Estrada Impeachment January 4, 2001 Transcripts

RESUMPTION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
THURSDAY, JANUARY 04, 2001

At 2:07 P.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE RESUMPTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS [MR. LEONARDO LOPEZ]. Please all rise for the entrance of Senator-Judges.

Please remain standing for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., and the Honorable Chief Justice, Hilario G. Davide Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE]. The resumption of the impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.

The honorable Senator-Judge Ramon Magsaysay Jr. will now lead us in prayer.

PRAYER

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Let us bow our heads in prayer.

Heavenly Father, thank You for a new year, a fresh hope, a solemn responsibility to handle and decide the impeachment case in this Court.

Guard the truth, O God, for it shall set us free. Like Saul’s journey to Damascus, remove the scales from the eyes of our Senator-Jurors that we may realize the truth and ignore our earlier biases. That we may bring forth justice to our nation, to every Filipino who is bearing the burden of our slump.

We pray also, dear Lord, that we may not lose sight of the real problem that besets our nation and divides our people–and that is the issue of moral leadership.

Lord, do not let us be like the ancient Romans gathered inside a colosseum entertained by gladiators being fed to lions, while corruption, decadence and immorality reside in their government.

Allow us not to be distracted by terroristic maneuvers aimed at diverting the people’s attention from the single most important issue of moral governance.

Father, time is not on our side. Let the impeachment issue be our sole concern at this time. Grant us the gift to discern that the longer the impeachment trial drags, the longer it will be for us to resolve our leadership crisis.

Make us instruments to help our country regain its reputation as a strong and morally upright society upholding leadership based on values and principles.

MAY WE BREAK THE CHAINS OF OPPRESSION BINDING OUR COUNTRYMEN AND LOOK AFTER THEIR WELFARE LIKE A TRUE SHEPHERD AFTER YOUR HEART.

We pray for JUSTICE, Father.

We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.

The Sergeant at Arms will now make the proclamation.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.

THE JOURNAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER [SEN. TATAD]. Mr. Chief Justice, upon request of the members of the Court, I move that we defer consideration of the Journal of the Impeachment Court of Tuesday, January 2, 2001 to a later time.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved.

The Secretary is now directed to call the case.

THE SECRETARY [MR. BARBO]. Impeachment Case No. 001-2000 entitled, In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I invite the parties to this Impeachment Trial to enter anew their appearance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The parties are hereby directed to enter anew their appearances.

REP. APOSTOL. For the Prosecution, the same appearances.

We are ready, Mr. Chief Justice.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, for the Defense, the same appearances.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we move to the trial proper, the Presiding Officer recognizes the Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just put into the Record a one-page letter addressed to me by Atty. Mario Luza Bautista, a counsel for the private prosecution. This is a very short message, but I would like to read the whole letter in its entirety,

Mr. Chief Justice.

The Honorable Aquilino Pimentel

President

Senate of the Republic of the Philippines

Manila

Dear Senator Pimentel:

Transmitted herewith are the originals of the second

set of documents mentioned by Mrs. Clarissa Ocampo at her examination during impeachment proceedings held last

January 2, 2001, consisting of the following:

1) Two copies of the Investment Management Agree-ment signed by Mrs. Ocampo and Jaime Dichaves on the second pages thereof;

2) Two copies of the signature cards with the account name of Jaime Dichaves bearing the specimen signatures of Mr. Dichaves and the signature of

Mrs. Ocampo;

3) One copy of the Directional Letter signed by

Mr. Dichaves; and

4) One copy of the Investment Guidelines signed by

Mrs. Ocampo on the first page thereof and signed by Mr. Dichaves on the last seven pages thereof.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MARIO LUZA BAUTISTA

The signature appears over the typewritten name of the said sender of this message. For the information of all, Mr. Chief Justice, the originals were also turned over by my office to the Secretariat and were duly received on this date.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, for the trial proper, it is still the turn of the Prosecution to present the evidence. Witness Atty. Maria Jasmine Banal will continue her testimony on direct-examination. The principal and assisting examining counsel are: Prosecutor Roan Libarios and Prosecutor Sergio Apostol, respectively; and the principal and assisting cross-examining counsel, Atty. Estelito Mendoza and Atty. Jose Flaminiano, respectively.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Call Atty. Maria Jasmine Banal to the witness stand. Yes, what is the pleasure of the honorable

Judge Drilon?

SEN. DRILON. This is in relation to the letter read by the Senate President, Mr. Chief Justice. If I may, while we are waiting for the… Before we start with the next witness, Your Honor.

The Senate President read into the Record the documents which witness Clarissa Ocampo mentioned in the course of her testimony. And, indeed, she said that she was going to produce these documents before this Court. First, can the members of the Court have copies of this second set of documents testified to by Mrs. Ocampo? And second, Your Honor, may we know if this is considered now as part of the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule as to the first. Copies thereof will be given to the members of the Court. As to the second, I think it might not be proper to consider as part of the testimony of the witness taking into account that if you recall, Your Honor, there was a reservation earlier made by the honorable Senator- Judge Roco for the production of the document the following day and the witness was supposed to come or to return to the witness stand the following day for that purpose. But I understand that Senator Roco withdrew the reservation later on after conferring with Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. That is why we raised that question, Your Honor, precisely because I recalled the manifestation of Senator Roco and I was the one who initially asked for these documents and Senator Roco precisely mentioned it also in the course of his intervention. That is why I raised the issue as a matter of guidance for the members of this Court, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. May we pray for substitution of the assisting counsel. Instead of yours truly, may we request that the assisting counsel be Dean Amado Valdez; and private counsels for the witnesses,

Atty. Dante Tupas and Atty. Alegre.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me see. Yesterday, the witness was examined by Prosecutor Roan Libarios. He should continue the direct examination of the witness.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, the substitution…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why did Your Honor mention two others, Tupas and Valdez?

REP. APOSTOL. Valdez is the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There should only be one assisting examining counsel.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. The other two are private counsels for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Private counsel?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Court will not recognize a private counsel. They will be allowed to sit there as merely an onlooker.

REP. APOSTOL. In that case, we withdraw the names as private counsels of these two. May I turn over now the microphone to the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios may now proceed. The witness is warned that she would be testifying under the same oath.

REP. LIBARIOS. May I now proceed, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

REP. LIBARIOS. Ms. Witness, yesterday, you testified before this honorable Impeachment Court that sometime in October of 1999, you were asked to sign two Articles of Incorporation, namely, Pio Holding Incorporation and Alexie Holding Corporation. When these Articles were presented for your signature, did you have any participation in the preparation and drafting of these Articles of Incorporation and the other documents?

MS. BANAL. No, the documents were all prepared. In fact, in-corporation papers already contained the signatures of the other lawyers.

REP. LIBARIOS. You also mentioned that it was upon the request of Atty. Serapio, coursed through the secretary and the assistant, Atty. Michael de los Reyes, that you acted on the Articles of Incorporation of these two corporations. Now, at the time you signed these Articles of Incorporation, was Atty. Serapio already connected in Malacañang?

MS. BANAL. Your Honor, I believe he was already appointed Presidential Adviser.

REP. LIBARIOS. Now, after signing the Articles of Incorporation of the Pio Holdings and the Alexie Holdings, what did you do, if any?

MS. BANAL. After signing?

REP. LIBARIOS. After signing.

MS. BANAL. Well, I remember Atty. de los Reyes went back to me so I gave the documents back to him as completely signed.

REP. LIBARIOS. Based on the Articles of Incorporation, you appeared to be one of the incorporators, one of the five incorporators and one of the five members of the Board. Aside from these two positions, what other positions did you hold in these two corporations, if any?

MS. BANAL. Well, in the incorporation papers, it was also stated there that I was corporate secretary.

REP. LIBARIOS. Now, when these incorporation papers were presented to you and one of the papers mentioned that you are a corporate secretary, were you previously consulted that you will be listed as the corporate secretary of these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

REP. LIBARIOS. May I call your attention, Ms. Witness, to these two exhibits, Exhibit “EEEE” and Exhibit “FFFF” referring to two Secretary’s Certificates. I would like you to examine carefully these two….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You cannot be heard,

Mr. Counsel.

REP. LIBARIOS. I would like you to examine carefully these two Secretary’s Certificates, dated October 19, 1999, bearing identical entry. Would you confirm that you signed these two Secretary’s Certificates?

MS. BANAL. Yes, I signed these certificates the same day I signed the incorporation papers.

REP. LIBARIOS. In this Secretary’s Certificate duly marked Exhibit “EEEE”….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder, please.

REP. LIBARIOS. In this Secretary’s Certificate duly marked as Exhibit “EEEE”, there appears an entry which states that the corporation is authorized to negotiate for the purchase of the shares of stocks of RN Development Corporation. At the time you signed this Secretary’s Certificate, did you know that RN Development Corporation was actually the owner/operator of the Fontana Leisure Parks?

MR. MENDOZA. No basis whatsoever, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained. No basis.

REP. LIBARIOS. Did you have any prior knowledge about this RN Development Corporation when you signed this Secretary’s Certificate?

MS. BANAL. None, Your Honor.

REP. LIBARIOS. And let me call your attention also to the next paragraph after that. It states here that “Resolved, that the Acting Executive Vice President, Mr. Leonardo B. Dayao, is authorized to negotiate, sign, execute and deliver for and in behalf of the corporation all the documents necessary to effect the foregoing resolution particularly the purchase of the RN Development Corporation”.

When you signed this Secretary’s Certificate, did you know this Acting Executive Vice President, Mr. Leonardo B. Dayao, who was authorized to negotiate for the purchase of the RN Development Corporation?

MR. MENDOZA. Your Honor please, the question is irrelevant. Precisely, the resolution authorizes the Executive Vice President to negotiate, to sign and execute in behalf of the corporation relating to the purchase of the shares.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained but not for the reason given, but for the reason that the best evidence is the document itself.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, what we are trying to…. This is a motion for reconsideration, Your Honor. What the Prosecution is trying to establish now is that these corporations are nothing but dummy corporations set up to acquire the RN Development Corporation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then go direct to the point.

REP. LIBARIOS. And, Your Honor please, while it is true that the document is the best evidence, but whether or not the corporate secretary knows the identity of this Leonardo B. Dayao is an independently relevant statement, Your Honor, that transcends beyond the existence of this particular document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are offering the same as an independently relevant statement?

REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor. It has a significance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, with no reason that the objection should be sustained. Go direct to the point.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, I would like to make a particular tender of proof in this particular case, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make the tender of proof.

REP. LIBARIOS. That if the witness is asked about this

Atty. Leonardo B. Dayao, the witness does not actually know this

person who was authorized in this document as the person to negotiate

for the purchase of the RN Development Corporation and she does

not know anything about this particular purchase, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the proffer of proof stay on record.

REP. LIBARIOS. Okay. Now aside from these two documents– the Alexie Holdings, Incorporated, which were already identified yesterday, and the stipulations were already made as to the existence of these two documents and, of course, including the authenticity of the signatures, I presume, of these two documents, both for the Alexie Holdings, Incorporated and the Pio Holdings Corporation–now, aside from these documents, Ms. Witness, can you tell us if you executed any other document in relation to these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. Yes. I also signed a blank deed of assignment.

REP. LIBARIOS. What do you mean by “blank deed of assignment”?

MS. BANAL. The name of the assignee and the date of the document were both left in blanks.

REP. LIBARIOS. And what did you assign in those blank deed of assignment?

MR. MENDOZA. The best evidence is the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection.

MR. MENDOZA. The best evidence is the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, we do not have the documents right now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then lay the basis for evidence tending toward that direction.

REP. LIBARIOS. You said that you signed a blank deed of assignment. Where is that document indicating your signature in that blank deed of assignments?

MR. MENDOZA. Same objection, Your Honor. Where is the signature of this lady? It is in the document.

REP. LIBARIOS. Where is the document now?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair should first make a ruling. Sustained. Make another question.

REP. LIBARIOS. Ms. Witness, you testified earlier that you signed a blank deed of assignment. Now, my question is: Where is that document now, that blank deed of assignment?

MS. BANAL. I do not know, Your Honor.

REP. LIBARIOS. After you signed that blank deed of assignment, to whom did you turn over that blank deed of assignment?

MS. BANAL. Also to Atty. Michael de los Reyes.

REP. LIBARIOS. And what did you assign in those blank deed of assignment?

