Estrada Impeachment Dec. 20, 2000 (AM) Transcripts
DECEMBER 20, 2000
(RE: RESOLUTION NO. 909 – INVESTIGATION INTO REPORTED ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF SURVEILLANCE AND WIRETAPPING ALLEGEDLY BY THE PAOCTF)
AT 10:55 A.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ). Please all rise for the arrival of the Presiding Officer, Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE). The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.
The Sergeant-at-Arms shall make the proclamation. Please be seated.
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.
THE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000 for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER (SEN. TATAD). Mr. Chief Justice, may we move for a few minutes suspension to allow the members of this Impeachment Court an opportunity to formally greet the Honorable Presiding Officer a very, very happy birthday. (Applause)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is suspended for the purpose although it is self-serving.
Thank you very much.
THE SESSION WAS SUSPENDED AT 10:57 A.M.
THE SESSION WAS RESUMED AT 10:58 A.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready now to resume the testimony of the witnesses. When we suspended yesterday, Ms. Cristine Herrera and Carlito Pablo were on the witness stand. The Court required Ms. Herrera to deliver some documents today.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Ms. Herrera?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. We may call them back for that purpose if there are no further questions from the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about — Mr. Pablo also? Both are present.
For the record, I should like — the Presiding Officer would like to extend his heartfelt thanks for the spontaneous greetings on his becoming 65 years old. You will always be in my prayers too. (Pause)
The session is now resumed and the Majority Leader…
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. President, they may continue to testify under the same oath.
I understand, Senator Judge Teresa Aquino Oreta would like to propose some questions before we dispose of the witnesses.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Oreta is recognized.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. First, Senator Judge Drilon is proposing that they first produce the documents they had agreed to deliver to the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is directed to produce the documents and to keep them ready.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Would there be a need to mark…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these with Atty. Palabrica?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes. Perhaps the Secretary can receive the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the Secretary please receive the documents from Atty. Palabrica for and in behalf of witness Herrera who was directed earlier to produce the documents.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Would there be a need to mark these documents in evidence?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these documents the original copies, Atty. Palabrica?
MR. PALABRICA. Your Honor, these were the copies that we got from the source.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. These are the copies obtained from the source.
MR. PALABRICA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Atty. Palabrica.
The documents are now in the possession of the Secretary of the Senate.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I ask that Senator Teresa Aquino Oreta be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Oreta is recognized.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I’d like to direct my questions to Mrs. Herrera and Mr. Carlito Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Well, from the transcript from yesterday, it was told that some time before you wrote the story some time December 16, you met with Representative Joker Arroyo just so to maybe to ask his side on what he thought about the report that you had. Is this correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Were you alone? Or was Mr. Pablo with you when you met with Representative Joker Arroyo?
MS. HERRERA. Carlito was with me.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So both you and Carlito Pablo were with Representative Joker Arroyo on December 16 just so you can get a story from him or just so to help you about the story, am I correct?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay. And on December 18 the story about the surveillance was published?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Mrs. Herrera.
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. That’s correct. I see.
Mrs. Herrera, you are married to the nephew of Congressman Ernesto Herrera of Bohol?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. May I know, may we know what does he do for a living? No, no, your husband, Lito Herrera. Is his name Lito?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, that’s correct.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. What is his job?
MS. HERRERA. He is a writer.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, he is a writer. He does PR work also?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, he does. I see. Does he have any client here in the Senate? (Long pause)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer of the witness?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, yes. I see. And if I remember yesterday, Mr. Manny Pangilinan was here. He is the President of the PLDT. I’d like to find out. Is Mr. Manny Pangilinan a godfather also in your wedding?
MS. HERRERA. That’s true.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. He is. I see.
And Mr. Pablo, sometime ago there was a story about, I think well, correct me if I’m wrong, if it was written by yourself about Secretary Gemma Cruz’ involvement in some MILF thing. You know, sometime ago, there was a story about Secretary Gemma Cruz on her involvement with the MILF, ASG group, you know, at the height of the Mindanao crisis?
MR. PABLO. Madam Senator, yes, there was a story. It was written by Mrs. Herrera.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, it was written by you, Christine? I see, I’m sorry. So, that story
I was just wondering, is that that story I know you have to respect your sources. But, is the source of that story the same as your source now in the surveillance story?
MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot reveal the source of my stories, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. No, I was just asking if the source is the same. I’m not asking you to reveal your source. I was just asking if your source for that story is the same source for this surveillance story.
MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot answer that.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, you cannot. Okay, I’ll
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What would be the ground for your refusal to answer?
MS. HERRERA. It may identify my source, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, you would not want to identify the source.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay, I’ll respect that. I was just wondering also if your source is a member of PMA Class 1978, the same class that adopted Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?
MS. HERRERA. I regret I cannot answer that.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay, I’ll respect that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the same reason too?
MS. HERRERA. The same reason, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Mr. Pablo, is the name of your wife Mila? What’s the name of your wife?
MR. PABLO. Myra.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Myra. Is she working?
MR. PABLO. Yes, she is, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. May I know where she’s working at?
MR. PABLO. She writes for Congressman Golez, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, she’s working for Congressman Roilo Golez.
MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. I see. So, the names of Roilo Golez, Joker Arroyo I mean to say, these names have come up also yesterday.
MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay.
Mrs. Herrera, as a journalist, I’m sure you covered rallies pro Erap, anti Erap rallies. And I’m sure, as a journalist, you’re familiar with prominent political and business figures at rallies.
MS. HERRERA. That’s true.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Yes. So, have you seen the PLDT Chief Executive Officer Manny Pangilinan in any of these rallies?
MS. HERRERA. No, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. You have never seen
MS. HERRERA. I was not assigned to that rally, to cover that rally when
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, you never covered any rally?
MS. HERRERA. I did, several times, but not
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Are they pro Erap rally or are they anti Erap rally?
MS. HERRERA. Both anti and pro Erap.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Both?
MS. HERRERA. I was but I’m officially assigned to cover the anti Erap rallies.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, anti Erap rallies. I see. So, in the pro Erap rallies, you don’t know, you’re not very familiar with pro Erap rallies and prominent personalities in the pro Erap rallies or in the anti Erap rallies? You covered the anti Erap rallies, you said.
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. So, would you know the prominent personalities there, whether politicians or businessmen in these anti Erap rallies?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Yes. Did you ever see your godfather, Manny Pangilinan there?
MS. HERRERA. I said, no.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Ah, you did not.
MS. HERRERA. No, I did not.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Okay. Thank you.
