIRITU. "Malaki na po ang .. malaki na ang kinita ko sa
BW Resources."
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, 'yon ang sinabi niya?
MR. ESPIRITU. Oho.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ngayon, noong sinabi naman sa iyo ni Dante
Tan na ka?partner niya si Pangulo, nabanggit ba ni Dante Tan kung ano'ng
porsiyento?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi rin po.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nabanggit ba naman ni Pangulo sa iyo kung nabanggit kung
ano'ng porsiyento ang kaniyang partnership sa BW Resources?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi rin po.
SEN. CAYETANO. Hindi.
Ngayon, ang sabi po ni Ambassador Maceda .. nakita ko kagabi .. ay
nagsa?sour?graping daw lang kayo kaya kayo nagtitestigo ngayon dito.
MR. ESPIRITU. Alam niyo po ay itong pagtitestigo ay kailangan pong pag?aralang
mabuti at hindi naman po lang isang tao ang concerned dito. Tayo pong lahat ay, I
think, idya?judge ng taong bayan sapagkat ito po ay .. this is something that is
happening to us for the first time. When I used to appear here, pinapanood ko po ay
medyo talagang gusto kong makita, as an ardent student of history, that this is
something, as a lawyer, happening for the first time in the country. At nagkonsulta
naman po muna ako sa aking mga anak, sa aking asawa at iyon pong parang aming
head ng clan sa Bautista family po ay nilapitan ko rin po at tinanong ko siya dito at
nagsabi naman po na lahat, eh, "nasa konsensiya mo na iyan kung ano ang gusto
mong mangyari". At iyon po ang naging desisyon ko for the country, for God at para
po sa mga darating na generation of young Filipinos.
SEN. CAYETANO. Dito sa sabi ninyo, impression ninyo na pattern of intimidation
and pressure ay kayo ho ba ay natatakot sa sarili ninyo, sa pamilya ninyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ako po ay buo ang loob ko. Ang sabi nga po sa amin sa Cavite eh
kailangan matapang ang mga Caviteno. Pero po ang asawa ko po ay iyak nang iyak.
Ang mga anak ko po ay iyak nang iyak. At talaga pong ganoon. One way or the other
we have to make a decision so long as it is our conscience that dictates at ang puso
po natin ang nagdi-dictate na dapat ganito ang gawain natin, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Finally, hindi ho ba ang aking kaibigan si Senator Revilla ay
inyong kamag-anak?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po. Siya po ay kapatid ng nanay ko. At siya po ang aming
parang head ng clan ngayon sa Bautista dahil patay na po lahat ang kaniyang mga
kapatid. Dalawa po silang natitira at siya po ang aming pinaka-padre de pamilya po
kung tawagin namin.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nakunsulta ho ba ninyo siya bago kayo pumunta rito?.
MR ESPIRITU. Opo. At sinabi ko nga po iyong aming head of the clan, tinanong ko
at ang sabi po naman sa akin eh, "ikaw ang magdesisyon niyan and do it according
to your conscience". At mukhang very supportive naman po. Kaya ang desisyon ko
po ay ito, nandito po ako.SEN. CAYETANO. Maraming-maraming salamat ho.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
The Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Marami pong salamat, Chief Justice.
Mr. Secretary, kailan ho naipahiram ng PNB iyong 600 million sa BW?
MR. ESPIRITU. Nang aprubahan po ito eh July 2. Pero iyong exact date ng release
eh hindi po ako makakapagsabi kung kailan po. Hindi ko po alam.
SEN. BIAZON. July 2, 1999?
MR. ESPIRITU. Dalawang board meetings ng July iyan. July 2 po ng 1999 at
sometime within the month of July nagkaroon po ng amendment kaya nagkaroon din
ng meeting tungkol sa BW Resources.
SEN. BIAZON. Iyong pagpapautang ng bangko ay kailangang aprubahan ng
board...?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. BIAZON. ... of directors?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. Ilan po ang members ng board of directors ng PNB?
MR. ESPIRITU. Labing-isa po.
SEN. BIAZON. Mayroon po bang miyembro diyan ng board of directors na appointed
ng Presidente?
MR. ESPIRITU. Noong panahon pong iyon lahat eh nominated po ng Presidente ang
directors.
SEN. BIAZON. Lahat po n'ung labing-dalawa?
MR. ESPIRITU. Iyong labing-isa po.
SEN. BIAZON. Nominated by the President?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo, nominated with the instructions to the Secretary of Finance or
the chairman of the board to vote the shares in favor of those directors.
SEN. BIAZON. Ano po ang papel noong mga director na iyan na nano-nominate ng
Presidente doon sa board?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh mayroon pong -- under the by-law, mayroon po silang tinatawag
na certain limits na dapat eh pagka malaki na dapat eh iaakyat sa board of directors.
Mga disbursements po, ganoon din po. Mayroon namang authority iyong mga-- at a
lower amount, may authority po iyong mga tinatawag na mga loan committee, mga
branch committee at mayroon pong individual authority, depende po sa scale of the
amount involved in the transaction.
SEN. BIAZON. Bilang nominees ng Presidente ang board of directors, sila kaya ay
makikinig sa Presidente sa pagpapatupad ng policies at programs?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh sa PNB po medyo nabanggit ko po kanina na iyong November
na.. dahil po binanggit ni Senator Maceda, nadinig ko 'yong tungkol sa PNB, eh,
noon pong ni?require kami mag?file ng courtesy resignation, I have to admit na
in?apply po ng Pangulo ito sa mga directors ng PNB, pinag?file...
SEN. BIAZON. Ang ibig sabihin, Mr. Witness, puwedeng pagresaynin din ng
Presidente 'yong members of the board?
MR. ESPIRITU. E, pinag?file po rin niya ng courtesy resignation, in?apply niya dahil
applicable daw sa mga Cabinet Members, e, in?apply din po sa directors ng PNB at
napalitan nga po ang apat.
SEN. BIAZON. And ibig sabihin, this is indicative of the power of influence of the
President over the members of the board?
MR. ESPIRITU. Well, opo, sapagkat ang nagno?nominate sa mga director ay ang
Pangulo. Pag dumating naman po 'yong period ng annual election, eh, puwede
naman din siyang matanggal at hindi siya i?nominate.
SEN. BIAZON. 'Yon. At walang pagpapautang na mangyayari sa bangko kung hindi
aprub ng direktor, hindi ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. BIAZON. So, ang ibig sabihin, the President through these directors can
influence the grant of loans?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po 'yon.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Sergio Osmeña III.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Espiritu, sinabi po ninyo na sinabi po ni Erap at maraming
beses, binanggit rin po ni Mr. Yasay, Mr. Almadro, Mr. Yulo, na sinabi po ni
Pangulong Erap na si Dante Tan was a victim of the BW fiasco, and mayroon akong
balita na he lost as much as two billion daw, tama ba ho 'yan, 'yong amount na 'yan?
MR. ESPIRITU. 'Yon din po ang ni?report niya sa akin noong pinatawag ko siya na
almost two billion.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At Mr. Espiritu, how can somebody who buys stocks at one peso
and sells at P110 lose money? Paano ho nagiging biktima si Dante Tan?
MR. ESPIRITU. Noong nag?tick po ng 107, the following day po bumagsak naman
ng pababa until na?hit 'yon pong tinatawag na limit, 'yong 40 percent na ..?
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). 'Yong trading band limit?
MR. ESPIRITU. Oo. Pero ang sabi niya po sa akin ay namili po siya nang namili
doon para hindi bumagsak. Pero hindi rin po niya nakontrol, tuloy?tuloy pa rin in spite
of the amount of two billion that he spent to support the drop of the shares.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At bakit ho niya sinusuporta ang presyo? Pinapataas ba niya
'yong presyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Hindi ba, kung mayroon kang kuwan, mayroon kang stock at
umakyat ng 100 times di mag a?unload na ho kayo, di ba?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, 'yon pong report na preliminary report na binigay po sa akin ng
presidente ng Philippine Stock Exchange na ito ay insider manipulation at binanggit
nga po na si Dante Tan ang may kagagawan nito.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). At binanggit rin ho ninyo na nagalit daw si Pangulong Erap kay
Mark Jimenez, Wilson Sy, at Willie Ocier. Bakit ho nagalit si Pangulong Erap sa
tatlong businessmen na ito?
MR. ESPIRITU. Noong tinanong ko po si Dante Tan na kung bakit ginawa niya 'yong
ni?report sa akin ng officers ng Philippine Stock Exchange, doon po niya binanggit
na hindi naman daw po siya ang may kagagawan ng insider trading and, in fact,
nalugi pa nga raw siya ng P2 billion. "Papaanong nangyari 'yan?" noong tinanong ko
sa kanya, at sinabi niya na 'yong mga kalaban niya sa business ang may
kagagawan, at nagbanggit nga po siya ng pangalan, binanggit niya po 'yong tatlong
pangalan na binanggit ko po kahapon.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Well, actually, ang balita ko sapagkat hindi ko maintindihan...
Bumibili rin paminsan?minsan ako bumibili ng stocks, but it's impossible to be a
victim or to classify yourself as a victim unless na double?cross ka ho ng partner ho
ninyo, unless may usapan na huwag tayong magbenta ng ating mga holdings
hanggang umakyat sa 110 at baka naunahan lang siya. Ganyan ho ba ang nangyari
sa kanya?
MR. ESPIRITU. Siguro hindi niya po ini-expect na mayroon pala siyang mga kaaway
at pinagtulungan siya. Puwede pong mangyari 'yan sa stock market.
SEN. OSMENA (S). Okay. At saka bakit sinabi ho ninyo na pinasauli ni Erap ang
profits ni Jimenez, ni Sy, at ni Ocier kay Dante Tan? Ito po 'yong profit sa pag-unload
po ng P100.00, 90, 80?
MR. ESPIRITU. 'Yon pong lugi nila noong October transaction ang…
SEN. OSMENA (S). Sino hong nila-lugi nila?
MR. ESPIRITU. Nilang dalawa po.
SEN. OSMENA (S). Ni Dante Tan at ni…?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ni Pangulo at ni Dante Tan.
SEN. OSMENA (S). Okay. So, pinapa-reimburse po ni Pangulong Erap at 'yong
kuwarta manggagaling sa profits po ni Willy Ocier, Wilson Sy, at kay Mark Jimenez?
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. OSMENA (S). Well, my time is up.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
The Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Thank you, Your Honor.
Before I ask the question, Mr. Chief Justice, let me publicly acknowledge the witness
as one of the most ideal family man I know; how devoted he is to his wife, Lydia, and
his family. So, it must take a lot of efforts for this witness to be here this afternoon.
Mr. Witness, before you assumed your office as DOF Secretary, which department
had supervision over the SEC?
MR. ESPIRITU. Department of Finance po.
SEN. DRILON. And what happened to this setup when you assumed office?
MR. ESPIRITU. After a few months po, eh, tinanggal ang… inilipat po ang
supervision from the Department of Finance to the Office of the President.
SEN. DRILON. And when was that, if you recall?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko na po matandaan; ang natatandaan ko lang po, eh, bago po
nangyari 'yong PLDT transaction.
SEN. DRILON. Kailan po 'yong PLDT transaction?
MR. ESPIRITU. Early part po ng pamahalaan ng ating Pangulong Estrada po.
SEN. DRILON. So, mga fourth quarter of 1998? Just roughly.
MR. ESPIRITU. Mga ganoon po; mga ganoong… within 1998 po.
SEN. DRILON. So that during the period when the BW Resources stocks were being
allegedly manipulated, that is from May to June of 1999, September 1999, which
office had supervision over the SEC?
MR. ESPIRITU. Office of the President po.
SEN. DRILON. Now, in your conversation with the President, you said that the
President, in effect, confirmed his ownership in BW Resources. Ang sabi nga niya,
"Malaki na po ang kinikita ko dito sa BW Resources. At the time the President told
you this, his Office had supervision over the SEC. Is that correct?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. DRILON. And if you know, BW Resources was granted a franchise or license
by Pagcor to operate an On-line Bingo. Is that correct?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. DRILON. And at the time that the BW Resources was granted this franchise by
Pagcor, who had supervision over Pagcor?
MR. ESPIRITU. Office of the President din po.
SEN. DRILON. Okay. Ito po ba'y bawal sa ating Saligang Batas, ang ginagawa ng
Pangulo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, bawal na bawal po.
SEN. DRILON. Bakit sinabi mong bawal?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh, how can you get involved in a company where the regulatory
function as well as all the authority under the Executive Department with regards to
the affairs of the stock… the affairs of the Securities and Exchange Commission
stock market po, eh, mayroon pong pakialam ang Pangulo.
SEN. DRILON. Ang tinutukoy n'yo po ay nasa Section 13, Article VII ng ating
Saligang Batas kung saan sinasabi that the President shall not, during his tenure,
directly or indirectly participate in any business or be financially interested in any
contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or
any of its subdivision, agency or instrumentality, including government-owned and
controlled corporation, and he shall strictly avoid conflict interest in the conduct of his
office. Is that correct?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. DRILON. Now, kanina po, sa tanong ni Senator Flavier, sinabi mo na may mga
tao kang nakikita sa Malacañang na nasa listahan ng mga smuggler. Sino po ito?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What's the answer of the witness?