MR. MENDOZA. The best evidence is the document.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, considering…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will not recommend to you what to do. But you know how to establish secondary evidence whenever the document cannot be produced.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is correct, Your Honor. We have already laid down the basis that the documents are in the possession of

Atty. Michael de los Reyes, and this Atty. Michael de los Reyes is actually working as an assistant of Atty. Edward Serapio. So we cannot produce these documents right now, Your Honor, and we are still in the process of…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You were the one saying it.

Let it come from the witness so you could ask for the next question.

REP. LIBARIOS. That is why, Your Honor, our last question was: “What did you assign in the blank deed of assignments?”

MR. MENDOZA. Even if it is objectionable, I will not object anymore since this is supposed to be the last question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is withdrawn.

The witness may now answer the question.

REP. LIBARIOS. What did you assign?

MS. BANAL. I assigned my shares in the two companies.

REP. LIBARIOS. How about the other incorporators? Did you know if they also executed similar deed of assignments over the shares in the corporations?

MS. BANAL. I would assume that they also signed those documents.

REP. LIBARIOS. What do you mean, “I would assume”?

MS. BANAL. The normal practice in that law firm was, in case the lawyers were to act as incorporators, they would sign the incorporation documents simultaneously with the deeds of trust. So I would assume that that was what happened in this case.

REP. LIBARIOS. After the corporations were registered, and you mentioned also that you were the incorporator and a member of the board in these two corporations, now can you recall if you were notified of any meeting or activity of these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. After I signed those documents, I was not notified of any further activity or meeting.

REP. LIBARIOS. And you also mentioned that you were also designated as a corporate secretary of these two corporations. Do you remember if you executed a document in relation to your being a corporate secretary of these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. When I resigned from the law firm of De Borja-Medialdea, I also tendered my resignation as corporate secretary for the two corporations.

REP. LIBARIOS. And to whom did you submit your letter of resignation as corporate secretary?

MS. BANAL. I submitted them to Atty. de los Reyes.

REP. LIBARIOS. Thank you. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination?

MR. MENDOZA. With the permission of the Court.

Atty. Banal, for how long did you work with the law office of

De Borja-Medialdea?

MS. BANAL. I worked there for one year and eight months.

MR. MENDOZA. And you were assigned to the corporate department?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Sir.

MR. MENDOZA. And in that corporate department, it is

your usual practice to prepare Articles of Incorporation in which

members of the firm are named as incorporators and as members of

the Board, is it not?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. So, what you did in this particular case is

usual practice in that firm?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. And that when a client comes and then needs a corporation, corporations which are being previously organized are made available, is it not?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Sir.

MR. MENDOZA. And that when the client decides to utilize that corporation, all of the members of the firm who were designated incorporators and members of the Board execute deeds of assignment in favor of the nominees of the client, is it not?

MS. BANAL. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. And that is usual and standard practice.

MS. BANAL. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. Nothing wrong with that, is it not?

MS. BANAL. None.

MR. MENDOZA. You would not engage in anything that is illegal, is it not?

MS. BANAL. No.

MR. MENDOZA. And that is perfectly legal, is it not?

MS. BANAL. The incorporation?

MR. MENDOZA. Yes.

MS. BANAL. Yes.

MR. MENDOZA. Thank you very much. No further questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any questions from the members of the Impeachment Court?

REP. LIBARIOS. Two re-direct questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, not yet. The agreement among the members of the Impeachment Court is immediately after the cross-examination.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. We will allow re-direct.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will allow re-direct. Okay, re-direct first. So Prosecutor Libarios is recognized for some re-direct questions.

REP. LIBARIOS. Thank you, Your Honor. In this particular case, Ms. Witness, regarding the incorporation of the Pio Holding and the Alexis Holding Corporation, there was no client who appeared before you and it was only Atty. Serapio who requested for these two corporations, am I correct?

MR. MENDOZA. Improper for re-direct, Your Honor. I did not cover that at all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Improper for re-direct. The objection is sustained.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, there was a statement in the cross-examination which tried to create the impression that everything was regular in this particular case.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the answer given by the witness.

REP. LIBARIOS. But in this particular case, Your Honor, what we are trying to elicit is that no principal actually revealed himself to the witness, except Atty. Serapio, who, at that time was already working in Malacañang. So we believe, Your Honor, this particular line of question would somehow clarify that particular point that was raised during the cross-examination, Your Honor.

MR. MENDOZA. If Your Honor please, probably it should be noted that the witness was but an associate or an assistant in that firm and clients do not deal with the associates or assistants, and that is why that was not covered by the cross-examination. All that was covered by the cross-examination was whether this having members of the firm sign as incorporators and directors is usual practice. So that the witness….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is sustained and Prosecutor Libarios is also reminded that even on the direct testimony, the witness already testified on the very matter you would like to establish on re-direct.

REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, in the cross-examination, there was an attempt on the part of the Defense to create an impression that there was nothing irregular about this entire transaction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Leave it to the Court to determine now because on the direct examination, you were able to establish that the witness only saw Atty. Serapio.

REP. LIBARIOS. Okay, thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. From the members of the Impeachment Court now, who would ask questions? The honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Ms. Witness, you testified that you are now employed by a law firm called Romulo-Mabanta, is that correct?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. When we say “Romulo-Mabanta”, do we refer to the senior name partner as Ricardo Romulo?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Is Ricardo Romulo not only the name partner of your law firm, the senior name partner, but also the president of the Makati Business Club? Is that the same person?

MS. BANAL. Yes, that’s correct.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Is that also that same law office that is helping the Prosecution panel?

MS. BANAL. The same law office?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes.

MS. BANAL. I believe the law office is not helping the Prosecution.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I understand that there is a lawyer here, Atty. Bautista, if I recall correctly, who identifies himself as a lawyer of Romulo-Mabanta Law Office. May I seek clarification? No?

MS. BANAL. Well, as far as I know, some members of the law firm have volunteered in their personal capacity.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Oh, I’m referring to Atty. Enriquez apparently.

MS. BANAL. Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Thank you. And is that the same Ricardo Romulo who is now the new president of Equitable

PCI Bank?

MS. BANAL. Yes, that’s correct.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. All right. You said that before you were employed by Romulo-Mabanta, you were employed in the law office of–

MS. BANAL. De Borja….

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. –Atty. Serapio, De Borja, et cetera, Serapio Law Office, is that correct also?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. So from the law office where one of the senior name partners eventually became a presidential assistant, you transferred to a law office where the senior law partner is now a leading advocate of the removal of the President, is that correct?

Is that a correct statement? Is that a fair statement?

MS. BANAL. Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. That’s right. Yes. Now, my only question is: Where was your salary higher, in the Serapio Law Office or in the Romulo-Mabanta Law Office?

MS. BANAL. In the Serapio Law Office.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Oh, it taxes credulity that you transferred from a higher-paying position to a lower-paying position?

MS. BANAL. Well, my…. Yes, my salary from that time I transferred to Romulo in August, yes, August until now, compared to my salary before, it’s lower.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I see. So you made the unusual deviation from the usual career path since you and I and all UP law graduates virtually pursue the same career path after graduation. Isn’t that so? We try and get the highest salary we can get and then if we are offered a higher salary, then of course, other things being equal, the normal reaction is to accept the higher salary. But in this case, if you accept my premise that that is the usual career path of a UP law graduate, you deviated from the usual career path because now it seems clear that from a lower-paying salary, you went to another law firm that offered you…. I mean an even lower salary. I mean from a higher salary, you went to a law firm just so that you could accept the lower salary. [The two-minute bell rings.]

MS. BANAL. Well, I believe….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The two minutes of the distinguished lady Judge….

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes. It’s about to expire. So will you please just answer with a yes or no.

MS. BANAL. Yes. I think….

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Please just answer with a yes or no because my minute….

MS. BANAL. That I move? Again?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. The question is this: The usual career path is for a lawyer to transfer from an office where he is already acclimated to another law office because of the incentive of a higher salary. But in your case, you deviated from that career path because according to you, you transferred from a law office with a higher salary to a law office with a lower salary. Is that correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Remarkable. Thank you.

MS. BANAL. Thank you very much also.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes. Thank you very much. Just a few small items for my clarification.

Ms. Witness, can you tell us who are the owners of the RN Development Corporation?

MS. BANAL. I’m sorry, Your Honor, but I don’t have any knowledge of who the owners are.

SEN. FLAVIER. In other words, when you prepared the incorporation, the incorporation papers, you are unaware of the owners of the corporation you were helping create?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Is that usual in the law practice where you are not aware of the owners of the corporation you are creating?

MS. BANAL. Of Pio and Alexie?

SEN. FLAVIER. What is that?

MS. BANAL. Of Pio Holdings, Your Honor, and Alexie? Of the two corporations?

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, of the RN Development Corporation. You were not aware, you said, of the owners?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor. I’ve observed in my stay with the law firm that that was normally done. Sometimes the deeds of assignment would really be in blank.

SEN. FLAVIER. But did you not ask out of curiosity who are the owners?

MS. BANAL. I asked Atty. Michael de los Reyes but he did not mention any names.

SEN. FLAVIER. Anyway, I just wanted to know who they are. If you don’t, then I will stop my interrogation.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon. After that, the honorable Judge Drilon, then the honorable Judge Legarda-

Leviste, then the honorable Judge Guingona, and finally the honorable Judge Roco.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Witness, how much share did you have with Alexis Corporation?

MS. BANAL. How much share?

SEN. BIAZON. How many?

MS. BANAL. I am not…. I don’t know the particular number.

SEN. BIAZON. You do not also know how much, how many shares you had with the Pio Corporation?

MS. BANAL. I don’t know the exact figure, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. On Exhibit “AAAA-6”, assigned to you is 500 shares with a subscribed amount of P50,000.00. Is this the same share that you assigned through that blank deed of assignment?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Did you put in this P50,000.00?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor, because when these documents were given to me, they were already complete, completely typewritten. All the datas were already there.

SEN. BIAZON. Meaning, you did not put in any amount from your own pocket?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, the amount paid as stated on the third column, still Exhibit “AAAA-6”, amount paid is supposed to be P12,500.00. Did you see this?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You did not also put this in?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. When you assigned, after the assignment through the blank deed of assignment, your shares, were you paid for it?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You were not?

MS. BANAL. No.

SEN. BIAZON. And this is also the same with Alexie Holdings Corporation?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Meaning, your name appeared as an incorporator, matter of fact, member of the Board, you did not contribute for the capitalization?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. And when you transferred these shares through a blank deed of assignment, you were not paid for it?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator- Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Madam Witness, when did you again resign from the De Borja Law Offices?

MS. BANAL. I tendered my resignation in, I believe, in the last week of June of 2000.

SEN. DRILON. Last week of June 2000. And when did you join the Romulo-Mabanta Law Office?

MS. BANAL. I started working there in August, August 1, 2000.

SEN. DRILON. August 1 of 2000. At the time that you resigned from the law firm of Atty. De Borja and joined Romulo-Mabanta, did you know of the exposé of Governor “Chavit” Singson which led to this impeachment proceeding?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor, I believe the exposé arose sometime in October.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you. So your having left the De Borja Law Office and your having joined the Romulo-Mabanta Law Office had nothing to do whatsoever with this exposé?

MS. BANAL. None, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you. Now, you said that in the course of your testimony that you were an incorporator as a member, as a lawyer in the law firm of De Borja, the Alexie Holdings, and what’s the other corporation?

MS. BANAL. Pio Holdings.

SEN. DRILON. Pio Holdings. Now, all those times, you were only dealing with Atty. Serapio?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. No one else?

MS. BANAL. No one.

SEN. DRILON. You did not know who were behind the…

Atty. Serapio at that point?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Although you knew at that point that Atty. Serapio was already working in Malacañang?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. How about…Did you know, what’s this? RN?

Is this RN Development Corporation?

MS. BANAL. Yes, RN.

SEN. DRILON. You would not know this corporation?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. You would not know who Leonardo Dayao is?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. You have no idea who he is whatsoever?

MS. BANAL. No.

SEN. DRILON. That’s all for the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Just a few clarificatory questions to Atty. Banal.