So, Mr. Chief Justice
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. I think that would be all. I just wanted to establish about a follow up of yesterday’s observation that most of the story on the surveillance was written again with the help more of opposition lawmakers.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further question from the honorable members of the Impeachment Court?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I ask that Senator Cayetano be recognized.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. I wish to ask some clarificatory questions to either Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo, whoever chooses to answer this question.
Well, first of all, Mr. Chief Justice, myself and my son, Congressman Allan Peter Cayetano, belong to this most selected group whose telephone numbers have been included in the printout as written by Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo.
Now, let me just get some kind of idea, Ms. Herrera. Did this particular printout come to you or did you seek them?
MS. HERRERA. It was given to us by the source, Mr. Senator.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. It was given to you. You never sought it out, is that correct? Hindi n’yo hinanap ito. Basta may nagbigay lang sa inyo?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.
SEN. CAYETANO. And without identifying sources which I know are privileged in character, is this I know that you have written so many articles which have landed in the first, in the front page of Inquirer as well as that of Mr. Pablo.
In a report like this, what is the sort of SOP, standard operating procedure, where an information is given to you or to Mr. Pablo, as in this case? What do you do after you have received this particular printout, telephone printout, containing these names?
MS. HERRERA. The information has to be checked, and counterchecked and verified and corroborated with other sources.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, let’s take this step by step. An X individual, as you said, sought you out and Mr. Pablo and gave you this printout, am I correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. CAYETANO. What step did you take after that? Anong ginawa n’yo “to check”, sabi mo, “countercheck.”
MS. HERRERA. We’ve gone through the documents…
SEN. CAYETANO. Hmmm.
MS. HERRERA. … discussed what all those about and then we tried to discuss also how to check and verify the authenticity of those documents.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. When you said “we”, you are referring to Mr. Pablo?
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. CAYETANO. Were these printouts given at the time to both of you I mean, you were with Mr. Pablo or Mr. Pablo was with you when this was given?
MS. HERRERA. We were together, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. When it was given, okay. So, you examined the documents, both of you?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. In your office, in Inquirer or someplace else?
MS. HERRERA. We went to my place and …
SEN. CAYETANO. Your home?
MS. HERRERA. … my home and then we discussed it there…
SEN. CAYETANO. You discussed it, okay.
MS. HERRERA. …over coffee.
SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having discussed it, what particular importance did you give as far as this telephone printout is concerned?
MS. HERRERA. Yeah, we realized that most of the names there were those of the Senator Judges, the Prosecutors, and some of the journalists.
SEN. CAYETANO. I see. I note also in your story that it included some telephone numbers of the presidential security guards. Yeah, I think that is in Page 2. It says here…
MS. HERRERA. That document, Your Honor, came later.
SEN. CAYETANO. Oh, came later!
MS. HERRERA. Yeah.
SEN. CAYETANO. What do you mean? There were two deliveries, so to speak?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Oh, okay. The first delivery of this information … Whose names were contained in these deliveries?
MS. HERRERA. The Senator Judges, Prosecutors and Congressmen.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. So, you examined them, between you and Mr. Pablo, examined them at your home. And did you give any importance to this, I mean, to these documents containing, as you said, as you did, no, names of the Senators, Congressmen, Prosecutors and other, you know, members of the legislative body? What importance did you give to this information?
MS. HERRERA. We noted that those calls that were… appeared to be monitored, became full blown during the impeachment trial.
SEN. CAYETANO. I see. And after having evaluated yourself, no, you and Mr. Pablo, this information, did you attempt to go back to your source and inquire from him or from her what he or she thought about this information that he gave you, that he or she gave you? Bumalik ba kayo doon sa informant n’yo o iyong mga nag deliver sa inyo?
MS. HERRERA. We did through phones.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, okay, you did, ha?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. And what did you tell this informant or source?
MS. HERRERA. Yeah, we asked him if he has other names or other documents, and he said that he has those of the AFP, PSG, and Department of Foreign Affairs, SEC, NBI, PNP Intelligence, COMEL and others, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Well, you yourself, Ms. Herrera, mentioned “He”, I was trying to be neutral but now that you mentioned your source is a “He”. Now, what was the time gap between the first, you know, delivery to you and the evaluation, and when you called back the informant? Was it two days, an hour, several hours?
MS. HERRERA. A few days, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. A few days. And you inquired if there were other documents or were you inquiring about the first document delivered to you?
MS. HERRERA. I was inquiring about the first documents when he offered that he still has other documents and that he wanted to deliver those.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.
Now, let’s go to the first document. Are you at liberty to tell us what is it that you inquired from your informant or source, vis a vis the first batch of documents, ‘no, containing, as you said, the names of senators, prosecutors and congressmen?
MS. HERRERA. I asked him why the names of Senators Blas Ople, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Senator Tessie Oreta, Senator Jaworski and Senator Revilla were not among those documents given to us.
SEN. CAYETANO. I see. And what was the reply?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?
MS. HERRERA. He said… The source, Mr. Senator, said that the PAOCTF or the Presidential Anti Organized Crime Task Force did not need to monitor these senator judges because the President was already assured of their vote for acquittal.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Can I get the names again?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Jaworski, with the permission of Honorable Cayetano.
SEN. JAWORSKI. With the permission of Mr. Cayetano,…
SEN. CAYETANO. Gladly, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. JAWORSKI. …the honorable Senator. Well, you know, yesterday I asked this question simply because I felt that there was so much politics in this report. And the reply of the lady was simply they could not provide this information, and this subject just came about today, and I think this is unfair and malicious.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would take note of the answer of the Witness yesterday…
SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and the Court is also invited to take note of such an answer given yesterday by the witness.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you. Now, Miss Herrera, did you inquire why your informant said that these senators’ telephone numbers were not part of the information or in the printed billing documents given to you? Did you inquire? I mean, was that his own conclusion or somebody else’s?
MS. HERRERA. The source said…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would it be Mr. Pablo who will answer?
MS. HERRERA. It was…
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said it was his own personal conclusion.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, so it was your source’s own personal conclusion that these four mentioned senators were not included therein?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. How about the other prosecutors whose name did not appear in the computer printout? Did you also inquire why?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said he cannot get the records for the rest of the prosecutors. He was only able to get four records.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Now, so, you have — now, that was step 2, `no. You have — first one you evaluated, then you checked with your informant. Now, after having talked to your informant, you said that in addition, he gave you additional documents. I would not go to that because it may take some time. I will go again.