SEN. DRILON. All right.
MR. ESPIRITU. Mahirap hong sagutin dahil...
SEN. DRILON. O, sige, hindi kita pipiliting sagutin.
MR. ESPIRITU. Medyo risky po iyan.
SEN. DRILON. All right. Sige.
MR. ESPIRITU. Sa buhay.
SEN. DRILON. All right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, before the Honorable
Senator Drilon will proceed, the previous answer of the witness should be taken only
as his opinion on a legal issue.
SEN. DRILON. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not on a factual issue.
SEN. DRILON. Yes, Your Honor. He, of course, testified on the facts before them.
Now, you also mentioned that the EIIB apprehended somebody close to
Malacañang. Who is this, if you know?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What's the answer of the witness?
SEN. DRILON. Mahirap ding sagutin?
MR. ESPIRITU. Mahirap din pong sagutin.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you insist on an answer, Senator-Judge
Drilon?SEN. DRILON. In deference to the witness
who has already taken so much risk by testifying here, I will not insist on an answer,
Mr. Chief Justice.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Magsaysay.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Witness, you issued a memorandum on February 10 addressed to
the President expressing your reservation on the centralized approval of any
transaction including loans from GFIs to the Office of the President. What prompted
you to issue this memorandum?
MR. ESPIRITU. Nag-issue po ang Office of the President, through PMS, ng
instruction that all loans 50 million above and all disbursements 50 million above of
all GFIs must seek prior approval of the President. Nagpadala po ako ng written
reservation sa Pangulo na mukhang ito po ay against the law sapagkat po ang bawat
charter ng GFI ay may kanya-kangyang charter po sila, mayroong sariling law which
provides po ang kung sinu-sino ang layers po ng authority ng hanggang sa board po
lang. At sinabi ko po sa memo ko na mukhang mali po ito sapagkat the President
himself will be violating the law if he does it. At sinundan po naman iyong memo ko,
nag?issue po ng another memo at sinabi po doon na imbes na approval gawaing
reportorial pero nagbigay po ng instruction ang Presidente, "Ed, gusto ko
namang..ayokong mangyari iyong mga nangyari noong nakaraan sa mga GFIs kahit
na reportorial, I still need..they should still get my prior approval." At ganoon na nga
po ang napagkayarian namin kaya nagkaroon po ng mga reportorial sa akin at report
sa PMS, pero nagagalit po ang Pangulo pagka nag?violate ka diyan at siguradong
tatawagan ka. Nangyari po sa akin, mayroon pong isang kasong 50 million and
above involving the payment of 50 million as a fee, bayad po ito sa pamahalaan for
the supposed foreclosure of National Steel na kinuwestiyon po noong..ni Lucio Tan
at nakarating po sa Presidente at nagalit po, "Bakit kayo nagdi?disburse ng 50 million
nang hindi ninyo pinaaprubahan sa akin." Kaya ganyan po ang..how concerned the
President is with regards to complying with his instruction.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Secretary, I'm basing my question on Exhibit "9?C", your
memorandum. Did the President or any of his Cabinet, other than you, respond to
this memorandum officially in writing?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ang alam ko po ako lang ang gumawa niyan at hindi ko po alam
kung mayroong..sapagkat ngayon po ay nagre?report naman sila at kumukuha ng
prior approval ng iyon pong memorandum na binasa ni Congressman Daza. Iyon po
iyon.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Punta tayo doon sa inyong sitwasyon, Mr. Witness, na kayo'y
dating presidente ng isang malaking bangko, very successful, Metrobank, one of the
top three, what years were you the president of Metrobank?
MR. ESPIRITU. Nag?umpisa po ako sa Metrobank ng junior officer, ng 1965 po, at
hanggang po sa umakyat ako hanggang maging presidente. I think I stayed as
president for three to four years po; nag?resign po ako ng December of 1986 nang
ako po ay yayain ni Pangulong Cory Aquino na maging presidente ng Philippine
National Bank.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Ang sabi niyo mayroon tayong tinatawag na basic fundamentals
sa lending ng bangko, tatlong "C," 'no, 'yong character, capacity at saka collateral.
MR. ESPIRITU. Opo.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Kung kayo ay presidente ng PNB, kayo ba'y magpapautang sa
BW ng 600 million, based on these three important factors?
MR. ESPIRITU. Definitely hindi po. SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Bakit po?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh wala pong compliance doon sa three Cs eh. At as a banker po,
'di, hindi po ako magbibigay.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Does the defense want to object? (Laughter)
MR. DAZA. Well, if I..to accommodate the distinguished Senator-Judge, if he is
hinting that we should object, we would like to object to any further questions bearing
upon these..that would bear on the loan application that was the subject of the ruling
of the Court.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I have 58 more minutes, 'no?
MR. DAZA. Seconds.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Or seconds. Seconds. I wish they were minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can still have one more question.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. One more question.
Bakit po kayo nagpunta dito mag?testify? Kayo ba ay talagang determined dahil
mahal niyo ang inyong bayan o is it any other factor like you are looking at your
reputation as a banker? What made you..what prompted you to come forward and
take the risk of making statements that are going to hurt a lot of influential leaders of
our country?
MR. ESPIRITU. Eh matagal ko nga pong pinag?isipan ito at wala na pong ibang
rason kundi palagay ko po ay for God and country.
SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Maraming salamat po.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ginoong Espiritu, alam ba ninyo kung kailan inaprubahan ng gobyerno na mai?list
ang aksyones ng BWR sa Philippine Stock Exchange?
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, hindi ko po alam 'yong exact date, ang alam ko po lang
ay noong na?acquire po niya 'yong, palagay ko 'yong..it should coincide with the
acquisition of the company that he acquired on a backroom arrangement.
SEN. ENRILE. Sino ba ang com..chairman ng Com..Securities and Exchange
Commission noon? Hindi ba si Chairman Perfecto Yasay?
MR. ESPIRITU. Si Chairman Yasay po.
SEN. ENRILE. Ang pagkaalam po ba ninyo ay ang BWR ay blue chip security or
speculative security?
MR. ESPIRITU. I would classify it at that time po as speculative security.
SEN. ENRILE. Bakit po pinayagan na mai?list sa Philippine Stock Exchange itong
speculative security na ito, kung alam ninyo?
MR. ESPIRITU. Backdoor listing po 'yan eh. Listed na po 'yong company na binili
niya. So...
SEN. ENRILE. Noon bang ini?list 'yan sa Securities and Exchange Commission ay
nakialam ang Pangulo ng Pilipinas?
MR. ESPIRITU. Wala rin po akong knowledge tungkol diyan, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Hindi niyo alam?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi po.
SEN. ENRILE. Noong na i?list sa Philippine Stock Exchange, nakialam ba ang
Pangulo ng Pilipinas?
MR. ESPIRITU. Wala rin po akong alam diyan dahil hindi pa ho ako involved sa
pag?i?imbestiga ng BW at that point in time.
SEN. ENRILE. Hindi niyo alam?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam.
SEN. ENRILE. Alam po ba ninyo kung ilan ang shareholding ng Pangulo ng Pilipinas,
Erap Estrada, sa BWR?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko po alam.
SEN. ENRILE. Hindi n'yo alam. Alam ninyo kung magkano ang floating stock,
outstanding stock ng BWR?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi rin po.
SEN. ENRILE. Four hundred fifty million. Alam po ba ninyo kung ilan ang holdings ni
Dante Tan sa BWR?
MR. ESPIRITU. Total holdings po, hindi rin.
SEN. ENRILE. Hindi rin n'yo alam. Samakatuwid, hindi n'yo alam ang holding ni
Dante Tan, hindi n'yo alam kung may holding si Presidente, basta 'yung sinabi lang
ninyo eh ka?partner?
MR. ESPIRITU. Tama po 'yon.SEN. ENRILE. 'Yon lang.
MR. ESPIRITU. Magka?partner sila at kumita sila, nalugi sila. Tama ho.
SEN. ENRILE. 'Yon lang po. Isa pa po. Wala kayong nakita na pangalan ng
Presidente ng Pilipinas, Erap Estrada, sa list ng mga stockholders ng BWR?
MR. ESPIRITU. Hindi ko naman po tiningnan ang listahan ng stockholders ng BW po
kaya hindi ko po...
SEN. ENRILE. Kaya hindi n'yo mapatunayan na...
MR. ESPIRITU. ... hindi ko po mapapatunayan 'yan.
SEN. ENRILE. Salamat po.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
Finally, the Honorable Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Espiritu, I noticed when Senator Drilon was asking
you about the identities of the smugglers whom you know, you hesitated and, in fact,
declined to answer the question and yet you have been freely asserting matters here
which are detrimental to the interest of the President, does this mean to say that the
smugglers are more terrifying to you than the President himself?
MR. ESPIRITU. I think, Your Honor, it's a public knowledge na marami pong
namamatay dahil sa mga nangyayari sa mga illegal activities whether drug,
smuggling of other goods, at... Ewan ko po but...
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So, in effect, you are saying that the smugglers might do
you in if you mention them but you do not believe that the President will harm you at
all in this exposé.
MR. ESPIRITU. Well, naniniwala po ako dito sa process na ginagawa po natin, this is
part of the democratic process and this will eventually become institutionalized,
naniniwala po ako sa tinatawag nating "succession" sa pamamaraan po ng .. a
democratic process, na?institutionalized po ito at naniniwala po ako dito sa
prosesong ginagawa natin ngayon po.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Let me go to the issue of safehouses.
Yesterday, you mentioned that you .. during the campaign when you were involved in
the campaign of President Estrada for the presidency, you were having meetings
with him in a safehouse also. Who owned that safehouse?
MR. ESPIRITU. Si Lucio Tan po.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And where is that safehouse located?
MR. ESPIRITU. Sa Greenhills po.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right. Now, you also said that you are staying in a
safehouse, whose safehouse are you staying in?MR. ESPIRITU. Ngayon po?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.
MR. ESPIRITU. I'm not staying in the safehouse, Your Honor. I still stay in .. where I
stay at present.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. So, I misheard you then but I will try to check the
transcript because I seem to have heard you that today you are also staying in a
safehouse.
Nonetheless, let me ask you this final point. If the Office of the President had
supervision or acquired supervision over the Securities and Exchange Commission,
what kind of powers did this Office have over the SEC?
MR. ESPIRITU. Noon pong nasa Department of Finance it was purely administrative
function, wala ho pong supervision over its quasi-judicial function. Purely
administrative po ang Department of Finance.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Now, as a lawyer, you know very well that supervision
does not mean control. Is that not correct?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Does this mean that even if we had acquired
supervision over the Securities and Exchange Commission, the President could not
alter, substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the commissioner. Isn't that
correct?
MR. ESPIRITU. Kung ang Pangulo po eh alam niya po ang kaniyang ginagawa, eh
tama po iyong sinasabi ninyo. But this can also be abused, particularly by the highest
personality, government personality of the land. Nasa abuse po iyan, pero kung
kuwan po, hindi.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you po.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
Finally -- definitely, finally, we recognize the Honorable Senator-Judge Miriam
Defensor Santiago.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Before my question, Mr. Chief Justice, a
manifestation for the record. The name Carmelo Santiago has been mentioned in the
course of the testimony of this witness. And since Santiago is such a generic
surname in the Philippines, I am constrained to enter into the record the fact that I am
not related to Carmelo Santiago. I am married to Narciso Santiago. I am definitely
related to him and I have no desire to terminate the relationship.
Now I shall proceed to the question.
Mr. Witness, as a former RTC judge, I received a very strong impression in the
course of your testimony that you are under very heavy emotional distress. I will not
burden you by making that burden even heavier, so, this question is relatively
innocuous.
It has to do with the nature of Filipino or Tagalog as a language. In my view and I
have lived in the United States and in Europe, it seems to me that my native
language, Tagalog, is one of the most equivocal languages in the world. It is an
elliptical language like French, in the sense that it leaves to the listener or to the
hearer the function of drawing conclusions from what is actually being said. The
paradigmatic example of this is the term "bahala na". It can mean, I will grant your
request; no, I will deny your request or I will think over your request. That is what I
mean by Tagalog is so equivocal.
And so, let us now come to the phrase or the sentence that has been in contention in
the course of your testimony. You were drawing a conclusion from the actual words
and phrases used by the President, weren't you?
MR. ESPIRITU. Ah, yes, Your Honor.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes, you were drawing conclusions and you have
been so fair-minded and intellectually honest in your testimony that you seem to me
to have even bent over backward to try and be fair to the President who is the
respondent in this proceedings. For example, when you tried to explain your
conclusions, you say - "I could reach the conclusion that he was a shareholder on the
one hand or on the other hand, someone was buying shares and making profits and
giving him the profits." You did say that, didn't you?
MR. ESPIRITU. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I just wanted to emphasize that. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Honorable Senator-Judge Coseteng.
SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Chief Justice, just one question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
SEN. COSETENG. Mr. Witness, since you knew all along that this was going on,
may I just know why you didn't initiate the impeachment proceedings at that time and
you just decided to come into the picture this late today as a witness?