You signed as an incorporator and secretary of Pio and Alexie Corporation, is that correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. What about Atty. Edward Serapio, was he an officer or incorporator of these two corporations as well? What was his role in these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. Well, he just instructed us to sign these incorporation papers but he was not an incorporator nor a stockholder

nor an officer.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, he did so and you did follow him as a friend and as a colleague in the same law office, is that correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And I believe that yesterday, the Prosecution and the Defense stipulated that all the incorporators and the officers of

Pio Holding Corporation and Alexie Holdings, Incorporated are lawyers or associates of the De Borja-Serapio Law Office, is that correct?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. And in the exhibits presented to us, Exhibit “AAAA-6” and “BBBB-5”, it states a number of shares, the amount subscribed and the amount actually paid by you and the other incorporators, your former colleagues at the De Borja-Serapio Law Office, is that correct?

MS. BANAL. That’s, correct, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. For the record, did you really subscribe and pay for the shares indicated in these exhibits?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. How about the other incorporators, Suarez and all the other names there, did you, do you know if they really subscribed and paid for the shares indicated in these exhibits?

MS. BANAL. I believe no one, none of the five lawyers there paid and subscribed for the shares.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did Pio Holding and Alexie submit or comply with the annual reportorial requirements to the SEC in your knowledge?

MS. BANAL. I believe so, yes.

SEN. LEVISTE. They did?

MS. BANAL. Yes.

SEN. LEVISTE. And did Alexie Holding and Pio have a staff of their own?

MS. BANAL. I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And would their offices still be the De Borja Law Office, both corporations that have any other offices?

MS. BANAL. I wouldn’t know. Maybe as reflected in the current general information sheet.

SEN. LEVISTE. Are both Pio Holding and Alexie Corporation operating as stipulated in their bylaws and the purposes of their corporations to your knowledge?

MS. BANAL. I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. As a lawyer, Atty. Banal, can you tell this honorable Court whether it is legal for a person to sign as an incorporator or misrepresent himself or herself as owner of such subscribed shares when actually he or she is not?

MS. BANAL. Well, I think that this practice is not illegal so long as…. Well, I observed that this has been done, as I have said, in that law firm. And I believe so long as, like the Anti-Dummy Law with respect to foreign ownership, would not be violated. I believe that there is nothing illegal with that.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did Atty. Serapio ever tell you or did you inquire about the true beneficial owners of these corporations?

MS. BANAL. Did Atty. Serapio….?

SEN. LEVISTE. ….tell you about the true owners?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. If you know, just in case, did President Joseph Estrada ever benefit in any manner, way, shape or form from these operations of these corporations to your knowledge?

MS. BANAL. I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator-Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Madam Witness, you stated during cross-examination that it was usual for the lawyers of a firm to assume themselves as incorporators and then later on transfer the same to an owner. Is that correct?

MS. BANAL. In the De Borja law firm, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. In the De Borja law firm. How many instances were there when you yourself became a participant in this practice?

MS. BANAL. As stockholder, Your Honor?

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, as an initial stockholder, incorporator, officer.

MS. BANAL. Maybe other two corporations.

SEN. GUINGONA. Two other corporations?

MS. BANAL. Yes.

SEN. GUINGONA. Would you name them?

MS. BANAL. I would rather not name them, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. You would rather not.

MS. BANAL. Because they are clients of the firm.

SEN. GUINGONA. And in those two other corporations, the names of the emerging owners became known to you?

MS. BANAL. Well, yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. But in these two corporations at issue, namely, Pio Holdings and Alexie Corporation, the owners for whom you fronted in the beginning, you never met?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And you became an officer of this corpora-tion, Pio Holdings, without having met the beneficial or real owner?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And in spite of the fact that you asked Atty. Serapio as to the reason why you were elected secretary of the same, you never met the real or beneficial owner?

MS. BANAL. No, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

The honorable Senator-Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

You’re the daughter of …. What is the name of your father?

MS. BANAL. George Banal.

SEN. ROCO. George Banal, yes. He is an old friend.

We in San Beda Law, we were taught that Law is a noble profession; it is not a business. Am I right to assume that you in UP Law were taught the same thing?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes, I am sure, I am sure. We also were taught what was written in the Law School of UP. What is this written engraved in snow, in stone?

MS. BANAL. The business of a Law School is not to teach law but it is to teach law in the grand manner.

SEN. ROCO. To teach law in the grand manner. And it is….We as lawyers, because we are brothers and sisters in the profession, we should always be motivated by a sense of idealism because we are the ministers of the law. Could this be correct?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. And so, when you transfer from a higher-paying job to a lower-paying job, it is not necessarily an erroneous career decision, would this be correct?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. In fact, it could be motivated by a sense of idealism?

MS. BANAL. That’s correct, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Correct. And it’s the women lawyers like you who should be motivated by such sense of idealism. Would this be correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. I thought that should be elicited because I was surprised to learn of the usual career pattern of going from lower-paying jobs to higher-paying jobs. Now, it does not mean, of course, that the former law firm that you came from did not give idealism, is this correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. Nor does it mean that in joining the Romulo Law Office you are now partaking in a greater sense of idealism, correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. It just happened to be that since Law is not a busi-ness but a noble profession, the question of compensation is not very material.

MS. BANAL. That’s true, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. I thought you had all the right answers. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano; after that, the honorable Senate President; and then the witness would be excused.

POINT OF ORDER

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I beg the indulgence of Senator-Judge Cayetano. This is a point of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the point of order?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. I noticed that while Senator Roco was, in effect, answering the point that I was raising when I was having the Floor, after he made his point, a group of spectators in that part of the gallery went out of their way to stand out of their seats, deliberately violating the sign which are very clearly pasted on our walls saying, “Please remain seated,” just to look at me in a provocative way.

May I request Senators from now on to raise their questions with the witness and not try to initiate a debate or a colloquy with their own fellow Senator. I would believe that the very barest essentials of protocol and etiquette dictate such behavior and conduct.

And, may I request the Chief Justice to discipline, at the very least, to admonish and to reprimand this group that fits itself so high above the law that, notwithstanding that the regulation is clearly presented in their direction, have deliberately went out, have deliberately gone out of their way to provoke a Judge into disturbing another Senator-Judge and indeed the entire impeachment proceedings. I absolutely resent that actuation.

And if necessary, I shall file a motion to cite these persons for contempt as soon as the Pages can cooperate with me in identifying what their names and addresses are, and asking the Court as penalty to interdict them from ever crossing the threshold of the Senate Session Hall again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can these people be identified, Your Honor?

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes, I can, Mr. Chief Justice, because not only once, they did it twice. The first time….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If they can be pinpointed to….

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Yes, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Pages call their attention.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Those two Pages, those two gentlemen in gray barongs, nakita ninyong tumayo iyong mama na iyan diyan, hindi ba? At iyong katabi niyang mga babaeng iyan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Get the names. Get the names of the persons involved so the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago may be able to take the appropriate move afterwards.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I will return to my seat so that I can identify them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you can do that.

Would the gentleman or the lady pointed to please step forward?

Get the names of the persons pointed to by the honorable Senator.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I most respectfully beg the Chief Justice to order the Pages to get the names and addresses of those three (3) individuals that I have handpicked and pointed to specifically.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. And may I ask the Chief Justice, is it ethical behavior for a Senator-Judge to wait for one Senator-Judge

to rise and try and make a point with a witness and then stand up and try and rebut that? Because then, we would be in an adversarial position with each other if that is the case. I will therefore try and outwait every other senator and try and blunt whatever point he or she is trying to

make as well.

May I seek clarification from the Chief Justice or from the Senate President if a caucus is necessary. I understood that no colloquy would be allowed under the Senate Impeachment Rules, and I understand that I am being provoked to a colloquy.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President is first recognized.

SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I request for a suspension

of the proceedings for at least 20 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for a while. In the meantime that there is a pending request by the Senate President, the Pages who were requested to take down the names and the addresses of the persons pointed to by the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago should make a report thereafter.

The session is suspended for 20 minutes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. We will have a caucus in the Senator’s Lounge.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request that the witness be excused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no. The witness is not necessarily excused. But if she has to answer a call of nature, she should be accompanied by somebody.

Compañera Banal, you may be accompanied by a lady Page.

It was 3:02 p.m

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 4:12 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the arrival of the Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

There was a suspension of session upon request of the Senate President, and since the session lasted for some time, the regular break will have to be waived. This should be considered as part of the regular break already.

What is the pleasure of the Majority Leader?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, following the caucus of the Senators, may I invite the Senate President to make a few announcements.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President is recognized to make the formal statements.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, as a result of the caucus that was held among the Senator-Judges a few minutes ago, it was agreed that the rules of decorum inside the Session Hall will be enforced very strictly starting this afternoon.

And so, the ladies and the gentlemen who were identified by Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago as having conducted themselves in a manner that breaches the rules of decorum of this House will immediately be barred from the Session Hall. The Senate Security is hereby directed to escort them out and to prevent them from ever attending the rest of the session days connected with the Impeachment Trial being conducted by the Senate.

It is so ordered, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the ruling of the Court, and therefore, it is deemed adopted. Anything else, Your Honor?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No. 2, Mr. Chief Justice, it was also agreed that the two-minute rule allowing Senator-Judges to question witnesses will likewise be strictly enforced and, hopefully, the Senator-Judges will refrain from asking questions that had already been asked and should ask questions principally and merely perhaps even to clarify points that the one clarified on matters testified to by the witnesses. And the two-minute rule shall likewise be applied even to questions being asked by Senator-Judges to counsel or being directed by Senator-Judges to the counsel, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be considered as a motion?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No. 3, Mr. Chief Justice, the Senator-Judges will still be allowed to conduct or to submit themselves to media interviews but will be held to account to their own sense of responsibility, and are admonished to speak only on matters that do

not involve substantial issues connected with the Impeachment Trial,

Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that also a motion?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the motion?

That agreement in caucus is deemed approved as an act of the Court.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. No. 4, Mr. Chief Justice, the Senator-Judges also agreed that the Majority Leader and the Senate President may, at proper times, raise the issue of order in relation to any perceived breach of the Rules agreed upon by the Impeachment Court during the course of the Impeachment Trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Shall that matter also be considered as a motion of the Court itself after a caucus?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? The Chair hears none; the motion is approved as an act of the Court.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And lastly, Mr. Chief Justice, the caucus also wishes to submit to His Honor the fact that the Impeachment Court issues a statement condemning threats against the lives and security of the Senator-Judges wherever they come from and any attempt to pressure them to vote one way or the other in the Impeachment Trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you moving to make it as a resolution?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any comment from the members of the Court? If there is none, the resolution would be considered as unanimously approved. [Silence] There being none, the resolution is deemed approved and due publicity thereon should be given as a notice to all concerned.

We will now continue with the trial proper.

The honorable Senator-Judge Renato Cayetano had made a reservation. His Honor is now recognized.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Atty. Banal, some short questions. Can you tell us, if you know, who chose the names of these two corporations?

MS. BANAL. As I know, the partners themselves chose the names.

SEN. CAYETANO. The partners themselves. Which partners?

MS. BANAL. I don’t know exactly which partners but that was what we know then.

SEN. CAYETANO. Would that include Mr. Serapio?

MS. BANAL. I wouldn’t know, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Do you know who prepared the forms of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws which you signed?

MS. BANAL. I believe it was prepared by Atty. de los Reyes.

SEN. CAYETANO. By whom?

MS. BANAL. By Atty. de los Reyes.

SEN. CAYETANO. Is that the same person you said who work for Atty. Serapio?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. I recall that you mentioned that when you billed your time–and I’m quite familiar with this because your former partners were my former colleagues–that you put “care of Atty. Serapio,” correct?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, as far as your billing hour is concerned, it was Mr. Serapio who was your client, am I correct?

MS. BANAL. I’m not sure, Your Honor, because well, that was… I believe there was no payment for that specific …

SEN. CAYETANO. No, hindi ‘yan ang tanong ko sa iyo.

MS. BANAL. Okay.

SEN. CAYETANO. Doon sa billing mo, “care of,” sabi mo, “Serapio”?

MS. BANAL. Yes, yes.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, who, as far as you know, was your client?

MS. BANAL. I didn’t know who the client was.

SEN. CAYETANO. Except that you said it was “care of

Mr. Serapio”?

MS. BANAL. Yes. Because if one of the partners would give us work which would not pertain to the firm, we would write the name of the partner.

SEN. CAYETANO. Yeah. I’m quite familiar with that. Now, let me call your attention to your Secretary’s Certificates of 19 October. You certified here that there was a meeting of the Board?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Was this an actual meeting or a paper meeting?

MS. BANAL. It was a paper meeting.

SEN. CAYETANO. So the members of the Board did not really meet?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. And who prepared the certificate?