Now, after you have talked to your informant, what did you do next? Did you immediately report this to your editors or did you consult anybody else? Aside from those, you know, members of Congress that you mentioned.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?
SEN. CAYETANO. Either one of them, Mr. Chief Justice.
MS. HERRERA. We did not immediately inform our editors about this because we were still trying to verify the information behind the claims that the source gave us. So, the next thing that we did was, we went to Congressman Golez …
SEN. CAYETANO. … Arroyo — Golez, Arroyo.
MS. HERRERA. … Congressman Golez, then we went to see the officials of the PLDT and then Congressman Arroyo and Senator Loren Legarda.
SEN. CAYETANO. Is this — when you visited these individuals, as well as the offices of the PLDT, is that again an SOP on your part? Is this part of the verification process of the authenticity of this information?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. And — well, I heard about the explanation of my colleague, Senator Legarda but I haven’t heard from Mr. Golez nor from Mr. Arroyo. But when you went to the PLDT, I also looking — watching it on television yesterday because I have to have my eye checked, I note that you said you went to Mr. Pangilinan directly?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. And Mr. Pangilinan was — What was the reaction of Mr. Pangilinan when you showed — Did you show the documents to Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor, including the calls, his own calls.
SEN. CAYETANO. And what was his reaction?
MS. HERRERA. He appeared distressed.
SEN. CAYETANO. Distressed. Is that all, distressed?
MS. HERRERA. Outraged. He was outraged.
SEN. CAYETANO. In Tagalog, ano ba iyon? Nagulat ba siya, nasindak o papaano? In Pilipino.
MS. HERRERA. Nagalit po siya.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit, okay. Bakit naman siya nagalit?
MS. HERRERA. Because he said, those — it’s not justified for anyone to monitor the calls of anybody because that document was confidential.
SEN. CAYETANO. Was confidential. Now, after having said that, did he make an effort to call anyone in his office?
MS. HERRERA. He was — He was actually with his — with Atty. Rey Espinosa.
SEN. CAYETANO. Alone? I mean, Espinosa alone or with somebody else?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, with Mr. Espinosa.
SEN. CAYETANO. I see. By the way, when you went to the office of Mr. Pangilinan, did you give him a call that you were going to visit him?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. And did you already tell him that you have these certain documents or did you merely discuss that when you were already in the office?
MS. HERRERA. I told him we have some documents to show him that he would … I think he would find interesting. And we also wanted his comments on those documents because it appeared that those documents came from the PLDT, but the source claimed it did not come from the PLDT.
SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having shown this document to Mr. Pangilinan, he showed outrage, galit, di ba?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have the word again? Is it outrage or…
SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Angry.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit.
MS. HERRERA. Outraged, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. CAYETANO. Outraged, that’s my word.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have several adjectives already. Distressed, outraged, angry.
SEN. CAYETANO. Nagalit, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nagalit, okay.
SEN. CAYETANO. Now, after having — By the way, how long did it take you to confer with Mr. Pangilinan? Give and take, how many minutes, an hour, two hours or so?
MS. HERRERA. Maybe more than an hour, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. And then, what did Mr. Pangilinan tell you after, you know, having shown distress, outrage, galit?
MS. HERRERA. He said he would order an internal investigation.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, now, after having talked to Mr. Pangilinan, am I correct in saying that Mr. Pangilinan was the last person you saw?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. In order, after having talked to your source, ‘no, back, who did you see first?
MS. HERRERA. We went to see Congressman Golez…
SEN. CAYETANO. Golez, and then.
MS. HERRERA….and then Mr. Pangilinan…
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Pangilinan.
MS. HERRERA….and then we went back again to Mr. Golez…
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Golez.
MS. HERRERA….and then Congressman Arroyo…
SEN. CAYETANO. Congressman Arroyo.
MS. HERRERA….and Senator Legarda. In that order, sir.
SEN. CAYETANO. And… Ah, in that order.
Okay, so, Mr. Arroyo Congressman Arroyo was the last that you saw?
MS. HERRERA. Senator Legarda, sir.
SEN. CAYETANO. Was the last?
MS. HERRERA. (Nodding.)
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. And that was the time… And after having seen and talked you talked to Senator Legarda, did you not?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Yeah. And after that, you went to the you talked to your editor, am I correct?
MS. HERRERA. Even while we were doing this, we gave we told our editor that we are doing something; we are doing a story and we would show you if we have already veri we would show you the evidence if we have already verified those documents.
SEN. CAYETANO. So, while you were in the process of talking to these individuals, am I correct I just want to find out, Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo, you know the process how your newspaper evaluate it and eventually decided to print this thing, ‘no.
So, while you were conferring individually with these persons that you mentioned, you have given these copies to your editors?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. No?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. When did you give it?
MS. HERRERA. We showed those documents on the day that to them, on the day that we came out, we wrote our stories.
SEN. CAYETANO. Ah, okay. So, after having talked to those individuals?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Then, you and Mr. Pablo came out with your story?
MS. HERRERA. We went to the office, showed the docu…
SEN. CAYETANO. Inquirer.
MS. HERRERA….to the Inquirer, showed the documents to the editors and wrote the story.
SEN. CAYETANO. And wrote the story. Okay. Now, after… Let me see, so, you showed your story to your editors, am I correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Together with all the documents?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.
SEN. CAYETANO. And the editors gave you the go signal?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. To write your story.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, but to get first the side of the PNP, and we did that.
SEN. CAYETANO. And you did that?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Which one which member of the PNP?
MS. HERRERA. We tried to reach Gen. Lacson, but we failed to reach him. So, we tried to reach his spokesman, Col. Bartolome, and Gen. Zubia. Finally, we were able to talk I was able to talk to Gen. Zubia and Mr. Pablo to Col. Bartolome.
SEN. CAYETANO. So, you gave them an opportunity to comment on the story you were about I mean, Inquirer was about to print out, is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Okay. Well, that’s all for now, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
SEN. CAYETANO. I want to thank Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And after that, Honorable Senator Judge Roco.
SEN. BIAZON. Miss Herrera, have you written other stories for the Inquirer on wiretapping in the past?
MS. HERRERA. I don’t think so, Your Honor. Or I’m not sure.
SEN. BIAZON. Is this the first time for you to write about wiretapping for PDI?
MS. HERRERA. I’m not sure, actually, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. Would you like to take one minute to try to recall?
MS. HERRERA. I don’t think I had written any about that.