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, I think if I can count, I think I have -- fifty times I have
advised the President on so many projects, contracts, transactions where I was able
to prevent any damage to the government and even to the President. At the same
time, there are a number of transactions, in fact, my wife used to joke me, that for
every transaction that I challenged, I have already resigned one hundred one times.
And I think I have done my duty, I have prevented a number of transactions that are
highly irregular, improper, from happening, but at the same time, there are
transactions that I could not do anything about it, Your Honor.
SEN. COSETENG. So you did not feel that it was right for you to just initiate the
actions in spite of all that you supposedly knew?
MR. ESPIRITU. No, Your Honor, because when I joined the team of the President, I
believe that he was sincere with regards to his objective to help the poor and that he
would follow his oath of office which I feel as the months went on, he failed to follow.
And that's the reason why I did file my irrevocable resignation in January of the year
2000, Your Honor.
SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
The fourteenth Senator-Judge to ask a question, the Honorable Judge Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Ako ho iyon. Ayaw ko ho sanang magtanong sapagkat kung iyong mga
abogado sa depensa ayaw magtanong, eh ako pa.
So ang itatanong ko walang kinalaman sa mga tinanong ng aking kaibigang si Nani
Perez at sa hindi pagtanong ng ano. Pero nagugulat po ako sa mga narinig kong
sagot.
Ako'y hangang?hanga na sana sapagkat sinalungat mo si Presidente at ikaw ay
dating miyembro ng Gabinete. Ngunit ngayon, ayaw mo namang sagutin iyong
tanong ni Senator-Judge Drilon. Hindi ko maintindihan iyon. Paki?paliwanag mo nga.
Hindi ko maintindihan talaga iyon.
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, which question of...
SEN. ROCO. Alam mo iyong parang, sabi nga ni Senate President, aba'y ang
pinakamakapangyarihang tao dito sa Pilipinas, ang Presidente, nakuha mo sa loob
mo na magbigay ng testimonya kontra sa kanya, pero tinatanong sa iyo ang tungkol
sa smuggler, eh labag din sa batas iyon. Para sa akin, sinabi mong ito'y para sa mga
anak natin. Hindi ko hihingin ang sagot mo. Gusto ko lang malinawan kung bakit
nasalungat mo si Presidente pero iyong illegal din iyong sa smuggling, ayaw mo
namang sagutin.
MR. ESPIRITU. Your Honor, nabanggit ko naman po sa Presidente iyan. Eh, kung...
SEN. ROCO. No, hindi kita..Huwag kang sumagot sapagkat tinanggihan mo na, eh.
Gusto ko lang maintindihan kung bakit.
MR. ESPIRITU. Kung gusto ninyong..'di sasagutin ko po.
SEN. ROCO. No, no. Huwag. Oo, pero ngayon..sapagkat kahit sagutin mo ako
ngayon, iyong paglinaw ng isip ko, pareho pa rin ang problema ko. Bakit noon, eh
nasalungat mo nga ang pinakamakapangyarihan, pero itong labag sa batas, sinabi
mo ng nakakatakot sa buhay mo, pero hindi mo sinalungat. Iyon, linawin mo lang at
pagkatapos idagdag mo na siguro kung sino, kung gusto mo, pero hindi malilinawan
iyong...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Judge?Roco, would you be insisting on an
answer?
SEN. ROCO. Just clarify my mind why. I am not asking...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if the Court would really want an answer to be
made by the witness, the witness cannot refuse to make an answer.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. My friend Frank did not insist on the answer. I will leave that now
to the witness. What I want an answer, Mr. Chief Justice, is explain to me how he had
the courage to testify against the President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That had been explained to him why he had the
courage to testify against the President. The only issue is why is he afraid to reveal
the names.
SEN. ROCO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you now insisting that he should reveal the names?
SEN. ROCO. Go ahead.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the Honorable Senator Roco, we
recognize the Honorable Senator-Judge Revilla.
SEN. REVILLA. Thank you, Judge.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your time is up also.
SEN. REVILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I would ask or request my nephew to answer the question of Drilon. That's all.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The nephew can now answer the question.
MR. ESPIRITU. Well, iyon pong within my knowledge as a former Secretary of
Finance, ang babanggitin ko po. Ang mga pangalan po eh ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, Mr. Witness, Senator-Judge Miriam
Defensor Santiago raised a ...
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. This is a point of order, Mr. Chief Justice. I have
previously made a manifestation that this is a witness, in my view, under very heavy
emotional distress and I believe that if it is a matter of the .. if it is a question of
whether this Court should compel him to answer the question, then that should be
submitted to a vote by the Court. If he is willing voluntarily, sua sponte or on his
volition to answer the question, of course, we will not prevent him, but I am afraid that
the past few developments in the past few minutes in these proceedings may have
given him the impression that he is now under a compulsion.
I sympathize with the position of the witness because in this country .. this is a third
world country. Metro Manila has been described many times as one of the most
violent cities of the world. So, I am concerned that the witness might go home with
the heavy burden of thinking that he might have placed himself and his family under
physical jeopardy because of the answers.
So, can we please clarify from the witness whether he wants to answer this?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there was supervening of event. As a matter of
fact, Your Honor, the witness was willing to answer the question because his uncle,
the Honorable Senator-Judge Revilla, well, sort of prevailed upon him to make the
answer and ...
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I cannot ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ... and the witness was willing to abide with the request
of the uncle.
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. The witness will be the best judge. I only wanted to
enlighten him on the fact that there is no compulsion for him to answer this question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What's the pleasure of the Honorable Senator-Judge
Biazon?
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. I don't think we should compel this witness to
name names.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point ...
SEN. BIAZON. The danger of ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor ...
SEN. BIAZON. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ... at this point, I think that is no longer an issue. He
agreed when the Senator-Judge Revilla stood to .. precisely to request for an answer
...
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, but there are ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ... and the witness did not decline. It is up for Senator
Revilla now to withdraw if he would want to, if he would not want the witness to
answer the question.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, but there are also senator?judges who maintain an opposite
view from the ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, Your Honor would be asking .. would be
opposing the question of the Honorable Senator-Judge Revilla?
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, because ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then, put him into a vote.
SEN. BIAZON. ... the affinity between the two, I think, should not matter here. And
what I am saying, Mr. Chief Justice ...
SEN. ROCO. Point of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What's the point of order, Honorable Senator Roco.
SEN. BIAZON. ... may I be allowed ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there's a point of order raised.
SEN. ROCO. There is a point of order. I normally do not call point of orders, Mr. Chief
Justice, but every single member of this Court has asked questions and got an
answer. Senator Revilla deserves an answer, unless Senator-Judge Revilla
withdraws.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That's the position of the Chair.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and we should listen.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Jaworski first.
SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor. Well, with the indulgence of my
father?in?law (Laughter), well, first of all ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We should not make it a family affair. (Laughter)
SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, first of all, I think the man has enough stress. We are trying
the President. While we want to know who these smugglers are, I don't think this is
the venue. And after all, look, what is the threshold of, let's say, the criminals as far
as wrongdoing is concerned compared to the President? This is too far and distant.
And at least Secretary Espiritu said, "The President is there. I'm only speaking the
truth," etcetera. But we're looking at characters whose livelihood is illegal.
And while we say, "Go ahead and say it," he is the one in danger, it's not us, and it's
unfair to the man. He has enough danger as it is.
And so, with my intent, with the .. I hope you don't recall my wife. (Laughter) But this
is just in the spirit of fairness. The President is the one on trial at this point. If you
want, you can call him again in the executive session for us to know who these
people are and then let us prosecute them if indeed there are evidences to the fact.
But, otherwise, he has enough strain and stress for the family and for the man. I am
sure your wife is not crying by now. She must be on the floor already, you know. So,
Your Honor…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the effect, Your Honor, but …
SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you so much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … the Chair will still have to recognize the Honorable
Senator-Judge Revilla. I think he is the key to the solution.
SEN. REVILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I still insist that the witness answer the
question of Senator-Judge Drilon. Eddie, I think you must answer the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Judge - excuse me, Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I really did not want to intrude into especially
family affair. But, perhaps, we may all be forgetting that we are trying an
impeachment case against President Estrada. And all of these questions on this
matter of who this smuggler is, I think has taken all of, perhaps, more than 30
minutes. And I do not think that it is relevant to these proceedings. So, exercising the
prerogative given to the defense counsel, I would object to the question on the
ground of irrelevancy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection to the question then. What is the
pleasure then of Private Prosecutor Perez?
MR. PEREZ. May it please…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are adopting the same position as Atty. Mendoza?
MR. PEREZ. Your Honor, rather than object to the question, I am appealing to the
Distinguished Senator-Judge Revilla to please withdraw the question because…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was precipitated by the Honorable Judge Drilon,
anyway. So…
SEN. DRILON. Your Honor, can I have the floor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … may we give the floor to the originator.
SEN. DRILON. I am withdrawing the question, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the question was withdrawn. It necessarily and
logically follows …
SEN. ROCO. No.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … the request of the Honorable Senator-Judge …
SEN. ROCO. My question was independent of his, Mr. Ano, and I am distressed.
This affects the credibility of the witness. He has been a very strong witness. Now…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, Your Honor. Just the Presiding Officer would say
that it might not really affect the credibility because it has - the credibility will have to
be determined by the judges. But for his refusal to make an answer and he gave a
reason. As a matter of fact, there was an objection from the defense, then I think we
should put an end to this issue.
SEN. ROCO. No. The objection is on irrelevancy and I am saying that the question
affects credibility.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, that would remain as a manifestation. Since the
main basis of that particular issue had already been written off by the withdrawal
made by the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon, which also ultimately resulted in the
withdrawal, implied it may be of the question of Honorable Senator-Judge Revilla.
SEN. ROCO. No, Mr. - I find this an unfair situation, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Unfair to the witness or unfair to the Court?
SEN. ROCO. To me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That will become, therefore, a personal privilege.
SEN. ROCO. No - yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I appeal to the records. I did ask the
question. In fact, I was not going to press him but I did ask the question and it was
the Court that said, "You want an answer?" And when I said, "Yes, let him answer," it
was my time and so my good friend, Don Ramon, stood up and said he appealed for
an answer.
My question is not tacked on to Drilon's. The question of Ramon Revilla is not tacked
on to mine. They are independent questions. So, if I am entitled to an answer,
Ramon Revilla is entitled to an answer, I do not know the answer and I do not know
why we are fearful when we have already challenged the President. This is an
impeachment case and the credibility of the witnesses will be very critical.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair had already made its statement on how to
view the matter of credibility. So, any other member of the …
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Senator Revilla.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Revilla.
SEN. REVILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
If the witness wishes to answer, please answer. You may answer, Mr. Witness, if you
wish. You don't have .. you are not forced to answer, but if you wish to answer,
answer it. I think you are brave enough to do that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have, however, a problem here because the basis
therefor .. the insistence of an answer had been written off from the record in view of
the withdrawal by Sen. Drilon.
SEN. ROCO. No, but my question is not tacked on. His question is not tacked on. I
can accept this compromise, Mr. Chief Justice. Kung gusto mo, sagutin mo, sapagkat
sabi niya, gusto niya.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, we brought this witness as our witness. Therefore,
we owe it to ourselves, the prosecution, that the security of the witness is our
problem. Therefore, I think that it is entirely up to the witness to answer if he cares.
But I would like to stress here that one witness of ours today has been approached
not by the defense, in fairness to them, but the President's men and was turned
hostile. So, with this background, I myself will kind of...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor would really have nothing to worry about
because the premises or the basis of what may be answered had all been lost in the
record. And so there is nothing anymore to be answered by the witness insofar as
the record is concerned now.
REP. ARROYO. I'm talking, Mr. Chief Justice, of the security of the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. ARROYO. It has nothing to do with his answer except that we presented him
here, we want him to live long.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, that's it?
REP. ARROYO. That's it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the pleasure of Atty. Flaminiano?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, I think the witness should be discharged from the stand, Mr.
Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We're about to, as a matter of fact, because nobody
else would ask the question.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen members of the Court had asked questions
already and so the witness is now excused.
MR. ESPIRITU. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Next witness for the prosecution. We can have Mr.
Yasay again to finish his testimony.
REP. GONZALEZ. Our next witness, Mr. Chief Justice, is former Chairman Yasay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Where is Mr. Yasay?
REP. GONZALEZ. He is at the holding room, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Would the gentlemen clear the passage there for
the entry of Mr. Yasay?
And for the record again, the attention of Prosecutor Gonzalez is invited to the ruling
of the Court in respect of the coverage of the testimony of Mr. Yasay.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness, Mr. Yasay, you are advised that you will
continue your testimony on direct examination under the same oath that you took
yesterday.MR.
YASAY. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel may now proceed.
REP. GONZALEZ. With the permission of the Chief Justice and the Court.
Mr. Witness, do you remember having received Memorandum Circular No. 73 from
the President sometime in September of 1979 .. 1999?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor. I received Memorandum Order No. 73 which was
dated, as I recall, September 6, sometime on September 13 of 1999.
