May 15 Senate Impeachment Court Record

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
AT 2:10 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the impeachment trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan. Senator Pangilinan. Almighty Father and Heavenly King, as we near the end of this historic impeachment trial, as Senator-Judges, we humbly seek Your infinite wisdom, Your boundless courage, and immeasurable strength as we fulfill our constitutional duty to render impartial justice in these proceedings. We thank You, O Lord, that after nearly six months, we have come this far in search of the truth and in the pursuit of justice. We thank You, Heavenly King, for both the Prosecution and the Defense who have endeavored mightily to pursue their respective causes. We thank You for our Presiding Officer, our Senate President, for his remarkable stamina and unparalleled incisiveness in the steering of these proceedings. We humbly ask You to bless, to guide, and to shepherd all parties in these proceedings, including the respondent Chief Justice and his family. And at that point, when a decision by this Court is made, regardless of the outcome, we pray that You allow the healing of the nation to commence.
Gabayan Mo Po kami, Panginoong Makapangyarihan, sa aming hangarin na maitaguyod ang katarungan at katotohanan sa paglilitis na ito. Naway mangibabaw ang hustisya para sa lahat. Finally, we ask You, O Lord, to bless our beloved nation and our people, and that in the end, it is her interest and that of her citizens, the Filipino people alone, who are best served by the verdict of this Court. These we ask in the Name of Jesus, Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will now please call the roll of Senators. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present* Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present* Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present* Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren L. Legarda ................................................................. Present* Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present* Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino Pimentel III ............................................................. Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ..................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Absent** The President................ ..................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation.
______________
* Arrived after the roll call **On official mission
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the May 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider it approved. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection [Silence] There being none, the May 14, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court is hereby approved. The Secretary will please call the case before the Senate as an Impeachment Court. The Clerk of Court. Case No. 002-2011, In the Matter of the Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the parties and/or their respective Counsel to enter their appearances. Representative Tupas. Mr. President, good afternoon. For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearance. We are ready, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Noted. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, for the Defense, the same appearance. We are also ready. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Before the business for the day, I move that we allow Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago for a manifestation. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo has the floor. Senator Defensor Santiago. I have made a reservation for questioning the witness on the stand but this is not the time. This time is for me to make the following manifestation. Yesterday, the Ombudsmans PowerPoint presentation indicated that Defendant has 82 dollar accounts in the following bank branches: BPI-Acropolis Branch, 8; BPI-Tandang Sora, 18; BPI-Del Monte, Quezon City, 34; BPI Investment Corp., 1; PSB-Cainta, 8; PSB-Katipunan, 6; Allied Bank, 4; Deutsche Bank, 2; Citibank, 1. Because of high-tech banking practices today, any information about a bank account will depend upon the system adopted by a particular bank. For example, the bank could follow the customer transaction system or the bank transaction system. Hence, it could be possible that the single sum of money could be represented in a double entry. One entry would be made in the credit column and another entry would be made in the debit column, although both entries could deal with one and the same amount of money. Furthermore, a client could deposit and withdraw the same amount within a single day or within a few days of each other if he engages in dollar trading. A client who maintains a foreign currency deposit is not required to acquire a license for this purpose. However, to engage in dollar trading two (2) or
three (3) accounts are sufficient. It would be unnecessary to maintain all of 82 accounts. The standard practice in the banking community is to raise the bells and whistles when one client seeks to keep more than two (2) or three (3) accounts. To allege that the Defendant had, for example, 34 accounts in BPIDel Monte, taxes the credulity of bankers. Therefore, I humbly propose, if there is no objection from our colleagues, that the Senate President should subpoena the managers of all nine (9) bank branches that I have just enumerated. The most knowledgeable official about a persons bank account is the branch manager. The branch manager is required by law and by standard banking policy to seek and record details about the client. Mr. President, for your consideration. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, if the other Members of the Court would like to take that up, we may be able to take up the motion of Senator Santiago during the caucus on Monday. The Presiding Officer. Let us hold in abeyance the consideration of the motion of the lady Senator from Iloilo and discuss it in our caucus on Monday, and then we will act on the motion. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. What is the status of the hearing now? Senator Sotto. Now, we are ready for the continuation of the presentation of evidence by the Defense. The Presiding Officer. No, I think the cross-examination by the Prosecution has not been terminated. Senator Sotto. Correct, Mr. President Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor. The witness on the stand is the Honorable Ombudsman, Your Honor. She begged to be excused from continuing with the cross-examination allegedly for being tired and fatigued, Your Honor. And the Chairman of the auditing office of the Republic took her place instead. We objected to such kind of a procedure because we do not know whose witness is this Commissioner of the Auditing Office, Your Honor. And we were sustained by the Court. So, the agenda for today should go or should proceed with the cross-examination of the Honorable Ombudsman. The Presiding Officer. That is what I am leading to, Counsel. That is where I am going. Precisely, I am asking the Prosecution to continue with their cross-examination of the Ombudsman because yesterday the Ombudsman ended after she made a PowerPoint presentation and she wanted the presentation to be continued by the Commission on Audit, Ms. Heidi Mendoza. But then there was an objection, and properly so, by the Defense. And so the Chair dismissed the substitute presentor of the PowerPoint presentation because she was not continuing with the PowerPoint presentation but rather was testifying and, truly, you raised the objection whose witness is this person on the witness stand. That is why the Chair dismissed her. So, we are at that point where the Ombudsman will have to continue her testimony and let the Prosecution decide whether they will continue the cross-examination. So, may I now request someone to call the distinguished Ombudsman, if she is in the Court, and bring her to the witness stand for the continuation of her cross-examination by the Prosecution.
Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. While we are waiting for the witness, Senator Pimentel was earlier asking if it would be proper for us to strike out the statements made by the auditor or the commissioner because it was irregular, or let it remain in the records. That was the question that was asked by Senator Pimentel. Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor please, I was about to make that motion. The Presiding Officer. Actually, when we dismissed the witness, what she stated on the record is not testimony in evidence. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Thank you also for the clarification. The Presiding Officer. If you want to make a proper motion, then let it be stricken out of the Record. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Considering the fact that the Honorable Commissioner of the general auditing office of the country was on the stand only to continue the alleged cross-examination of the Honorable Ombudsman, and since she is not a witness either for the Prosecution or the Defense, her testimony.... The Presiding Officer. Not for cross-examination, to continue the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Cuevas. I was of the impression that the PowerPoint presentation has already closed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, not yet. The way I understood it is that the Honorable Ombudsman was tired and she wanted someone to take over and continue with the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Cuevas. Because the tarpaulin has already been rolled up. Senator Sotto. The screen. Mr. Cuevas. If that is the case, Your Honor, I stand corrected. I have no objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But, at any rate, so that the Record will be clean and clear, may I request anyone of you to make the proper motion to strike out the statement of the COA Commissioner. Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Pimentel, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized. Senator Pimentel III. Thank you, Mr. President. To be fair to the Defense side, Your Honor, I move to strike out the testimony of Mrs. Heidi Mendoza who was irregularly presented yesterday. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The Chair hears none, the motion is approved. Strike it out from the record. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, the Court is now ready for the continuation of the cross-examination of the Honorable Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales. She is here.
The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman, please bear with us. We do not want to overburden you but you are familiar with our judicial procedures and we have to continue, if the Prosecution would want to continue their cross-examination. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Prosecution? Mr. Bautista. With your permission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Bautista. Good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Good afternoon. Mr. Bautista. Would you want to continue with the PowerPoint presentation yesterday? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sure, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. The PowerPoint presentation yesterday? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. With your permission, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Are you asking that the PowerPoint presentation be continued? Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Granted. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. May I invite the attention of the parties and, of course, the Senator-Judges to what appears on the screen. It refers to a summary of U.S. dollar inflows of covered transaction from April 14, 2003 to December 22, 2011. The BPI-Tandang Sora Account No. 8104 is US$3,513,348.47; the BPI-Tandang Sora Account No. 1842 is US$516,130.47; the BPI also Tandang Sora Account No. 5939 in the amount of US$1,331,501.43; then the ABC or Allied Banking Corporation-Kamias Account No. 2676 in the amount of US$2,940,850.58; and the subtotal is US$8,301,830.95. You add this to the miscellaneous accounts in the amount of US$3,853,519.91, to bring a total of US$12,155,350.86. I think we are now on Account No. 8104 in 2007. Let me explain that the total of US$12 million plus a while ago was arrived at by totaling the inflows and totaling the outflows. And it would appear that the outflows would be bigger than the inflows, which means the withdrawals would be bigger than the amount of inflows. We used a conservative analysis where if there are double, triple or multiple entries of the same amount, we would exclude those from the dollar computation and would include only the last figure at the end of the cycle.
For example, there is this mother deposit Account A. Then so much or the same amount on the same date is transferred to Account B; then, again, on the same date, the same amount is transferred to another account, Account C; then finally, for the fourth entry, the same amount on the same date, it is transferred to Account E. So, only the last figure in the last account where the cycle stops that is included in the computation. And so when we arrived at US$12 million plus as transactional balance, we did not include the so many entries that appeared on the same date and, as I said, we only included those figures that ended in the last end of the cycle. The Presiding Officer. These are not the US$12 million plus mentioned for 2006, was it? Ms. Carpio-Morales. For as of December 2011, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. These are transactional balances. The Presiding Officer. Yes, transactional balance. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. The Presiding Officer. That is not a yearly and annual ending balance. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor, it comprehended the entire number of transactions from 2003 to December 2011. The Presiding Officer. But there was no amount recorded regarding the actual balance remaining in the mother account as of the end of December 31, 2011. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It would be difficult to compute, but we tried also to determine by, let us say, in 2011, the remaining....In 2008, there was a deposit of US$768,733.96. This refers to the PSBank-Katipunan Branch and it was withdrawn only on December 15, 2012, and that yielded a total....2011 rather, I am sorry. And that yielded a balance of US$769,681.71. That is only with respect to one PSBank-Katipunan Account Branch No. 0191000373. This is just one account. The Presiding Officer. Is there any record of any balance of this mother account as of the end of November 2011? Ms. Carpio-Morales. December, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, the 11th month of the year. Ms. Carpio-Morales. We can presume the same balance, Your Honor, because it moved only in December.... The Presiding Officer. I will put the question in another form. What was the total amount withdrawn in the month of December from the mother account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. December 2011, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, US$769,681.71. So, we presume that, to your question earlier, Your Honor, if what was the amount withdrawn in November 2011. The Presiding Officer. That was the amount withdrawn in the month of December.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, from the same account which was opened in October 31, 2008. The Presiding Officer. All right, Counsel. You may continue, Madam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. I think we are now in Account No. 8104-2007. On July 9, 2007, there was a withdrawal from Account No. 8104 in the amount of $295,665.42. The succeeding month, or on August 9, 2007, there was a deposit of $296,728.99. Now, on July 19, 2007, there was a withdrawal of $20,000, and on August 23, 2007, there was a deposit from Account No. 2693 to the mother account, 8104. On July 27, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of $100,000 which was deposited in another account, 2804. And on August 31, 2007, there was a deposit of $100,494.69. On August 23, 2007, there was a withdrawal of $20,076.44 from a different account, 3183193. And on September 3, 2007, there was a deposit to the mother account in the amount of $20,682.83. On September 3, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of $40,082.93 and deposited to a new account. And on March 3, 2008, from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $40,973.18 and deposited to the mother account. On August 9, 2007, there was a withdrawal from the mother account in the amount of $296,728.99 and it was deposited to a new account, 2987. And on November 8, 2007, the amount of $299,937.86 was withdrawn from this new account and returned to the mother account. On July 31, 2007, the amount of $130,443.32 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account. And on March 4, 2008, the amount of $133,547.67 was withdrawn from the new account and returned to the mother account. On August 31, 2007, the amount of $100,494.69 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account. And on February 29, 2008, from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $102,634.97 and deposited to the mother account. On November 9, 2007, the amount of $299,937.86 was withdrawn and deposited to a new account. On December 21, 2007, the amount of $50,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account. And on January 25, 2008, the amount of $50,224.83 was withdrawn from the new account and returned to the mother account. Still the same account, 8104, this is for 2008. On March 5, 2008, the amount of $30,300 was deposited to the mother account. On April 17, 2008, the amount of $24,000 was deposited to the mother account. And on July 31, 2008, the amount of $30,000 was deposited to the mother account. On January 28, 2008, the amount of $50,224.83 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account. And from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $51,167.70 on August 5, 2008, and it remained withdrawn.
On March 3, 2008, the amount of $143,608.15 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account. And from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $144,947.79 on July 7, 2008. On March 5, 2008, the amount of $175,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and transferred to a new account. And from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $176,561.40 on July 9, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the amount of $20,000 was withdrawn from the mother account and deposited to a new account. And from this new account was withdrawn the amount of $24,102.63 on June 26, 2008. Mr. Bautista. Madam Ombudsman, am I right that the PowerPoint presentation you are reading from now, a hard copy was already sent to the Senate? Have we furnished the copy of that report to the Senate? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I recall that the Senate at the closing hours of yesterdays hearings expected us to deliver a hard copy. And I think we did, that was my instruction. Mr. Bautista. Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Bautista. That being so, perhaps, it would be better if we will just mark the PowerPoint presentation in evidence. And to dispense with your reading of the details because you might be overly taxed by that and I do not think it is necessary because the Senator-Judges can examine the contents of the report yourself. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I am not clear with the manifestation made by the Honorable Counsel for the Prosecution. Which is the evidence sought to be marked, the representations made on the screen, the origin of these representations or what? We wanted to be clear, Your Honor, before we go into further questioning the Witness in connection with them. The Presiding Officer. Why do you not agree? If you want to use the document presented yesterday by the Ombudsman which is allegedly the report of the AMLC as the document to be presented here as an exhibit, but on the other hand, this PowerPoint presentation is now a part of the testimony of the Ombudsman. And so, this Court would be interested to have a copy of this document. Mr. Cuevas. The source of all this PowerPoint presentation, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I am just asking for a clarification. I am not objecting.... The Presiding Officer. Actually, these are actually culledif I understood the Ombudsman correctlyculled from the records Mr. Bautista. Submitted. The Presiding Officer. that she submitted yesterday and marked as an exhibit by the Prosecution. Am I correct in this?