SEN. BIAZON. This is the first time…
MS. HERRERA. This is the first time, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. …for you to write stories on wiretapping?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor. What I did before maybe was reaction from the PNP about the wiretapping when there was this …
SEN. BIAZON. Of course we can check this, ‘no.
MS. HERRERA. Okay.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, when the source gave you these documents, was it on your request or was it voluntary on his part?
MS. HERRERA. It was voluntary on his part, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. What was the reason he offered in volunteering to offer the documents to you?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?
SEN. BIAZON. Ms. Herrera?
MS. HERRERA. Yeah. May I refer you to Mr. Pablo, sir?
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source said he wants this activity exposed.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes.
MR. PABLO. He believed it was part of his patriotic duty to do so.
SEN. BIAZON. Right, okay.
Now, did he tell you how he got possession of these documents?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, he simply said, “These documents are PAOCTF documents.” As to how he was able to secure these documents, we don’t know.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Did he tell you that he got it from the offices or any offices of the PAOCTF?
MR. PABLO. We left that subject as a gray area, Mr. Senator. What was important is that he has the documents and we can be able to check the authenticity of the same documents.
SEN. BIAZON. We need to clarify this because the issue at bar is whether or not some officials from agencies might be held in contempt for putting some personalities under surveillance or probably even, probably even subjecting them to wiretapping. So, it is important for us to know whether these documents came from PAOCTF or not.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the source claimed it was PAOCTF.
SEN. BIAZON. It came from PAOCTF?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. Did he tell you whether he was authorized to handle these documents or did he illegally secure the possession of these documents?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, can you ask the question again?
SEN. BIAZON. Yeah, okay, fine. Did he tell you whether he came into possession of this document in an authorized manner or illegal manner? Ninakaw ba niya iyan doon sa PAOCTF o ano?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your answer, Mr. Pablo?
MR. PABLO. He simply said na “it came from PAOCTF.†He got the same from PAOCTF. As to how he got them, we don’t know.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, question, does he have authority or authorized access to the documents?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, I regret I cannot answer that question.
SEN. BIAZON. What grounds?
MR. PABLO. It may lead to the identification of our sources, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. I will end my questioning at this point. But may I just ask you, through your counsel, if the counsel or you yourselves are aware of Republic Act No. 53?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is addressed to the counsel?
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. To the counsel or to the two witnesses?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will begin first with the two witnesses. Any of the two can answer the question?
MS. HERRERA. I don’t know, Mr. Chief Justice. But may we refer you to our counsel, sir?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. He is just asking for an information whether you know about that republic act.
SEN. BIAZON. Republic Act No. 53?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What about you, Mr. Pablo, can you answer that question?
MR. PABLO. No, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. No. How about your counsel?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The counsel is not under oath, Senator Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Not under oath, okay. Now, may I just, if I may be allowed, Mr. Chief Justice, to read the very short Republic Act No. 53, specifically one of the sections: “An Act to exempt publisher/editor or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence.â€
Section 1 reads and I quote:
“The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence or which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the Court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.â€
Now, may I ask the two witnesses. In your testimony, you had reference to a second batch of document coming from the same source which reveals telephone numbers of the Presidential Security Group, the National Intelligence Coordinating Authority, Intelligence Officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, telephone numbers in DND (Department of National Defense), this has serious national security implication. And we need to know the name of the source because this definitely has something to do with the interest of the State.
MS. HERRERA. Mr. Senator, I have been advised that that law has been amended already.
SEN. BIAZON. Right. By what? Because this is still in the books.
MS. HERRERA. But that’s…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you know the Republic Act amending…
SEN. BIAZON. …which effectively amended this?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …RA 53?
MS. HERRERA. It’s RA 1477, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. And…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. 1477.
MS. HERRERA. Natural interest, Your Honor…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MS. HERRERA. “Natural interest†has been changed to “security†of the State.
SEN. BIAZON. Right. That is why I am raising the issue — I don’t think there are more compelling urgency much higher than when we talk about national security.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you ready to answer that question, Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo?
SEN. BIAZON. Anyway, Mr. Chief Justice,…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. …I will end this question at this point in time. And I just would like this to be considered by the witness and the counsel, the point that I have raised.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also probably by the Court itself…
SEN. BIAZON. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …to determine what relevance would it have or how would it affect national interest or national security.
SEN. BIAZON. We need to do this… That’s why we need to have the identity of the source because only the source can tell us the implication to national security of all of these documents considering the importance of the personalities in the Defense Department and in the security agencies that had been mentioned.
I will end at this point in time, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair had earlier recognized the Honorable Senator-Judge Roco; and after him, the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ROCO. I was going to yield, Mr. Chief Justice.
Just very briefly, I guess the issue is whether it’s a true and fair report because the questions were really bordering on whether it is true and fair.
So, may I ask the witnesses?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed now.
SEN. ROCO. Either of them can answer. The first paragraph of the article says, “Three lawmakers and the head of the Philippine Long Distance Company expressed outrage upon learning that the Estrada administration is allegedly systematically monitoring telephone calls, etcetera.†Well, is that a fact that there were three lawmakers who expressed outrage?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. So, there were three, in fact. So this is true, ‘no? And is it also a fact that the head of PLDT also expressed outrage ?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. And when you said ” allegedly,” you’re really saying you were told but you do not know whether what you were told is true?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. And that is why you used the word “allegedly?”
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Yeah, so, and it says so, in black and white, it is allegedly. There was an alleged monitoring, now. Then the second paragraph says that, “the Inquirer obtained computer printouts of billing records.†Is this true that you obtained computer printouts?
MS. HERRERA. From the source, Your Honor, yes.
SEN. ROCO. Yeah, it doesn’t say here. It doesn’t say here, “the Inquirer has obtained computer printouts of billing records.†But you did obtain, you are qualifying now that you did obtain from the source, is this correct?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, we were furnished copies of those printouts.
SEN. ROCO. Yes, but I am just concerned with the story as written. And then, apparently, and this is now as reported, the Senior Police Intelligence officer who furnished the newspaper with a document, okay, it’s on the third paragraph. Then he says and you quote him, “This type of surveillance was aimed at complementing the wiretapping, etcetera of both perceived enemies and the potential political allies of President Estrada.” Did he really say this?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. But you don’t know whether he is telling the truth or not, correct?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct.