REP. GONZALEZ. If I show you the document, would you be able to recognize the
same?
MR. YASAY. I believe so, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibit is that?
REP. GONZALEZ. This has been marked, Your Honor please, as Exhibit
"RRRRRRR", Your Honors, "RRRRRRR", "RRRRRRR?1", Page 2, and
"RRRRRRR?2", Page 3, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Look at those exhibits, Mr. Witness, and answer the
question.
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor. I received this Memorandum Order 73 and this is the
one that I was referring to earlier.
REP. GONZALEZ. For the record, in brief, can you tell the Honorable Court what this
is all about?
MR. YASAY. This Memorandum Order No. 73, Your Honor, was issued by the
President and it was handed over to me. And it involves, among other things, the
matter of the investigations that are to be conducted by the SEC under the setup
without Memorandum Order No. 73 and pursuant to P.D. 902?A, the investigations to
be conducted by the SEC are under the exclusive authority or purview of the
Prosecution and Enforcement Department which they can do either on complaint or
motu propio. This memorandum...
REP. GONZALEZ. So what is the significance, if any, of this Memorandum Order to
the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission in conducting
investigations?
MR. YASAY. This Memorandum Order, Your Honor, had changed the concept of
investigation under P.D. 902?A, in that now the investigations, as directed by this
Memorandum, cannot be conducted unless first cleared or approved by the
Commission en banc as a collegial body.
REP. GONZALEZ. During the period before Exhibit "RRRRRRR?1" and
"RRRRRRR?2" was issued by the President, you as Chairman in the PED, as the
investigative agency of SEC, you said had the power to investigate motu propio or on
complaint?
MR. YASAY. That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Can you please explain to us the meaning of this power to
conduct motu propio or on complaint?
MR. YASAY. Well, this means that the PED would be investigating a matter that is
within its authority if there is a complaint filed on it. Or if there is no complaint filed on
it, it could, on the basis of information or raw data it receives from newspaper reports,
from sources, from confidential informants, which is really consistent with what the
other SECs in the world do, like the U.S. SEC. On this basis, and on the basis of
these rumors, on the basis of these raw data and information, they conduct an
investigation to verify the truth and accuracy of these matters for the protection of the
investors and in the interest of the public.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, when Exhibit "RRRRRRR", "RRRRRRR?1" and
"RRRRRRR?2" referring to Memo Order No. 73, can you tell us if there was any
investigation going on in the Securities and Exchange Commission?
MR. YASAY. There were investigations going on in the Securities and Exchange
Commission that had really been conducted on a routine basis. In other words, the
Prosecution and Enforcement Department, if there are no complaints, and normally,
there are not as much complaints on which the PED acts. They really act more on
the basis of that motu propio authority. They conduct these investigations regularly.
So, there had been investigations going on.
REP. GONZALEZ. Specifically on BW Resource, do you remember if, at this time,
there was an investigation going on?
MR. YASAY. I would imagine, Your Honor, that at this time, because to my
recollection, the price of BW shares at that time were already moving in a very fast
fashion upward without any appropriate disclosures. The SEC-PED team were
already discreetly conducting investigation on the matter.
REP. GONZALEZ. Now, after you received Memorandum Order No. 73, Exhibit
"RRRRRRR-1" and "RRRRRRR-2" from the President, what did you do, if any?
MR. YASAY. What I did, Your Honor, because I did not believe in the legality of this
Memorandum Order No. 73, more particularly with respect to this issue of
investigations, I wrote a memorandum to the President and asked him for deferment
of the implementation of that portion of the memorandum because I said that this was
not legal and that I wanted the President to have more time to legally study the
matter. I also...
REP. GONZALEZ. We have a copy of the letter that you sent in response, also in
reaction to Memorandum Order No. 73. If I show you the copy, would be able to
recognize the same?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. The witness, Your Honor, is being shown Exhibit "SSSSSSS"...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder, please.
REP. GONZALEZ. ..."SSSSSSS", Mr. Chief Justice, and Page 2 as "SSSSSSS-1",
the letter sent by -- testified by the witness as having been sent to the President on
September 14, 1999 through Honorable Ronaldo B. Zamora, Executive Secretary.
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor, this is the letter that I had been referring to which I
sent to the President on September 14 of 1999.
REP. GONZALEZ. At Page 2, at the bottom left portion, there appears the name
Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr., Chairman, over which appears a signature. Whose signature
is that?
MR. YASAY. This is my signature, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, to save time, we will stipulate...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that could be...
MR. DAZA. ...we'll stipulate to the existence of the document, Exhibit "RRRRRRR"
that was testified on in this particular exhibit.THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
other documents...
MR. DAZA. Just one document, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ...which the witness may be called to testify on or to
identify?REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, why don't you now show all these documents?
These are all public documents anyway.
REP. GONZALEZ. This is Exhibit...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties can stipulate on the existence.
REP. GONZALEZ. Exhibit...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you can ask the questions.
REP. GONZALEZ. ..."YYYYYYY", Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What else?
REP. GONZALEZ. This is the only document now for the witness to identify,
"YYYYYYY" which has been premarked and the defense has been furnished the
copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be the last document the witness will...?
REP. GONZALEZ. For this witness, yes, Your Honor. The memorandum from the
President to Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Daza, do you admit the existence of that
document?
MR. DAZA. Is this the memorandum saying that policy statement should be cleared
with the Office of the President?
REP. GONZALEZ. That's correct.
MR. DAZA. All right, we stipulate as to the existence, execution and authenticity of
the document.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you may now proceed on other matters.
REP. GONZALEZ. What, in effect, is the thrust of this letter to the President now
marked as Exhibit "RRRRRRR", Mr. Witness, your letter to the President?
MR. YASAY. Well, I had asked the President I will not implement in the meantime
that particular portion of his Memorandum Order No. 73 with respect to
investigations.
REP. GONZALEZ. For what reason? What reason?
MR. YASAY. Because I believe it was not in conformity with the law, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Was there any reply from the President to your letter, Exhibit
7Rs?
MR. YASAY. I did not receive any reply on this matter from the President, however, I
informed the Commission en banc in a meeting, that I was not going to implement
this provision and that I will take full responsibility, should the President get mad at
me on this.
REP. GONZALEZ. What was the response of the banc?
MR. YASAY. The Commission en banc did not make any specific response on this
matter, however, I believe, Your Honor, that everytime that the Prosecution and
Enforcement Department, undertook an investigation on the basis of my instructions
to it because I was the Supervising Commissioner of the PED, I believe that some of
the commissioners were telling them not to comply with my order pursuant to
Memorandum Order No. 73, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What is the effect then of the attitude of the banc in, in effect
vetoing your instructions to the PED to investigate and the members of the
Commisison indicate that they do not want it to be followed?
MR. YASAY. Are you referring to the Commission en banc, Your Honor?
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes.
MR. YASAY. I do not believe that the Commission en banc had formally, in any
meeting, objected to what I said that I was not going to implement it.
REP. GONZALEZ. And so what happened to… you mentioned that at the time when
Memorandum Order No. 73 was issued in September, there was actually an
investigation about BW Resources going on. When you wrote to the President that
you are not going to implement Memorandum Order no. 73 because it was violative
of the law, what happened to the ongoing investigation affecting BW?
MR. YASAY. I believe they proceeded, Your Honor, but what I also did was that on
the basis of additional information that we had received from tips, from newspaper
clippings, from rumors, in fact, I had directed the Prosecution and Enforcement
Department to follow up these leads. But I personally believe, Your Honor, that
nothing had come out of these leads precisely because I felt that there were some
commissioners who were countermanding my order.
REP. GONZALEZ. Now, again, who is head of this PED?
MR. YASAY. The head of the Prosecution..
MR. DAZA. Mr. Ruben Ladia, I recall from the transcript.REP.
GONZALEZ. I suggest again for emphasis, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you. During this time, shortly after Memorandum Order 73
was issued which you received later part of September, Mr. Witness, do you
remember anything happening in the stock market?
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request the Prosecutor to refer to the exhibit
number rather than to the memorandum for the reference of the court and for
clearness of the transcript?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question I suppose was on what was happening to
the stock market?
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. Yes, Your Honor. I am not objecting to the question. I'm just requesting
the Prosecutor that when he refers to any document, he should refer to the exhibit
number.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that should be done.
REP. GONZALEZ. I have been referring… Yes, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. GONZALEZ. So I say again that you received Exhibit 7Rs, the Memorandum
Order No. 73 and series, sometime in the later part of September. My question now
is, during this time, do you remember anything happening into the stock market?
MR. YASAY. After the issuance of that Memorandum marked as Exhibit 7S Your
Honor? Or 7R?
REP. GONZALEZ. R. Memorandum Order 73.
MR. YASAY. Well, after I received that sometime in October of l999, I was informed
about some irregularities that had been happening in the stock market involving the
BW shares, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. I move to strike for being hearsay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?
MR. DAZA. For being hearsay. The witness said he was informed of alleged
irregularity.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And moreover not responsive to the question. He was
asked of something of his own personal knowledge. The motion is granted.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, do you remember anything happening in the stock
market involving BW Resource?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What was that?
MR. YASAY. I remember, Your Honor, that on October 7 and 8 of 1999, the price of
BW shares went high up to 107 per share and the next day dropped tremendously.
REP. GONZALEZ. When you say dropped tremendously in relation to the, what you
call, the trading band, what is the situation at that time?
MR. YASAY. Well, the drop on the price from 107 went down on that first day to
something like 67.50 per share as I recall it, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And do you know, what was the reason for that downward
movement which was a sharp...?MR. YASAY.
Yes, Your Honor, because at that time, the market was rife with reports to the effect
that a certain Mr. Stanley Ho was going to come into the country on that date to
infuse enormous sums of money into BW shares or to BW Resources Corporation.
But when that day came about, Stanley Ho who arrived in the Philippines at that time,
he did not make such an investment. So, because of that, the price of the stock went
down.
REP. GONZALEZ. Since there was this sharp increase in one day and a very steep
drop the next day, what action, if any, did your office take vis?a?vis the situation in
the stock market?
MR. YASAY. I was informed by the Prosecution Enforcement Department which I
supervise..and I'm referring to the head, Attorney Ladia.. that this matter was
immediately investigated by the SEC.
REP. GONZALEZ. But, do you know...
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, move to strike for being hearsay, question is on his
personal knowledge.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It relates to an act of an office under him. The answer
shall remain on record.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Now, what, if you know, was the effect of this steep drop in the shares of BW in the
stock market?
MR. YASAY. Well, the effect of the drop of the shares in the stock market resulted in
wariness amongst the investors. They were quite concerned about what had
happened in the market with respect to BW because at that time there were no
apparent disclosures that would have justified the unusual price movements of the
BW shares, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And because of this situation, what action, if any, did you take to
pacify the market?
MR. YASAY. Well, I called Mr. Jose Yulo, the president of the Philippine Stock
Exchange to a meeting on October 15 of 1999 and this meeting took place in my
house, we had a breakfast meeting, and I asked Mr. Yulo what was the story insofar
as the BW stock market transactions were concerned.REP.GONZALEZ. Did the
breakfast take place?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did Mr. Yulo tell you?
MR. DAZA. Calls for hearsay. Now, Mr. Yulo is not an official of the SEC.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is part of the investigation that is sought to be
conducted. And this is..as a matter of fact, Yulo had testified on this. In other words,
this could be only corroborative of the testimony of Yulo.
MR. DAZA. The investigation was being conducted by PED and Mr. Ladia...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
MR. DAZA. And this breakfast meeting apparently from what has been mentioned so
far has no connection with the investigation.
REP. GONZALEZ. The witness...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you.
What did Mr. Yulo tell you in that meeting?
MR. YASAY. Well, Mr. Yulo told me, Your Honor, that the price because of the
unusual price movements in the BW shares which steeply went up in the shortest
period and also steeply went down in a very brief period as well, that the brokers who
bought shares prior to this steep dive of the prices of BW shares had a total
obligation to settle within the period of settlement amounting to P1.2 billion, which
according to the information that they already had, these brokers would not be able
to pay on settlement date. And under their procedures, if these obligations were not
going to be paid on settlement date, then because these transactions must proceed,
otherwise, there would be a collapse of the market, the PSE was dutybound to pay
for these obligations out of their funds known as the guarantee fund. And Mr. Yulo
informed me, at that time, that the guarantee fund only stood at P90 million, Your
Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Now, what else did you discuss with Mr. Yulo, if at all?
MR. YASAY. So I told Mr. Yulo whether, in fact, the settlement .. the obligations of
these brokers amounting to P1.2 billion were settled on settlement date. And he told
me, they were settled. However, they were settled only because the President had
desperately called up the various brokers who had made money out of these
transactions and some banks and told these brokers to lend money to the brokers
who were supposed to pay these obligations. And it was only then that the
obligations were paid. But even that, according to Mr. Yulo, these obligations were
supposed to be paid at eleven o'clock in the morning of that settlement date but they
were, in fact, only paid close to two o'clock in the afternoon of that day. So, in effect,
Your Honor, there was a technical collapse in the market.