10
Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Cuevas. I was puzzled because the documents shown to the Witness yesterday, we already marked, Your Honor. So, I was trying to clarify only. I am not objecting, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, the Ombudsman, my understanding of what happened was, the Ombudsman testified, and in the course of her testimony, referred to a report of AMLC, which became the basis of her letter, if I understood correctly, requiring the Chief Justice to reply in 72 hours. That was the subject of the examination-in-chief of the Defense counsel, whether the Ombudsman informed the Chief Justice about the $10-million deposit allegedly owned by him. And at that point, the matter was resolved and then the Counsel closed his direct examination of the Ombudsman, and the Prosecution took over to cross examine. And at that point, they have marked.... Actually, the Prosecution marked the alleged report of AMLC, presented and testified to by the Ombudsman before this Court. And the Honorable Ombudsman requested the permission of this Court if she could explain further the contents of that alleged report of AMLC by way of showing us a PowerPoint presentation of the movement of the monies reflected in that report of AMLC. Am I correct in this, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the whole gist of the testimony of the Ombudsman. And that is why this Chair requested that this Court be provided with a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and the Defense also requested a copy, a hard copy of the presentation and thereafter, the Prosecution also requested a hard copy. So, all of us requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Cuevas. Clarified, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Bautista. If Your Honor please. The PowerPoint presentation The Presiding Officer. PowerPoint. I am sorry, I am not literate enough in these things. PowerPoint presentation, okay. Mr. Bautista. If your Honor please, the PowerPoint presentation that has been made and is still being made by the Honorable Ombudsman is entitled: Analysis of Dollar Account consisting of 25 slides. I confirmed with the Clerk of Court that the Senator-Judges have each been furnished with copies of this so-called Analysis of Dollar Account. And the copy which has been handed to me by the Honorable Ombudsman, each page bears the stamp: Certified True Copy, Deputy Clerk of Court, the Impeachment Proceedings, and there was one initial over each stamp of Deputy Clerk of Court. May we request that this be marked as Exhibit Eleven Y (YYYYYYYYYYY) for the Prosecution, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bautista. Madam Ombudsman, you testified, a few minutes ago, in reply to the query of the Presiding Judge that $769,681 was withdrawn from an account of the Chief Justice in the month of December 2011, you confirm that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir.
11
Mr. Bautista. Can you advise us or tell us how much was withdrawn from December 12 forward? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No more, it did not go by anymore. I mean, the data that was sourced no longer indicated where that $769,000 plus went. Mr. Bautista. So, you will not be able to tell if it was done on December 12? Ms. Carpio-Morales. December 15. Mr. Bautista. December 15. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Bautista. I see. So, that amount of $769,681 was withdrawn on December 15. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Bautista. You testified yesterday that there were significant accounts with respect to certain significant events. Do you recall that, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Mr. Bautistia. Can you clarify what you meant by that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, what I meant was that there were significant deposits and withdrawals on significant events. When I say events, I am referring to let us say, 2004 elections, 2007 elections, and during the period onset of the impeachment proceedings. Mr. Bautista. For the elections of 2004, Madam Ombudsman, which you considered to be a significant event, what was the corresponding significant figure? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let me look at my codigo. Mr. Cuevas. Vague, Your Honor. The question does not appear clear to us. May we request for a reforming of the question, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. What is vague about it? Mr. Cuevas. There are various incidents mentioned in the question, Your Honor. We would like to know what is the gist of the question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Will the good gentleman of the Prosecution repeat the question so that we will understand the nature of the objection? Mr. Bautista. I asked what were the significant figures pertaining to the significant events which the Honorable Ombudsman mentioned. What are the figures? The Presiding Officer. She mentioned as events the election of 2004. Mr. Bautista. That is right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then the impeachment filed in this Court. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. And the elections in 2007.
12
The Presiding Officer. And then the election in 2007.
Mr. Bautista. Yes. And I am just asking the Witness when she said that there were significant amounts pertaining to a significant event, what are these amounts. I think that is very clear. In fact, the Witness has not said the question is vague. The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. In May 12, there was a.... Mr. Bautista. May 12 when, Your Honor? Ms. Carpio-Morales. 2014, no, rather 2004, there was a deposit of $500,000 at Bank of PI Acropolis. On May 14, 2004, we are all talking of dollars, dollar-spokening, in other words. On May 14, there was a deposit of $500,000. The Presiding Officer. May I ask this question to clarify. Is there any showing who made the deposit into that deposit account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is none, Your Honor. Maybe it is only the banks which can determine. The Presiding Officer. The records of the bank would show. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Maybe, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. By the way, are these deposit accounts interest-bearing deposits? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I suppose so, Your Honor. Some. The Presiding Officer. And there must be a record of withholding of the 20% final tax. Ms. Carpio-Morales. The bank would be able to enlighten us on the matter, Your Honor, because we have no documents to back up this record of transactions. The Presiding Officer. Yes, please go ahead. Ms. Carpio-Morales. On 2007, on May 3, there was a deposit of $293,645.23 at the Bank of the Philippine Islands in San Francisco del Monte. On May 3.... The Presiding Officer. By the way, do we know the exchange rate at that time, Madam? If these are in dollars, what would be their equivalent amounts in pesos? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do not know, Your Honor. But, I think, at that time the exchange rate was much higher than the present rate of exchange now. All right, on May 3, 2007, there was a deposit at the BPI, again, San Francisco del Monte Branch, in the amount of $25,039. No, rather.... Mr. Bautista. Can you say that again, Madam, US$25,000 or $250,000? Ms. Carpio-Morales. On May 5, no, no, May 3, rather 2007, there was a deposit of US$27,039.80 at the Bank of the Philippine Islands, San Francisco del Monte; on May 3, again, there was a deposit of $134,603.28, again at the BPI, San Francisco del Monte; on May 3, again, there
13
was a deposit of $63,345.61 at the BPI, SFDM and again, May 3, there was a deposit of $53,572.71 at the same bank in BPI, San Francisco del Monte. Again, on May 5, still the sameno, no, no, it is not May 5. They are simply too minute to be read by the naked eye, although, I already have.... On May 3, still the same May 3, there was a deposit of $15,083.83 at the BPI, San Francisco del Monte Branch. And that is all, Your Honor, dollar account. Mr. Bautista. How about for the December 2011 period, you already mentioned how much $769,681.00? Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right, this is a conservative estimate of the total funds that were moved during the impeachment week. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Madam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. On December 12, regular trust fund contribution, placement, investment, in the amount of $417,978.80; on December 12 to 13, there was an encashment converted to pesos $135,359.01; on December 13, there was purchase of Managers Check DDTT in the amount of $388,771.22; on December 13... The Presiding Officer. What is that? Dollars? Pesos? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, I am still speaking of dollars, Your Honor. We did not touch on the peso account because the subpoena limited the document that should be presented with respect to dollar accounts. On December 13, still the same December 13, subtracted from Account No. 1588021386, reflected as debit memo. Credit transaction is not provided. The amount of US$12,888.67 is reflected. On December 15, securities were sold in the amount of US$465,000. On December 15, there was a debit memo from an account and it totals US$72,029.33. On December 15, there was a withdrawal from the same account, US$343,192.62. Still on December 15, there was an excess of credits still on the same account in the amount of US$4,459.76. On December 19, there was purchase of Managers Check DDTT in the amount of US$487,998.09. On December 19, there was excess of deposits in a different account in the amount of US$22,998.09. And on December 20, there were debit memos from a different account in the amount of US$687,648.55. So, the total remittance in December....We add this to the outward remittance of US$350,000 would give a total of US$3,388,323.14. Mr. Bautista. Can you tell us, Madam Ombudsman, which banks were involved in these withdrawals? Ms. Carpio-Morales. This is Allied Banking Corporation (ABC). Mr. Bautista. Just one bank. Ms. Carpio-Morales. BPI.
14
Mr. Bautista. BPI and Allied Bank. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Philippine Savings (PS). Mr. Bautista. So, it is PSBank, Allied Bank and BPI. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. So, three (3) banks. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Bautista. And these withdrawals took place from December 12 to December 20? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Twenty-two, it says here. Mr. Bautista. I asked yesterday Commissioner Mendoza if they did a study of the peso accounts of the Chief Justice and you are now saying you did not. Ms. Carpio-Morales. There was actually a study of the peso accounts. But since the subpoena limited the production of documents bearing on the dollar accounts so we just brought documents bearing on the dollar accounts. Mr. Bautista. So you do not have with you, Madam, your records regarding the peso accounts or do you have them with you? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is reflected in the same document that we sourced from the AMLC. Mr. Bautista. Do you have any summary of the highlights of the peso accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not bring it with me, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. If Your Honor, please, may we ask for leave for the Ombudsman to bring the data and the summaries of the peso accounts? The Presiding Officer. Are you going to make the Ombudsman your witness? Mr. Bautista. Just a reservation, Your Honor, please. Just a reservation. Mr. Cuevas. He is now on cross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Remember you are on cross-examination. I think you know the rules. You want to convert the Ombudsman as your witness and require the presentation of documents, then you have to do the necessary motions. Mr. Bautista. I withdraw that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Bautista. May I proceed. The Presiding Officer. Withdraw. Mr. Bautista. Madam Witness, you earlier said that you received three (3) complaints from Risa Baraquel-Hontiveros, Walden Bello, et cetera. Do you confirm that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor.
15
Mr. Bautista. After you received the complaints, what did you do? Ms. Carpio-Morales. First, when I received the first complaint, I evaluated it and I thought that, again, I said that yesterday, I would refer the complaints to the AMLC in light of my impression that some of the charges were within the jurisdiction of the AMLC. Mr. Bautista. When you referred the matter for assistance from the AMLC, did you do this in writing? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. Do you have a copy of that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I have. Mr. Bautista. May I see, please. Ms. Carpio-Morales. [Witness showing the letter.] Mr. Bautista. For the record, the Madam Ombudsman has given me a letter dated 21 February 2012 under the letterhead of the Ombudsman apparently duly signed by the Ombudsman herself addressed to Amando M. Tetangco Jr., Chairman, Anti-Money Laundering Council. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let me explain that. That was the first letter I sent to the AMLC. Mr. Bautista. Madam, do you have a certified true copy? Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed to see the document being referred to, Your Honor, before any further question is propounded to the Witness? The Presiding Officer. Granted. Show it to the Defense counsel. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is already certified. Mr. Bautista. May we request that the certified true copy of the said February 21, 2012 letter be marked as Exhibit Eleven Z (ZZZZZZZZZZZ). The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bautista. Aside from this letter to the AMLC, you mentioned that you wrote a second letter, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. On what date? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I wrote a letter on February 24, 2012. Mr. Bautista. Do you have a copy of thatcertified true copy? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I have, February 24, 2012. Mr. Bautista. Witness has handed to Counsel a letter dated February 24, 2012, likewise under the letterhead of the Office of the Ombudsman, signed by the Ombudsman, addressed to Amando M. Tetangco Jr., Chairman, Anti-Money Laundering Council. And there is a stamped certified the copy of the original on file.
16
May we ask that this letter be marked as Exhibit Twelve A (AAAAAAAAAAAA) The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bautista. Winston, can you show a copy to them? Madam Ombudsman, may I ask, why did you write these letters to the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, first, under Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act, I am authorized to seek the assistance of other government agencies. Secondly, the Chief Justice himself authorized the Ombudsman in his SALN to determine from other government agencies any assets, any properties, liabilities, net worth or business interest from the time he joined the government up to the present. And so, that was the clincher. I thought I should write a letter to the AMLC in order to seek help for any assistance or for any documents that have a bearing on the charges against the Chief Justice. Mr. Bautista. What information did you expect to obtain from the AMLC? Why the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, because if you read the complaint there was something about violation of Anti-Money Laundering Law and in light of the fact that there was also a charge of unexplained wealth, I thought that I probably could gather from the AMLC certain bank transactions. You see,... well, I am sorry, I will not add to that. Mr. Bautista. Yes. As a former justice of the Supreme Court and the present Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines, I presume that you are fairly familiar with the law on AMLC. Ms. Carpio-Morales. What particular aspect of the law are you asking me to be familiar with? Mr. Bautista. Could you tell us what is the basic responsibility or function of the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Banks are supposed to report to the AMLC any transactions more than 500,000. In other words, 500,000 plus. Mr. Bautista. Pesos. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Pesos, right. Mr. Bautista. Pesos. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, which is called a covered transaction. Now, the banks are obligated to inform the AMLC about these covered transactions, 500 plus thousand pesos. Mr. Bautista. Aside from covered transactions of P500,000 and more, are there any other transactions under the AMLA which the banks are required to forward or send to the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, suspicious transactions. Mr. Bautista. What are suspicious transactions, Madam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let me read it from the law. Mr. Bautista. Yes, please. Ms. Carpio-Morales. From the law, suspicious transactions are transactions with covered institutions regardless of the amounts involved where any of the following circumstances exist: No underlying, legal, or trade obligation; the client is not properly identified; the amount involved is not commensurate to the business or financial capacity of the client, et cetera, among other things. Any
17
circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and or the clients past transactions with the covered bank. So others, inter alia. Mr. Bautista. So under the law, the covered banks are required.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. covered transactions. Mr. Bautista. Covered transactions and suspicious transactions to the AMLC. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Bautista. So the data and the information pertaining to the accounts come from the banks but are forwarded to the AMLC. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is supposed to be the case. Mr. Bautista. And what would this information include? Would you know? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I said the suspicious transactions. Mr. Bautista. No, account number, the name. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right. The date of the transactions, the nature of the transactions. Mr. Bautista. After you wrote the AMLC these two (2) letters, was there any response to your letters by the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, there was. Mr. Bautista. What was it, Madam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They forwarded to me this 17-page document as well as the four-page summary of the transactions. Mr. Bautista. I mentioned this yesterday, may I ask it again. There was an initial on each page of the report of the AMLC, do you recall or would you know whose initial that is? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. The one who is in charge of bank analysis, bank records analysis. Mr. Bautista. Would you know who are the members of the AML Council? Mr. Cuevas. That is provided for by law, Your Honor, it is very specific. Mr. Bautista. I am asking the specific identification. Mr. Cuevas. But that is not the question. May the question be clarified. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Who are the present? The Presiding Officer. Reform the question. Mr. Bautista. Yes. Who are the present Council members? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think the Chair is Chairman Tetangco, the governor of the Central Bank, and members.... Mr. Cuevas. Objection sustained, Your Honor, and the Witness continues to answer.
18
Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry, I did not hear it. I am sorry.
Mr. Bautista. I already reformed the question. What are the names of the present members of AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I know, I heard, hindi ko alam. The chair is the Central Bank Governor and the members are the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Tessie Herbosa, and the Insurance Commissioner. Mr. Bautista. Thank you very much, Madam. May I ask Counsel to stop saying things while the Witness is testifying? Voice. Somebody has been coaching the Witness. Mr. Bautista. Who is coaching the witness? The Presiding Officer. What is the problem? Mr. Cuevas. Anyway, we were hearing that, Your Honor, but we do not want to pest the Witness on the stand with whatever suspicion we may have. We just kept quiet, but we had been hearing, Your Honor, dictation from somewhere. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I cannot be expected to remember everything that is here. Mr. Cuevas. That is not the point, Madam Ombudsman. The question is whether there were really apparent coaching, Your Honor, and we did not bring that into the open. Ms. Carpio-Morales. They were not coaching me. They were just reminding me. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway.... Mr. Cuevas. So you are not being coached, you are only being reminded? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Because as I said, I cannot be expected to remember everything given the documents, the volume of paper work. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, these are public officials. They could come under the official notice of this Court. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. Is there any doubt about the identities of these people? Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. In fact, we even made the suggestion that the law specifically name them. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But the... Mr. Bautista. Does the law mention the name of Tetangco? Mr. Cuevas. That is not necessary for our purposes, Your Honor, because that is not an issue. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. The law states the position. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.