SEN. ROCO. And I think that’s the tenor of the report. I mean, you’re reporting that you were told. We don’t know whether you believe him or not. We don’t know whether he is telling the truth or not but insofar as your story is concerned, you were told that this is supposed to be his opinion, correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. So, we can really ignore this opinion because it may or may not be true. It is just part of your narration in the news article. Correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. So, I guess that is how it should be taken. Then he also gives another opinion about the full blown surveillance, but you are not attesting to the truth of the so called full blown surveillance, correct? You’re just saying that you were told that there is supposed to be a full blown surveillance?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. I guess the same observation goes for the rest of the article. Every quotation here is true. That is a quotation told to you. But you’re not attesting that what is told to you is true or not, correct?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. Did Mr. Pangilinan really say, “we are outraged, we are distressed?”
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. I guess we can, but I guess this one you actually heard. Can we believe that he was actually distressed?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Ah, so you’re reporting this as true because you heard it, you heard expression of distress?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. Now, the reactions of I guess I’ll end there and I’ll not go through this. But Mr. Chief Justice, since I did ask for the for the record, I was the first one who requested a copy the records. Can I have a copy?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The one, the records just turned over…
SEN. ROCO. Yes, I’ll just examine them at leisure, while others are asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Before I ask this my questions, Mr. Chief Justice, I fully support the position of the distinguished senator from Pasay and Ilocos Sur, Senator Rodolfo Biazon. In fact, perhaps, we should examine whether this particular matter comes under the ambit of our Espionage Law because evidently, the purpose of all of these eavesdropping and analysis of document would be to spy on certain sensitive offices of the government. And if I recall correctly, I’m trying to get a copy of the Espionage Law. There are serious provisions that might be involved in this particular case but I leave that for some other time.
I just would like to address some more questions to these two witnesses because yesterday, in answer to my question, I asked for a period during which this computer printout of records of billings covered and they said that it started in October of this year. But as I went over this story it would seem to me that in the case of Governor Singson, it says here, “The records of Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit†Singson, the prosecution’s chief witness in the President’s Impeachment Trial are half an inch thick and cover calls that – and cover calls that he made from March to Octoberâ€, is this correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. So the period that is reflected in the records, in the so-called computer printouts of billing records, would span a period from March of this year to what date?
MS. HERRERA. November, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Of this year?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. All right. Is there any written analysis by the PAOCTF or by the Senior Police Intelligence Officer with respect to this so-called “computer records of a printout†– what do you call it?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Printouts.
SEN. ENRILE. Computer printouts of billing records that came into your possession?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor. None.
SEN. ENRILE. There was no analysis at all attached to this document by anyone?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor. No.
SEN. ENRILE. It was purely the document known as “computer printouts of billing records†that was handed to you with some editorial comments from this so-called “Senior Police Intelligence Officer?â€
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. In your story, you said the documents show that phone units being monitored include those of the Senate offices, private offices and residences of Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, and fellow Senators Franklin Drilon, Teofisto Guingona, Raul Roco, Rodolfo Biazon, Loren Legarda, Renato Cayetano, Juan Flavier, Robert Barbers and Sergio Osmeña III. In the case of Senator Franklin Drilon, do you know when the surveillance from his phones started?
MS. HERRERA. I’m not sure, Your Honor. I have to refer to the records.
SEN. ENRILE. It would appear in the record?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Will you please go over those records and tell us please, with the permission of the Chief Justice?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, do you have copies of the records, Madam Witness?
MS. HERRERA. We only have one copy, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And from that one copy, would you be able to answer the question?
MS. HERRERA. We’ll have to review it, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. ENRILE. Will you go over the name of Senator Franklin Drilon and tell us from when did the so called monitorings start?
MS. HERRERA. We already turned over the records, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. May we ask permission from the Chair to allow the witness to go over the record?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Secretary is now directed to probably retrieve the records in the meantime from the Honorable Senator Roco because the witness would need the records in the meantime.
So, with the permission of Honorable Roco…
SEN. ROCO. Yes, yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Senate Secretary will have to get back the records to be shown to the witness.
Give them to the witness.
You can use the table for that purpose, Madam Witness, so it will be easy for you to locate the corresponding pages.
Do not try to segregate the page, it might distort the arrangements already made when the documents were submitted, just fold it.
MS. HERRERA. It appears, Your Honor, that the call details or the calls made were not attached, only the cover paper was.
SEN. ENRILE. What do you mean by that?
MS. HERRERA. No details given, Your Honor, only the cover.
SEN. ENRILE. No. I just want the starting point when they started monitoring Senator Drilon’s telephone calls. Was it…
MS. HERRERA. It’s not indicated in the document, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Do you recall if it started after he made a call for resignation or even before that?
MS. HERRERA. I can’t say that, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the Senate President, when was his telephone numbers started to be monitored? Was it after he was elected Senate President or before?
MS. HERRERA. What was the question again, Mr. Senator?
SEN. ENRILE. I’m interested about the monitoring of the Senate President. When did that monitoring start?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, the Honorable Senate President Aquilino Pimentel, Jr?
SEN. ENRILE. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
MS. HERRERA. It appears that the record here, sir, says that the calls were made October 31 up to November 15.
SEN. ENRILE. October 31 up to November 15. In the case of Senator Drilon, you cannot determine?
MS. HERRERA. There was no record, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Senator Juan Ponce Enrile?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the telephone line indicated here is apparently located at the Bureau of Customs Building, Allied Port Services Incorporated. There are two calls reflected here. One is August 8, the other is September 4.
SEN. ENRILE. August 8. So that is my Marsman Building office. Is that the only number they are monitoring? Not my residence?
MR. PABLO. This is the only record we have, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. That’s the only record. And how many telephone numbers did that customs building telephone number office of Senator Enrile called?
MR. PABLO. The telephone number called from this office?
SEN. ENRILE. Yeah. How many? How many? I am just asking the number of calls made from that office, as reflected?
MR. PABLO. Based on the paper I have there are only two calls.
SEN. ENRILE. Two calls. They do not say what type of calls were those and who were called and what was the conversation?
MR. PABLO. No, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. So there was no tapping, just the telephone number of the caller and the telephone number of the person called, is that it?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What do you mean by “Yes?”
MR. PABLO. Yes…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was or there was none?
MR. PABLO. There was no tapping.
SEN. ENRILE. Was the name of the Vice President included in that report?
MR. PABLO. We have no records, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. The records do not show the name of the Vice President.
MR. PABLO. No, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. That will be all, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.