MS. BANAL. It was given also to me by Atty. Michael de los Reyes.

SEN. CAYETANO. That is the same guy who work for

Mr. Serapio?

MS. BANAL. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. The Majority Leader is looking at me.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. You still have time.

SEN. CAYETANO. That’s all, Atty. Banal. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

And finally, the honorable Senate President-Judge Pimentel.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Because of the caucus, Mr. Chief Justice, I waive my right to question the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

So the witness is now excused. Thank you Compañera Banal.

Next witness for the Prosecution.

REP. APOSTOL. Our next witness is Atty. Emily Padua. Examining counsel is yours truly, Atty. Sergio Apostol; assisting counsel is Atty. Augusto San Pedro.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where’s the witness? And for the Defense, who will be the cross-examining and assisting cross-examining counsel?

MR. FLAMINIANO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice. On the part of the Defense, this representation and Atty. Raymund Fortun will handle the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Bring in the witness to the room.

REP. APOSTOL. She just went to the comfort room, and she will be back in a few minutes.

At this juncture, witness Atty. Emily Padua arrived at the Session Hall.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate may now administer the oath on the witness.

THE SECRETARY. Kindly raise your right hand and put your left hand on the Bible, and answer me.

Do you, EMILY PADUA, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?

MS. PADUA. [Nodded in the affirmative].

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly take your seat. And the honorable Prosecutor Apostol, the witness is yours.

REP. APOSTOL. If the Chief Justice and Your Honors may, please.

The witness is presented, first, to corroborate the testimony of Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson on the charge of bribery.

Second, to find President Estrada guilty under said Article.

Third, the marketing of Bingo 2-Balls franchise was handled by the Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated, Prominent for short, headed by Charlie Ang, as agreed upon between Pagcor and Prominent.

Fourth, Prominent would collect 23% of the gross sales from

Bingo 2-Balls operation.

Fifth, Prominent is entitled to the amount of the mobilization fee from the sales agents of Bingo 2-Balls.

And lastly, the sales agents are entitled to any amount above the quota fixed by Pagcor, which quota was fixed upon the study of Prominent on the amount of the quota.

Ms. Witness, will you please state your name?

MS. PADUA. I am Atty. Emilia Samonte Padua, a resident of

No. 10, Don Renato Street, Don Enrique Heights, Quezon City, 52 years of age, widow, and presently employed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor) Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. What is your position at Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. I am the Managing Head of the Entertainment and Bingo Department, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. As Managing Head of the Entertainment and Bingo Department, what are your functions, if any?

MS. PADUA. My duties and functions include….I’m responsible for the overall management, control and direction of all the entertainment and bingo operations. And considering that Pagcor is a regulatory body, we supervise and monitor all the commercial bingo games being played nationwide, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. What would be your participation, if any, in any proposal and agreements involving bingo and its derivative games?

MS. PADUA. Actually, our department is responsible in the evaluation of all bingo proposals. And if these bingo projects are deemed to be feasible, viable, then we recommend these to the Board for its approval, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Since when have you been Managing Head of the Entertainment and Bingo Department of Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Since July of 1996, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Are you aware of a game called Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Why are you aware of this game?

MS. PADUA. Because we were the ones who evaluated, and

we found it to be viable. So we recommended it to the Board for its approval, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And what was the action of the Board when you recommended it for approval?

MS. PADUA. It was provisionally approved, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Who is in charge of marketing Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Well, we hired the services of the Prominent Marketing Consultant Group.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, what is Pagcor’s share, if any, in the gross sales of Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Actually, we get 23%.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, I think if there is a document which will reveal that, a document would be the best evidence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have the document for that, Prosecutor Apostol? If you have the document, the Chair will have to sustain the objection–

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –the evidence being-the best evidence being the document itself.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we are not trying to prove the contents of the document. What we are only trying to prove is the share of Pagcor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But do you have the document?

REP. APOSTOL. None, as of now.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, we are also…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Was there a document?

REP. APOSTOL. We will show that we are still on the–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Preliminary?

REP. APOSTOL. –preliminary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But you are already showing the contents of the-you are already asking the contents of the document.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry.

REP. APOSTOL. We-go ahead, go ahead.

MR. FORTUN (R). We are also objecting on the ground that the counsel’s question presumes a fact, not just established. It presumes that there is a share.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That’s unnecessary already because the Chair had ruled that the best evidence would be the document–

MR. FORTUN (R). Counsel, Your Honor, had…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –unless it is established by the Prosecution that there was no document.

REP. APOSTOL. All right. When we talk of the one in charge of marketing Bingo 2-Balls and you said Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, was there any document entered into? Was there any formal contract entered into between Pagcor and Prominent?

MS. PADUA. None, Your Honor, none yet.

REP. APOSTOL. Now I go back to the question. What is Pagcor’s share, if any, in the gross sales of Bingo 2-Balls?

MR. FORTUN (R). Objection, no basis.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled. The witness’ answer was “None yet.”

REP. APOSTOL. The question is, what is Pagcor’s share, if any, in the gross sales of Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Twenty-three percent, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And who is entitled to collect this 23% of the gross sales of Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Initially¸we allowed Prominent to collect this Pagcor share, but eventually it will be remitted to Pagcor.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, initially, where were these collections of Prominent deposited?

MS. PADUA. In the account of Prominent, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Why do you know this?

MS. PADUA. Ah, because this was agreed upon during one of our meetings of which I was present, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, prior to the exposé of Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, what amount of the 23%, if any, goes to Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Initially, there was this proposed 5%, but eventually it was reduced to 2%, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Why do you know, initially, that it was 5% of the 23%?

MS. PADUA. Because I was present during that meeting, Your Honor, when it was agreed upon.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, what amount of the 23%, if any, goes to the Presidential Social Fund?

MS. PADUA. Out of our Pagcor share of 23%, 5% of this would go to the Bureau of Internal Revenue as our franchise tax. And then for the consultancy fee…. and then we have to deduct our operational expenses. And then the remaining amount would be eventually remitted to the Office of the President or the Presidential Social Fund, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Why do you know this?

MS. PADUA. Because this was agreed upon in one of our meetings, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Who are the sales agent in relation to Bingo 2- Balls?

MS. PADUA. The sales agents are those corporate entities or individual persons who are authorized by Pagcor to accept bets, entries from the playing public, and then they can also redeem prizes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. If a person wants a franchise to be sales agent for Bingo 2-Balls, what is he required to pay, if any?

MS. PADUA. The sales agents were required to pay a cash bond or mobilization fee, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And who is entitled to collect this mobilization fee from Bingo 2-Balls sales agent?

MS. PADUA. Well, we authorized the Prominent to collect this for us.

REP. APOSTOL. And why do you know this?

MS. PADUA. This was one of the topics that we agreed upon, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. You mentioned earlier that Pagcor is entitled to 23% of the gross sales of Bingo 2-Balls. From where is this 23% derived?

MS. PADUA. This 23% Pagcor share is derived from the guaranteed daily sales quota imposed by Pagcor, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And what was the basis for Pagcor to fix the sales quota?

MS. PADUA. There was a study conducted, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. And who conducted this study?

MS. PADUA. Our consultancy firm, Your Honor, the Prominent Marketing Consultant Group.

REP. APOSTOL. If the collection for the particular sales agent exceeds the sales quota, to whom would the excess go?

MS. PADUA. The excess would go to the sales agent.

REP. APOSTOL. So, if this collection exceeds the sales quota, Pagcor would not get a share of this excess?

MS. PADUA. No, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Who represented Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated in its dealings with Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. It was Mr. Charlie “Atong” Ang, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. During all your meetings, was Charlie “Atong” Ang present when all these agreements were entered into?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. What other previous relationship, if any, did Charlie “Atong” Ang have with Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Mr. Ang represents Power Management Consultancy Group, the consultancy group we hired for our jai alai operations, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Now, was this Bingo 2-Balls ever operational?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, but on trial basis only.

REP. APOSTOL. And who approved the operation of Bingo

2- Balls?

MS. PADUA. It was provisionally approved by the Pagcor Board, but this was previously cleared with President Joseph Estrada, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. You mentioned a while ago that the share of Prominent was reduced from 5% to 2%. Is it not a fact that this reduction to 2% was done after the Singson exposé?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. That will be all, Chief Justice, Your Honors.

MS. PADUA. If I may add, Your Honor.

Considering that during one of the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings conducted here in the Senate, our Chairman, Alicia Llamado Reyes, mentioned that we are still negotiating for the reduction of this consultancy fee. And then finally, we were able to bring it down to 2%, Your Honor.

So, at that time before the exposé, we were really negotiating for a lower figure, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing further?

REP. APOSTOL. No more, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mrs. Padua…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Fortun, you will be the one to cross-examine?

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, with the kind permission of the honorable Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Your Honor.

Ms. Padua, you mentioned earlier about several meetings with the management of this Prominent group. Do you recall that testimony?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And are these meetings covered by the proper Board resolutions or any minutes thereof?

MS. PADUA. Actually, there were no minutes taken during these meetings, but all these were reduced into a Board resolution which

I recommended to the Board for its decision, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And I presume that there would also be Secretary’s Certificates which were issued as a result of the Board resolutions. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. There was.

MR. FORTUN (R). In fact, I recall that the Prosecution had previously marked Exhibits “SSS” and “TTT,” copies of which were furnished to us on December 21, 2000. Please go over the same, Madam, and tell us if these two Secretary’s Certificates would pertain to

the records of minutes purportedly held on September 5, 2000 and September 12, 2000.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that the original of the exhibits?

MR. FORTUN (R). If Mr. Chief Justice please, these are copies…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don’t you use the original as marked by the Prosecution?

MR. FORTUN (R). We submit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are the original copies?

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, that exhibit is intended for another witness.

MR. FORTUN (R). Preliminary, Your Honor, and to support the…

REP. APOSTOL. We will just look if we have the original.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Just try to find out if you have the original. Unless the witness would be willing to testify on the basis of the machine copies.

REP. APOSTOL. The original, Mr. Chief Justice, is with the witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is with the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. The other witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other witness.

Well, anyway, show the document to the witness. She may be able to recall the existence of the document and to confirm the authenticity of that reproduction.

MS. PADUA. Yes, I confirm.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer, for the record?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. I confirm these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, your confirmation is that these Secretary’s Certificates were issued by Mr. Carlos R. Bautista Jr., Corporate Secretary of Pagcor, in relation to the matters discussed during the Board meetings on September 5 and September 12, 2000?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And these two documents reflect the decisions and discussions made by the Board of Pagcor in respect of Bingo 2-Balls. Isn’t that right?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). You also mentioned, Madam, about a proposal submitted by this Prominent Marketing from which you

were earlier mentioning about a 5% take, and then subsequently

reduced to 2%.

MS. PADUA. Actually, I was then referring to the 5% as approved by the Board.

MR. FORTUN (R). I am sorry. Is it not that your testimony earlier was that you had asked for reduction in the share of Prominent in the proceeds of this Bingo 2-Ball project from 5% to 2%?

MS. PADUA. Yes, I testified that, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes. So this 5%, Madam, where did you

get this?

MS. PADUA. Actually, this was the proposal of Prominent–the 5%. But as I have said, this is subject to negotiation because no contract yet has been finalized.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Madam. That was also how

I understood your testimony a while ago.

So there was a proposal by this Prominent Marketing Group.

Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And that proposal was in writing, wasn’t it?

MS. PADUA. Actually, that was one of the topics of discussion during our meeting.

MR. FORTUN (R). Now, I would like to believe, Madam, that Pagcor does things in the regular course of business of a government agency. So can I presume therefore that prior to any discussion with Pagcor, this Prominent Marketing Group had submitted a set of documents in support of their proposals to Pagcor for the implementation and approval of this Bingo 2-Ball project?

MS. PADUA. Yes, they submitted a letter-proposal to Pagcor, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Attached to that letter-proposal would be what other documents, if any?

MS. PADUA. There are also these proposed game mechanics, procedural guidelines to cover the Bingo 2-Ball operation.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. Now, aside from these two Secretary’s Certificates which were previously marked by the Prosecution, there are other Secretary’s Certificates which bear a relation to the actions of the Board of Pagcor insofar as Bingo 2-Ball is concerned, am I correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). You have those documents with you, I presume?

MS. PADUA. Actually, I have with me the recommendation

that I made to the Board which was decided upon by the Board of Directors of Pagcor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And do I presume that those are the documents which you have before you?