19
The Presiding Officer. Now, but I think the Counsel, the gentleman from the Prosecution is asking the identities of the present persons composing the Anti-Money Laundering Council. And that is a proper question. It does not harm your case. It is a question of who are the members of the AntiMoney Laundering Council. Mr. Cuevas. The present members, Your Honor, by names? The Presiding Officer. Yes. the Ombudsman may answer the question if she knows them. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Already answered, Your Honor, but I can repeat. The present chairman is the Governor of the Central Bank and the members are the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Teresita Herbosa or Teresa, and the Insurance Commissioner. The Presiding Officer. All right. Go ahead please. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. So, under the AMLA, the banks are mandated to forward data and information regarding covered and suspicious transactions to the AMLC? Mr. Cuevas. Admitted, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is by law. Mr. Bautista. It is a preliminary question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, that is a matter of law. Mr. Bautista. I was justlast night and up to this morning, Madam Ombudsman, the Chief Justice has been telling the media that the data information given to you by AMLC is a hoax, is a lantern of lies, it is phoney. What can you say about that? Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor. There is no evidence on record showing that kind of statement from the part of the Chief Justice. If there is, then he who alleges that there was should take the stand and be cross-examined, Your Honor, to determine the accuracy, the correctness and the veracity of the statement. The Presiding Officer. Let the Ombudsman answer if she knows. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President. What can you say about those charges by the Chief Justice? Ms. Carpio-Morales. If, indeed, he made those charges, what I can say is that they are just other lanterns of lies. He says these are lanterns of lies, these are lanterns of lies as far as his statements are concerned because these documents were delivered to me by the Executive Director of the AMLC. Mr. Bautista. Who is the Executive Director of the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was answered yesterday, it is Vic Aquino. Mr. Bautista. If your allegations regarding the accuracy and authenticity of these AMLC documents are being questioned, what would be the best evidence of the data and information regarding Chief Justice Coronas accounts in the banks? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well.... Mr. Cuevas. Improper, Your Honor, immaterial.
20
The Presiding Officer. Are you asking the opinion of the Ombudsman? Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. That is why we object on that ground, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of that question, Counsel?
Mr. Bautista. I want to establish, Your Honor, that the best evidence will be the Chief Justices accounts. Mr. Cuevas. That is your opinion. Mr. Bautista. And he refuses to open his accounts. Mr. Cuevas. That is your opinion. We are objecting, Your Honor. May we be heard in connection therewith, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Sustained. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Your Honor. The Defense has questioned, Madam Ombudsman, the validity and authority of the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to your actions on this investigation. What can you say about that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think I have already made myself clear. I am mandated by the Constitution to investigate public officials to determine whether their actions are inefficient, irregular, improper and the like. Second, there is the Ombudsman Law which echoes the constitutional provision to investigate. And the Ombudsman Law in fact adds that the Ombudsman can prosecute. Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Madam Witness. Ms. Carpio-Morales. And on top of that, of course, as I said earlier, the Chief Justice, in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, had authorized me to seek the help of agencies, including the BIR, to determine whether there are properties, assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and the like from the time he joined the government as well as the interests of his family. To me that is a blanket authority for me to conduct investigation. Mr. Bautista. Thank you. You earlier mentioned that you created a panel to investigate the complaint. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right. Mr. Bautista. Did you give any written order or resolution to impanel this investigation group? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Mr. Bautista. Do you have a copy of that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I issued an order. Yes. Can I have a copy of the order? Yes, yes. This is the order. It is Office Order 100 and it was issued by me on February 22, 2012. I constituted a panel of investigators consisting of one chair and five (5) members. I directed them to
21
conduct fact-finding investigation on the complaint filed by Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Ruperto Aleroza, Gibby Gorres, Harvey Keh and Albert Concepcion against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for alleged numerous violations of the provisions of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, R.A. 9194 et cetera and docketed as CPL number so and so, and to submit its report. Mr. Bautista. The Witness has handed to Counsel an Office Order No. 100, series of 2012, under the letterhead of the Office of the Ombudsman, duly signed by the Ombudsman, and this is a certified true copy, the contents of which were just read by the Witness. May we ask that this be marked as Exhibit PPPPPPPPPPPP? The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Bautista. Would you know if the panel did conduct an investigation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Mr. Bautista. Can you briefly tell us how they went about conducting the investigation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, they subpoenaed certain officials of the government for documents that would have a bearing with the financial Mr. Bautista. Offhand, what are these government agencies who were subpoenaed by the Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the Supreme Court was subpoenaed. I think the Clerk of Court was subpoenaed to send a certified true copy of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Chief Justice. Mr. Bautista. And what was the response of the Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, I think up to now, the latest that I read was that it is still pending before the banc. In other words, they calendared the request in the calendar of the banc and to date there is no compliance. Mr. Bautista. So the panel subpoenaed the Supreme Court for copies of the SALN of the Chief Justice and they did not comply? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, that is what the record shows at this time. It also subpoenaed the head of the accounting for certificate of yearly compensation and allowances. Mr. Bautista. Of the Supreme Court? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yeah, of the Supreme Court. But the head, a certain Ms. Holgado, refused to comply with the letter. Mr. Bautista. Was this refusal written down by the Supreme Court? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, it was documented. Mr. Bautista. Aside from the Supreme Court, who else Ms. Carpio-Morales. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal because the Respondent was one-time member or chair of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal complied. Mr. Bautista. Aside from theyou mentioned the Supreme Court, the BIR, did the panel
22
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. They asked also for some data from the BIR but the BIR has not complied up to the moment. Mr. Bautista. Which other agencies did you... Ms. Carpio-Morales. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Mr. Bautista. What did you ask from the House of Representatives? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The certificate of allowances, compensation and allowances that CJ Corona received while he was a member and/or chair of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Mr. Bautista. And was this subpoena followed? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, they did. They complied. Mr. Bautista. They complied. Aside from the House of Representatives, who else did you subpoena? Ms. Carpio-Morales. The Secretary of the Philippine Senate. Mr. Bautista. For what purpose, Madam Witness? Ms. Carpio-Morales. For the purpose of requesting the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of CJ Corona for 2002from 2002 to 2010, Record/Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court dated January 25, 2012, January 26, 2012 and February 6, 2012; bank certifications dated February 7, 2012 from PSBank, Katipunan Branch, pertaining to the balances of the peso accounts as of December 31, 2009. The Presiding Officer. Counsel, what is the purpose of this line of questioning? Mr. Bautista. I am trying to establish, Your Honor, that the Ombudsman did not act arbitrarily, whimsically with respect to the complaints against the Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. Well, actually, that is already answered. The Ombudsman said, she wasthey are conducting an inquiry about the Chief Justice so much so that they have written a letter to him to answer Mr. Bautista. Yes. The Presiding Officer. To give an answer in 72 hours so Mr. Bautista. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one last point. The Presiding Officer. What is the point in belaboring this issue? Mr. Bautista. Just one last point. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Go ahead. Mr. Bautista. Madam Ombudsman, you mentioned that you asked for the assistance of the COA?
23
Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. Did the COA render any report in writing with respect to their findings? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They came up with this preliminary report and then after some discussion, after some explanations, after some analysis, they came up with this analysis of report and I told them to put in visual form the findings, analysis. Mr. Bautista. Thank you very much, Madam Witness. That is all for the cross. The Presiding Officer. Are you through with your cross? Are you through? Mr. Bautista. Yes, yes. The Presiding Officer. All right. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. If, Your Honor, please. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is the Defense ready to do a redirect? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. But may we request a one-minutea one long-minute recess. The Presiding Officer. One long-minute recess. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The trial was suspended at 3:28 p.m. At 3:56 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. May we request the Honorable Ombudsman to return to the witness stand so that we can proceed. [Long Pause] The trial is suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 4:00 p.m. At 4:02 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The session is resumed. The Defense may now proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Good afternoon, Justice Cuevas. Mr. Cuevas. May I be allowed to continue, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, in these documents that were given us, Your Honor, I noticed the number of the different accounts, but it is not indicated in there the nature of the accounts. For instance, Account No. 8104.
24
May we know the nature of that account? Is it a savings account, a current account, or time deposit or what? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is not indicated, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. It is not indicated. All right. You are not in a position to tell us the nature of this account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. Similarly, in other accounts: Account No. 0933; Account No.0364; Account No. 1867; Account No. 1476 and Account No. 0704, you also will not be in a position to tell this Honorable Court the nature of these accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. But from your examination of the papers and records submitted to you for your consideration, is there any of these accounts that is a current account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is no indication here, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. So, you will not be able to tell the Court.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, if it is a checking account or a savings account or a time deposit. Mr. Cuevas. But you will agree with me that insofar as a checking account is concerned, although, as you said, you are not trained in millions but, let us say, in small accounts, Your Honor, the deposit in that particular account is evidenced by a deposit slip? Ms. Carpio-Morales. If you would deposit.... Mr. Cuevas. Current account, yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. yes, whether in cash or in check. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. That is correct. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And in withdrawals, there is also that withdrawal slip signed by the depositor? Ms. Carpio-Morales. If you withdraw it, if you withdraw cash? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Then it is covered by a withdrawal slip. Mr. Cuevas. Correct. Ms. Carpio-Morales. If the withdrawal is via check, then you have the check that is proof that that amount was debited from the current account. Mr. Cuevas. Correct. And if it is a plain savings account or ordinary account, it is covered or the deposit is covered by a bankbook supplied by the bank? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Hindi na uso ngayon ang bankbook, Justice Cuevas. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but I am not asking you about the uso. It is still practiced.
25
Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Not all banks issue passbooks. Mr. Cuevas. But if there is a passbook, the passbook must be presented for purposes of deposit and withdrawal. Ms. Carpio-Morales. But if you have a card where you can use it as cash when you purchase something, you just PIN your number and that is already debited from your account. Mr. Cuevas. I am not going that far, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I am only up to that extent where a withdrawal is made and the deposit from which the withdrawal is being made is an ordinary savings account or ordinary account. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Again, I qualify my answer, Justice Cuevas. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. If you withdraw it, you want cash, you have this withdrawal slip, or if you do not need the withdrawal slip, you go to the ATM and just PIN and PIN and PIN and then you will get a receipt. Now....Are you coaching him? Voice. Yes, I am also a lawyer and not a witness. Mr. Cuevas. He is assisting, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Irrespective of whether you are a witness or you are a lawyer, that is applied to all participants in this drama. Mr. Cuevas. I understand that even in ordinary cases a passbook is required. You say it is no longer practiced? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do not think lately that has been the practice unless probably you ask for a particular passbook. Mr. Cuevas. I am speaking from experience because there are passbooks issued by China Bank, passbook issued by the....And before you can withdraw and deposit, a passbook must be presented. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, not with respect to Bank of the Philippine Islands. If you withdraw, you just fill up a withdrawal slip and they keep it. They record it. It is all computerized now, Justice Cuevas. All right, assuming that we are still in that practice of having this passbook, what is your question, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. Would you like me to be on the witness stand and answer? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. That does not prevent me from seeking clarification from you. Mr. Cuevas. But you are not clarifying. You are asking me a question. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, because you prefaced your question about this passbook thing. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. And so I wanted clarification.
26
Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, there is no pending question. The Honorable Ombudsman had already answered. The Presiding Officer. Actually, the Ombudsman said she does not know whether the accounts are current accounts, savings accounts or whatever kind of account. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, we have discussed that already. The Presiding Officer. The fact is that there is a bank account. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. And transactions happened in the course of time in connection with that bank account. Mr. Cuevas. May I now go to another subject, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. Again, in another page of this Account No. 8104, year 2007, there are various account numbers. Will you kindly go over them? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Are we looking at the same page, Your Honor? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. This is exhibit for the Prosecution, Your Honor. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. Account No. 8104, 2007. Mr. Cuevas. Will you be kind enough to tell us the nature of this account mentioned in here or you are not also in a position to inform us about the nature of this account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I would not be able. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Bautista. If, Your Honor please. Mr. Cuevas. Answered already. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Bautista. Mr. Justice Cuevas, you are asking questions about Account No. 8104. Are you admitting that these are the accounts of the Chief Justice? Mr. Cuevas. Are you cross-examining me? Mr. Bautista. No, because if you are not admitting that, there is no need to cross-examine.... Mr. Cuevas. This is entirely out of order, Your Honor, unless you are the Presiding Judge or a member of the Senate committee. The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly address the Chair before you.... Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Let us be procedural and more courteous, Your Honor.
27
The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Prosecution, allow the Defense counsel to conduct the redirect examination. If you have any objection, raise an objection, but do not posit a question to him. Mr. Bautista. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So ordered. Mr. Bautista. I am sorry, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. The Presiding Officer. I think we better conduct this hearing in an orderly fashion. We are all lawyers and we know the rules. If you have any objection, raise any objection. State the reason for your objection, so that this Chair can rule to allow or not to allow an answer. All right, Counsel for the Defense, proceed. Mr. Bautista. Your Honor, please. Mr. Cuevas. May I proceed, Your Honor. Mr. Bautista. Your Honor, please. I respectfully object to the questions raised by the Defense. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Bautista. On the ground of irrelevance. Because there has been no admission or proof that the Chief Justice is admitting these to be his accounts. Mr. Cuevas. There is no pending question anymore. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. There is no.... Mr. Cuevas. Pending question. Mr. Bautista. Admission, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. On the part of the Chief Justice. Mr. Bautista. Yes. The Presiding Officer. But the Ombudsman was presented by the Defense to testify here. And the Ombudsman said that she received a report from AMLC to the effect that there is a bank deposit account bearing the name of Renato Corona and there were transactions in connection with it. Are you denying that? Mr. Bautista. No, Your Honor. They are the ones denying that. The Presiding Officer. What is the materiality of that question that you are raising? Mr. Bautista. We submit, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No. What is the materiality? Mr. Bautista. We withdraw the objection, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are confusing the issues here. I think we better not do any misleading effort here because we are quite alert in this Court.
28
Proceed, Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the honorable Court.