Any further questions? The Honorable Senator Judge Leviste, then after that the Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Just to recap your very lengthy testimony, I would just like to clarify the meat of your story, Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo, is the alleged illegal sourcing of documents which are purportedly private and confidential from PLDT? Is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And you had interviewed three lawmakers, including myself, two of whom are in the Lower House, who are allied with the opposition, is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And you merely sought the comments of the three lawmakers which is customary in journalism practice, to be able to get their comments, but even if you had not, the meat of your story stays, is that not correct?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. If you had, in your judgment, interviewed administration lawmakers whether from the Senate or the Lower House and they would have given you their comments, would your story still be the same? The meat of your story.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes, because the meat of your story is the alleged illegal sourcing of supposedly technical, private and confidential records of the PLDT.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. You have also interviewed Mr. Manny Pangilinan who verified or confirmed the authenticity of the documents which was in your custody?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. And had you not also observed the maxim in the journalism profession of fairness and balance by trying to secure the side of the PAOCTF or the PNP, is that not correct?
MS. HERRERA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. LEGARDA LEVISTE. Yes. Thank you. That’s all, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. Now is the turn of the Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Just to clarify something before I proceed with the other questions which is really the reason why I stood up. The witness testified in response to the question of Senator Judge Leviste that the meat of the story was the surveillance operation. So, I would like to know from the witness, how would you reconcile the headline of your newspaper which is: SOLONS OUTRAGED BY SURVEILLANCE. The headline has to do with the outrage of the three opposition solons that she consulted. So, where is the meat of the story? Is it the outrage or the surveillance?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer the question?
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Mrs. Herrera.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Herrera.
MS. HERRERA. We merely wrote the story, Your Honor. We didn’t do the headline.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But your editors apparently thought that the more important aspect was the outrage and not the story. That’s what the headline shows.
MS. HERRERA. I do not know that.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). You do not do that. Very well. Thank you.
Now, to my particular concerns. If a politician, a congressman, a senator, or any, municipal, local government official were to hand you money in consideration for your writing a story showing that particular person’s interest, would you accept the money?
MS. HERRERA. We don’t accept bribes, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Very good. Is it not a fact that it is the policy of your publication, the Inquirer, a commendable policy that you are prohibited from accepting direct bribery, is that not correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). How about indirect bribery?
MS. HERRERA. Both direct and indirect, sir, are prohibited.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Does your paper know that your husband works for Senator Leviste and the wife of Carlito Pablo works for Congressman Golez?
MS. HERRERA. In the case of my husband, sir, yes.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). In the case of the wife of Carlito?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo, would you answer the question?
MR. PABLO. Some people in the office know about the employment of my wife.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Does your office, therefore, not consider that the situation wherein your spouses work for politicians, collect regular salaries constitutes indirect bribery?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The first to answer will be Madam Herrera.
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then Mr. Pablo.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). They do not consider it or they do not know?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your answer, Madam Herrera?
MS. HERRERA. Both, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Ah, so, they do not consider it indirect bribery?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). But they know?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). And they acquiesce to this practice?
MS. HERRERA. I can not speak for the Inquirer management, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). All right. Now, would you, as a professional journalist not…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, I understand the question was also directed to Mr. Pablo?
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. PABLO. Same answer, Mr. Senator.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Would you, as a professional journalist, Mrs. Herrera, not think that your work would be biased because your husband is employed by a senator?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you too. The Honorable Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I had wanted to pass on to the next witness but just because some points were raised by Senator Judge Osmeña on the story itself, perhaps we need to clarify just a couple of points.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we’d like to know from the two witnesses whether the story bearing their joint byline appears in this issue of the Inquirer, December 18, as written by the two reporters.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. You wrote the lead of the story.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor, we talked about the lead.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. The lead. The story… This is the first time the story broke. This is not a follow up story.
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. So, the…
MS. HERRERA. Are you referring to the December 18 issue?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Yes. So, the story here is the alleged systematic monitoring of telephone calls of Senator Judges. This is the story?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. But the lead has to do with the so called outrage of senators who know nothing about the truth or falsity of your report.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, it was journalistic style.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. So this is the spin? Is the spin?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. It’s meant to catch attention, it is not meant to tell the truth?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer, Mr. Pablo or Madam Herrera?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the story can speak for itself.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. It does. Indeed, it does a lot and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as regular journalistic canon is concerned. Anyway, that’s the last question, Mr. Chief Justice. Perhaps, we can…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I would just like to know if we will be provided with the copies of the documents?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, copies of the documents will be provided each of the members of the Impeachment Court.
SEN. SOTTO. Okay, thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To include, of course, the Presiding Officer, too and the Senate President.
The Honorable Senator Judge Oreta.
SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. Mr. Chief Justice, this may not be relevant or this may not be within the confines of the investigation this morning, but I would just like to inform the Impeachment Court that right now they are picketing my office at Ermita Building. So, it’s the same case as Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who are picketing your office?
SEN. AQUINO-ORETA. I just got a call now, Mr. Chief Justice, that there are some people. Well, I don’t have the details yet but they are there going around and picketing my office. They are there in front of my office at Ermita Building here at Roxas Boulevard, Mr. Chief Justice. I would just like to inform the Impeachment Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. One question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the Senate President on that matter.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me. Just one question addressed to Miss Herrera, please, if you will.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, as a matter of personal privilege.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yeah, okay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, with the permission of the rest, the Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Also, yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice and Mr. Senate President, I was the object of picket. I had taken photographs of all the picketers. They are members of Akbayan, an organization known as Akbayan and I have the photographs of these people and I would like to state that one of the placards says, “Senador o Bentador,” meaning it was actually a slur to my person that I am selling my impartiality, my loyalty, my personal individual independent decision in this particular case. I am not one who is easily shaken or taken by all of these. I just want to put that into the record because I think the Senate, as a body, being the Court in this particular impeachment trial should take note of these things not only for the sake of those like us who are being pilloried but for the sake of those who will come after us so that we will know how to handle things like this. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly to peaceably petition the authorities for redress of grievances, I think, this right is not unlimited or unrestricted. It must be cannalized in order to prevent it from overflowing, Mr. Chief Justice. And I do hope that the Impeachment Court will exercise its wisdom and prerogatives to protect the interest of the individual members of the Court. Otherwise, we are going to be the subject of march. I think all of these activities are intended for nothing else but to pressure us to decide the case according to their will, according to their viewpoint, according to their desires, according to what they want to happen in this particular proceeding. And as far as I am concerned, I’m not going to be pressured. I will decide this case according to my own, individual choice, regardless of anything, including removal of my life from this earth.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer is proposing to call a caucus of the Impeachment Court to thresh out this issue. But the Presiding Officer, however, recommends that the Senate itself, as a legislative body, should also consider this issue because the Honorable Members of the Impeachment Court hold, each holds, two official capacities as Impeachment Court judges and as legislators in the Senate. And the acts complained of would affect the senators in both official capacities. So, the two bodies must act separately to confront this specific issue.