REP. GONZALEZ. Any other thing, if any, did Mr. Yulo discuss with you during your
breakfast meeting?
MR. YASAY. I also asked Mr. Yulo how was it possible for the price of BW to go up
so steeply and without any possible disclosures and Mr. Yulo told me the reason why
the prices had moved that fast was because the trading band within which or under
which the PSE was operating was too broad. And he explained to me that the trading
band was, at that time, 50 points up and 40 points down, which means, Your Honor,
that if a value or the price of a particular share in one day would go up beyond 50
points, as compared to the original price at the opening of the trading of the
Philippine Stock Exchange, then there would be an automatic price freeze of the
shares to allow for disclosures to be made. And corollarily, if there were also going to
be a drop in the price of those shares below 40 points, then there will also similarly
be a price freeze, Your Honor.
And so Mr. Yulo said that because of the wideness of the trading band, the players of
the BW stocks were able to ensure that everyday, the price of the BW shares moving
up would not reach the 50?point mark.
REP. GONZALEZ. Okay. Did Mr. Yulo recommend any remedial measures in order
to protect the public because of the very wide variance in the trading band?
MR. YASAY. Well, when I asked Mr. Yulo as to how we would be able to address this
probably, he said, the only way for us to do that would be, if we narrow the trading
band, and he recommended that the trading band should be narrowed down to 20
points up and 50 points down. And he told me that he will not be able to make the
Philippine Stock Exchange Board of Governors do this because there were very
intense political issues surrounding the matter within the organization and he asked if
the SEC could do it instead so that this can be mandated upon the Philippine Stock
Exchange, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did you do?
MR. YASAY. On the basis of the recommendation of Mr. Yulo, I presented this matter
to the Commission en banc shortly thereafter. And the Commission en banc, acting
on that recommendation, decided to narrow the trading band even to a point of 15
points up and 10 points down, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Now, Mr. Witness, while these investigations regarding BW
Resources were going on, and after you wrote the President your reaction to his
memorandum, referring to Exhibits "RRRRRRR" and series, and the President said,
according to you the President did not reply to your letter to him. Have you heard
from the President again after this?
MR. YASAY. About Memorandum Order No. 73, Your Honor?
REP. GONZALEZ. About your performance in the Securities and Exchange
Commission?
MR. YASAY. Well, I heard from the President again when he called me up sometime
in October 18, 1999, I remember that it was a Monday, about 4 o'clock in the
afternoon, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Where did the President call you?
MR. YASAY. I was in my office at that time when he called me in my office.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what happened?
MR. YASAY. He was mad at me, Your Honor, when he called me at that time.
REP. GONZALEZ. Why?
MR. YASAY. And lambasted me for why I made an announcement to the effect that
we were going to investigate the BW stock market transactions. And he told me that
because of my announcement to investigate, I scared investors away because I said
that the market was in a near total collapse. And that he said that was the reason,
also referring to my announcement, that the price of BW stocks went down.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did you tell the President?
MR. YASAY. I told the President that if somebody had given him that information or
advice, then he was not being told the truth. Because I told him with respect to
scaring foreign-investors away, they already knew what had happened in the stock
market. And when I made that announcement to investigate, I was even one of the
last to know and made that announcement.
And so, I said also to the President with respect to his argument that my
announcement caused the downturn and the price of BW stocks, I said when I made
the announcement, the price of BW shares already went down. So I said, I ordered
the investigation of that particular matter.
REP. GONZALEZ. After this explanation that you made to the President, do you
remember what the President's reaction was?
MR. YASAY. Yes, he told me, "What was then the reason for the - steep dive in the
price of BW's shares?"
And I told him, "It could possibly be because of manipulation, Your Honor."
And the President, in response to that, said, "Bakit? Sino naman ang nagmanipulate?"
And I told him, "Kaya nga ho kami nag-i-imbestiga."
REP. GONZALEZ. Was that all that you discussed with the President?
MR. YASAY. As I recall, it was all that we discussed at that time.REP. GONZALEZ.
After this, have you heard anything from
the President?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor. A few days thereafter, he called me up again. REP.
GONZALEZ. Where?
MR. YASAY. I was in my office at that time and he called me sometime in the
morning of that day.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did he tell you in that call?
MR. YASAY. The President, as compared to the first call that I received, was very
nice and friendly to me. And he just told me in a very conversational manner, Your
Honor, that Mr. Dante Tan was his very good friend and that he believed that Mr.
Dante Tan, was not one to - if I were to use his term, Your Honor, he said that, "Hindi
naman manloloko 'yang si Dante Tan. Kaibigan ko iyang matalik. Ang katotohanan
niyan ay gusto niya lang tayong tulungan para ma-develop 'yung securities market.
So, hindi 'yan puwedeng manloko sa stock market, ang pagkaka-alam ko."
Sabi ng Pangulo sa akin ay si Dante Tan ay nawalan ng mahigit dalawang bilyong
piso. And this was the first time I heard, coming from the President that Mr. Dante
Tan had lost more than P2 billion. So, he went on to say, "Kaya sa palagay ko sa
pag-imbestiga n'yo, makikita n'yo na walang kasalanan 'yang si Dante Tan kaya bilisbilisan n'yo na lang iyong imbestigasyon n'yo."
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, sometime in November 17, 1999, do you remember
having received an order from the President about statements that you made to be
cleared with him?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor, I remember.
REP. GONZALEZ. What was these all about?
MR. YASAY. This order was dated November 17, which I received November 18, in
the afternoon of November 18. And this memorandum, among other things, directed
me to clear any statements or declarations that I would be making that would have
an adverse effect on the stock market or in the securities market with the Office of the
President, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe this is one of the documents that we
stipulated on ...REP. GONZALEZ. I was
about to mention ...
MR. DAZA. ... and that the contents...The best evidence would be that ...REP.
GONZALEZ. I was just ...
MR. DAZA. I would like... I would like ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Preliminary, preliminary.
MR. DAZA. No, the question has begun already with what the memorandum is all
about. We stipulated on this memorandum. I would have no objection if that
memorandum is shown to the witness and he reads the memorandum
REP. GONZALEZ. I was just about, Your Honor, to make that precise move.
MR. DAZA. All right.
REP. GONZALEZ. The counsel has ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let Attorney, rather Prosecutor Gonzalez finish first the
question.
REP. GONZALEZ. The counsel has beaten me to the draw, Your Honor.MR. DAZA.
Well, I'm glad that my suggestion was somehow going to be accomplished.
REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, you are just reading my thoughts ahead.
MR. DAZA. Yes. I'm glad I ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not be very, very ... let me see. Do you have the
document now? Show at once the document to the witness.
REP. GONZALEZ. The document, Your Honor, was previously marked as Exhibit
"YYYYYYY"...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed from that.
REP. GONZALEZ. ... dated November 17.THE PRESIDING
OFFICER. That was already agreed upon by the defense.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, ask the questions.
REP. GONZALEZ. You're referring... Is this the document you're referring to which
the President sent you on November 17?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already stipulated upon.
REP. GONZALEZ. I was asked to ask the question, Your Honor.
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. How did you feel about receiving this Exhibit "YYYYYYY", Mr.
Witness?
MR. DAZA. Objection. Irrelevant.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Basis? What is the basis? What is the basis of the
question... ah, the objection?
MR. DAZA. Immaterial and irrelevant. The feeling, what would the feeling ...how
would the feeling bear...
REP. GONZALEZ. Well, the witness was the recipient.
MR. DAZA. This is a memorandum from the President and I don't see the materiality
of that "feeling."
REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, the witness earlier...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are asking him about the feeling of the witness?
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, how did he ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness should be here on facts, not feelings.
REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor please, when the witness was earlier asked about
Exhibit "YYYYYYY", ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but you should proceed in such a way that you'll
not be asking for the feeling of the witness.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, how did you receive this ... how did you receive and
reacted to this Exhibit "YYYYYYY"?MR.
YASAY. I felt, Your Honor, that the President exceeded his authority in issuing this
memorandum because under the law, the President cannot do that. The SEC is an
independent agency of government and his authority over the SEC was merely that
of general supervision. And general supervision under the Administrative Code is
distinguished from supervision and control where the President cannot reverse, alter,
or modify our decisions.
And consequently, I said that this was a matter that the President was ill?advised on
and that this memorandum was not legal. REP. GONZALEZ. After this receipt of
"YYYYYYY", do you remember anything else that happened to you as Chairman of
the SEC?
MR. YASAY. Well, after I received this, I noticed that I received it in the afternoon
which was just a day previous to the opening of the Senate hearing on the
Committee on Banks and Financial Institutions regarding the BW stock market
transactions.
And I felt that this was a very clear indication coming from the President that he did
not want me to say anything with respect to the hearings of the Senate Committee
unless I first clear the matter with him.
MR. DAZA. I move to strike for being a conjecture.
REP. GONZALEZ. That is the witness' own perception, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. DAZA. It ...
REP. GONZALEZ. Because he was investigating at that time and he received ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It has something to do already with an investigation in
the Senate? Not yet?
MR. DAZA. Your Honor, the investigation, I think, if I recall correctly, had not yet even
begun.
REP. GONZALEZ. He said that it was the day before.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the day before an investigation to be conducted by
a committee.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor. So, he felt…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the answers may remain on record.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ask another question.
REP. GONZALEZ. He has not yet answered. Have you answered?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was there an answer already? Not yet?
MR. YASAY. I did, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did you do because of the forthcoming Senate
investigation?
MR. YASAY. Since it was too late for me to respond to that memorandum to the
President, I decided to go to the Senate hearing the next day early and catch the
Chairman of that Senate Committee, Senator Raul Roco. And I was there and I saw
him before the hearing started in the morning. And I told Mr. Roco or Senator Roco
that I had a problem about testifying before his committee because I received that
memorandum and I had to clear my statements with the President because anything
that I would be saying about my knowledge of the involvement of the President in the
transactions would certainly have a negative effect on the stock market. And because
that was the clear import of the memorandum of the President, then I had to clear the
matter with him.
REP. GONZALEZ. What .. did the Senator react to your statement to him?
MR. YASAY. Well, Senator Roco had mentioned to me that I had no choice. I was
under legal compulsion to testify before the Senate and that he would be placing me
under oath. And so, having said that, I felt that the only way I can really go against
the import or orders of the President, as contained in that memorandum, and find a
good excuse about it, would be if I am under legal compulsion to testify as in the
Senate committee hearing that Senator Roco had called.
REP. GONZALEZ. And did you actually testify?
MR. YASAY. Yes, I did, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, to abbreviate the proceedings,...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you propose?
MR. DAZA. ... I would take the initiative. I would take the initiative .. even if the
prosecution does not .. to offer the stipulation that on the date mentioned and again
on December 1, 1999, and again on January 19, 2000, and again on January 28,
2000, the witness appeared in the course of an investigation conducted by the
Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And he testified?
MR. DAZA. And testified.
At any rate, I would want to recall that in a similar situation, the stipulation simply was
that, the hearings occured but that whatever was ever said on those hearings would
not be accepted as proof of fact or truth in this trial.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, we should treat this stipulation similarly as
that of the Blue Ribbon Committee.
MR. DAZA. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. That will save time, if the prosecution will
agree.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have a sound proposition, if acceptable to the
prosecution.
REP. GONZALEZ. Insofar as the .. what is being stipulated, we accept that. But, of
course, as to the matters asked in that investigation and the questions, for example,
of the Senator and the answers of the witness, I suppose we cannot just stipulate on
this, unless you would consider that you now take judicial knowledge of this, total.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court has just said we'll .. in effect, the Court will
take judicial notice of what happened before the Committee on Banks headed by
Senator Roco. And you have the transcripts. And the transcripts of the stenographic
notes taken during the proceedings and more particularly of the testimony of the
witness now would be taken judicial notice as well. However, as to the truth of the
answers of the witness, that is an entirely different matter.
REP. GONZALEZ. I made...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that is consistent with what you are saying.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor. Because I anticipate that perhaps the defense
will avail of that for cross?examination purposes.
MR. DAZA. Certainly, if...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any proceeding outside of this court where the witness
may have testified may be used by the defense to impeach the witness.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, I understand that. That's why I made that very clear, Your
Honor.
May I proceed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, you agreed already on the proceedings before the
... ?
REP. GONZALEZ. ... Senate Committee on Banks.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ... Committee on Banks.?
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. And the Court would like to
commend both of you for shortening the period of the direct examination.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness ... May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On other points?
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Witness, in connection with your investigation of the BW Resources between the
period October 14 or 15 to the end of November 1999, you remember having
received telephone calls from the President?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor. In fact, I said earlier, that the President called me
sometime on October 18. And then a few days thereafter he called me again also on
the BW matter. And he called me a third time, and a fourth time, and a fifth time, Your
Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What were actually taken up during these calls, the first call, for
example?
MR. YASAY. I had already mentioned what had been taken up on the first and
second calls, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. On the third call?
MR. YASAY. So, if I may proceed, on the third call, the President called me, as I
recall, on November 17, where he was very angry at me again by the sound of his
voice. And he told me that, "Ano ang nangyari sa imbestigasyon n'yo sa BW?"