Again, may I be permitted, Madam Ombudsman, to kindly direct your attention to what appears in this PowerPoint presentation.... The Presiding Officer. What page of the PowerPoint presentation are you referring to? Mr. Cuevas. It is there, Your Honor. I am referring to that portion labeled Account 8104-2007. I suppose that the account number there mentioned is the Account Number and 2007 is the year. Now, my question to you is.... The Presiding Officer. That is Account No. 8104-2007. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Now, my question to you now is, will you be kind enough to tell this Honorable Court the nature of the accounts, namely: Account Nos. 2804, 2693, 2405, 4351, 7659, 3398, 2812, 2887, 3479, and 3193? That is the question. Will you be able to answer? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. You are not familiar with these numbers as numbers of a bank account? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They are supposed to be bank accounts. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. But what I mean.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. But whether they are current, savings, I would not know. It is not indicated in the data from which I gathered, from my analysis. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Madam. Now, may I know from you how these documents appearing in this PowerPoint presentation has been made and who authored the same? Your office? Ms. Carpio-Morales. My office, with the assistance of the COA. I asked them to visualize it because it would be easier to understand. Mr. Cuevas. In other words, you are not personally involved in this? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I was personally involved. But in the drawing of this or the....How do you call it? What is the term? In the putting of the arrows and what looked like balloons, they were the ones who pinned it in the computer. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. May we be informed as to the extent and nature of your participation. Is it supervisory or actual? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Actual, supervisory and control. Mr. Cuevas. And in what sense was that actual supervision made? Will you kindly let us know?
29
Ms. Carpio-Morales. They were personally present in the office. So, we went from one entry to another. And after that was done, they had to tell me that it is now reflected as you wished in this, in that, in that. Mr. Cuevas. All right. And insofar as your office is concerned, where did these matters appearing in this Account No. 8104-2007 come from? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They were lifted from the entries given by the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. I see. And these entries that you mentioned a while ago, were they presented to you very formally by the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It was forwarded to me by the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. So, it was not filed with your office very formally with an attachment? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because it is strictly confidential, it was personally delivered to me. Mr. Cuevas. By whom? Ms. Carpio-Morales. By Mr. Vic Aquino. Mr. Cuevas. I noticed yesterday that you had a hard time reading the entries therein appearing Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right because they are so minute. Mr. Cuevas. thus, giving me the impression that that appears to be the first time you have gone over these documents. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. As you will note in the copy I had, I had my annotations. I had my markings and that is why I asked the permission of the Senate if they could photocopy the clean copy of these documents. Mr. Cuevas. That is the farthest you have gone insofar as supervision or in the preparation of this Ms. Carpio-Morales. For this I have gone? Mr. Cuevas. or presentation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. By? Mr. Cuevas. I have asked you a very definite question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of this line of questioning, Counsel? Are you impeaching your Witness? Impugning her competence? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, the Court allowed us to introduce her as a hostile witness. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. And being allowed to do so....
30
The Presiding Officer. You can cross-examine. I know the rules. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. That is our purpose. The Presiding Officer. It is in front of me.
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor, that is the purpose. We are trying to determine the veracity and the accuracy. The Presiding Officer. You are testing the credibility of the Witness. Mr. Cuevas. By way of impeachment, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, when you went over this tabulation furnished you by the AMLC people, you did not have a talk with anyone of them? Ms. Carpio-Morales. With any of the? Mr. Cuevas. AMLC people. Ms. Carpio-Morales. AMLC people, no. Mr. Cuevas. None. In other words, it was just given to you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. There is no covering letter. Ms. Carpio-Morales. There was. Mr. Cuevas. And you assumed that this was the document.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. There was, there was. Mr. Cuevas. There was? Ah, I see. May we be allowed to go over the covering letter. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sure. The letter of the AMLC when they transmitted the document to me. The March 9, 2012 letter. We have here the covering letter. It is here. Mr. Cuevas. Going over this letter, it states: We are furnishing you with the attached information for intelligence purposes only in connection with the investigation of the above-mentioned complaint. Did you notice that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I know that. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Will you kindly enlighten us as to the scope of what is meant, if you know, of mentioning here of intelligence purposes only. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let me see the letter, Chief. [Witness going over the letter.]
31
When it says it is strictly confidential, it says: The attached information for intelligence purposes only in connection with the investigation of the above-captioned complaints. The Presiding Officer. Meaning, information. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Information, yes. Furnishing you the attached information for intelligence purposes only in connection with the investigation of the attached mentioned complaint. The mentioned complaint was Risa Hontiveros, et al. versus Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Mr. Cuevas. May I continue now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Go ahead. You are doing a cross-examination. Do not keep asking permission from the Chair. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. I was thinking that the Chair may have a question, that is why. The Presiding Officer. No, no, go ahead. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. In other words, it is definite and specific that this information being relayed to you was pursuant to this alleged complaint of Risa Hontiveros, et al., against Chief Justice Corona. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, sir. Mr. Cuevas. Mention is made in here of an investigation. Is this investigation merely administrative or preliminary as it is understood? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Fact-finding investigation or case buildup. Mr. Cuevas. That is strictly confidential? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. And it ought not to be known by anybody else outside of those connected officially with it. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. Meaning, only by people within your office are privileged to know this investigation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not all members of my staff knew about it. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but those who should know about this are only those working with you in connection with this complaint. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, but I qualify that. Because I had difficulty analyzing the data, I had to engage the assistance of other government agencies. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but my question to you is: The extent and scope of the confidentiality mentioned in here refers to the fact that it should be known only to the members of your staff or office? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Who were assisting me in the investigation of this case. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.
32
Now, if I go back to your letter to the Chief Justice asking him to answer the alleged charges in there, you mentioned about serious misconduct in office. Kindly go over the copy if you have it. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am going over it right now, Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. What is the question? Mr. Cuevas. I am referring, Your Honor, to a portion of the letter addressed by the Honorable Ombudsman to Chief Justice Corona. The Presiding Officer. And? Mr. Cuevas. And may I refer the Honorable Ombudsman to this particular portion. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. While you may only be removed from office through impeachment proceedings, this office has, as reflected earlier, the power and duty to investigate you for any serious misconduct in office for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted. It was on this account that this office conducted an initial evaluation of the complaint. My question to you is: What meaning should be attached to this statement of yours regarding the alleged commission of serious misconduct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Any conduct that is intentionally done which is not just, which is not proper, which is in violation of law, that to me encompasses the phrase serious misconduct. Mr. Cuevas. In this connection, may I read to you a portion of the decision in several cases, more particularly in the case of Salcedo v. Inting, ruled by the honorable Supreme Court, wherein it is stated: The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, sir. Mr. Cuevas. In other words, it is not any misfeasance or malfeasance but it is an act violative of the rules and the law in connection with the performance of official duty. Now, the addressee here is Chief Justice Corona. Will you be kind enough to tell this Honorable Court what is the scope of that serious misconduct you are referring to in this letter? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It encompasses anything that violates the law. In this case, he is charged to have accumulated wealth that is purportedly grossly disproportionate to his income. Mr. Cuevas. But I will not take issue with you there because the jurisprudence on the point we have placed on record, Your Honor, are already there. Now, when you were furnished with this report of the AMLC pursuant to your request Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. I hope you went over the same, and as you said, many times? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir.
33
Mr. Cuevas. All right. Could you now affirm under oath that the contents of the said report are accurate, correct, and in accordance with law based on your examination? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Whether or not the contents of that report are accurate, correct, or in accordance with law, I would not have any way of knowing. Mr. Cuevas. I see. So, that is the.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because that was furnished to me by the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. That is beyond your comprehension. Ms. Carpio-Morales. What do you mean beyond my comprehension? I do not understand it? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Beyond my competence, yes, but not beyond my comprehension. Mr. Cuevas. How did you understand the figures mentioned in there, were they accurate, were they correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the presumption is that since I was given this document, the presumption is that these are documents correctly reflected in the data of the AMLC. Mr. Cuevas. What verification did you undertake if you did in connection with the accuracy of the figures therein stated? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I could not go directly to the bank to verify whether the data entered here are correct or not. Mr. Cuevas. How about any of your people or person under you, Madam Ombudsman, none conducted any inquiry? Ms. Carpio-Morales. From the bank? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. There were no inquiries as to whether these alleged withdrawals are covered by any withdrawal slip. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. The deposit that you mentioned was not ascertained as to whether there were deposit slips covering the same. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. On the dates mentioned therein? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, apparently, you give us the impression thatpardon the language you swallowed, hook, line, and sinker the entire contents of the document submitted to you in response to your letter.
34
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Again, I say, the presumption is that they would give to me correct information. Mr. Cuevas. And that presumption was never verified by you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I could not verify it. I could not go to the bank. I could not do that. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Remember yesterday, you were talking about confidentiality of bank deposits. Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. To which I retorted that are you admitting that these bank deposits exist? Mr. Cuevas. Well, how could I make it? [Laughter] I am the one propounding the question. Are you cross-examining.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am reminding you about what transpired yesterday, Mr. Justice. Mr. Cuevas. Well, I have not forgotten what transpired yesterday, precisely, the basis of my additional direct questioning now, because you have people, according to you, who have assisted you, in connection with the determination of the truth. Ms. Carpio-Morales. In connection with the analysis. Mr. Cuevas. Allow me to finish first. If your Honor please, may we request that the Witness be reminded. The Presiding Officer. Madam, with your indulgence, let the Counsel finish. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I submit, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. I withdraw the former question. In that analysis that you made, did you ask for the assistance of any of the people in your office to determine the truth of what appears in these reports submitted to you by the AMLC before? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. We are not allowed to determine the truth of what appears there. Mr. Cuevas. I thought the purpose of your request for assistance is to be able to ascertain the truth of the matters. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Determine the existence. Mr. Cuevas. Wait, allow me to finish. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sorry. Mea culpa. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, thank you. I thought your purpose was to ask the assistance of the AMLC to enlighten you on what they have in connection with this complaint of the various complainants before you, right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let me read my letter to the AMLC.
35
My request was for the assistance of the AMLC vis-a-vis the present investigation being conducted by our office on account of the letter-complaint of Risa Hontiveros, et al. by way of providing relevant information bearing on the financial transactions, if any, of the Respondent and related transactions. Mr. Cuevas. In the reply that you received, was there any statement relative to the financial transactions that you were asking assistance? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They furnished me a copy of this 17-page document and the four-page summary of transactions. Mr. Cuevas. What transactions are you referring to, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Bank transactions, financial, to be more accurate. Mr. Cuevas. They are transactions involving deposits and withdrawals. Nothing more? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not necessarily. Mr. Cuevas. Were you able to ascertain whether these bank accounts reflected in the report are actually existing? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Again, I said earlier, how can I determine if they are actually existing when I cannot go to the bank? Mr. Cuevas. I am not asking you how you can determine, but what I am asking you is, did you determine? The Presiding Officer. Already answered. She said already that she did not go to the Ms. Carpio-Morales. Bank. The Presiding Officer. to the banks. She did not go to the records. She relied on the report of AMLC. And she presumed the veracity of the report of an agency authorized by law to handle this type of problem. Mr. Cuevas. Yes, but.... Were you able to ascertain whether there is any investigation conducted by the AMLC in connection.... Mr. Bautista. May I object, Your Honor please? Mr. Cuevas. Allow me to finish and I will give you all the opportunity. The Presiding Officer. Madam Ombudsman, will you kindly allow him to finish, so that Ms. Carpio-Morales. Mr. Presiding Justice, it was he who talked. Mr. Bautista. Mea culpa. Mr. Cuevas. I hope he is not appointed Ombudsman, Your Honor, because there will be a conflict of authority already. The Presiding Officer. Who was talking? Mr. Bautista. I was the one, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You see, the Presiding Officer is getting confused, cannot get who is talking.
36
By the way, will you please object if you want to object so that I will know that you are objecting to the question? Mr. Bautista. I was objecting, Your Honor please. The Presiding Officer. All right. Anyway Mr. Cuevas. There is no question yet. The Presiding Officer. will you kindly repeat your question? Mr. Cuevas. If there is any, because I do not recall making any question. Based on your examination of the report given to you by the AMLC people, were you able to ascertain which of these accounts mentioned in your PowerPoint presentation are still existing? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. Mr. Baustista. Objection, Your Honor please. Mr. Cuevas. Already answered. Mr. Baustista. May I object? The Presiding Officer. Let the Witness answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. All right. So, as of today, based from your knowledge, the Court cannot deduce which of these.... Based from your testimony, there could be no conclusion or finding to be made by the Court which of these accounts allegedly still exist? Mr. Bautista. Objection, Your Honor. May I.... The Presiding Officer. What is the basis of the objection? Mr. Bautista. The objection is based on the fact that the Witness has repeatedly said that she has relied on presumptions of law, specifically Rule 131, Section 2 and Section 44 of Rule 130. Rule 130, Section 44, establishes the presumption that entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the Philippines or by a person in the performance of a duty enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Moreover, under Rule 131, Section 2, it is a conclusive presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. And the Witness has already answered that she has relied on those presumptions when she dealt with the information from the AMLC. The Presiding Officer. So that we finish this, let the Ombudsman answer. She is a very intelligent witness. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your question, Mr. Justice, is that whether I verified if these accounts still exist? Mr. Cuevas. Yes. Whether you came to know which of these accounts are still existing and whether they still contain deposits. Ms. Carpio-Morales. You said as of today?
37
Mr. Cuevas. At the time when you examined the report. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. You stated as of today. Mr. Cuevas. I am not saying that. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. You said that. Mr. Cuevas. That is not part of the question. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Let us go by the transcript of the stenographic notes. Mr. Cuevas. I am withdrawing that. I am asking you another question. Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. So, no, the answer is no. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. No, you did not. That is all, your Honor. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you too. The Presiding Officer. Recross? Mr. Bautista. Nothing, Your Honor, please. The Presiding Officer. No more recross? Mr. Bautista. No more recross. The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. Mr. Cuevas. We are through with the Witness, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. I just want to clarify. Are the two panels through with the Ombudsman? Mr. Cuevas. I am through with the redirect, Your Honor. And there is an announcement by my colleague here that he has no recross. The Presiding Officer. That is precisely I am asking you if you are through. Mr. Cuevas. The Defense is through, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Defense is through with the Witness. How about the Prosecution? Mr. Bautista. We are through, Your Honor please. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. All right. Madam Ombudsman, thank you for bearing with us. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago wishes to ask a few questions. Senators Guingona, Drilon, Legarda, Cayetano and Pangilinan also wish to ask questions.