SEN. BIAZON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, the Honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. So, Mr. Chief Justice. But I think that it’s fine that we really are performing under two identities: legislator and as a Court. But here, the immediate effect on us are as members of the Court. And we notice that both sides of this controversy are trying to mount mass actions to acquire the effect that had just been described by Senator Enrile, the gentleman from Cagayan. And I think that it is the Court as the Impeachment Court that can cause immediate action from the government to take measures to ensure the individual and collective integrity of the Impeachment Court, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Your Honor.
SEN. BIAZON. Is the Court not, under the principles of law, empowered to issue orders to appropriate agencies to do just this, to ensure the safety, the well being, and more importantly, the integrity, individual and collective integrity of the Impeachment Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As a matter of fact, Your Honor, that was precisely the message the Presiding Officer wanted to convey when it suggested its intention to call a caucus of the Impeachment Court.
So, the Senate President is recommending that we shall have that caucus for that issue tomorrow at 12:00 o’clock.
The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, from the beginning of our discussions on the impeachment process, it was very important to be conscious that it is a public, judicial, and political process.
The reason I call attention to this, again, Mr. President and Mr. Chief Justice, is because even when it was put in the American Constitution, there was a consciousness that impeachment per se tends to divide and it will generate passions. Because one who is elected with 10 million votes, as was pointed out, will be removed by 16 or 15 so that the equivalent when you put it on a per capita basis is one vote here is equivalent to, maybe, 700,000 or maybe 500,000, whatever it is.
So, passions and the reactions of our people is part and parcel of the impeachment process.
The reason we are reacting, Mr. President and Mr. Chief Justice, is because it is the first time it has happened. We are not used to being subjected to the scrutiny but this is the cleansing process that will possibly give some positive effect to this impeachment procedure, Mr. President Mr. Chief Justice.
And I’m only concerned I don’t want to give the impression that when we hold a caucus therefore then we start talking about secret manueverings.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, Your Honor, the idea of a caucus is precisely for the Impeachment Court to determine what are the parameters or the effects of the activities being complained of. We are not trying to prevent anyone from exercising his or her right under the Constitution. But I think it is very important that we should meet in caucus so we can approach it in a better way.
SEN. ROCO. We are not objecting, Mr. Chief Justice. All I’m saying is that all of us are subject to pressure and all of us must put some effort to understand the milieu and the passions of our own people.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we can take that up tomorrow during the caucus.
SEN. ROCO. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Just one question to Ms. Herrera.
I saw in one of the newspapers I don’t know if it was in the Inquirer today you had a picture showing Police Director General Lacson with you. Did you see that?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Were you being threatened by Mr. Lacson in any manner?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What were you talking about?
MS. HERRERA. It was confidential, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What do you mean confidential? Please. I mean, we respect your right as a journalist not to reveal sources, but conversations, how can that be confidential, Ms. Herrera. Please, you have to come clean before this Court, Ms. Herrera.
MS. HERRERA. He was asking for my source, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. All right, okay. So, that’s better. So, there was no threat at all against your person?
MS. HERRERA. No, Your Honor.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader. It’s 12:17 in the afternoon.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we now dispense with these witnesses and…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness Herrera and Mr. Witness Pablo, you are now excused and thank you for your cooperation and also to counsel, Attorney Palabrica.
MS. HERRERA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. PABLO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. PALABRICA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. We have other witnesses, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Are they ready?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Either Mr. Pangilinan or Director General Lacson.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Whom would you want to call? Would you have the time for the termination of the testimony of this witness?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. We can only begin the testimony. I don’t believe if we are to break at one o’clock, we have less than one hour.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. The other judges would like to …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. … call Director General Panfilo Lacson.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call General Lacson as the next witness.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Before we hear Director General Panfilo Lacson, may we inquire into the commitments of our birthday celebrant today.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the commitment is, we shall have the resumption of the trial at 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. But is not the Presiding Officer needed before one o’clock somewhere else?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, public duty should come first.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I’m sorry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have now the witness. The Secretary of the Senate should administer the oath now.
THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand. Do you, Director General Panfilo Lacson, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, and particularly in reference to phone bugging, wiretapping, and electronics surveillance, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
MR. LACSON. I do.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now sit down, Mr. Witness. Would you please state your name.
MR. LACSON. Your Honor, I am Police Director General Panfilo Moreno Lacson.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your age.
MR. LACSON. Fifty-two (52) years old.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your status.
MR. LACSON. Married.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your residence.
MR. LACSON. Care of Camp Crame, Quezon City, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your profession or occupation.
MR. LACSON. I am a police officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have again your present position in the government?
MR. LACSON. I am the Chief of the National Police, concurrently Chief of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The purpose why you were subpoenaed here was mentioned to you by the Senate Secretary. So, any member of the Court who would wish to ask questions?
We will have first the Honorable Senator Guingona, and then after that, the Honorable Senator Biazon, and the Honorable Senator Roco.
The Honorable Guingona may now proceed.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Director General Lacson, is it true that there are two types of surveillance and monitoring?
MR. LACSON. That is correct, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. I am referring to the frequency bugging of landline phones, one, and the other is the scanning.
MR. LACSON. I thought you are referring to surveillance in general, Your Honor. There are two kinds. It’s the physical surveillance and technical surveillance, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. What does the – what do they involve, the two?
MR. LACSON. Physical surveillance is the actual physical tailing of subjects or suspects while technical surveillance may involve photographic surveillance and other surveillance with the use of technical equipment, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. How is frequency bugging of landline phones conducted?
MR. LACSON. I don’t have a personal idea or knowledge on that, Your Honor. I have my own staff in charge of such thing. But may I add, Your Honor, that we resort to technical surveillance, particularly wiretapping, when we are given the court order to do so…
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.
MR. LACSON. … under the provisions of Republic Act 4200.
SEN. GUINGONA. Do you have two army officers by the names of Lt. Col. Diosdado Reyes?
MR. LACSON. Dioscoro, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. Dioscoro Reyes?
MR. LACSON. That’s correct, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. And Capt. Ariel Morada assigned with the PAOCTF?
MR. LACSON. I am not familiar with Capt. Morada but the head of the Technical Division is Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. Can you please explain – was this Dioscoro Reyes the subject of controversy because he did not pass through the AFP chain of commands in this promotion?