And I told him, "Mr. President, natapos na ho ang imbestigasyon namin. But that
investigation was only for the purpose of determining kung ano iyong mga
emergency measures na dapat gagawin ng SEC para iyong BW na pagkakamali ay
hindi na mauulit."
REP. GONZALEZ. And what was the reaction of the President?
MR. YASAY. The President said, "Eh, paano iyong mga nasangkot sa BW scandal?"
Sabi ko ho, "Mr. President, sa ngayon ayon sa patakaran namin ang nag-iimbestiga
sa BW ay insofar as who is supposed to be responsible ay ang Philippine Stock
Exchange dahil self-regulatory organization na ang Philippine Stock Exchange kaya
nandoon na po sa kanila ang pag-iimbestiga niyan."
And the President told me, "Aba'y hindi puwede iyan. Sinabi ko na sa inyo bilisbilisan ninyo ang imbestigasyon."
So, sabi ko sa kaniya, "Mr. President, hindi ko puwedeng bilis-bilisan iyong
imbestigasyon diyan na hindi pa namin naumpisahan insofar as kung sino ang
responsible dahil ang Philippine Stock Exchange ang gumagawa niyan dahil ang
pinakamaraming nasasangkot sa BW scandal ay mga brokers which is under the
organization of the Philippine Stock Exchange. So, hindi ho namin puwedeng
mabilis-bilisan iyan. Kung gusto ninyo po eh tawagan ninyo si Mr. Yulo, ang
president ng Philippine Stock Exchange at doon ho kayo magtanong."
REP. GONZALEZ. And what happened?
MR. YASAY. And so the President, well, sort of just hang up on me, Your Honor, and
that was what transpired on that third call of the President.
REP. GONZALEZ. What about on the fourth call?
MR. YASAY. The fourth call happened about 30 minutes or so after the first call,
Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Do you remember when was this?
MR. YASAY. This was also when I was in the office at the SEC and this happened
around the mid-morning or rather 10 o'clock in the morning.
REP. GONZALEZ. At what date, if you remember?
MR. YASAY. As I recall, about November 17, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What happened in that fourth call?
MR. YASAY. And the President told me in that fourth call, "Kinausap ko na si Mr.
Yulo." Again the tone of his voice was angry. And he told me, "At pumayag na siya sa
lahat ng sinabi ko. So, sabihin mo kay Mr. Yulo na kung hindi niya ako susundin dito
siya ang kawawa rito. Kaya bilis-bilisan ninyo ang imbestigasyon. You clear Dante
Tan. You clear BW. I'm giving you three days and I am banking on you. You
coordinate with Mr. Yulo".
REP. GONZALEZ. So, what did you do after receiving that order from the President?
MR. YASAY. Eh, wala ho akong masagot because he hang up on me again.REP.
GONZALEZ. After this call, what did you do because the President told you to
coordinate with Mr. Yulo?
MR. YASAY. Well, what I did was, soon after that fourth call, I placed a call to Mr.
Yulo.
REP. GONZALEZ. Were you able to talk to Mr. Yulo over the phone?
MR. YASAY. Yes. I was able to talk to Mr. Yulo very briefly that morning, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What did you talk about?
MR. YASAY. I told Mr. Yulo, "Nonoy, tumawag ba si President sa inyo?"
REP. GONZALEZ. What was his answer?
MR. YASAY. And Mr. Yulo said, "Oo". And then I wanted to ask Mr. Yulo about what
the President told him, but Mr. Yulo said, "Chairman, I am in a meeting right now, I
have to go." So, the conversation just ended there.
REP. GONZALEZ. So, after this conversation, did you have a chance to talk at length
with Mr. Yulo about this call of the President?
MR. YASAY. I do remember having met with Mr. Yulo and, in fact, at that meeting
with Mr. Almadro as well, and these were sometime in November 3, November 9,
and November 26, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. By the way, you were just mentioning to me about the fourth call,
what about the fifth call?
MR. YASAY. The fifth call happened, Your Honor, on November 18, in the morning. I
remember that very distinctly because I was in a meeting with our consultants,
USAID consultants and we were discussing the trading band of the Philippine Stock
Exchange. And the President called me up, and the President told me, "Eh, balita ko
ay binaba niyo raw 'yong trading band to ano ba 'yon, 15 points up and 10 points
down. Eh, wala akong naintindihan diyan, eh."
REP. GONZALEZ. And what did you tell the President?
MR. YASAY. So, I told the President, "Totoo 'yan, Mr. President, dahil alam mo,
'yong dating trading band napakalawak po at kaya ho madaling mag?manipulate ng
presyo ng BW stocks at that time." So, the President told me, "Ibalik niyo 'yan sa 50
points up and 40 points down." Sabi ko "Hindi ho natin puwedeng balikin 'yan.. ibalik
'yan, Mr. President, dahil ay talaga ho 'yon ang reason na sabi sa akin ni Mr. Yulo na
ano ng Philippine Stock Exchange." I did not mention the name of Mr. Yulo na kaya
nagkakaroon ng price manipulation because of that malawak na trading band. And
the President told me, "Hindi puwede, gawan ninyo 'yan ng paraan at baguhin iyan at
ibalik mo 'yan sa 50 points up at 40 points down." Sabi ko, "Mr. President, hindi ko po
puwedeng magagawa 'yan." "Hindi, humanap ka ng paraan." Sabi ko ho sa kanya,
"Titingnan ko, Mr. President, kung ano ang magagawa natin."
REP. GONZALEZ. And so, what did you do?
MR. YASAY. Well, at that time, I was really very worried because I had information at
that time, Your Honor, that the possible manipulators of the BW stock had intended
to manipulate further the price of the stock and make it go up to P75 per share
because it had gone down much lower. And the information was to the effect that
they were going to sell their stock holdings once it hits P75 per share. And if we were
to bring back the trading band to 50 points up and 40 points down, then that would
really hasten or speed up any manipulation or upward manipulation of the price
which they could not otherwise do if the trading band remained at 15 points up and
10 points down.
REP. GONZALEZ. So, what happened? What did you do?
MR. YASAY. So, what I did was to refer this matter to the Commission en banc
because we had a meeting that afternoon of the same day when the President called
me on this fifth call.
REP. GONZALEZ. And what was the result of your meeting?
MR. YASAY. I advised the Commission en banc of this call of the President. And at
the end of that meeting with respect to this matter, the Commission en banc brought
back up the trading band to 50 points up and 40 points down, however, I made a
reservation and I said "Okay, I will agree to the restoration of the old trading band
provided that we direct the Philippine Stock Exchange to make sure that even as the
trading band would not be breached, the Philippine Stock Exchange should
immediately put a price freeze on the trading of any particular shares if in their
judgment something unusual is happening without any appropriate disclosures.
REP. GONZALEZ. Was this communicated to the Philippine Stock Exchange?
MR. YASAY. Well, the Commission en banc approved this that afternoon and on that
basis, I immediately wrote or caused the writing of a memorandum to the Philippine
Stock Exchange which I signed indicating the change on the trading band.
REP. GONZALEZ. Did the Philippine Stock Exchange accept this new order from the
Commission?
MR. YASAY. Well, they had no choice but to accept it because this was mandated by
the Commission en banc, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. So, was that the last call that you have received from the
President, according to you, that fifth call?
MR. YASAY. Yes, insofar as the BW stock is concerned, YourHonor.
REP. GONZALEZ. You said insofar as the BW stocks are concerned, do you mean
to say, you have received other calls?
MR. YASAY. I was just…
MR. DAZA. Objection. Objection, immaterial. Any other calls not relating to the BW
shares, in accordance with the ruling of the Court, will be immaterial.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would have to be sustained. In addition to that,
even in the Articles of Impeachment, under Article III, specific mention is made of five
calls.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, yesterday in your testimony, you told us about the
unannounced visit of Mr. Dante Tan complaining about the visit of the auditors of the
Securities and Exchange Commission to go over his books. And you said, when you
explained to Dante Tan that if he has nothing to hide, he should not complain, he
agreed. Is that not correct?
MR. YASAY. Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. Already answered.
REP. GONZALEZ. Just a preliminary to a succeeding question, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If that was answered yesterday, do not repeat it
anymore.
REP. GONZALEZ. There is a succeeding question to this, Mr. Chief Justice, which is
related to this visit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, just make another question since that was
answered yesterday already. The Court would take notice of the answer of the
witness.
REP. GONZALEZ. Now, in that visit of Mr. Dante Tan, how long did he stay in your
office?
MR. YASAY. My guess, I would imagine, Your Honor, that the meeting lasted for
about 30 minutes only and... Yes, Your Honor, it only lasted for about 30 minutes.
REP. GONZALEZ. And after you told him that if he has nothing to hide, he should not
complain, was Mr. Tan able to leave your office immediately?
MR. YASAY. Well, when I was saying that to Mr. Tan that, you know, he had nothing
to be worried about if he had nothing to hide, he was nodding his head and it was on
that basis that I said he agreed. But he stood up soon thereafter and told me,
"ipaabot ko na lang ito kay Pangulo".
REP. GONZALEZ. You also testified yesterday that when Jaime Dichaves brought
you to Malacanang and you were able to meet with the President, Secretary Zamora
was present also. Is that correct?
MR. YASAY. That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. And during that visit, were there any instructions given by the
President to you?
MR. YASAY. There was one instruction that the President gave to me, Your Honor,
that I remember very distinctly and he gave this to me when I was and we were about
rising up from our seats and I was headed towards the exit of the Palace where he
told me that, in a low voice, and Secretary Zamora was just a few feet away from us,
he said that any instructions that he would be giving me in connection with the SEC,
he will course to Mr. Jaime Dichaves, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. So, after this meeting when the President told you that any
instructions which he will have regarding the SEC, he will course it through Mr. Jaime
Dichaves, do you remember having received instructions from the President through
Jaime Dichaves?
MR. DAZA. Objection, immaterial and irrelevant. I believe this is, again, reopening
the matter of the Power Project.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has this something to do with BW?
MR. DAZA. It's the Power Project that yesterday I objected to, I believe, if I recall
correctly from the transcript.
REP. GONZALEZ. I'm just asking him if there were other instructions because the
premise, Your Honor, ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has it something to do with the BW Resources?
REP. GONZALEZ. It has something to do...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the clear understanding already from the start
of the hearing this afternoon pursuant to the ruling announced by the Chair as agreed
upon by the senators during the caucus.
REP. GONZALEZ. Can I make a tender of proof on this, Mr. Chief Justice?
MR. DAZA. I hope, Mr. Chief Justice, that the...
REP. GONZALEZ. Under Section 40, I think a tender of proof is allowed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is entirely a matter unrelated to the BW, therefore, in
accordance with the ruling already made before at the start of this afternoon session,
the tender of proof may not even have a basis.
REP. GONZALEZ. Well, because the witness testified that the President gave him
instructions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We already agreed on that, Prosecutor Gonzalez.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the prosecution accepted the ruling of the
Chair..conveyed by the Chair, rather. A ruling of the Court itself that the facts to be
elicited from the witness would only be in relation to the BW transactions.
REP. GONZALEZ. So under no circumstance, Your Honor, can we ask this witness
anything else but BW?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that was the agreement before. Would you be
seeking a reconsideration then at this stage?
REP. GONZALEZ. I believe, Your Honor. Well, for the time being, I will not seek
reconsideration but I feel that...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we should probably honor agreements made to,
one, to make the proceeding orderly; and second, to shorten the proceedings, too.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
By the way, Mr. Witness, you said you resigned as SEC chair, when did you resign?
MR. DAZA. I believe that was already answered last night when he was asked when
he assumed as chairman, when he resigned.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Already answered yesterday.
MR. DAZA. If I recall correctly, the witness said March 25th.
REP. GONZALEZ. No, his resignation was to effect March 25.
MR. DAZA. Yes, that...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He mentioned about his tenure until..the term until
2004.
REP. GONZALEZ. The question now is when...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the testimony of the witness yesterday.
REP. GONZALEZ. My question now, Your Honor, ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, when did he resign?
MR. DAZA. Yes, there was...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the answer of the witness?
MR. DAZA. Because he submitted a letter of resignation for the resignation to take
effect March 25th 2000. That's what the transcript says and I...
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, but the question is, when did he...Your Honor, I'm sorry.
When did he submit that resignation which will take effect on March 25?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Answer the... All right. The witness may answer the
question.
MR. YASAY. I submitted this letter of resignation personally to the President on the
first week of February of the year 2000, Your Honor.
MR. DAZA. I believe that was also covered last night in the testimony of the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Never mind. Just allow that.
MR. DAZA. Yes.
REP. GONZALEZ. When you tendered your resignation on February 2000 effective
March 25, do you remember having had any conversations with the President?