38
The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo is recognized. All right, all right. The members of the Impeachment Court want to posit questions. Please go ahead. Senator Defensor Santiago. May I ask, Mr. President, if the Senate engineer can put on all the lights? Thank you. I will ask first a very simple question. R.A. No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act, provides, and I read: Section 22. Investigatory Power. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted. Question: Under the law, Ms. Witness, as Ombudsman, you can investigate any serious misconduct allegedly committed by the Chief Justice. Since an impeachment trial is now ongoing, the only purpose for your present investigation should be to file a verified complaint for impeachment by December of this year. Here is the question: Do you intend, if the defendant is acquitted, to file a second complaint for impeachment this year? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, it is the House which determines whether on the basis of the data it receives.... Senator Defensor Santiago. I am not asking about who decides. I am asking about a provision in the Ombudsman Act which provides: Section 22. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have power to investigate, et cetera...for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted. That is your job. So, is that job being undertaken now by the Ombudsman with its present investigation? Since there is no point investigating, an impeachment trial is already ongoing, therefore, under Section 22, your sole purpose could only be to file a second complaint for impeachment after the one-year ban provided by law. Therefore, I am asking you the question. Do you intend, if in this first impeachment trial the defendant is acquitted, to file a second impeachment complaint against him after the one-year ban? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Madam Senator, if the charges presently being investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman are not included in the impeachment charges, then I do not see any reason why there should be no chance to file another impeachment complaint. Senator Defensor Santiago. I am sorry. I do not get the question very correctly, the answer very correctly. Is your answer a yes or a no? Is that a yes? You are intending to file.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. For the purpose of filing an impeachment complaint? Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, that is right. Ms. Carpio-Morales. If that is warranted after the conclusion of the investigation. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, that is what the law says, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment if warranted. If you think it is warranted, then your only purpose will be to file a second impeachment complaint, is that not so? Is that a fair question? Ms. Carpio-Morales. If it is warranted, we will. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Thank you. That is the only question. So, we are placing the Defendant on notice that even if this Court acquits him, he can expect a second impeachment complaint by December this year for that is what the law says. The Ombudsman cannot investigate unless it is for the sole and only purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted. You are so warned.
39
Ms. Carpio-Morales. May I be allowed to speak, Your Honor? To qualify. The Presiding Officer. You may answer. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Nothing will prevent the Ombudsman from filing forfeiture proceedings, if warranted. Senator Defensor Santiago. I take that as a yes. I am a student of constitutional law. Let me now go to certain questions of constitutional law. This is going to be a little tedious, but still, it needs to be raised. I am very intrigued by the world view of the Ombudsman on the relationship between a constitutional provision or provisions on the one hand, and the provisions of laws passed by Congress on the other hand. I have to start with the fundamental principleand I hope you will all bear with me that the Constitution is a written limitation of the powers of State. It is not a written grant of state power for the fear always is that government might turn tyrannical against its own citizens. In fact, reflecting this fear, our Constitution specifically provides in the Declaration of Policy in Section 1: Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. I draw from this background the conclusion that if there is any doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the rights of the citizen and against the powers of State. With that preface, let me now proceed. First, I would like to recite the constitutional provisions of the powers of the Ombudsman which appear to be very plenary, infinite and wide-ranging. These are the provisions of the Constitution, Article XI, and I will qualify them by saying that, Congress passed a law called the Ombudsman Act of 1989, virtually copying the constitutional provision. Under Section 13, The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties: x x x x (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents. Section 33. Duty to Render Assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman. Any officer or employee of any department, bureau or office, subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and local governments, when required by the Ombudsman, his Deputy or the Special Prosecutor shall render assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman. Finally, Section 15, paragraph (8). The Powers of the Ombudsman: Administer oaths, et cetera, including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records. These are the broad language employed by the Constitution and virtually copied in the law passed by Congress, the Ombudsman Act of 1989. But in juxtaposition to these broad constitutional powers of the Ombudsman, we also have certain laws passed by Congress which include naturally both the House and the Senate. One of them is the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which provides: Section 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits. All foreign currency deposits, et cetera, hereby declared as, and considered of, an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private. That law is still existing, the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. So, immediately we are faced with a question: How broad are the powers of the Ombudsman? Or should we adopt the world view or the
40
mindset that the Ombudsmans powers are unlimited as long as they are listedthey are among the lists that are borne in our Constitution? I was citing the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. Now, let me cite.... The Presiding Officer. May I request the lady Senator-Judge to wrap up? We have a rule and my attention has been called. Senator Defensor Santiago. May I request for extension of time, please? The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you. That would be two plus two equals four minutes. Let me go to the AMLC Act. It says, in effect, because I have been asked to shorten my question. I was trying to lay the background so that we would all be clear. In effect, under the AMLC Act, the AMLC or the Council should first find probable cause then it should file the complaint before the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman who shall then conduct the preliminary investigation of the case. That is what the law says. So, in effect, therefore, I will just go immediately to the question to follow the injunction. Question: It appears that you take the position that the power of the Ombudsman under the Constitution to request the AMLC for assistance and information should prevail over the procedure provided in the AMLA and even over the decision of the Supreme Court. I am referring to the Eugenio case where the Supreme Court said, There is this favor towards construing these exceptions in such a manner that would authorize unlimited discretion on the part of the government or of any party seeking to enforce those exceptions in inquiring to bank deposits. If there are doubts in upholding absolutely confidential the nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. Is it your position, Madam, that the powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution override the provisions of the AMLA as passed by Congress and the Eugenio case which I just quoted as decided by the Supreme Court? That is the question. And then I will have a second one. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I must just abide by what the provisions of the Ombudsman Law provide. Until the provision is declared unconstitutional, I must abide by it, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. So, can you please respond to this question? You mean that your powers, as enumerated in the Constitution, override the laws passed by Congress such as, AMLA, the Judicial Bank Secrecy Deposit Law, the Foreign Currency Deposit Law and even the case of Eugenio decided by the Supreme Court? Ms. Carpio-Morales. May I invite your attention, Your Honor, to the AMLA, Section 3, subsection (b). Senator Defensor Santiago. If you could read it to me, please. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I will. Covered transaction is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary.... Senator Defensor Santiago. I am familiar with that. Since I have a very limited time.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. All right. Section 3(c).
41
Yes.
Senator Defensor Santiago.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. It says: Monetary instrument refers to coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines or of any other country. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. So, what is the point of your answer? Ms. Carpio-Morales. My point is that, dollars are covered by the law. Senator Defensor Santiago. There is no question about that. The issue here is that under the AMLA, first, the Council must conduct a fact-finding system and then if it finds probable cause refer the matter to you for preliminary investigation but you did not follow this procedure plus there is a provision in the same law that provides that you must first go, file a petition in court and get a court order before AMLC can answer your question. That is the focus of my question. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor, but this applies only for cases involving money laundering. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is your position that these provisions apply only to money laundering cases. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Senator Defensor Santiago. So, let me go to the next question. Your position would logically lead to the conclusion that the bank accounts of any public officer can be opened on mere request by the Ombudsman without any court order. But, let me place that question in context. Under the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has no disciplinary authority over impeachable officials, members of Congress and the Judiciary. So, let me repeat the question and then I will end because I am under time constraints. Are you in the opinion, therefore, that should somebody file a complaint against any of us, senators or the members of the House, you can just go straight to AMLC and ask for our records without going to the court or without waiting for probable cause to be found by the Council itself? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That would depend on the complaint, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes, of course. It will depend on the complaint. But suppose, hypothetically, that you find that the complaint is warranted, is that your view that you can just act on your own.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. It would depend on the nature of the complaint. Senator Defensor Santiago. I know that. But suppose that after all your own internal procedures and you have made a decision that the complaint is worthy of further consideration, is it your considered opinion that, as in this case, you can just go direct to AMLC and not follow the procedures in the AMLA? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, again, I said, it would depend on the complaint. Senator Defensor Santiago. Well, you are fudging your answer, Madam Witness. Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. You said it is....I said if it is.... Senator Defensor Santiago. You are arguing with a Senator-Judge.
42
Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry, mea culpa.
Senator Defensor Santiago. I accept the apology. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Noted.
The Presiding Officer. Next? The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Senator Guingona, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Bukidnon. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Ombudsman, in the SALN of the Chief Justice in 2004, he listed P3,300,000 cash in investments; in the SALN of 2005, he put in the same amount P3,300,000. Okay. I will be using as reference, Madam Ombudsman, the document that you furnished us. Do you have it, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Senator Guingona. Okay, po. Let us go to page 2, lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 from the top, the one that says in the account number column, 16874. Ms. Carpio-Morales. FAO? Senator Guingona. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. For the account of Senator Guingona. Yes. And then it says 16874 account number. You see it, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I do. Senator Guingona. I hope you can help me here because in accordance with thisif you look at the date, it says, on May 17, 2004, the Chief Justice purchased P27,933,000.00 worth of a placement in the PhilAm Dollar Bond Fund, Inc. and the transaction code is BYMF. Ang ibig pong sabihin ng BYMF Buy Mutual Fund bumili. Bumili ng mutual fund. Kailan bumili? Bumili noong May 17, 2004. Magkano? Twenty-seven million, nine hundred thirty-three thousand (P27,933,000.00), Account No. 16874. Then, let me invite you to page 4, lines 1, 2, 3, 4 from the bottom naman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Senator Guingona. Do you see it, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do. Senator Guingona. Okay. The same Account Number 16874. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Yes, Maam. But the date is different now, the date now is April 6, 2005 so that is 11 months after he purchased it and the amount now has increased, P28.377 million. Again, it is from the PhilAm Dollar Fund. But the code is different now. The code says, SLMF, the code of SLMF means, Sell Mutual Fund investment. So we have a situation, Maam, that he bought in 2004
43
May, P27 million worth of investment in the PhilAm Dollar Fund and 11 months later in April he got back his placement plus interest I suppose, since the amount increased. So, this is a placement of P28 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. These are pesos, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Pesos, Maam, because the transaction code says, pesos. (Bell ringing, indicating time limit) If I may finish, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. One year placement from May 2004 to April 2005, P27 million. Do you not think, Maam, that that amount should have appeared in his SALN December 31, 2004, the P27 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It should have, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Yet it does not, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It does not, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Would you be able toare you competent to enlighten me on that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. The best evidence is the document. It is not stated in his SALN. Senator Guingona. Because in his SALN it is only P3.3 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. Yet the document shows that he has a placement of P27 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. And on December 31, 2004, that P27 million still existed and yet was not reported. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Guingona. In that case, Mr. President, since this is a mutual fund placement which is not a bank account, which is not covered by the Bank Secrecy Law, I respectfully move that we subpoena the documents from the PhilAm Dollar Fund, Mr. President. I so move. The Presiding Officer. We will take that up in our caucus. Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Body? The Floor Leader, there is a motion. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we may take up the motion on Monday during the caucus. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Sotto. It is best that we do so instead of debating among ourselves openly, Mr. President.
44
So with that, I would like to ask that Senator Drilon be recognized for the next Senator-Judge. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo has the floor. Senator Drilon. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Ombudsman, as Ombudsman and former Justice of the Supreme Court, based on your knowledge, should the assets contained in the accounts marked as Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW be reported in the SALN of the public official? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Let me walk you through some of the accounts in order that we can see what the situation is. Can I refer to you to page 4 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW? Excuse me, Mr. President, the clock keeps on moving, I am not speaking. [Laughter] The clock keeps on ticking, I am not talking so that removes time from me. So the clerk is requested to... The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly... Senator Drilon. Anyway, Mr. President, I have a pending question. Can I refer you to page 4 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW? There is an account number there 0141007129 which indicates a dollar deposit on January 14, 2005 in the amount of US$57,000. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, can I have the line so that I can easily spot it? Senator Drilon. Yes. The seventh line from the top. Do you confirm that? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Senator Drilon. Can you use the microphone, Maam, please? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Mr. Senator, I confirm that there is a US$57,000 entry here. Senator Drilon. On page 5, Madam Witness, on the eleventh line from the top, again an account number 0141007129, there appears to be a deposit through a credit memo on July 19, 2005 in the amount of US$15,242.44. Would you confirm that for the record, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. In other words, on this account alone, we added it and the two amounts deposited amounted to US$72,242.44 as of July 19, 2005. On page 10 of this document, the eighth line from the bottom Ms. Carpio-Morales. Eighth line from the bottom? Senator Drilon. on page 10. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Page 10, sorry. Line 9 from the bottom? Senator Drilon. I am sorry, line 8, I am sorry, Your Honor, from the bottom. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, I relate with you. Senator Drilon. This is the same account 0141007129 where a withdrawal of US$89,059.35 was made on October 6, 2008, do you confirm that, Maam?
45
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. And therefore, this indicates that on December 31, 2005, there was an amount of US$72,242.44 which was in this account because it was withdrawn only on October 6, 2008, is that correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Mr. Senator. Senator Drilon. Similarly, on December 31, 2006, the same amount should be on this account US$72,242.44 considering that it was not withdrawn until October 6, 2008, is that correct? Please use the microphone, Madam Witness. Ms. Carpio-Drilon. Yes, Mr. Senator. Senator Drilon. And finally, on December 31, 2007, the same amount of US$72,242.44 should be appearing as the same was only withdrawn on October 6, 2008, is that correct? Ms. Carpio-Drilon. Yes, Mr. Senator. Senator Drilon. And therefore, there waswould you now agree with me that there was a violation of the law requiring reporting of assets and liabilities and net worth if these amounts were not so reported? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Mr. Senator. Senator Drilon. Now, in order to save time, can we just make some manifestations, Your Honor, as these are all based on the documents Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. We want to manifest on record that Account No. 0141007129 which is a PSBank account was admitted.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Cainta. Senator Drilon. I am sorry. Ms. Carpio-Morales. PSBank Account Cainta. Senator Drilon. Yes. This is an account which was established on the record upon questioning of the Presiding Judge on the general manager of PSBank. So, this account is on record as existing. Now, we manifest also that on page 8 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW, there was an account indicated with the following number 0141016962 on page 8 and there is a credit memo depositing the amount of US$300,000 on July 10, 2007. On page 10 of the same document, there was an indication that this amount was withdrawn on August 5, 2008 and, therefore, it is clear that on December 31, 2007, this amount was in account number that we have manifested. We have to manifest that per Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Respondent, this was not reported as the cash reported in the SALN is only 2.5 million for 2007. Similar manifestations, Your Honor, are being made for Account No. 0141019678 in the amount of US$455,210.07, which again was existing as of December 31, 2008 but which is not in the SALN of the Respondent.