MR. LACSON. I am not aware of that, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. May we know his exact duties?
MR. LACSON. He is the chief of the Technical Investigation Division of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. Does it include inter … monitoring and surveillance?
MR. LACSON. Technical surveillance, Your Honor.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. May we request, Mr. Chief Justice, that this officer, Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes, be issued a subpoena to appear.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To appear on what particular day?
SEN. GUINGONA. At any date that’s convenient. Tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Tomorrow?
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary, rather, the Legal Officer of the Senate is requested to prepare the subpoena ad testificandum only?
SEN. GUINGONA. Duces tecum, if he can bring with him the screen prints and the detailed records of all surveillances from…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What kind of surveillances. Because the witness had described the different kinds of surveillance. Because the subpoena ad testificandum, duces tecum, if the latter would be included would have to define exactly and enumerate correctly the documents sought to be presented and produced.
SEN. GUINGONA. May I go to that later.
MR. LACSON. May I make a statement, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Witness.
MR. LACSON. I think there is an assumption that the printouts of call detail records indeed emanated from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force. I think that’s a wrong assumption. I am here to categorically deny the involvement of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force in any or all of these activities as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. As a matter of fact, I offered to put my job on the line if there is proof to show that we indeed participated in any or all of these activities.
By the way, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may proceed.
MR. LACSON. We conducted our own investigation on the matter of the acquisition of this call detail record and we have our own positive preliminary findings on the matter. We were able to identify the PLDT employee responsible for giving out these printouts and we are now on the tail of the PNP officer, the so-called “source,” and we are slowly closing in on him and we will divulge the identity in due time. But in the meantime, I’m prepared to identify the PLDT employee and I suggest that she be summoned by this Court to enlighten the senator-judges on the real score on this particular issue as written by the Inquirer. She is Flodina S. Pasamba. She’s an employee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How do you spell the name?
MR. LACSON. F-L-O-D-I-N-A S. Pasamba. She’s an employee of the CO of Ortigas in Greenhills, Your Honor. Central Office.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Central Office of…?
MR. LACSON. Of PLDT, Your Honor. She committed a mistake of not omitting the portion wherein the user ID was indicated in one of the printouts. Because when the news broke out, I borrowed from Miss Herrera the original copies of the documents and she obliged. We were able to secure the copies of the originals and we noticed in one of the documents, particularly the telephone number of Congressman Ace Barbers and I’d like to show or point out to the Court this particular document.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Congressman who?
MR. LACSON. There is really no perfect crime, Your Honor.
Robert Ace Barbers. There is a number here and we sought the help of PLDT in identifying who was responsible in generating this printout from the computer, and she was identified. And we will point out to you later on circumstantially, that is, who the contact is in the PNP. As to the motive, we will have to determine the motive.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. May I continue?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a request on the part of the witness for the issuance of a subpoena to Miss Flodina F. Pasamba. What is the pleasure of the Impeachment Court?
SEN. ROCO. May we move, Mr. President, that it be granted to support whatever the story of the witness may be.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That we issue the subpoena?
SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, if the body will so support.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Presiding Officer would direct the issuance of a subpoena.
MR. LACSON. May I…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. LACSON. May I proceed further, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. Not yet. On the issuance yet. The Legal Officer is directed to prepare the subpoena ad testificandum to Flotina F. Pasamba of the central office of the PLDT requiring her to appear before the Impeachment Court and to testify at 2:00 o’clock tomorrow aft… ay, no, morning. It should be morning.
SEN. GUINGONA. Morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the continuation of this incident, 10:30 o’clock in the morning of 21 December.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. With the indulgence of our distinguished Minority Leader and everyone in the Court, it is not everyday that the Chief Justice turns 65 years old. And today, I understand the Supreme Court has prepared a lunch in his honor, so I will beg the understanding of everyone here that we suspend our proceedings as of now to allow the Presiding Officer to fulfill his commitments and move that we resume this incident…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I would like to get the conformity of the honorable Minority Leader for that and the entire Body because insofar as the Presiding Officer is concerned, he can work with you until one o’clock as we have agreed upon.
THE MINORITY LEADER. With full conformity, Your Honor please, with full conformity. But I would just like to request, reiterate our request for the subpoena also of Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Will you kindly, Your Honor, give the names of these people to be subpoenaed for their appearance also tomorrow at 10:30 in the morning…
THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … to Atty. Yap of the Legal Office.
THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And if there are any documents to be produced by him, just specify the documents.
THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor. So, may we just continue with the witness tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, in the meantime, General Lacson is excused but advised to come back tomorrow for the continuation of the testimony at 10:30 o’clock in the morning.
MR. LACSON. Thank you, Your Honor. Happy birthday, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, thank you.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. May we add to that, Mr. Chief Justice, the other witnesses as well.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the other witnesses too. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to notify Mr. Pangilinan, General Fortuno and General Calimlim, also to be ready tomorrow because they were issued subpoenas.
Yes, the Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. The proposal from Senator-Judge Roco is to call Mr. Pangilinan tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Tomorrow.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. And the others may be temporarily excused because we may not have the material…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. So, is that the… Yes.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I am sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, I am getting my signals from…
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, what is the signal?
SEN. ROCO. There is no way I think that we will finish with this witness tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I doubt.
SEN. ROCO. So, all other witnesses can come back when we request them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later? What about the persons to be subpoenaed upon request by the Minority Leader?
SEN. ROCO. Ah, let them be called because it will support his story. But since there is no way, I think even if we spend two hours, that we will finish with…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the honorable Senator Guingona, would you be willing to have the two other witnesses to be subpoenaed upon your request to come not tomorrow but the day after?
SEN. ROCO. Yeah, let’s finish with him.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And, therefore, to focus our hearing tomorrow only on the witness, General Lacson.
SEN. ROCO. Yes.
THE MINORITY LEADER. Yes, Your Honor, except for one, maybe, one more.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Police Director General.
THE MINORITY LEADER. Just one more.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
THE MINORITY LEADER. Lt. Col. Dioscoro Reyes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, only for that witness then, Atty. Yap, and probably, we could have the two tomorrow. Thank you.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. So, we move then to suspend this particular incident till 10:30 tomorrow. But the Impeachment Court resumes at 2:30 this afternoon for the trial proper.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The incident heard this morning is suspended until tomorrow at 10:30 o’clock in the morning and the trial proper will be at 2:30 o’clock this afternoon as agreed upon yesterday.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, suspended until 2:30 o’clock for purposes of the trial. Thank you.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 12:35 P.M.