MR. YASAY. Yes, I had a conversation with the President at that time and it took
place in his office at the ground floor of the executive or the official or guest house
and the President...I asked the President, "Mr. President, binanggit sa akin ni Jaime
Dichaves na nagkasama raw kayo together with Secretary Pardo and some investors
at ikaw doon sa bahay mo sa Tagaytay at doon daw pinagkasundo ninyo na ihuhulog
ninyo na si Dante Tan." And the President responded by saying, "No, no, no, hindi,
hindi ko ihuhulog si Dante Tan. Hindi ko ihuhulog si Dante Tan." And this was the
response of the President, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, after your submission personally of your resignation
to the President, do you recall having made an exit conference, exit press conference
after your...
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, that was already covered last night in his testimony.
REP. GONZALEZ. The exit conference?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exit conference, meaning, when he was about to
leave...
MR. DAZA. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ...he conducted a conference?
MR. DAZA. Yes...No, he met with the President. That was I think the prosecutor...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, no. This one is exit...
MR. DAZA. Yes, exit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ...conference.
MR. DAZA. All right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But there is no basis whether this is exit with the
President or an exit conference with media or whoever.
MR. DAZA. Yes, I'll withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Withdrawn. Witness may answer.
REP. GONZALEZ. Have you talked to media after this resignation, although you're
still...?
MR. YASAY. I do not..I have not spoken to media about my resignation because one
of the things that I..that the President had agreed when I submitted this
letter?resignation to him in the first week of February was that, I told the President:
"Mr. President, alam n'yo naman na sinabi ko na noon sa inyo 'yong una tayong
nag?meet in February of 1999 na handa ho akong mag?resign. Hindi ho ako
kumakapit sa katungkulan ko. Kaya lamang ay pinapahayag n'yo po sa buong madla
na gusto n'yo po akong pare?resign?en eh bawal ho 'yan sa batas. You could not
pressure me to resign because I have a fixed term. So, ito po, magre?resign po ako
at ang resignation ko po ay voluntary, hindi ho ito dahil pini?pressure n'yo ako dahil
sinabi ko na po sa inyo na kung gusto n'yo po akong pagre?resign?en, magre?resign
po ako. So, ang suggestion ko na lang, para hindi naman kayo mapapasama at hindi
naman masasabi ng mga tao na nag?re?resign ako dahil pini?pressure mo ako,
huwag na ho kayong magbanggit sa press na pinapa?resign n'yo ako. Because
really my resignation is voluntary, notwithstanding your pressure." So...
REP. GONZALEZ. And then, what happened?
MR. YASAY. ... that's why I did not have any exit conference precisely because of
that agreement which the President said, yes, he will keep it to himself because he
is..it was clear to him that the resignation was to be effected on March 25 of the year
2000, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Was that agreement with the President observed?
MR. YASAY. Well, the President, a few days thereafter...
MR. DAZA. Objection..objection, immaterial..immaterial and irrelevant.
REP. GONZALEZ. I think it is..it is relevant.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an answer..there was an answer regarding
an exit conference. The witness said, "No, he didn't, because there was an
agreement." So, I think the prosecution can pursue as a one..last question on that
matter.
REP. GONZALEZ. The only question was, Mr. Chief Justice...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whether the Pre...
REP. GONZALEZ. ... since he said that he had an agreement with the President that
his resignation should, in the meantime, not be announced and the President agreed,
my question is: Was that observed by the President?
MR. YASAY. No, Your Honor, the President did not observe it because a few days
thereafter, he made the announcement through Executive Secretary Ronaldo
Zamora that I had tendered my resignation.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Witness, do you remember having met with President Yulo of
the Stocks Exchange at the Ciudad Fernandina?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor, I remember having met with him.
REP. GONZALEZ. What was that meeting all about?
MR. YASAY. Well, the day previous to that, Your Honor, I received a call from Mr.
Dante Tan who told me that the President instructed him to tell me that I should
arrange a meeting with him, with Mr. Yulo and Atty. Almadro.
So, I called up Mr. Yulo and Mr. Almadro for a breakfast meeting the next day at the
Ciudad Fernandina at about 7:30 on the morning.
REP. GONZALEZ. Did the breakfast meeting take place?
MR. YASAY. The meeting took place, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. What time?
MR. YASAY. Well, the meeting took place at 7:30 in the morning. When I arrived
there, Mr. Yulo was there, Mr. Almadro was not yet there, but shortly thereafter, he
arrived. Mr. Dante Tan arrived much later, I think after 8 o'clock in the morning he
had arrived..he arrived. And in the meantime that he was not there, we had some
discussions...
REP. GONZALEZ. About...
MR. YASAY. ... with Mr. Yulo and Mr. Almadro.
REP. GONZALEZ. About what?
MR. YASAY. Well, initially, when Mr. Yulo and myself were just there in the room, I
told Mr. Yulo that Mr. Dante Tan would be arriving. And when Mr. Almadro
arrived..came in, I asked both of them that if the evidence that they had with respect
to their investigation on the BW scandal was not strong enough against people whom
they investigated, particularly against Dante Tan, then on account of the pressures
that we have been receiving from the President because Mr. Yulo also told me that
morning that he had received calls from the President pressuring him also to clear
Mr. Dante Tan. So, I said, "kung mahina lang naman 'yung ating imbestigasyon, wala
na tayong choice, eh dapat i?clear na natin dahil mahina ang ebidensiya natin, eh."
REP. GONZALEZ. And what was the reaction of Mr. Almadro and Mr. Yulo?
MR. YASAY. Well, Mr. Almadro first said, "Mr. Chairman, napakalakas po ang mga
ebidensiya natin laban kay Dante Tan and some brokers who conspired with him."
REP. GONZALEZ. And so what did you tell .. what was your reaction to that answer?
MR. YASAY. Well, Mr. Yulo then said that "In that case, Mr. Chairman, we have a
choice, we just have to tell the truth." It was at that time, Your Honor, and I'd like to
really explain this a little bit, that really this was the first time that the three of us got
to be together and to talk earnestly about what we really knew with respect to the
calls of the President and with respect to the investigation of BW. Because previous
to that, we doubted each other, nakikiramdaman kami. Ako .. I felt that the evidence
against Dante Tan could be strong but I could not also come out with my position on
that matter because I was not too sure what the Philippine Stock Exchange would be
doing. Sasabihin ko malakas 'yung ebidensiya laban kay Dante Tan pagkatapos the
Philippine Stock Exchange on the basis of their investigation would not find him
responsible for anything. So, dito, this meeting that we had was of that nature.
Natapos 'yung pakiramdaman namin and when they said those things, then I was
convinced that they all along were determined to make sure that the truth would
come out. So, I told them, "Dapat ay magkakaisa tayo dito."
REP. GONZALEZ. But according to Mr. Yulo, in his testimony before this Court, he
felt as if he was set up by you to meet with Mr. Dante Tan. What do you say about
that?
MR. YASAY. Well, I did not tell Mr. Yulo or Atty. Almadro the day previous when I
talked to them that Dante Tan was going to join us. If that's what he meant by saying
that I had set up .. I had set them up, then maybe in that sense he was correct. But
my reason in not mentioning this to them was...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the witness and Prosecutor
Gonzalez, the Senator and Judge Enrile is recognized.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Just for my information, Mr. Chief Justice. Is the distinguished prosecutor now
impeaching his own witness?
REP. GONZALEZ. I'm not, Your Honor, impeaching. I'm just asking him to comment
because that was testified to here yesterday by Mr. Yulo and I wanted that cleared by
this witness.
SEN. ENRILE. I just want to put that into the record because...
REP. GONZALEZ. No, no, Your Honor, please.
SEN. ENRILE. ... the way it strikes me was that the tendency of the question is to
impugn in effect the statement of this witness sitting on the witness stand by a
previous witness of the prosecution.
REP. GONZALEZ. I'm just asking him, Your Honor, to comment because he was
mentioned by that witness.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Anyway, there was no objection from the defense.
MR. DAZA. We did not object. We were happy that the question was asked.
REP. GONZALEZ. What was the answer?
MR. YASAY. So, if they understood that I set them up in that respect, then maybe in
a sense they were correct. But the reason why I did not mention that to them was, I
was really concerned that .. because Mr. Dante Tan told me that it was the
instructions of the President for me to arrange this meeting with Mr. Yulo and Atty.
Almadro, and if I told them that Mr. Dante Tan would be coming prior to that meeting,
then maybe they will not be appearing and I will not be able to comply with the
instructions of the President, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. Do you know why Mr. Dante Tan wanted to meet with them?
MR. YASAY. No, Mr. Dante Tan just told me that the President had asked him to tell
me to .. that he should meet with Mr. Yulo and Atty. Almadro.
REP. GONZALEZ. And you said that for a while nakikiramdaman kayo, but at that
time, then you were already convinced that the three of you were all following the
same interest together, and you told them that if there is a choice, then you should all
go together. Is that correct?
MR. YASAY. No, I did not tell them if there was a choice. I really responded to what
Atty. Almadro and Mr. Yulo had said, where Atty. Almadro said that the evidence
against Dante Tan and the other respondents were strong, and then Mr. Yulo
interjected. Then in that case, we have a choice, we just have to tell the truth.
So, knowing then at that point in time that the Philippine Stock Exchange, through the
professional leadership of the organization, was determined to really weed out the
truth or rather make sure that the truth would come out, then I really felt relieved, you
know, because I was worried that whatever I do, baka kokontrahin ako ng Philippine
Stock Exchange to embarass me. And so I said, "In that case, eh di magkakaisa tayo
dito." I said it in that context, Your Honor.
REP. GONZALEZ. By the way, Mr. Witness, do you know a certain Eva Lisbo?
MR. YASAY. Yes, Your Honor, I know Eva Lisbo.
REP. GONZALEZ. Why do you know her?
MR. YASAY. The Eva Lisbo that I know, Your Honor, is a member of the church
where I worship, at the Cosmopolitan Church. I really don't know her as well, other
than the fact that she was introduced to me by our pastor, the pastor of the church
then.
REP. GONZALEZ. I asked this question because I heard over television and also
read in some newspapers that Mr. Dante Tan has accused you of having received a
bribe from him through Eva Lisbo. Now, can you comment on this.
MR. DAZA. Objection, immaterial and irrelevant. This is not the forum for this ...
REP. GONZALEZ. It is material, Your Honor, because this witness -- the statement of
Mr. Dante Tan has something to do with the ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you now trying to impeach your own witness too?
REP. GONZALEZ. No, Your Honor. I am asking him to comment on these stories
being made by Dante Tan that Mr. Dante Tan, through Eva Lisbo, bribed the witness.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, I don't recall Dante Tan having testified before this
Court. In any case, it's already time for us to take a break and may I ask the Majority
Leader.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A ruling should first be made on the motion. The motion
is -- rather the objection is sustained. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, excuse me. Are you about to close the direct
testimony, Prosecutor Gonzalez?
REP. GONZALEZ. Not yet, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many more minutes would you need?
REP. GONZALEZ. I don't know, about thirty minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. About thirty minutes. The Majority Leader is recognized.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move for a 20-minute break.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes. Any objection? Session is suspended
for twenty minutes.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:55 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 7:21 P.M.
THE SERGEANT?AT?ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable
Senate President?Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Presiding
Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is resumed.
The Honorable Prosecutor Gonzalez.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, after conferring with the other members of the
prosecution in Article III, we believe that we have sufficiently established what we
wanted to establish and, therefore, we are no longer asking additional questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To establish from the witness.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination then.
Thank you very much for ending the direct sooner than expected.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready for the cross-examination, except that I
must anticipate that I probably would need about an hour, including having to set up
some equipment here in order to play some videotapes and it will take some time
because we could not put our equipment due to the fact that there is the equipment
of the prosecution here. So, I would leave it to the Court, one, to let us commence
the cross-examination on other matters that would not involve the use of a video
cassette player or put the whole cross-examination on Monday, first hour, whichever
time is available and we shall attempt during that day to complete the crossexamination.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What day is today?
MR. DAZA. Today is Friday.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Today is Friday.
MR. DAZA. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. So, what's the pleasure of the Majority Leader?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the suggestion is not very
subtle for a continuance so...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about from the prosecution's side?
REP. GONZALEZ. We will have no objection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. But before we go into that, there are other
pending matters which we should take up.
We have here several letters and all related to the expulsion from the impeachment
proceedings of the three personalities.
The first is Motion for Reconsideration filed by movants Rosanna Tuason-Fores and
Beatriz Cristina Araneta-Aboitiz through counsel Lorna Kapunan, Irene Joy Vicedo,
Romeo Capulong, Ricardo Nepomuceno and Amado Valdez on 8 January 2001.
There is also a letter on the same issue filed by Rosanna Tuason-Fores and Beatriz
Cristina Araneta-Aboitiz themselves. Then you have the letter of January 8, 2001 of
Mr. Lauro Vizconde, Vice Chairman of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption.
Then you have the open letter to the Senator-Judges dated 8 January 2001 from the
Board of Trustees of VACC through Mr. Lauro Vizconde. All of these would be called
on 15 January.
The second pleading is a reply to the objection to the request for admission dated 2
January 2001 and motion to declare all the matters upon which request for admission
were sought as admitted, filed by the prosecution panel on 8 January 2001.
The Court would simply note this. The legal effects taking into account the opposition
thereto would be governed by the Rules of Court, and the very nature of the
impeachment itself under the rules promulgated by the Senate in respect to the right
of the respondent either to answer or not to answer at all the Articles of
Impeachment.