MS. PADUA. Ah, yes, I have it with my folder.

MR. FORTUN (R). Can I presume also, Madam, that that folder or that envelope would also contain the letter-proposal of this Prominent Marketing Group in connection with the Bingo 2-Ball project?

MS. PADUA. Yes, we have it.

MR. FORTUN (R). Any other documents, Madam, in that folder which may have a bearing on the Pagcor’s action insofar as Bingo 2-Ball is concerned?

MS. PADUA. Ah, I have here also the document showing

the reported sales quota.

MR. FORTUN (R). Reported sales quota. Do I gather, Madam, that that would be actually the results of this Bingo 2-Ball during that

two-or three-week trial period?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And so it will now reflect the actual sales of Bingo 2-Ball during that period, the expenses, as well as, probably, the shares of Pagcor, and if at all, Prominent Marketing?

MS. PADUA. This would only cover the actual sales quota that we got and also the corresponding Pagcor share.

MR. FORTUN (R). Would you be in a position, Madam, and if you can allow us, show these documents to us?

MS. PADUA. Actually, Your Honor, I have submitted this last January 2 to the Senate Secretary, and I have here with me the copy marked by the Senate that they have received this document, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are these the original documents premarked earlier?

MS. PADUA. Not yet, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet.

MR. FORTUN (R). Witness producing a bunch of documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why were the documents presented to the Clerk of the Senate?

MS. PADUA. Because I received a subpoena duces tecum wherein I was required by the Senate to bring documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. Thank you for the information.

MS. PADUA. Thank you too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, Sir, some of these documents are quite significant and will be needed by this counsel for purposes of cross-examination. May I be allowed, Your Honor, that we ask for a suspension of the proceedings, at least, for 30 minutes, to enable us, Your Honor, to have the same marked as evidence for the Defense and photo copies thereof given to the Impeachment Court as well as to Counsel for the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many documents do you have, Madam Witness?

MS. PADUA. Actually, I have here a reported sales quota. Then the letter-proposal of Mr. Ang and also the Board resolution showing that we had reduced the original 5% to 2% consultancy fee of Mr. Atong Ang of Prominent, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we suspend for the purpose, the Chair would like to inquire from the Prosecution whether the subpoena duces tecum for the production of these documents was procured by the Prosecution?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why was there no premarking as agreed upon?

REP. APOSTOL. We did not mark it because to us it is not relevant because this was done after Governor Singson executed…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see. So you would have no objection then to the suspension of the trial to allow the Defense which intends to cross-examine the witness in light of these documents, which ought to have been premarked upon request by the Prosecution? Would you agree now to the request of a suspension of the trial for a few minutes?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes would be needed by you, Atty. Fortun?

MR. FORTUN (R). May we ask, Your Honor, for 30 minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many minutes?

MR. FORTUN (R). Three zero minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But you have to reproduce as many copies as there are members of the Court, including the Presiding Officer and the Senate President.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Your Honor. That is why we are asking for that amount of time to enable us to reproduce the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection from the Prosecution?

REP. APOSTOL. No objection, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Suspended as requested for the period sought for.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

It was 4:47 p.m.

THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 5:50 P.M.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise for the entrance of the Honorable Senate President-Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. and the Honorable Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

RESUMPTION OF TRIAL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is now resumed.

Attorney Fortun, you may continue your cross-examination.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have copies of the exhibits been furnished the Prosecution and the members of the Court?

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. And if the Prosecu-tion will confirm that they have received the copy of the documents which we had previously marked as Exhibits “53” to “57.”

REP. APOSTOL. We did confirm that we received copies of Exhibits “53” to “57.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and we thank the Court for its patience.

Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed with our cross-examination, we would like to manifest that we have received information that an individual who had previously been issued a summons to attend a deposition is presently, if not, has just been subject to an interview by the Prosecution.

Mr. Chief Justice, I am referring to Mr. Emmanuel Puno of the United Overseas Bank. The records will show, Mr. Chief Justice, that Mr. Puno was previously the subject of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum and was required to attend a deposition-taking in respect of documents in their possession relative to the United Overseas Bank, Shaw Boulevard Branch.

Mr. Chief Justice, if it is true–and our information says that it is true–that members of the Prosecution are presently interviewing this witness despite the issuance of a deposition, then we believe, Your Honor, that there appears to be something irregular here because we were not given now an opportunity to be present during this interview, the purpose of which would relate now to his possible testimony in the succeeding days of this trial.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the Prosecution?

REP. APOSTOL. Though I am not aware of this, but what is wrong with interviewing a witness whom we subpoenaed? Is there anything wrong?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the interview….Since this is a deposition on oral examination, are you referring to an interview during the oral examination?

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, there is no scheduled deposition-taking for this witness. But I will manifest that this witness was subject of a subpoenae ad testificandum and duces tecum and was required to attend….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For a particular date?

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Your Honor, which has already lapsed. And there was no schedule, Your Honor, of any deposition-taking for today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The manifestation would only be noted in the meantime because we do not have enough facts upon which to rely the basis of your manifestation.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And if any interview had, in fact, been conducted, you will know what action to take later on.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. I think, for the record, I believe the members of the Prosecution panel who are presently talking to this witness are Atty. Mario Luza Bautista and Atty. Alexander Poblador.

REP. APOSTOL. May I request, Mr. Chief Justice, that Prosecutor Oscar Moreno be allowed to answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In connection with that?

REP. APOSTOL. In connection with this manifestation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Moreno may respond.

REP. MORENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

For the record, let me state that nobody from the Prosecution panel has talked to Emmanuel Puno or even attempted to talk to him, notwithstanding, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, that we had caused to be issued a subpoena duces tecum precisely for the deposition on oral examination of Mr. Puno as early as the first week of December, which deposition on oral examination could not take place because of the vigorous opposition of the Defense panel.

Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, I think the Defense panel is just a little bit…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would only wish to inquire whether the term “nobody from the Prosecution panel is interviewing” would include private prosecutors.

REP. MORENO. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chief Justice,

if as I heard, Atty. Fortun mentioned the names of Atty. Poblador and Atty. Bautista, who incidentally were the counsels, the private counsels who directed, who conducted the direct testimony of Mrs. Ocampo and Mr. Curato, respectively, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors. They are the counsels, external counsels of–my understanding is that they are the external counsels of UOB and they are not in any way representing the Prosecution panel in that regard, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Manifestations and reply thereto are noted. For such, which could be the basis of any appropriate

action which may be taken by either the Prosecution or the Defense at

the proper time.

You may now proceed with your cross-examination, Atty. Fortun.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, with your kind permission.

Before we proceed again, Mr. Chief Justice, in the Impeachment Court, we had previously caused the marking of Exhibits “53,” “54,” ”55,” “56,” and “57”. During the break, Mr. Chief Justice, I had been informed by the Senate Secretary General that Exhibits “53,” “56,” and “57” have originals already in the possession of the Impeachment Court. As it were, Your Honor, I am now requesting that the marking on Exhibits “53” and “57” which reads, “conditional marking” be now deleted from the originals I am presently holding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Deleted from where?

MR. FORTUN (R). The phrase “conditional marking” be deleted, Your Honor, from the documents, machine copies of which I am presently holding, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Chief Justice, I am sorry, I am sorry for the slight fall off. The originals of Exhibits “53,” “56,” and “57” are with the Blue Ribbon Committee subject, Your Honor, to….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Blue Ribbon Committee.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So what are marked now?

MR. FORTUN (R). Are machine copies of the originals which the Senate Secretary General confirms are in the possession of the Blue Ribbon Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request the Secretary of the Senate to make the confirmation.

THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL (ATTY. DAVE YAP). Your Honor, when these documents were turned over to us on January 2 this year, we received only photocopies of these documents: a letter of Charlie Ang; a memorandum from Ms. Padua; and the report of the Bingo 2-Ball project.

And we were told, Your Honor, that the original copies were already given to the Blue Ribbon Committee when there was an investigation on the same subject.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So these originals are with the Blue Ribbon Committee?

THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL. Yes, Your Honor. When they turned it over to us, they manifested that the originals were turned over to the Blue Ribbon Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. With that informa-tion, counsel may now proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Your Honor, and subject to

our further action in respect of the conditional marking of these documents upon our request for the originals to be forwarded to this Impeachment Court.

With the kind permission of the honorable Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Your Honor.

Ms. Padua, I have in my possession documents which you furnished to me and I have arranged them, to my mind, in chronological order. Please confirm to me that the documents which you gave to me are a letter dated September 1, 2000 purportedly issued by a Charlie Ang, and attached to that are what appears to be procedural guidelines and basic game rules and regulations of Pagcor Bingo 2-Balls marked as Exhibit “53″; a memorandum dated 5 September 2000 purportedly issued by an Atty. Emilia S. Padua, marked as Exhibit “54″; another memorandum dated 11 September 2000 purportedly issued by an Atty. Emilia S. Padua, marked as Exhibit “55″; a long spread sheet document which has the heading “Bingo 2-Ball Project Pagcor’s Share Based on Reported Sales Quota From Start of Operation to October 8, 2000″ marked as Exhibit “56″; and, finally, a memorandum dated 13

November 2000 purportedly issued by an Atty. Emilia S. Padua, marked as Exhibit “57″.

Can you confirm to us, Madam, that I have arranged and marked these exhibits in proper chronological order?

Witness going over Exhibits “53″ to “57″.

After having gone over the same, Madam, do you confirm that I arranged it in its proper chronological order?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. After my careful review of these documents, I confirm that these are chronologically arranged, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Is it therefore safe to say, Madam, that after the Memorandum dated November 13, 2000, marked as Exhibit “57″, no further action was made by Pagcor in respect of the Bingo 2-Balls Project?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And is it also safe to say, Madam, that the initiatory document, insofar as this project is concerned, is this letter dated September 1, 2000 sent purportedly by Mr. Charlie Ang, marked as Exhibit “53″?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Now, I noticed that these documents, after this initiatory document or letter marked as Exhibit “53″ was sent purportedly to the Pagcor, there were series of memoranda, Exhibits “54″, “55″ and then “57″.

Would it be safe to say, Madam, that these memoranda would be in the regular and natural course of action taken by Pagcor insofar as Bingo 2-Ball Project is concerned?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. There is a regularity of action in these documents.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, after this letter of Mr. Ang on September 1, 2000, is it correct–and please correct me if I am wrong–you prepared a memorandum submitting for approval of this project to Mrs. Alice L. Reyes? I withdraw that question, I am sorry.

Exhibits “54″, “55″ and “57″ are purportedly issued by an Emilia S. Padua. That is your name, isn’t it correct, Madam?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Please go over the same and tell us…Can you confirm that the signatures found on these three exhibits are actually your signatures?

MS. PADUA. Yes, these are my customary signatures, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. So therefore, is it safe to say that you were the one who issued all these memoranda, Exhibits “54,” “55” and “57”?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. Since you have already confirmed that this is the chronological arrangement of these documents, it would be therefore correct for me to suggest or to say that after the letter of Charlie Ang, you issued a Memorandum on September 5, 2000 in respect of the proposal for the conduct and operation of the Pagcor Bingo 2-Ball game. You made a subsequent memorandum on September 11, 2000, Exhibits “55″ and “55-A” also in respect of the same project. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And after that, there was a final memo-randum which you issued on November 13, 2000. This appears to be a final report of the entire project. Is that not right, Madam? Exhibit “57”.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). At this juncture, Your Honor, and just for this purpose, and considering the identification made by the witness to the signatures found on Exhibits “54-A,” “55-A” and “57,” may we request, Your Honor, that the following submarkings be ordered as follows: On Exhibit “54-A,” the signature of the witness as identified by her be ordered bracketed and submarked as Exhibit “54-A-1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark it.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Your Honor. On Exhibit “55-A,” the signature of the witness, as identified by her, be ordered bracketed and submarked as Exhibit “55-A-1″.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.

SEN. ENRILE. Just a clarificatory question. The witness answered: “These are my customary signatures.” Does the witness have any other signatures?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, may we request a deferment of your question until the cross-examination is over.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes, please.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

MR. FORTUN (R). Finally, the signature of the witness found on Exhibit “57-A” as confirmed by her to be hers be ordered bracketed and submarked as Exhibit “57-A”.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mark it.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, Mrs. Padua, please tell us, going through all these documents, were there any shortcuts made by either, by Pagcor or Prominent Marketing insofar as this project was concerned? Specifically, were there anything changed in the procedures of Pagcor so that this project could be implemented?