46
Again, Account No. 0191000373 which appears on Page 11 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW, the amount of US$768,733.96 was deposited on October 31, 2008 and withdrawn only on December 15, 2011 as shown on page 11 and 16 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW. Therefore, it is clear that this amount was outstanding in the bank account on December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010. Finally, on page 9 of Exhibit WWWWWWWWWWW under Account No. 0141017659, the amount of US$299,937.86 was deposited on November 9, 2007. Two hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred thirty-seven point eighty-six dollars was deposited and was withdrawn only on August 5, 2008, and was therefore in existence as of December 31, 2007. That is all, Your Honor. Thank you very much for the time. The Presiding Officer. Thank you, thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize the Minority Leader, Sen. Alan Cayetano. The Presiding Officer. Senator Cayetano, Alan Peter of Taguig. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. Presiding Officer; good afternoon, Madam Ombudsman; my colleagues. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Good afternoon, Mr. Senator. Senator Cayetano (A). Maam, when this impeachment process started, the President made a case that this is about corruption, cleaning the country, cleaning the Judiciary, while the supporters of the Chief Justice were making a case that this is about judicial independence. And these are two valid issues not necessarily in conflict with each other and, I think, Maam, you are in the best position to help clarify some issues because you were one of the more respected Justices of the Supreme Court, and now as Ombudsman, you are asked to investigate and prosecute graft cases. So my questions will be in line with what Senator Miriam was asking, Maam. But before that, just some clarificatory questions regarding the AMLC submission to you, Maam. Maam, you talked about fresh funds and you said the fresh funds amounted to about P10 to P12 million and then Commissioner Heidi Mendoza talked about, I do not know how she categorized those funds, but she said total inflow and outflow of around, if I am not mistaken, US$28 million, Maam. But for thejust to clarify, Maam, for the public who is listening and for the Senator-Judges, in your study, did you narrow down how muchhow do we put in laymans term, Maam? Magkano po ang pera at a certain point of time na sure tayo nasa loob ng account? So not taking into consideration yung inilabas at ipinasok ulit. So meaning, if you say today or on that datelet us say, what was the largest amount, Maam, made? For example, Maam, Senator Lacson made his own computation and he said noong nagwithdraw si Chief Justice, three million plus, except that lampas na nang date na covered nung Impeachment yun dahil December 2011. We are only talking about SALN until December 31, 2010. Would you have a computation, Maam, or a figure of how much in dollars he would have had at any certain point of time? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, dollar inflows from April 14, 2003 to December 22, 2011 amounted to $12,155,530.86.
47
Senator Cayetano (A). Maam, when you say inflow, does this include what was taken out and then put it back in? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is the balance. Inflow, they come in. Outflow would be, they go out. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. What I wanted to clarify, Maam, without having to do the computation by myself is at anylike, Senator Lacson in his computation, he said on December 2011, he computed a total of three million that was withdrawn by the Chief Justice. Meaning, that he had at least $3 million at that time. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Uh-huh. Senator Cayetano (A). So, Maam, before that 2011, with regard to the report of the AMLC, was your team able to extrapolate or to analyze how much money not taken into consideration what came in or came out or not re-adding what came in again or went out at a certain point in time? Meaning, Maam, magkano po ang total dollars niya at one point in time? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think that would be difficult, Your Honor, at one point in time. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. It would depend on the time. Let us say 2003, 2004. Senator Cayetano (A). No. At any point in time, the most number of dollars, Maam. My point is, coming from the Chief Justice who is saying that mali and weand the report was dinagdagan or added. I do not want to speak for him but he is making it appear na malayo sa $12 million ang pera niya doon. Para bang nag-double counting. Did your office have any findings? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. We had. We made sure that there would be no double counting, Mr. Senator. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because, indeed, in the data, there are second or triple or quadruple entries... Senator Cayetano (A). So, Maam Ms. Carpio-Morales. ...which are of the same amount, which are transacted on the same day. But let us say, 100,000 is deposited to that side. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Then it is taken out, it goes to that side. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Then it goeson the same day, that same amount goes out to another account. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Maam, let me try to clarify... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Then it goes to this account but it ends there.
48
Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. So that is the one included in the computation.
Senator Cayetano (A). So that is what you meant, Maam, by fresh funds. Meaning, it was there at that point in time and so at any point in time, he had $12 million. Is that a correct understanding? Meaning, how much did he own? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Covered transactions, that is it. Senator Cayetano (A). Covered. The Presiding Officer. Actually, the question seeks to elicit a statement about the float. You see, there was a bank deposit account made and there were withdrawals, there were deposits. At any given time, this money is put in different investment accounts. That is what is normally called in the investment field as a float of the depositor. So that will be the function of the people who will analyze this whole thing: how much at any given time was the float of the Respondent if he had any float of investment and all of these are assets that ought to have been included in the SALN. So proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). I think the Senate President asked it more clearly. So if I may use the word how much was the float at Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry, You Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Maam, I think the Senate President put it more clearly. Magkano po yung float at one point in time? Or any point in time, how much was the money ofin dollars Ms. Carpio-Morales. You want to know how much was theyes. Senator Cayetano (A). I want to know if your office made an analysis. I understand that ang binigay po sa inyo ay transactions. Hindi binigay sa inyo kung magkano ang pera niya at a certain point in time. So was the analysis together with the COA Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well at one time there was a withdrawal in the amount of 1,797,722.54. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Second question, Maam, the AMLC only gave this 17-page. Did they give you the balances at the end of the year of the Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). And they cannot give that to you? Ms. Carpio-Morales. We never asked for it, Your Honor. And I think they have to analyze it. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. For the purposes of the Impeachment Court, we agreed in caucus that we will be looking at the balances on December 31 of every relevant year when he was in government. That is why if this can be given to us, it would make it much easier for us. Maam, that is my last question regarding the actual amount. But just to go to the issues brought up by Senator Miriam, let me first tell you where we are coming from. After the 2007 election, as Blue Ribbon Committee Chair, we had several investigations: the ZTE, the fertilizer scam, the swine
49
scam, the gift-giving in Malacaang, cash gift-giving. And everytime we had a hearing, the AMLC and it was the same Executive Director Aquinowould tell us that he cannot give us any information and he could not give us any information about the accounts because he needed a court order to do so. And we asked him: Is there any way that you can give it? He did not mention that simply by the Ombudsman requesting them, then the Ombudsman could have these records. Having said that, we also had hearings where the former Ombudsmanand she was being criticizedI do not know if it was because of her name being named Mercy, she was being criticized for being so merciful, that she was being criticized for not investigating impeachable officers while advocates like Risa Hontiveros, Joel Villanueva and other party-list groups were saying, You can investigate but not file the cases. So, one question, Maam. What is the present mindset or view of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding Supreme Court Justices? You can investigate, very clearly under Section 22, if it leads to an impeachment. That is clear right, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Can you investigate for a criminal case but stop at the investigation and not file the case? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think the phraseology of the law is that if an impeachable officer is being faulted for a criminal offense, the law says that you have to wait for the termination of theor the retirement or the resignation or the termination of service before you can file a criminal case. That is what the law says. Senator Cayetano (A). And as a former Supreme Court Justice, that is important for judicial independence because you do not want losing litigants or people who want to pressure the courts to go to the DOJ or the Ombudsman and ask them to investigate Justices while this is going on, right? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, the question is, Maam, it seems like there is a new interpretation to interpret the waiver in theand if I may be allowed to read it, the waiver in the SALN which says that: I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his authorized representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, networth, business interests and financial connections to include those of my spouse, unmarried children below 18 years of age living with me in my household covering previous years, to include the year I first assumed the office in government. In this case it was signed by Chief Justice Renato Corona. And I assume all government officials pumipirma din, Maam, ano? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Kaya ko po sinasabing bagong interpretation kasi dati, iyong mga previous Ombudsman, Maam, BIR lang ang tinitingnan o ibang agencies pero iyong AMLC, hindi nila kinukunan at sinasabing confidential kasi iyong bank accounts. To prove my point, for the last 20 years, if you look at the congressional archives, napakaraming bills dito, one of them ay kay Senator Lacson, to amend either the Bank Secrecy Law to exclude public officials, or I think Senator Escudero, myself, we are working on bills that will amend the SALN form to include waiver sa bank accounts. And if you remember, ito iyong challenge ko kay First Gentleman dati: I will sign a waiver sa bank account ko, mag-sign din kayo ng waiver ng Presidente Arroyo sa bank account niyo. But with the present interpretation now of your leadershipdo not get me wrong, Maam, I agree with it. I agree na progressive way of fighting graft and corruption, but I just want to assure the public that there will be balance and safeguards here.
50
So, Maam, can I clarify? So the interpretation now of the Office of the Ombudsman is because of this waiver, taken together with your powers under the Constitution, you can simply write to AMLC and ask them for information about their bank transactions and it will be given to you, is that correct, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Mr. Senator. To me that is a consent. Senator Cayetano (A). That is a consent? Ms. Carpio-Morales. .on the part of the tax filer that he is allowing the Ombudsman to Senator Cayetano (A). Sorry for interrupting, Maam. So, no need, Maam, to amend the Bank Secrecy Law or the SALN Law? Because all the Ombudsman has to do is write them and all the AMLAC has to do, on the other hand, is be very progressivethat if a public official is depositing more money than what is in his SALN, they can consider it as a suspicious transaction; even if it is below 500,000, they can make a report and give it to you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Mr. Senator, that is a debatable issue. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I would rather not give my opinion. Senator Cayetano (A). I am sorry about that, Maam. Where am I going to is this: there has been a lot of talk especially in the media and even among the senators about the balance here that you want an administration that goes after graft and corruption but not only against the past administration or against their enemies. What I am driving at is that, with this interpretation, which again, I say, I support, will the Office of the Ombudsman have a protocol wherein as you said a while ago, when the nature of the complaint calls for AMLC to give you information, will it be an SOP regardless if it is a foe or an ally of the present administration? I ask this, Maam, withyour record has been sterling in the Supreme Court, and I am talking about all future Ombudsman and the policy of the Office of the Ombudsman. So, meaning, Maam, whether it is the fertilizer scam, whether it is a ZTE past administration or, let us say, two weeks from now, there is suddenly a scandal with one of the departments and one of the Usecs is being alleged to have deposited P50 million in his bank account as a lagay from ganyan, will this now be the practice of the Office of the Ombudsman to write the AMLC and ask them to give you the information? Ms. Carpio-Morales. For as long as there are leads that indeed these charges are meritorious, then, we will certainly do that, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Maam, just a last line of questions The Presiding Officer. May I request the gentleman to wrap up? Senator Cayetano (A). Sir, may I be allowed one last? The Presiding Officer. Yes. proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). If you read, Maam, the AMLA, as you said, maybe I should ask the Executive Director of the AMLC because what you simply did is to ask him for it and they gave it to you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is right. Asked for data.
51
Senator Cayetano (A). For the data, Maam, yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. .bearing on the financial transactions and related transactions. Senator Cayetano (A). Which is within your powers and they did give it to you. But when we asked him, maybe he did not understand or he did not think that to suggest that we course it through the Office of the Ombudsman. The thing, Maam, is that there are prohibitions in law including, for example, the bank secrecy. So, for example, Maam, I signed a waiver in my SALN but, of course, I still have my constitutional rights. So, for example, if you ask the PNP or the NBI for help to do some investigation in my office, that does not mean that the police can enter my office without a warrant and they cannot say I have a waiver that you signed in your SALN and it was given to the Ombudsman because I still have the right against unreasonable searches and there is no probable cause, no warrant, is that correct, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, sir. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. So, in the same way, Maam, where do we draw the line, what information the AMLC can give the Office of the Ombudsman? When is it unreasonable for them? Because in the past, they have always interpreted Supreme Court decisions to say that when it is a covered transaction, they cannot look into it yet until there is a predicate crime, until there is a probable cause and until AMLC is unanimous, the three officials into investigating. And in the past, they have interpreted giving information as an investigation report rather than just data. I think, Maam, that is the uneasiness in the balance between giving you all the powers to go after grafters and after corrupt public officials. On the other hand, making sure that the power is not Ms. Carpio-Morales. Abused. Senator Cayetano (A). Abused orwell, not abused, Maam, but it is not arbitrary. The Presiding Officer. With the indulgence of the gentleman, these issues are not cogent to the impeachment process. We are here. This is not in aid of legislation. We are trying a case of impeachment. So, if we want to amend the laws in order to adopt certain policies, we will have to take that up as a legislative body. But we must concentrate, focus our attention on the matter at hand and that is the impeachment case before us. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, for that reminder. Because what I was going through is that if this is a product of an illegal search, then this is not admissible. But if it is covered by the waiver, then it is admissible. But I would agree with you, Your Honor, that it is partially not included. But I think it is of grave national importance because The Presiding Officer. We have to bear in mind, with your indulgence, that the Witness was subpoenaed at the behest of the Defense. And she was here primarily as a witness for the Defense although they qualified her as a hostile witness. So, they are bound, the Defense is bound by the revelations of the Witness during the direct examination as well as during the cross examination. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. I know the Ombudsman to be only hostile to grafters and corrupt people in government. But I just wanted these issues ventilated so that we would know when we analyze the evidence.
52
But secondly, I just thought, Mr. President, in my view, that this is of grave national and political importance for our country because this is the first impeachment in how many decades. But anyway, I will stop there, Mr. President, because my time is up. But may I solicit a view from the Ombudsman? Maam, where do we draw the line betweenit is just data or it isSo, what can the AMLC give you and what can they not give you? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the question should be addressed to the AMLC. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because we give them copies of complaints. And if they determine that the request of the Ombudsman is in order, then they do that. If they do not, then they will write the Ombudsman citing the reasons why they cannot give the data, financial data or related transactions. The Presiding Officer. Actually, the Rules of Evidence governs in these proceedings, not in the case of inquiries in aid of legislation. And evidence is admissible if not excluded by the Rules of Evidence or by a statute particularly an express provision of a statute. There is none in the Bank Secrecy Laws that says that evidence illegaly obtained in violation of those Bank Secrecy Laws are excluded evidence in any proceeding. Senator Cayetano (A). Thank you, Mr. President. I agree and I thank you for the opportunity to just come up with all of theseto elaborate on all of these issues. But since we will be taking up the amendments to the AMLA anyway, I will address my questions to them. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you, too, Mr. Senator. The Presiding Officer. Next. The Majority Leader. Mr. President, Senator Legarda earlier reserved but she has withdrawn because the question has been posed already. So, may I recognize Senator Francis Pangilinan instead. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just one question and then a manifestation, Mr. President. The question is to the Madam Ombudsman. Just very quickly. Without this waiver signed by the Chief Justice, would you have been able to request for these transactions, I mean, these reports from the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I would have, Your Honor, just the same. Under the Ombudsman Law, it allows me to and even under the Constitution, to request assistance from agencies in connection with the discharge of my mandate. Senator Pangilinan. So, even without the waiver, the documents would have been accesible to the Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, it would have been accesible. But whether or not the AMLC would have provided me is a different story.