Third, letter dated 9 January 2001 from Atty. Jose Salvador Rivera of the Rivera
Santos and Maranan Law Office, Counsel for Mr. Dante Tan, praying that the matter
of the investigation on BW Resource Corporation being preliminary to the issue
pending before the Impeachment Court and other preliminary matters be just
stipulated upon. Noted without action.
Fourth, letter request dated January 2001 from Atty. Raul Daza, member of the
defense panel requesting for the transcription of certain interviews recorded in a VHS
tape furnished by the defense panel to the Secretary of the Senate. Granted.
Fifth, motion to require Raul M. Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be cited
for direct contempt, filed by the Honorable Senator-Judge Anna Dominique M.L.
Coseteng on 11 January 2001. Noted. And respondent Raul M. Gonzalez is directed
to comment thereon within a period of five days from today.
Seventh, letter dated January 12, 2001 addressed to the Presiding Officer from the
Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices, in behalf of Equitable PCI Bank,
informing the Impeachment Court that all the documents sought to be produced
through subpoena dated 09 January 2001 are already in the custody of the
Honorable Court received by the Office of the Legal Counsel on l2 January 2001.
Noted.
Eighth, letter dated 12 January 2001 addressed to the Presiding Officer, from Mr.
Renato A. Ampil, Commissioner, Bureau of Customs, requesting that he be given
until l7 January 2001 to comply with the subpoena dated 11 January 2001 received
by the Office of the Legal Counsel on 12 January 2001. Noted and granted.
Ninth, certification dated 12 January 200l from Eleanor A. Madrid, Chief, License
Section, Land Transportation Office, stating that the name Eleuterio Tan with Driver's
License No. N04-92-047643 does not exist in the current file of licensed drivers
received by the Office of the Legal Counsel on 12 January 2001. Noted.
As to the motion to cite in contempt House of Representative Prosecutor Clavel Asas
Martinez, we will call this again on l7 January. And finally… ah, no, no.
The other one, Motion to require Mr. Jaime Dichaves to show cause why he should
not be cited for contempt, there is… the compliance of Mr. Dichaves due last 10
January 2001 or in an extendible period of five days as issued by the Presiding
Officer in open court on 05 January 2001, has not been complied with. We will call
this again on l5 January, to find out if the compliance may have been done by mail.
And finally, we have this medical report as submitted by Dr. Evelyn Martinez,
Supervising Legislative Staff Officer II, Dr. Cristeta Cocjin, Assistant Service Chief,
and Dr. Mariano A. Blancia, Jr., Service Chief, Medical/Dental Service of the Senate,
on the examination conducted by them on the medical condition of Mr. Raul de
Guzman, pursuant to the order of the Court. It reads, I am referring to the body of the
report itself:
"An examination on the medical condition of Mr. Raul de Guzman, 70 years old,
male, was conducted at about 10:00 a.m. January 11, 2001 at Room 308 of the Our
Lady of Lourdes Hospital where he is presently confined. Based on his medical
history, physical examination and review of the laboratory examinations, our
diagnoses are the following:
1. Status - post coronary arterio-bypass graft, l984 and l992;
2. Status - post cerebrovascular accident l992; residual expressive aphasia on rightsided weakness;
3. Coronary artery disease - severe;
4. Bilateral carotid artery disease, 40% to 60% stenosis, right common carotid artery,
80% stenosis, right internal carotid artery. Status of post left carotid inderterectomy in
l992;
5. Peripheral artery disease, severe;
6. Diabetes mellitus Type 2;
7. Essential hypertension.
It is our collective opinion that the present condition of Mr. Raul de Guzman
precludes him from testifying because of the undue stress that may trigger an acute
condition.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, this should be made of record. The...
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may we be furnished a copy of that...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. This should be turned over to the Secretary
because actually it is for the Secretary. This is only a xerox machine copy that have
been furnished to us. So, copies of these should be given or furnished to the head of
the prosecution, the head of the defense panel and to each and every Member of the
Court.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
REP. APOSTOL. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, with your permission, I wish to put on record this
memorandum from the Sergeant?at?Arms, Brigadier General Leonardo P. Lopez,
Retired, regarding his compliance to our directive to attend to and investigate the
matter of the death threat of Senator Renato L. "Compañero" Cayetano. And this is a
one?page letter just informing us that he has already begun to do so, Mr. Chief
Justice, with annexes of photocopies of the official receipt of the sending of this letter
through LBC to Senator Cayetano and the photocopies of the front and back sides of
the envelope, Mr. Chief Justice, as well as a typewritten letter addressed to Senator
Cayetano which is unsigned, Mr. Chief Justice.
And finally, the last part is the photocopy of the cover..the front side of the envelope
where the sender and the addressee's names are typewritten. So, I'd like to submit
this to the Secretariat for safekeeping.
REP. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Gonzalez.
REP. GONZALEZ. Your Honor, noted the LTO report about the name of Eleuterio
Tan's Driver's License No. 4?92?04764 does not exist. The Land Transportation
Officer, Your Honor, is here, Eleonor A. Madrid, Chief, License Section. Can we just
stipulate so that this person will not have to come back here anymore, Your Honor?
That the name Eleuterio Tan with Driver's License No. 4-92?047643 does not exist in
the current file of license drivers of Land Transportation Office as of 12 January
2001.
And number two, witness has issued a certification dated 12 January 2001 to the
same effect which certification has been previously marked as Exhibit
"SSSSSSSSS", nine "S" ? nine.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that can be stipulated on.
MR. DAZA. We stipulate as to the existence and authenticity of this document and
the contents of the non?existence of the driver's license?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When was it marked?
REP. GONZALEZ. As certified... Based on the certification which, as a matter of fact,
I think the Chief Justice has already read and noted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, because that was addressed to the Presiding
Officer.
So, anyway, you have marked this certification already in evidence, premarked.
REP. GONZALEZ. We have not yet, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about this...
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor, it has been premarked.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about this "SSSSS...how many...
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Nine Ss.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. So, you can agree on the existence of the
certification then.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And therefore, we can dispense with the oral testimony
of Eleonor Madrid.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. Thank you.
REP. GONZALEZ. Number 2, Mr. Chief Justice, ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. GONZALEZ. ... in connection with this Notice of Citation for Direct Contempt,
may I request for a copy of the minutes of 9 January, Your Honor, for purposes of my
filing of a comment ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Minutes or transcripts?
REP. GONZALEZ. The transcript, rather.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The transcripts of the stenographic notes of the
proceedings on 9 January.
REP. GONZALEZ. ... 9 January.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. GONZALEZ. And also ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. More particularly on the exchanges ...
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary is requested to do that.
REP. GONZALEZ. And also a copy of the tape mentioned, at our expense.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also the tape which was already given in custody.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Into the custody of the Clerk of Court, the Secretary of
the Senate.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can get .. you can have a copy of that tape.
REP. GONZALEZ. Yes, Your Honor. And can we be allowed to have these five days
period run after receipt of this transcript, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can ask an extension if these documents, rather,
the TSN and the tape could not be ready yet.
REP. GONZALEZ. Thank you.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, the Chair read the letter of the law office of
Angara, etcetera, concerning .. relative to ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ... Regarding ...
REP. ARROYO. ... regarding the Equitable Bank papers and make reference of the
second envelope which is in the possession of the Secretary. The first envelope has
been opened. So we would propose, not really a motion, that this second envelope
be opened so that we can already examine it and ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On Monday.
REP. ARROYO. At the pleasure of this ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On Monday. Yeah. If there are any objections ...
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Your Honor. I think the second envelope has not been opened.
And if it is to be opened, there has to be a proper motion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That's why. There is an oral motion now to have it
opened on Monday.
MR. MENDOZA. So I would request that the motion be put in writing and that we be
given an opportunity to object.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the motion is well?taken.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, if .. a careful .. if I understand the letter, as read by
the Chair, this is in response to a subpoena .. request for subpoena duces tecum. So
what the Equitable Bank people say is that, instead of responding or, rather,
complying with a subpoena duces tecum, they just .. they reminded the Court that it's
already in the possession of the Secretary. So ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is now on the issue of opening and there is a request
by your brod in the Upsilon that it would be in writing.
REP. ARROYO. No, Mr. Chief Justice. Like the first envelope, everybody is wary
about opening it. That's why the first envelope was opened and given a marking .. a
Court marking. So I would propose that the second, I mean, the same procedure be
adopted and which is, it be opened with a marking of the Court because this was
sent to the Court, not to us. So if it is sent to the Court, then this is the property or,
rather, it is custodia legis and then it's opened.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Momentarily, it is in the custody or possession of the
Court.
REP. ARROYO. What .. our idea is, if it could be opened in the custody of the
Secretary so that we can look at it and nobody has seen it.MR. MENDOZA. We
object. I ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request that's why it can easily be done. Just
file a corresponding very, very short motion and give a copy to the other party. We
can resolve it on Monday.
MR. MENDOZA. No. I think we should have given ... I think filing the motion and
resolving it on Monday, we have to have .. see the motion first.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, the motion ...
MR. MENDOZA. Today is Friday already, Your Honor.THE
PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, the motion can be served on you tomorrow. You
see.
MR. MENDOZA. Well, I would request that we be .. there is a propensity of raising
questions just before we leave on Friday afternoon. So I think this is somewhat
unfair, Your Honor. And then motion is going to be sent to us tomorrow and tomorrow
is Saturday. I was just saying a while ago, Your Honors, that I have never found the
words "TGIF" as meaningful as they are now.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ano, ano?
MR. MENDOZA. Thank God it's Friday. Now, just when we are about to leave, we
have this motion and then suggested the word tomorrow, I was just looking forward
to a Friday, Your Honor. And I should not think it is also fair for …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probaby before this weekend, we can look forward to a
Saturday and a Sunday. But next week probably we will have trials even on
Saturdays and Sundays because of your agreed timetable. You have an agreed
timetable. The prosecution to finish the evidence and to complete the testimony of its
witnesses by 19 January.
REP. ARROYO. That it is precisely what we are trying to point out, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, but…
REP. ARROYO. Let it not be said the delay is caused by the prosecution. You see,
we want it now so that we can look at it and we can make our next move. But if we'll
be delayed by a couple of days, then let it not be said that the delay was caused by
us. As a matter of fact, we proposed that the Secretary's staff work overtime so we
could work on the marking of the exhibits. But the defense said that anything that has
to do with the banks, the markings should be suspended. So, even if the Senate
President has assured us that the staff - Secretary's staff would be here, we cannot
do anything because of the opposition of the defense.
Now, what happens on Monday? I mean, as far as we are concerned, we are ready
to proceed but the evidence has to be marked because we do not want it said that
while we are presenting our evidence it is delayed because of the interruption of
marking of the exhibits. I mean, we just want it clear.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the witness Yasay will still be on crossexamination on Monday.
MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor, that envelope has been there for weeks already and if
they wanted to open it they could have filed a motion last Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and to do it on a Friday afternoon and to do it verbally, I think
is most unfair, Your Honor. And then to say then that it is not their fault that there is a
delay. That envelope has been there for so long and no action has been taken by the
prosecution to have it opened. If they really wanted it opened, then they should have
filed a motion much earlier not now to say that they should not be blamed for the
delay.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, I think counsel has forgotten the letter read by the
Angara Offices which is that we asked for a subpoena duces tecum and they
responded that yes, we have it, but that it's now with the Senate Secretary. So, it's
with the said Secretary. That's the response of the …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, let's give the with or without a written motion for the opening, there is an oral motion for the
opening. The defense is given until Monday to file the opposition to the oral motion.
MR. MENDOZA. Monday, 5 o'clock, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Until Monday.
MR. MENDOZA. Thank you very much, Your Honor.
REP. ARROYO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I say something? We have a witness there
waiting.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is the witness waiting?
REP. APOSTOL. Erlinda Carolina Guerrero. She was asked also yesterday to come
back so may we request that… we pray that Carolina Guerrero be requested to come
back on Monday…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who else are here?
REP. APOSTOL. … at 2 o'clock..
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other witness?
REP. TANADA. Mr. Chief Justice, we have Sis. Christine Tan here this afternoon
together with Atty. Ulan Sarmiento and some…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, there are many of them who were subpoenaed
for today.
REP. TANADA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. So,…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are they?
REP. TANADA. They - some of them had already left. They beg our permission…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But did they promise to come back?
REP. TANADA. They signed, Your Honor, an undertaking that they would come
back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All witnesses then scheduled for this afternoon but who
were not able to testify are directed to come back on Monday at 2 o'clock in the
afternoon …
REP. TANADA. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … and witness, Mr. Yasay is now excused but directed
also to come back on Monday at 2 o'clock for the continuation of the - or rather for
the start of the cross-examination.
MR. YASAY. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we adjourn may I move for the
approval of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Tuesday, January 9, 2001.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being none the motion is
approved.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Now I move that the Impeachment Court stand in
adjournment until 2 o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, January 15, 2001.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? There being none, the motion is
approved. Adjourned until Monday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
THE TRIAL WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:47 P.M.