REP. APOSTOL. Objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Basis?

REP. APOSTOL. The question is vague.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. Witness may answer.

MS. PADUA. There is regularity of our action here, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Was there any pressure given by anybody for the approval and the subsequent action by Pagcor insofar as the Bingo 2-Ball project is concerned?

MS. PADUA. None, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mrs. Padua, during your direct examination, the Prosecution mentioned about a 23% and if my memory serves me correctly, the offer made by the Prosecution is that they were presenting you as a witness to prove that Prominent was to collect 23%. Please tell us, Madam, you also confirmed that there was a 23% figure in this project. Who would actually receive this amount?

MS. PADUA. Initially, it was Prominent Marketing Consultant Group who was authorized by Pagcor to receive this, to collect this, considering that they are our reliable collector and guarantor and ultimately, it would be remitted to Pagcor in full amount of 23%.

MR. FORTUN (R). And, in fact, isn’t it true that actually Prominent remitted the entire 23% to Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Yes, they did, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And, of course, you know this because you are the Managing Head of Pagcor insofar as this project is concerned. Isn’t it that right, Madam Witness?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). The entire amount–

MS. PADUA. Yes.

MR. FORTUN (R). –that was received by Prominent was turned over to Pagcor, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, if Prominent turned over the entire 23% from the time of the start of operations up to its termination on October 8, 2000, what amounts, if any, were retained by Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Two percent of our Pagcor share.

MR. FORTUN (R). That was actually retained by Prominent, Madam?

MS. PADUA. Two percent of the….counted from the guaranteed daily sales quota.

MR. FORTUN (R). And that was actually retained?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, is it correct therefore that since the 23% was turned over, actually, what was only retained or returned to Pagcor was 21%, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. No. Our procedure was that Prominent as the guarantor, they are obliged to….they are….it is mandatory for them to remit to us in full the 23%, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, that clarifies things now. Do I get correctly your statement right now that the entire amount was remitted by Prominent to Pagcor and then, subsequently, the arrangement is that Pagcor will now remit the 2% to Prominent. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. Because as a guarantor, Prominent must pay to us in full, the whole 23%. Whether they were able to collect or not, they are obligated to us to pay the full remittance of 23%, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. So, during this entire period from start of operations to October 8, 2000…Madam, please go over these records and tell us how much was the amount remitted by Prominent to the Philippine Games….to the Pagcor. I am sorry. How much was remitted?

MS. PADUA. Prominent was able to remit to us the total remittance of P24,427,532.00, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). The figure you just mentioned is something, upon referring to the final and last entry found on the lower right hand portion of Exhibit “56”. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). At this juncture, Mr. Chief Justice, may we request that the figure P24,427,532.08 found on Exhibit “56” be ordered submarked as Exhibit “56-A” .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be on the second page of Exhibit “56”.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But there is no marking for the second page.

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, it is actually just one entire spread sheet. However, due to the inability of photocopying services to have paper really that long, it was broken into two pages, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As requested, the total amount of P24,427,532.08 at the bottom of page 2 now of Exhibit “56″ should be marked as Exhibit “56-A”?

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

So, Ms. Padua, since you earlier mentioned that the share of Prominent in this project is 2%, please tell us, for the record, how much has Pagcor actually returned or remitted to Prominent? How much was remitted?

MS. PADUA. They are…

MR. FORTUN (R). No, my only question is: How much was remitted?

MS. PADUA. Nothing was remitted yet to Prominent.

MR. FORTUN (R). Did I get you right, Madam? You have not made any payments to Prominent Marketing?

MS. PADUA. No payment whatsoever, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Can you please tell us why is that? Why has there been no remittance notwithstanding the agreement between Prominent and Pagcor that Prominent is entitled to a share of 2% from this project?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. The reason why we have not given them their share is because there might be some other objection, Your Honor, and we can also further reduce it, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). You see, Madam, the reason why I am asking is that we have heard testimony before this Impeachment Court that all these monies actually went to Mr. Charlie Atong Ang. And now, you are telling us, Madam, that Mr. Ang did not receive a single centavo in this project?

MS. PADUA. Yes, they have not received any single cent, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). But he is entitled to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May I have the answer again for clarification into the record?

MS. PADUA. They have not received any single cent, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader?

THE MAJORITY LEADER. To clarify the same thing, it is “No, we have not.”

“Yes, we have not” is not the correct construction.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. It is just like saying, “Yes, I do not have a banana.”

MR. FORTUN (R). May we proceed, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you. The Prosecution also mentioned about these mobilization fees. Can you please tell us who received these mobilization fees at the outset?

MS. PADUA. We authorized Prominent to receive these mobilization fees, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). As far as you know, how much was the total amount received by Prominent in respect of mobilization fees? Yes, if the figures are actually in the documents that you brought.

MS. PADUA. Approximately…

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, go ahead.

MS. PADUA. Approximately P76 million, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And do you have any basis for that, Madam, from the documents which you have in your possession?

It is all right, never mind. But to your recollection, it was about P76 million.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). These mobilization fees, Ms. Padua, where are they now?

MS. PADUA. The collected mobilization fees were returned to the sales agents, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Returned to the sales agents. Do I gather it right that Prominent was the one that returned these amounts to the sales agents.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). How do you know this?

MS. PADUA. Because I was present during the time when Prominent returned all these monies, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So Prominent has not yet received a single centavo from its share in the 2%, and now you are telling us that Prominent returned the mobilization fees.

As far as you know, Madam, how much was the expenses incurred by this Prominent Marketing–only if you know, Madam–insofar as its implementation of this Bingo 2 –Ball project is concerned.

MS. PADUA. Well, approximately P3 million, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And how did you know this, Madam?

MS. PADUA. Because I am aware of this, because they spent so much for the prequalification, like also in the identification of the possible operational areas that we intend to put up the Bingo 2-Balls operation.

MR. FORTUN (R). Can you please tell us if this P3 million has actually been reimbursed to Prominent?

MS. PADUA. No, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And why is that? If you know, why hasn’t Prominent been reimbursed that notwithstanding that they have incurred this expense?

MS. PADUA. Because the project was suspended, Your Honor, and they bear the risk.

MR. FORTUN (R). So now you are telling us that actually Prominent Marketing has now suffered a loss of P3 million insofar as this entire project is concerned?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So the statements we have heard insofar as the profits of this Prominent Marketing is concerned from previous testimonies by the Prosecution is not true, isn’t that right?

MS. PADUA. I’m sorry, Sir, I did not hear these testimonies.

MR. FORTUN (R). That’s all right. Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, when he was on the witness stand, both on direct and cross-examination, had identified a chart marked as Exhibit “KKK”. According to this chart, Prominent would receive 23% in a bank, Far East Bank; account name, Jocelyn Angeles, with a breakdown: Prominent – 5%; P75 million – Erap; 6% Presidential Social Fund; P90 million – Erap; 7% Pagcor, P105 million; and 5% BIR, P75 million.

Can you please tell us, Madam,–and I am showing to you this chart prepared by Governor Singson–and being the person who is knowledgeable about this entire transaction, what comment, if any, do you have insofar as this chart is concerned?

MS. PADUA. Actually, I’m not aware of this breakdown or distribution of the 23%, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Right. All right, I will go into specifics, Madam. It says here based on the chart prepared by Governor Singson that Prominent will receive 5%. Is it correct, therefore, Madam, that that is not a correct representation of what Prominent would have received in this project?

MS. PADUA. Initially, there was this proposal that Prominent will receive 5%, but later on we brought down this to 2%, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. And therefore, the 5% figure found on Exhibit “KKK” above the word “Prominent” is not accurate, am I correct, Madam?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes. All right. And there is a figure here of 6% for….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the answer of the witness?

MR. FORTUN (R). What was your answer to my previous question, Madam? That is not accurate?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). That’s not accurate. “Yes, Your Honor”, you mean to say that that figure is not correct?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is your answer but not the witness’ answer.

MR. FORTUN (R). I’m sorry, Your Honor, I will clarify that. So just for clarification, Madam, when you said “Yes, Your Honor,” are you saying the figure is correct or the figure is not correct?

MS. PADUA. Not correct, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. The percentage 6%, Presidential Social Fund, is that figure correct or not correct?

MS. PADUA. Not correct, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). The figure 7% for Pagcor, P105 million, is that correct or not correct, Madam?

MS. PADUA. Not correct, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). And the figure 5% for BIR, is that correct or not correct, Madam?

MS. PADUA. This is correct, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right, thank you. All this information…. Just a few more questions, Madam, and I will excuse you. This information which you are now divulging to us, did you somehow inform the Prosecution of this sometime when you were discussing this matter with them?

MS. PADUA. I never discussed these things, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. That will be all for the witness, Your Honor. Thank you, Madam.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Re-direct?

REP. APOSTOL. May I have a few minutes to confer with the private prosecutor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Granted. And after that, we will have members of the Court. The first to register earlier was the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile, then the honorable Judge Osmeña, the honorable Judge Flavier, the honorable Judge Drilon, the honorable Judge Leviste, the honorable Judge Cayetano, the honorable Judge Jaworski. We have seven. The honorable Judge Guingona, the eighth.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, I am now ready to conduct the re-direct examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.

REP. APOSTOL. If it may please the Chief Justice, their Honors.

Madam Witness, is it not a fact that the 5% was reduced to 2% after the “Chavit” Singson exposé?

MR. FORTUN (R). Objection. The question is leading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled. Witness may answer.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. You further said on cross-examination that

the 6% which goes to the Presidential Social Fund is not correct.

Am I correct that it will go higher than 6%?

MS. PADUA. The Presidential Social Fund is variable.

REP. APOSTOL. Then it is possible that it can go higher than 6%?

MS PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. I am through, but may I be allowed to make a manifestation that….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A manifestation in relation to the testimony of the witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Based on the document Exhibit “57”, that Exhibit “57” which is the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are now commenting on the exhibits?

REP. APOSTOL. Just a manifestation on the exhibit itself.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the exhibits?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is inclined to rule against a manifestation regarding any exhibit unless it would be the subject matter of a re-direct.

REP. APOSTOL. Anyway, may I still be allowed to ask the re-direct question on this exhibit?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.

REP. APOSTOL. Madam Witness, Exhibit “57” which is a proposed reduction on consultancy fee of Prominent Marketing for Bingo 2-Balls is dated November 14, 2000. Am I correct?

MS. PADUA. Actually, my recommendation was dated November 13, but the Board of Directors acted upon this matter only

on November 14 year 2000. That was the time of their Board meeting, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. This was proposed and recommended by

you after the Governor “Chavit” Singson exposé on October 3, 2000.

Am I correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. No further question, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we now proceed to the question by….

MR. FORTUN (R). Mr. Chief Justice, we are entitled to re-cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A re-cross.

MR. FORTUN (R). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. May we be allowed just two questions on re-cross examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.

MR. FORTUN (R). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Padua, you testified on re-direct that the Presidential Social Fund can go higher. But isn’t it dependent on the amount of earnings made by Pagcor for its regular income, meaning, from the casino business, and not because of any income coming from this Bingo 2-Balls project?

REP. APOSTOL. Objection, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the ground?

REP. APOSTOL. Improper on re-cross. We are just talking of Bingo 2-Balls, not the casino.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Sustained.

MR. FORTUN (R). I will reform, Your Honor.

You said that the Presidential Social Fund can go higher. What would be the basis of that?

MS. PADUA. Let me cite the computation, the manner of computation. Out of its 23% Pagcor share, we deduct 5% franchise

tax to be given to the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and then 2% to Prominent as their consultancy fee; and then we deduct also the operational expenses incurred by Pagcor; and then the remaining amount out of this would be remitted ultimately to the Presidential Social Fund, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right. So how can the Presidential Social Fund therefore go higher as stated?

MS. PADUA. No, it’s variable. It depends upon–After this computation, it might go higher or even lower.

MR. FORTUN (R). All right.

MS. PADUA. Either way.

MR. FORTUN (R). Now, also on re-direct, you confirmed that the decrease in the share of Prominent Marketing was after the “Chavit” Singson exposé. Now, notwithstanding whether it is still 5% or was reduced, the fact still remains that Prominent to date has not received any amounts from Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. APOSTOL. Objection, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). Already answered, Your Honor. No further question.

MS. PADUA. But may I clarify.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may clarify.