53
Senator Pangilinan. My question, therefore, isand I do not know if it is your office or the AMLC that would be able to answer thiswas the waiver the basis for the AMLC for turning over the documents to your office? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They did not cite any waiver, any reason for giving the documents to me, because in my letter I said In connection with the charges that have to do with violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, forfeiture proceedings, then that was the reason why, that was the basis of our request for financial transactions and related transactions. Whether they based it on the Ombudsman Law or on the SALN authority given to the Ombudsman to determine the existence of other properties, I really do not know. Senator Pangilinan. The reason I raised that question, Madam Witness, is that during your examination, directI am not sure anymore whether it was the direct examination or the crossexamination and the records will bear me outyou mentioned this waiver twice in explaining the access tomay we, therefore, be enlightened as to how valuable is this waiver with respect to your work in this respect? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is very valuable, Your Honor, because it authorizes me. In other words, the consent is there. There should be no doubt that he authorizes me to look into his assets again, properties. Senator Pangilinan. Because I would think that to be able to reconcile this Republic Act 6426, the confidentiality of that consentwritten consent, in fact, is necessary and I would like to think that this would suffice as written consent but not to the banks because this is, of course, government agencies in that respect. I would like to correct that. Thank you, Madam Witness. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you.
Senator Pangilinan. The other, Mr. President, is just a manifestation. In pursuing the earlier point raised by Senator Guingona, there is another item that we noticed here and therefore we hope to be able to discuss this during the caucus, but just for the record. There is an account ofAccount No. 11505 and the amount in October 2003, there was a deposit of 12 million, again this is PhilAm Bond Fund; and then there was a BYMF in 2004, P521,000. And then another BYSLMF, I believe this is the same, 11505 in 2005, April, 10 million. So this is another account that is not a deposit and therefore, perhaps, during the caucus on Monday we may discuss the subpoenas as requested by Senator Guinguna. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Floor Leader. Yes. May we recognize Sen. Greg Honasan.
Senator Sotto. Mr. President.
Senator Honasan. Madam Ombudsman, good afternoon po. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Good afternoon.
Senator Honasan. I am not the one to educate you about the Philippine Constitution, but let me share this with you just the same. Article III or the Bill of Rights, Section 1 of the Constitution states that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
54
Although this is a political process, my interpretation, my understanding is that the law should be applied equally to all those who are similarly situated. And as a Senator-Judge, I would like to have the peace of mind that the Chief Justice is not being singled out here. So let me ask my very brief questions. If you know, Madam Ombudsman, Maam, how many cases are now pending with the Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Cases against officials and?
Senator Honasan. Opo, if that is available. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Senator Honasan. Let me just look at my records.
Yes, Maam. Complaints as far as 2011 are concerned?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Senator Honasan.
Yes, Maam. Maam, to abbreviate, I only have two minutes. Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Senator Honasan.
Just one big round figure, total number of cases. Are you referring to high-profile cases?
Ms. Carpio-Morales.
Senator Honasan. Everything. Mga ilan po? Ms. Carpio-Morales. We are still preparing the statistics for the State of the Nation Address of the President. Senator Honasan. Pero marami po, Maam?
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Definitely, I inherited a lot, thousandstens of thousands. Senator Honasan. Okay. I am happy with that answer.
Has the Office of the Ombudsman also requested the assistance of the AMLC in relation to other cases pending with the Ombudsman, particularly those involving ill-gotten wealth-related graft cases? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, as far as the case against the Chief Justice is concerned, if I recall it correctly, that is the first that has come through me during my incumbency. Senator Honasan. Opo. Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not go over the records of pending cases if they involved unexplained wealth and if the assistance of the AMLC was solicited. Senator Honasan. Opo. Thank you, Madam Ombudsman. In fact, that would be my next question. How many times has AMLC assistance been requested even under your watch? Ms. Carpio-Morales. What is that? I am sorry. Senator Honasan. Under your watch, Maam
55
Yes.
Ms. Carpio-Morales.
Senator Honasan. how many times has AMLC assistance been requested? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I do not recall if the assistance respecting the fertilizer scam case involved the assistance of the AMLC, on my incumbency, it was sought. But I remember that the assistance of the AMLC was sought. Because, you see, the fertilizer scam cases came in trickles. They are by the hundreds. And so even when I was not yet there, the cases were filed and when I was already in the office, the cases keep coming. Senator Honasan. Opo. Maybe this last question is redundant, but how many times has the AMLC turned over bank account data to the Ombudsman since the creation of the AMLC in 2001? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I did not get statistics on that matter, Your Honor. Senator Honasan. Opo. My point really, Madam Ombudsman, Maam, is for us, since this is work in progress in terms of jurisprudence even in terms of impeachment processes, that this should not be considered a template for future. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Definitely not, Your Honor. It is only when there are leads, there are strong leads and after an initial evaluation, we determine that further help can be sourced from other agencies in order for us to determine whether we would go ahead with the conduct of a further investigation that we would seek the help of the AMLC. Because I know that the AMLC is usually stingy in giving records of transactions, financial transactions. Senator Honasan. Maam, thank you so much for your patience and your indulgence. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you, too. Senator Honasan. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Sen. Pia Cayetano wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Sotto. May we change it to Senator Lacson, Mr. President? We have three (3) more reservationsSenators Pia Cayetano, Escudero, Estrada. Senator Lacson. Thank you, Mr. President. It is only because my name was mentioned by Senator Cayetano and my computation. So, yes, indeed I was taking notes when the Ombudsman was testifying particularly on withdrawals from December 12 to 22, and as per her testimony, the total amount withdrawn on those dates was $3,388,323.14. I Google-checked or Google-searched the exchange rate in December of 2011, it was at P43.64 to a dollar. So at any given timethis was the question of Senator Cayetanoat a given time, particularly or specifically as of December 22, 2011, the Chief Justice had a total amount P147,866,400 and. The Presiding Officer. Floating around? Senator Lacson. More or less, give or take, Mr. President.
56
So around P147,866,400, all in dollar accounts. We are not talking of peso accounts here, Mr. President. So, where he put that money, I do not know. The Ombudsman does not know. Only he knows. That is all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Next. Senator Sotto. Sen. Pia Cayetano now, Mr. President. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you, Mr. President. I think I only have two points to raise. My first point, I address to the Body. I think I would like to perhaps discuss this in caucus. I would like to raise the point as to how we treat the evidence presented by Her Honor, the Ombudsman, in connection with the PowerPoint presentation, given that the Ombudsman herself has cited Section 22 of the Ombudsman Law, which states her power to investigate for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted. So, given the huge values involved in the presentation, I think we need to discuss how this will be treated because if, in fact, the investigation was done in connection with a future verified complaint, then how are we as Senator-Judges supposed to appreciate that in this Impeachment Court? I will not offer a suggestion for now, but I would like the Floor Leader to note that I would like this to be discussed in caucus. And then the second point, I.... The Presiding Officer. Well, as I said, the situation is this. The Ombudsman did not come here voluntarily to testify. She was presented as a witness by one of the sides involved in this proceeding. And, if I remember correctly my rules of procedure and rules of evidence in the principles of trial, he who produces a witness must be bound by the testimony of the witness, whether favorable or adverse to him. So, that is the situation. Even in illegally sourced evidence, if presented by one of the parties and not objected to, is admissible. Senator Cayetano (P). His Honors position is noted. For that matter though, I would like to hear the views of my other colleagues in caucus on Monday. And then I just go to my second point, and I address this to the Ombudsman. Again, Her Honor mentioned her investigative powers under Sections 15 and 22 of the Ombudsman Law. I would like to seek her opinion on how we will reconcile this with the long line of cases by the Supreme Court interpreting Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Section 6 states that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel thereof. And in connection with that constitutional provision, there are a line of cases, and I will quickly read a few provisions from these cases. In Judge Fuentes vs. the Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court said that it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel, and take the proper administrative actions against them if they commit any violations of the laws of the land. It further states in another case, Judge Cannabis vs. Ombudsman, the Ombudsman cannot dictate to and bind the court to its findings that the case before it does or does not have the administrative implication. To do so is to deprive the court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives. Madam Ombudsman, I fully support the powers of the Ombudsman. In fact, I was one who raised my concerns and my frustrations over the previous Ombudsmans failure to investigate many offenses
57
of impeachable officials. But I would just like to seek Her Honors position on this because, again, we are groundbreaking, we are paving the way, we are setting precedents for future impeachment proceedings. And has Her Honor had the opportunity to look at this so that we can... this will not be an issue today or in the further with respect to investigations of justices themselves? Because, technically, let me just finish my statement, I am sorry. If I look at the cases carefully, it would appear that the Ombudsman would have to refer these cases to the Supreme Court, and for the Supreme Court to determine or give the go-signal for the clearance. So, it seems to be a circuitous way of going about the investigation. But that seems to be the inclination of the Supreme Court, including a 2011 case, if I am not mistaken, which involve retired Supreme Court Justices. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. In the cases you mentioned, Your Honor, those are administrative in nature. Senator Cayetano (P). Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. So, the Supreme Court said that if the complaint, even if it were clothed with the nature of a criminal case but it appears to be administrative in nature, then the Supreme Court having Senator Cayetano (P). Having administrative supervision would prevail. Ms. Carpio-Morales. administrative supervision and control over officials and employees of the Supreme Court, then it should properly take cognizance thereof. Now, respecting your mention of a recent case involvingI think you are referring to then retired and still retired Chief Justice Davide and Alice Austria-Martinez? Senator Cayetano (P). Actually, I have not read the case itself. It was given to me as a Ms. Carpio-Morales. This case was filed by Oliver Lozano. He was assailing their decision in a particular land case and the Supreme Court said that the ultimate intention of the complainant was to modify or set aside their decision and they cannot do that. So, eventually, of course, the Ombudsman dismissed the case and while the dismissal rendered the case before the Supreme Court moot and academic, the Supreme Court took time to lecture on the Ombudsman why it should not have taken jurisdiction on the case in the first place because it was sought to question the way the Justices rendered their decision. Senator Cayetano (P). I understand. In other words, Her Honor is basically confirming that in that case what the Supreme Court laid down was the guidelines and basically that was, if the case is filed in connection with pending cases cannot be used to overturn those decisions. But I assume that what Her Honor is saying is, that we make a distinction that if a case is an impeachment case, for example, in this particular case which Her Honor would pursue following reports in impeachable offenses, then that would not fall under the Supreme Courts administrative function. Is that what Her Honor is saying? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It would not, yes. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada.
58
The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from San Juan is recognized. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Magandang hapon po, Ginang Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Magandang hapon din, Ginoong Senador.
Senator Ejercito Estrada. Alam kong pagod na pagod na po kayo at apat na oras na po kayo nandito. Ngunit iiklian ko na po ang aking pagtatanong. Isang tanong lamang naman, actually. Unang-una, nais ko pong ibahagi sa inyo na ako po ay hangang-hanga sa inyo at malaki po ang aking respeto sa inyo sapagkat dati po kayong mahistrado ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng ating bansa. Ngunit paminsan-minsan ay naglalaro sa aking isipan na baka nagagamit po iyong AMLC mismo ang inyong tanggapan sa mga tao o sa mga pulitikong kritikal sa administrasyong ito. Sana naman po if you can give us the assurance that your office will not be used to get back at the political opponents of the administration sapagkat, halimbawa, mayroon pong senador dito, mayroong congressman na bumatikos, halimbawa, kay Pangulong Noynoy at utusan kayo ng Malacaang: Oy, tingnan mo iyong records niya sa bangko, gamitin mo iyong AMLC para ipitin itong senador o congressman na ito. Posible pong mangyari. Sana huwag naman hong mangyari na balikan o gamitin iyong Office of the Ombudsman o iyong AMLC para balikan iyong mga kritikal o hindi sumasang-ayon sa kasalukuyang gobyerno. Can you assure us of that, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Mr. President, Mr. Senator, I would not jeopardize my 40 years of government servicespotless, I am immodest to say thatby allowing myself to be a tool of anyone in order to get back at certain persons against whom that anyone is sore at, I will assure you that. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kaya nga po ako hangang-hanga sa inyo, Ginang Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Marami pong salamat, Ginoo. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Isang katanungan na lamang po. Kasi kanina itinanong po ni Senator Honasan kung hiningian ninyo ng assistance iyong AMLC dito sa kaso ni Chief Justice Corona. Tama po ba? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, tama po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Kasi mayroon akong kilalang isang high profile na kaso na respondent, alam kong mayroon ho yatang complaint sa inyong tanggapan. Tatanungin ko lamang po sana kung if you sought the assistance of the AMLC regarding the case of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think, on the contrary, it was they who furnished us. I do not know if it was on account of a previous request....Is Mr. Fangon around? He is the head of the field investigation office. Can you please enlighten us? Senator Ejercito Estrada. No, no. I think he is not.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Assistant Ombudsman Fangon says there is no request; neither is there a transmittal. Senator Ejercito Estrada. But there is a complaint against her.
59
Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is. There are several, Your Honor. In fact, I have dismissed one or two complaints against her. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What is the nature of the complaint? Is it about graft and corruption? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, the bottom line always is graft and corruption. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Did you not seek the assistance of the AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Well, first, Mr. Senator, the procedure in the office is, we evaluate the case; there is this case buildup; If after case buildup we believe that the President or any respondent for that matter should be subjected to preliminary investigation, then we seek the assistance of other offices in order to....Otherwise, if on the face of the complaint and on the basis of documents submitted, and on the basis of preliminary evaluation, we find that there is no reason to go on, we dismiss it motu proprio. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you very much, Madam Ombudsman. That is all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Francis Escudero. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Sorsogon is recognized. Senator Escudero. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, distinguished Majority Leader. Magandang gabi po, Madam Ombudsman. Maikli lamang po ito. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Magandang gabi po. Ginoong Senador. Senator Escudero. Alam ko po pagod na rin kayo. Nabanggit po ni Senator Santiago kanina na anumang imbestigasyon ninyo ay may kinalaman dapat o kaugnay ng isang balaking impeachment complaint kung saka-sakali ng Kamara de Representantes. Puwede ko po bang maitanong: May na-submit na po ba kayo sa House of Representatives na report o ulat kaugnay sa bank accounts at deposits na ito ni Chief Justice Corona? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Last Friday, I sent an investigation report. Senator Escudero. Can you kindly furnish us with a copy of the same, if that would be possible? Ang layunin ko po rito, Madam Ombudsman, baka ho mas maliwanag at klaro iyong paglalathala doon para mas maintindihan po namin iyong mga dokumento na inihayag ninyo. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Escudero. Second, Mr. President, while we are waiting for that, nabanggit po ninyo kanina at natuwa ako actually sa nabanggit ninyo na hindi lamang iyong waiver ang inaasahan ninyo, pero sa pananaw at palagay ninyo may kapangyarihan ang Office of the Ombudsman na magtanong sa mga ahensiya ng pamahalaan kaugnay sa.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. I am sorry I did not get the start of your.... Senator Escudero. Yes, Maam, just submit to us the document, Maam, hindi na po ako magtatanong.... Ms. Carpio-Morales. Actually, I sent one to the Speaker and, perhaps, the Speaker will be the one....No, I am sorry. You are not with Congress.