MS. PADUA. Actually, at that time, even before the exposé of Governor Singson, we were negotiating as to the amount of–as to the percentage of this consultancy fee to be given by Pagcor to Prominent. And we had some series of discussions, and then afterwards, we reviewed the duties and responsibilities of the management firm. And it was based on that, based on this review, we recommended the reduction from 5% to 2% of their consultancy fee, Your Honor.

MR. FORTUN (R). So, you confirm, Madam, that the reduction of the share of Prominent was in the natural and regular course of business of Pagcor and not because of any external pressures such as the “Chavit” Singson exposé.

REP. APOSTOL. Objection.

MS. PADUA. (……)*

MR. FORTUN (R). Already answered, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the objection?

REP. APOSTOL. It is improper on re-cross.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Strike out the answer of the witness. It was given before the objection was ruled upon. The Chair

_

*Stricken out per ruling of the Presiding Officer.

rules in favor of the objection. The objection is sustained. Strike out the answer.

MR. FORTUN (R). We submit, Your Honor. No further questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, we will have the honorable Senator-Judge Enrile; and earlier, the Chair announced also the second

to be the honorable Judge Osmeña. It should be the honorable Judge

John Osmeña.

SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much.

I just want to pose two clarificatory questions. One is, to me, the answer of the witness was, could be interpreted at least in two ways when she answered that, “These are my customary signatures.” Do you have any other signature other than those imprinted over the name Emilia S. Padua in the documents marked already as exhibit before this Court?

MS. PADUA. None, Your Honor, that’s my only signature.

SEN. ENRILE. So these are your signatures?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you. The second question that I want to clarify is, we are talking here of 16%, 5%, 2%. Is this 16% 16% of the collection that goes to Pagcor or 16% of the total gross sales?

MS. PADUA. Sixteen percent of the total gross sales, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. So that when you say 2% goes to Prominent’s consultancy fee, you are actually saying 2% of gross sales, not 2% of 24–in this particular example now–P24,427,532 that was received by Pagcor for a 20-days operation.

MS. PADUA. Two percent of the total sales, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Not 2% of the P24 plus received by Pagcor which represented 23% of the total sales.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge John Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Now, Atty. Padua, Madam Witness, you are here as a witness of the Prosecution. However, when you were asked by Atty. Fortun for the Defense whether or not you discussed the contents of this document with the Prosecution for whom you are a witness, I heard you say that you did not. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Now, I am specifically talking about Exhibit No. “57”. In Exhibit No. “57,” the last six words of this one-page document reads, “Retroactive to the first day of operations.” Do you mean to say that the reduction or the consultancy fee of Prominent from 5% to 2% would retroact to the first day of operation?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Did you inform the Prosecution of this document? And did you call their attention to this item in the last portion of this document?

MS. PADUA. I did not call their attention, Your Honor, because we did not discuss that, Your Honor.

SEN OSMEÑA (J). Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too. The honorable Senator-Judge Juan Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I just have a few clarificatory questions, if I may be allowed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Madam Witness, may I recapitulate with you the remittances.

First, is it correct that the collection of the monies from the Bingo

2-Ball is remitted first to Prominent? Is that a correct understanding?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. And not to Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Not to Pagcor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes. No. 2. From that amount collected by Prominent, Prominent will then turn over 23% to Pagcor. Is this correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. No. 3. And out of that 23% given to Pagcor, Pagcor will subsequently return to Prominent 2% which will represent their consultancy fee. Is that correct sequence?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes. Does that not strike you as unprotective of the Pagcor? Shouldn’t it be reversed instead, such that the amount should be collected by Pagcor, then the Pagcor determines the 23% and subsequently return the 2% consultancy fee to Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Actually, it was Pagcor who imposed the 23% Pagcor share, Your Honor. But considering that Prominent was our consultant, Your Honor, they guaranteed the full collection of this Pagcor share, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, but that’s not what bothers me. What bothers me is that Pagcor does not seem to be protected. And I will establish that in my next question.

When you say “23%,” what is that, 23% of what?

MS. PADUA. Twenty-three percent of the total daily sales, Your Honor.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes. Now, my question is: How do you know the sales for the day?

MS. PADUA. We have monitors, Your Honor, in the respective areas that we are operating.

SEN. FLAVIER. But isn’t it correct to say that the control cover the funds and the determination of how much this is is called or the shots are called by the Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Actually, we have the full records, Your Honor, as to how much the sales was. So, we have Prominent to collect that for us. They are our guarantors. They assume the risk, Your Honor. If ever the sales agent would not be able to remit to Prominent, Your Honor, we will be assured of the full remittance.

SEN. FLAVIER. Thus far, it protects the Pagcor. But suppose that the amount of money received far exceeds the quota, and this is not known to Pagcor, then the determination of the 23% becomes in question. That is my concern.

MS. PADUA. No, we have imposed to them the sales quota. Over and above the sales quota that they have gotten, that would redound to their benefit.

SEN. FLAVIER. That’s another thing that bothers me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Flavier.

SEN. FLAVIER. Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time is up already.

SEN. FLAVIER. Oh, as short as I am.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry.

SEN. FLAVIER. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.

SEN. DRILON. Atty. Padua, the Bingo 2-Ball was aimed to compete, if not eradicate jueteng, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And in fact, there is no basic difference between jueteng and Bingo 2-Ball, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. We have differentiated it, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. But both are games of chance?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. All right. And you also bet on two numbers, is that correct, that’s why it is called Bingo 2-Ball?

MS. PADUA. No. Actually, the operation of Bingo 2-Ball is that you may choose 1, 2 or 3 numbers, unlike in jueteng, you have to choose only two-number combinations, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So, it is similar to jueteng, let’s put it that way.

MS. PADUA. Similar.

SEN. DRILON. All right. Now, in fact, the sales agent that you appointed are jueteng operators, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Well, I am not personally aware of that, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. You have, in fact, appointed Jessie Viceo, whose name has been mentioned as a jueteng operator, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you have also appointed as a sales agent Rosario “Charing” Magbuhos who is a jueteng operator?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So that the Bingo 2-Ball is an effort to surface the jueteng operator and legalize jueteng operations. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Now, you are aware, of course, that jueteng is illegal under the law?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And that, in fact, jueteng is punishable by an imprisonment of at least 2 years and 4 months to 10 years, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you believe, as a lawyer, that Pagcor can, in effect, legalize jueteng notwithstanding the fact that the law prohibits games of chance?

MS. PADUA. Actually, there is a differentiation between jueteng and Bingo 2-Ball operations, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Is Bingo 2-Ball a game of chance?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. All right. And under the Revised Penal Code, a game of chance is gambling?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Let’s now go to your consultant, Prominent Marketing. The controlling stockholder here is Charlie “Atong” Ang, is that correct?

MS. PADUA. He was the representative as the General Manager, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Do you know any other representative of Prominent Marketing?

MS. PADUA. They have sets of officers who work with us, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. But Atong Ang called the shots?

MS. PADUA. Yes. Primarily, we were dealing with him, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And this is the same “Atong” Ang of Power Management and Consultancy, Inc. which is also the consultant of jai alai?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor..

SEN. DRILON. For the record, this Power Management and Consultancy, Inc. is…An incorporator of that company is Victor Jose Tan Uy as shown in Exhibit “IC-A2” as presented by Senator Pimentel.

Was Exhibit “53” ever approved?

MS. PADUA. May I refer to our Exhibit “53”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Give the exhibit to the witness.

MS. PADUA. Exhibit “53”, Your Honor, is the letter-proposal of Mr. Atong Ang.

SEN. DRILON. Can the witness answer my question?

MS. PADUA. This was approved, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. Was there a contract signed?

MS. PADUA. There was no contract signed, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So, Bingo 2-Balls was operated without any contract signed?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. And you operated Bingo 2-Balls for 20 days without any contract?

MS. PADUA. With no contract because we are only on trial basis, Your Honor. This is similar to jai alai wherein we gave our consultants two months’ trial period and only after they have successfully proven their competence, their capability, according to the demands of our operation, that’s the only time that we can consider them as our consultant, Your Honor.

SEN. DRILON. So, what is then the basis of paying Atong Ang?

MS. PADUA. Actually the….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time, Your Honor. Just answer because the time for the answer would be excluded from…..

MS. PADUA. The basis of our payment to Atong Ang of this consultancy fee was that Mr. Ang was able to successfully pass our trial period wherein we were successful in our operation; we achieved our financial objectives and goals; and we did not have any problem at all, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator-Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Just a few clarificatory questions for Madam Witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you.

Could you kindly tell the Impeachment Court, Atty. Padua, who appointed Mr. Atong Ang or Prominent Marketing as consultant, Mr. Atong Ang as consultant of Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Yes, actually, it was the Pagcor Board who appointed Mr. Atong Ang as our consultant, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. This was then the subject of a Board resolution?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And this was approved by the Board?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. Do you remember the date when this was approved and this is part of the exhibit which was presented to us?

MS. PADUA. Actually, that was part of our September 5 Board meeting wherein we hired the consultancy firm of Mr. Atong Ang.

SEN. LEVISTE. The consultancy firm of Mr. Atong Ang was hired as consultant for Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Not Mr. Atong Ang himself?

MS. PADUA. Not Mr. Atong Ang himself.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. Is it customary or usual for a consultant to also be engaged in operations?

MS. PADUA. There is nothing irregular, Your Honor, being involved in the operation of our Bingo 2….

SEN. LEVISTE. There is nothing irregular with the fact that Mr. Atong Ang was hired as consultant but also got the contract to operate Bingo 2-Balls.

MS. PADUA. Actually it was Pagcor who operated Bingo 2-Balls with Mr. Atong Ang only as our consultant, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Consultant, but collecting the whole 23% which was then remitted to Pagcor.

MS. PADUA. Yeah. We authorized him…them to be the collector/guarantor of this Pagcor share because they assumed risk. If ever the sales agent cannot remit to us, then Prominent has the burden of paying us in full.

SEN. LEVISTE. Did Mr. Atong Ang set up any cash bond or guarantee for the 23%?

MS. PADUA. Yes, he did, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, how much would that be?

MS. PADUA. Ten million, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And that has since been returned to him, since the suspension of Bingo 2-Balls ?

MS. PADUA. Actually, the effectivity of that was if the … He gave us the check amounting to P10 million. But that would only be effective upon the commencement of our contract, upon agreement of the contract, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. And since there was no contract, it was on trial-run basis, it was not returned or it was never given to you, was it?

MS. PADUA. No, it was in our custody, Your Honor. As of now, it is still in our …

SEN. LEVISTE. It is still in your custody?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Earlier, I believe that you testified, you had said that Bingo 2-Ball is on a trial basis. And if I am correct also to hear that you had mentioned it was by authority of the President? Did you say that?

MS. PADUA. No. Actually, we have cleared this previously with the President, but it was the Pagcor Board who approved this project, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, I know that. And I heard you say it was approved by the Pagcor Board and it was also granted or by authority of the President. I thought I heard something to that effect. Is that always also customary or usual that the President authorizes or approves a Board resolution of Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Was it the first time or were there other instances where Board resolutions of Pagcor …

MS. PADUA. Ah, considering that this is a new project, we deemed it proper for the Office of the President to be aware of this new project, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. That is all. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, too.

The Chair would now recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Mr. Chief Justice, with the permission of Senator-Judge Cayetano. Just a small item that affects the collective privilege of this Court.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor has waived the remaining …

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). No, Your Honor, it has nothing to do with the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, it’s okay.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). I have discovered a small black mike, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s that?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). A microphone, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Microphone?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Yes. Hidden here, Your Honor, which is directed at the Court, at the members of the Senate, obviously, to pick up our conversation between ourselves.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who installed it?

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). We do not know, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms will try to inspect the same. Try to trace the source of the microphone.

Yes, the honorable Sen. John Osmeña.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Mr. Chief Justice, we discovered this during the break. We have been told for a number of days now that our conversation is being picked up by media. And we were wondering where the microphone was hidden. During the break, I found the microphone and I disconnected it hoping that whoever hooked it up will come in to reconnect it and then we would catch the culprit redhanded. Well, through all this time, we have not …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Sergeant at Arms is requested not to touch anything about it yet. Just to see it. So probably, we can have the NBI take the fingerprints thereon.