60
Senator Escudero. Yes, Maam.
Ms. Carpio-Morales. I directed also the submission of this document to the Senate but, yesterday, I did not report to the office and this morning I did not have occasion to check if the Senate has been furnished a copy of this investigation report. Senator Escudero. Kindly just furnish us, Maam, even after this hearing. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Sure. We will do that. Senator Escudero. Salamat po, Maam. Maam, kaugnay po ng nabanggit kanina ni Senator Pangilinan at iyong sagot ninyo na hindi ninyo naman kailangan ng waiver talaga para magtanong sa mga ahensiya ng pamahalaan kaugnay sa transaksiyon ng sinumang opisyal na iniimbistigahan ninyo. In fact, I filed even a further bill in the Senate na nagsasabing hindi lamang waiver pabor sa inyo pero waiver na po ng secrecy of bank deposits kasama ng SALN, kung ito ay mapapagtibay ng Kongreso. But my question, Maam, is this: The waiver contained in the SALN pertains to past years including the year that the person submitting the SALN assumed office. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Sir. Senator Escudero. Actually, nagulat lamang ako sa ginawa ng AMLC. Hindi ko po kayo pinipintasan. Bakit po ang isinabmit (submit) ng AMLC ninyo ay umabot hanggang sa mga transaksiyon tungkol sa 2011, 2010, at 2012? Kung ang basehan po ng paghingi o pagbigay hindi po ko kayo pipintasan, uulitin kokung ang basehan ng pagbigay ng AMLC ay iyong waiver, hindi po ba dapat ang basehan noon 2010 SALN tungkol sa 2009 transactions dahil hanggang December 31, 2009 po iyon? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Okay. Senator Escudero. Kaya tatanungin ko po: Naibigay na po ba sa inyo ng Chief Justice ang kanyang SALN para sa taong 2011? May kopya na po ba kayo, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Senator. Senator Escudero. But it would be submitted to you? Ms. Carpio-Morales. It is submitted with the Supreme Court. Senator Escudero. Hindi po nabibigyan ang Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Never. We do not have any. Senator Escudero. So, ina-assume ninyo lamang po na malamang nag-submit siya o magsasubmit siya for the waiver for the subsequent years? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, please, the purpose of this investigation is not only for purposes of determining whether he reported this in his SALN, but for purposes of determining whether he has an unexplained wealth. Senator Escudero. I am leading to that, Maam, also actually. Yes, Maam. But in general, my query is: Iyung poder ho ba ng AMLC, sa palagay ninyo at pananaw, ay sumasaklaw sa mga taong sumunod pa doon sa waiver na isinumite? Clearly, walang waiver base sa anumang SALN na pinayl (file) kaugnay ng anumang transaksiyon sa 2012 dahil iyong waiver po para doon ay ipa-file pa ho namin kung saka-sakali next year.
61
On the forfeiture case or potential forfeiture case for violation of the anti-graft law or unexplained wealth, that is my next question, Maam. How are we, to your mind, given not only that you are the present Ombudsman, but the former Justice of the Courthow are we to evaluate this evidence aside from the usual presumption of regularity of the performance of ones duties on the part of AMLC given that the document you presented to us was prepared and done by AMLC? Would there be a need which I will be bringing up in caucus as well, but can I get your thoughts on thiswould there a need for us to call AMLC to testify on these documents that you presented, that you have no part insofar as the preparation is concerned? I am referring to the 17-page transactions submitted by AMLC. Ms. Carpio-Morales. That should be the decision of the Senate whether it finds it necessary to summon the AMLC and ask questions respecting the documents that it submitted to me. Senator Escudero. And one final query, Maam. Insofar as similar documents that you may be obtaining from AMLCassuming hindi po impeachmentwhat would be the probative value of that and how would you use that? Kunwari po may isang opisyal na iniimbestigahan, hiniling ninyo muli sa AMLC, Pahingi ng dokumento tungkol sa mga transaksiyon sa bangko nito. Since you cannot get the evidence directly from the bank, how would you treat this particular piece of evidence from AMLC? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Senator, we sourced this for purposes of case buildup. We were only investigating. Senator Escudero. So, not necessarily to be actually presented in the actual pending case, if at all, before the Sandiganbayan? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Your Honor. Because before a case is filed before the Sandiganbayan, a preliminary investigation is conducted. And the respondent is given opportunity to answer what these documents are all about. And if you will say that this is as has been stated, bloated or a hoax then it would be the investigating officer who will determine if the claim is meritorious or if the claim is validated either by testimonial evidence or by documentary evidence. Senator Escudero. So, for investigative purposes, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. That is the reason why we asked for this fact-finding and initial investigation purposes. Senator Escudero. Thank you very much, Maam. That is all, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the trial for one minute. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the trial is suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 6:00 p.m. At 6:03 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we have two final members of the Court who want to make a manifestation and a question, Sen. Loren Legarda and Sen. Koko Pimentel. May we call on the Witness just to wind up, Mr. President.
62
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, inasmuch as the Witness is now back, may we recognize Sen. Koko Pimentel III. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Misamis Oriental is recognized. Senator Pimentel III. Maraming salamat po, Mr. President. Madam Ombudsman, good afternoon po. Good evening. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Good evening po. Senator Pimentel III. Madam Ombudsman, you had a hand in the preparation of the PowerPoint presentation. Tama po ba iyon? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Senator.
Senator Pimentel III. That being so, you are competent to testify on the presentation and the manner of presentation. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Senator. Senator Pimentel III. But you did not have a hand in the making of the 17-page AMLC Report submitted to your office. Tama po, Maam? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No, Mr. Senator. Senator Pimentel III. But did you observe extreme care when you were preparing the PowerPoint in the sense that did you exclude the accounts not under the name Renato Corona, Renato Coronado Corona, which are included in the 17-page AMLC Report. I noticed some. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Like Allied Bank. Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, and there are zeros, there is an X. Senator Pimentel III. There are zeros and X. Yes, Maam. But there are amounts, substantial amounts. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel III. Were these remitted from the... Ms. Carpio-Morales. I think they were included because the presumption is that, Allied Bank was doing services for Renato Corona. In other words, this is from the Deutsche Bankhow do I pronounce it? Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Deutsche Bank? Senator Pimentel III. Deutsche Bank, yes, Maam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. And then there must have been a remittance and it was handled by Allied Bank. Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam. But from the face of the report, you could not get that story.
63
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, that is right. That could have... Senator Pimentel III. That it is Allied Bank doing the service for Renato Corona? That is not obvious on the face of the report. But my question, Maam, is: Did you exclude all of these accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Those were included. Senator Pimentel III. Included, okay. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Your Honor, there is the transaction code there. Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam, for example, page 11, the name, first column, Allied Bank Inc. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Allied Bank, right. Senator Pimentel III. The amount involved is $167,000. The institutions name is Deutsche Bank, AG. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Allied Bank, EQI. Senator Pimentel III. But why would we now attribute this to Renato Corona? Because on the face of the report Ms. Carpio-Morales. Because that is it, Your Honor. We thought that it came from Deutsche Bank and coursed through Allied Bank. Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam. But we just made the conclusion that it must have involved Renato Corona. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Whether that is conclusive or not is beyond my knowledge. Senator Pimentel III. But, at least, we know it was included. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Senator Pimentel III. Okay. Thank you, po. Ms. Carpio-Morales. There is another one.
Senator Pimentel III. Yes, Maam. There is a Bank of Philippine Islands; there is even a PS Bank; and on page 12, there is a zero and an X. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Allied Bank, right. Senator Pimentel III. And the account number is zero and the other one has around 15 zeros. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, PSBank. Senator Pimentel III. Opo. And malalaki pong halaga ito, $471,000 plus. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel III. Opo. And then, actually there is even one entry where there is a peso amount and there is a dollar amount.
64
Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. Senator Pimentel III. Did you also include that, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. No. What prevailed was peso.
Senator Pimentel III. That is on page 16, line No. 5, PSBank is the name. And there is a peso amount and at the same time there is an FX amount. So, parang double entry na po. Ms. Carpio-Morales. This is a peso amount. Senator Pimentel III. There is a peso amount, P6,091,155.45 and in the FX amount, there is $135,359.01. Ms. Carpio-Morales. We did not input it in the computation, Your Honor, because it is very clear that it is not denominated as a peso account. Senator Pimentel III. Madam Ombudsman, but that is the only entry which has entries in the peso column and in the dollar column. So, it must have been a special transaction where you put peso value to it and a dollar value to it. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, this is sourced from Metropolitan Bank; and TCO, New York. Senator Pimentel III. So, Madam Ombudsman, the important concept, I think, that you extracted from the 17-page AMLC Report is what you call the fresh deposits, what you would believe would be the core dollar ownership of Renato Corona. At what amount did you put this, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Approximately, $12 million. Senator Pimentel III. $12 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Approximately. Senator Pimentel III. But given the fact that, you know, we may have made mistakes or it is just an approximation, we may have included non-Renato Corona accounts. Can you give us, more or less, your allowance for error, plus or minus, how many million dollars po? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Eleven, 10, but it could not be lower than 10. Senator Pimentel III. So, the estimate of the Office of the Ombudsman is that the fresh deposits would be somewhere $10 million to $12 million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pimentel III. Okay. That would be all, Maam. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Finally, Sen. Loren Legarda, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique and the Republic of the Philippines. Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. President. These are not questions. These are just points to
65
summarize the two whole days of presentation of the Ombudsman and just to make sure that I understood things correctly. So, will the distinguished Ombudsman yield to just three points, a very simple clarification? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. First, it was made clear in your PowerPoint presentation that the Respondent, the Chief Justice, has transactions amounting to, at least, $10 million from 2003 to 2011? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Transactional balance. Senator Legarda. Yes. In U.S. dollars? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Based on documents furnished by the AMLC to the Office of the Ombudsman. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Correct, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. But, however, unverified by the Office of the Ombudsman because, of course, you cannot contact the banks for such clarification necessarily. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Second point would be in the same span of time from 2003 to 2011, there had been at least US$12-million worth of fresh deposits in various accounts of the Respondent. Is that correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. That was our observation, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Your observation, yes. Then again, in answer to Senator Pimentel, it could be, more or less, 11 or 12, 10-11 but not less than $10-million Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not less than $10-million. Senator Legarda. of fresh deposits? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That is our observation, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. And when you say fresh deposits, Madam Ombudsman, that would mean not coming from other accounts of the same person but from other sources into his present account, is that correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Fresh deposits are deposits that were not returned to where they originated. Senator Legarda. Yes. They were not placements made and then returned to the same placements? Ms. Carpio-Morales. They were not returned to the same account. Senator Legarda. Yes. So, these were fresh deposits from sources other than his already existing accounts. Ms. Carpio-Morales. How is that again, maam?
66
Senator Legarda. These were deposits from accountsfrom other sources other than those which are already existing under his name. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes. In other words, they did not return to the same mother account where they probably originated, and then they went around circuitous and then never returned there. So we call these fresh deposits. I want to clarify that. Senator Legarda. I just wanted to make sure I understood what is meant by fresh deposits. When you say, therefore, it is fresh deposit, does it mean that at any one time, he could have had at least $10 million in various accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. So, I make it clear that at any one time, the Respondent could have had at least $10 million in any of the 82 accounts presented in your PowerPoint presentation? Ms. Carpio-Morales. That could be the total of all the accounts. Senator Legarda. Of all the accounts? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. In a series of transactions? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. In a span of eight years or at any one time, he could have had $10-million? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Up to 2011, I think the data given. Senator Legarda. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. In transactions or at any one time, Madam Ombudsman? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Total transactions balance would be different from the account balance. Senator Legarda. Account balance? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. I am referring now to account balance. I understand as I premised earlier the transaction accounts, and then I asked about fresh deposits. Now, I ask: At the most conservative estimate, at any one time, based on your transaction and fresh deposit balances, what could have beenat a very conservative estimatethe balance that the Chief Justice, the Respondent, could have had at any one time? Ms. Carpio-Morales. We were not able to determine that, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Okay, I understand. And now, not relating to the first three questions and clarifications I made, I just wanted to clarify your answer to the Senator-Judges that based on the mandate, the constitutional mandate of the Ombudsman and based on the Ombudsmans Law, which governs you and your office, the Ombudsman may seek assistance from the AMLC to open any
67
account of any person who is being investigated without a predicate crime as stipulated in the AML Law. Is my understanding correct? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Your Honor, if we believe that the charges elevated to us.... Senator Legarda. Can you kindly speak in microphone? Thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. If we believe that the charges to us call for information from the AMLC Senator Legarda. Yes. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Then, in the course of our fact-finding investigation, we would probably tap the services of the AMLC. Senator Legarda. Yes, of course, which you did in this instance. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, we did.
Senator Legarda. And even without a predicate crime, the Ombudsman, because of its constitutional mandate, asked the AMLC to present bank accounts of the Respondent. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. And based on your knowledge, is this the first and only time that the Office of the Ombudsman did so over other instances in the past when the AMLC had furnished bank accounts to the Office of the Ombudsman without the provision of a predicate crime? Ms. Carpio-Morales. Not under my watch, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. To your knowledge, you would not know? Ms. Carpio-Morales. I would not. Senator Legarda. Thank you. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you too. The Presiding Officer. Majority Floor Leader? Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we discharge the Witness. The Presiding Officer. The Honorable Ombudsman is discharged. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Thank you, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Thank you. And thank you for bearing with us. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, I have been informed by.... The Presiding Officer. Next witness. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I have been informed by the Defense that they would rather call the next witness tomorrow, if it is the pleasure.... The Presiding Officer. Do you still have to present the three other witnesses? Mr. Cuevas. We will, Your Honor.
68
The Presiding Officer. All right.
Mr. Cuevas. And with the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court, may we be permitted to present them tomorrow? The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. They are already tired also, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you are asking for a continuance until tomorrow? Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Majority Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. May I ask the Sergeant-At-Arms to make an announcement. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-At-Arms is directed to make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn the trial until two oclock in the afternoon of Wednesday, May 16, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the trial is adjourned until two oclock in the afternoon of Wednesday, May 16, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

May 15 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

May 15 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

Senator Defensor Santiago.

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

Senator Defensor Santiago. I accept the apology. Ms. Carpio-Morales. Noted.

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

Senator Sotto. Mr. President.

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

Yes, Maam. Complaints as far as 2011 are concerned?

Ms. Carpio-Morales. Senator Honasan.

Yes, Maam. Maam, to abbreviate, I only have two minutes. Yes.