SEN. OSMEÑA (J). My fingerprint?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, Senator John Osmeña had already touched the unit. So what will appear will be the fingerprints

of …

The Honorable Sergio Osmeña III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Chief Justice, it seems to me that that mike is connected to one of the three cameras which is either Channel 2, Channel 4 or Channel 7. So maybe, if we can just ask the cameramen whose mike that is, we could simplify matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Try to find out the source.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, Your Honor, it is attached to one of the cameras.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attached to one of the cameras.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To whose camera?

SEN. JAWORSKI. I do not know what…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To whose camera?

SEN. JAWORSKI. The guy on the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Channel 7?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And what is the effect of its attachment to the camera of Channel 7?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, obviously, I’m not a technician, but

it could pick up any conversation near or within the range of the power

of the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Even the private conversations of the members of the Court?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean that is precisely designed to get the private conversations of members of the Court?

SEN. JAWORSKI. I do not know, Your Honor. Maybe we should ask them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think we should inquire–

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –from the one having the camera.

The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. I think we will have to get a technician, Mr. Chief Justice–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it.

SEN. BIAZON. –to determine whether this is a directional microphone or it’s simply to pick up and record the whole proceedings. Because there are a lot of tape recorders around for purposes of recording or tape recording the proceedings, unless…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is why the Chair wanted to find out to whose camera is the microphone connected.

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And it was determined to be of Channel 7. The one operating the camera can probably be asked now.

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah-who is-the honorable–

SEN. SOTTO. Sotto, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –Senator-Judge Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. When we allowed the coverage of the proceedings, it was very specific that the cameras and the microphones will be attached to a main source and that the sound and the audio will be picked up from that as far as the proceedings are concerned. So, if there are…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is the main source?

SEN. SOTTO. Well, it will be in the main mixers–

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words,…

SEN. SOTTO. –or amplifiers that are being used.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I see.

SEN. SOTTO. That is the most practical thing to do because that would mean that the quality of the microphones that are being used by the witnesses, the Chief Justice and all the other persons involved in the proceedings would be heard clearly. So, if there are any other microphones that are here to pick up privilege communications or any of that sort, then it has not been authorized by the Body as agreed upon before we started the Impeachment Trial, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, in light of the discovery of that microphone over there, pointed out by the honorable Senator-

Judge Osmeña, connected to the camera of Channel 7, what is His Honor’s conclusion? And I am addressing this again to the honorable Judge “Tito” Sotto.

SEN. SOTTO. Well, it was placed there not to get the proceedings but either conversations or sound effects. But it is definitely not to cover the proceedings, that microphone. That is my conclusion, Mr. Chief Justice.

Because if it is to cover the proceedings or the sounds that are elicited from the microphones that are connected for the proceedings, it should have been attached to a main source or to the main mixers or amplifiers that are being used by the Trial Court. So, an independent microphone of that sort would have a different purpose.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have the name of the one operating the camera to which the microphone is directly attached?

THE SECRETARY. Jose Canlas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Jose who? Who?

THE SECRETARY. Canlas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Canlas. Jose Canlas.

The Chair would like to inquire from Mr. Jose Canlas how it happened that a microphone is placed there and connected to your camera?

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Canlas, will you please come down here? Please come down.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please come down. And you will be placed under oath. Yes, this is very, very important because imagine, an Impeachment Court being subjected to the use of gadgets or equipment which might affect the dignity, the integrity and the decorum of the proceedings.

Mr. Canlas, would you come down ? In the meantime, we will have to suspend the testimony of Atty. Padua. But you can probably-

let me see, where will you be…

REP. APOSTOL. May I request that he be allowed to sit at the Secretary’s table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the Secretary’s table.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Mr. Canlas now?

This is a matter of a privilege that was raised by the honorable Senator-Judge John Osmeña who discovered the equipment. And eventually, this is a matter of a privilege, a question of privilege for the entire Court.

Mr. Canlas, you should take your oath. Administer the oath of

Mr. Canlas. The Secretary of the Court is directed to administer the oath.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, will you please have some order here in the Court?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Order is directed. This is not a light matter.

Administer the oath of Mr. Canlas.

THE SECRETARY. Raise your right hand and put your left hand on the whole Bible and answer me.

You, JOSE CANLAS, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your seat, Mr. Canlas.

State your name.

MR. CANLAS. I’m Jose Canlas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your age?

MR. CANLAS. I’m 26 years old.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your civil status?

MR. CANLAS. I’m married, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your residence?

MR. CANLAS. I’m residing at 1078…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your present occupation?

MR. CANLAS. I’m a cameraman, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah, complete, complete your residence-your address.

MR. CANLAS. I’m residing at 1078 Samar St., Balic-Balic, Sampaloc, Manila.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And your present occupation?

MR. CANLAS. Sir, I am a cameraman.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You’re a cameraman of what?

MR. CANLAS. GMA-7, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And for how long have you been a cameraman of Channel 7?

MR. CANLAS. Bale, Sir, ano pa lang ako, five months. Bale dati po ako sa tape.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski will ask the question.

SEN. JAWORKSI. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not smile, Mr. Witness.

MR. CANLAS. Sorry, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, anyway, Mr. Canlas, just relax. What we want to know is , how long has that mike been there? I think I noticed that a couple of days ago-weeks ago. Am I correct?

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. And it’s not adding anxiety to what we’re already having. But, well, Your Honors, not that I am protecting Channel 7. But, of course, I think it is very improper for a mike to be there. I’m sure if there is more malicious intentions, it wouldn’t be as big as that. But nevertheless, who told you to put that mike right there? Is there any specific instruction?

MR. CANLAS. Bale, Sir, noong ano po naming – noong kasamahan po namin sa audio, Sir, para raw ma-pick up iyong ambiance ng ano, dito sa loob ng Court..

SEN. JAWORSKI. Para iyong ambiance.

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Mahal iyon, hindi ba?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will you speak a little louder, Mr. Witness? We could hardly hear you here.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Sino ang naglagay, ikaw ba?

MR. CANLAS. Sir, hindi po ako; bale iyong kasamahan ko

po, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. So, ano iyan, inilalagay ninyo araw-araw o inaalis ninyo ano?

MR. CANLAS. Sir, bale ngayon ko lang nakita iyon.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Pero hindi mo naririnig iyong usapan lalo na iyong mga break?

MR. CANLAS. Iyong mga break po dito, Sir?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Oo.

MR. CANLAS. Naririnig po, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. So, saan pumapasok iyan?

MR. CANLAS. Bale doon po, Sir, sa may control namin.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Sa control ninyo, sa Channel 7?

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Hindi doon sa master?

MR. CANLAS. Doon po sa master, Sir. Sa ibaba, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Naka-tape ba iyang lahat?

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir, naka-tape.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Magmula noon ay naka-tape na lahat ang usapan?

MR. CANLAS. Naka-tape ang lahat ng usapan, Sir?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Oo.

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Anyway, Your Honor….Sino iyong naglagay?

MR. CANLAS. Iyong kasamahan ko po sa audio, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Nandidito pa ba o umuwi na?

MR. CANLAS. Sir, nandoon po sa ibaba.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Ah, nasa ibaba lang.

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Ano ang pangalan niya?

MR. CANLAS. Sir, si Bong.

SEN. JAWORSKI. May I ask if the other stations also have some special mikes around other than what we see now? Or, maybe the Sergeant at Arms should be instructed to look around if there are other…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms is instructed to find out if …

SEN. JAWORSKI. Ikaw, marami ka na bang narinig other than the proceedings?

MR. CANLAS. Nadinig na ano, Sir?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Usapan. Mahirap namang kantahan; nag-uusapan tayo dito, eh.

MR. CANLAS. Yes, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Marami na.

MR. CANLAS. Dito, Sir, yes, marami na.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Iyong pagka-break, marami din?

MR. CANLAS. Wala ho, Sir. Kasi, pag-break, Sir, ay lumalabas din ako. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Silence please.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Is the fellow there? Ano ang pangalan

niya? Bong?

MR. CANLAS. Bong de Guzman, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Bong de Guzman, are you around?

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, with the indulgence of the….this would probably enlighten.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the kind permission of honorable Judge Jaworski, what is the pleasure of the honorable

Judge Sotto?

SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, instead of calling the audioman or any other person connected to this, why don’t we call the head of the operations of Channel 7, GMA who is here, Mr. D. J. Sta. Ana? He can explain that to us.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And probably we can finish with this witness. He was all the time aware of the microphone attached to the camera that he had been operating. Then after that, we can call de Guzman.

SEN. SOTTO. Yes. And also in answer to the question of Senator Jaworski, Your Honor, there is also that camera pointing at me right now which has a microphone on top. And this could probably be also an explanation, an answer also to the question of Senator Jaworski.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we can have that explanation later. You have no question on the witness now?

SEN. SOTTO. No, Your Honor. I would rather ask the head of the operations of Channel 7.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Judge Roco. None?

SEN. ROCO. I was going to suggest as well that the TV director, he or she, as I understand it, coordinates everything. It might help

all of us.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senate President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Instead of probably wasting our time on this issue here during the proceedings, if you will allow, the Senate President will call whoever is in charge of GMA coverage here to a conference in my office tomorrow and then I will make a report to the Body just what happened.

So, if sanctions are, you know, required…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a suggestion by the Senate President–just stated by him. Any objection to the suggestion? It is the Senate President who will call the parties involved.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, then we can put an end to this incident and leave the matter to the Senate President–for the latter to make the report tomorrow after conducting a conference or whatever.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In the meantime, Mr. Chief Justice, that microphone should be confiscated and placed in the possession of the Secretariat for purposes of….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, the microphone attached to the camera of Mr. Canlas is hereby, upon motion of the Senate President, ordered confiscated to be kept by the Secretary of

the Senate.

The Sergeant at Arms shall now remove the equipment. And

this will be a warning to all concerned that the Impeachment Court

cannot be taken lightly.

We can now proceed. Mr. Canlas, you are excused.

MR. CANLAS. Thank you, Sir.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Clarification, Mr. Chief Justice. Will Mr. Canlas be allowed to go back to his camera?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, yes. He can use his camera without a microphone. It had been confiscated already. But the Presiding Officer should warn him that he should not reinstall a microphone at anytime hereon, otherwise, the more appropriate action will be taken against him, and whoever works with him or is involved in the operation.

Who would now ask the question on the–yes, I am sorry. The honorable Senator-Judge Cayetano is recognized.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I note that this is quite an unusual and memorable day for me, because this is the second time before I started my question that a tumultuous incident has preceded. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, you are very lucky, Your Honor?

SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, this. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Padua, please refer to Exhibit “54”.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, reading paragraph 3, can you tell me whose idea was Bingo 2-Ball in the first place?

MS. PADUA. Actually, it was Pagcor who conceptualized this Bingo 2-Ball, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Pagcor. Yes, I note that it was Pagcor. In fact, this is your report. So it was not Charlie Ang?

MS. PADUA. No, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Because I recalled that Mr. Charlie Ang said during the Blue Ribbon Committee that it was his idea.

Now, am I correct to say again, under paragraph 3, that you had a prior discussion with Prominent before you submitted this memorandum, Exhibit “54” to the Board?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. But in your memorandum you never mentioned Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Why?

MS. PADUA. Because at that time they are still incorporating, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. When was Prominent approved by the Board as consulting and marketing agent?

MS. PADUA. Actually, Your Honor, it was September 5 at the inception of the…

SEN. CAYETANO. September 5?

MS. PADUA. Yes, September 5.

SEN. CAYETANO. I thought by that time the Prominent was not incorporated yet.

MS. PADUA. Yes, we approved the consultancy firm, that a firm will handle our marketing, advertising, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Please refer to Exhibit “57” and you may wish to change your answer, Ms. Padua, particularly second paragraph.

Now, it would appear to me that it was only on November 13, 2000 that, indeed, Prominent Marketing was approved by the Board. Am I correct?

MS. PADUA. No, Your Honor. Actually, it was September 5. At that time, we felt the need that we must engage the services of a management consultancy firm considering that there was multifarious demands in the launching and operation of this Bingo 2-Balls, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Again, Exhibit “57″, second paragraph. Will you kindly read it to me, please?

MS. PADUA. “The services of Prominent Marketing Consultant Group, Incorporated, headed by Mr. Charlie Ang, was considered on account of their perceived expertise in the mechanics and procedural safeguards peculiar to a variety of numbers game, such as jai alai, and links to an extensive network of possible sales agents around the country.”

SEN. CAYETANO. Okay, that is enough. What do you mean, “links to an extensive network of possible sales agents around the country”? Are you talking about the jueteng operators?

MS. PADUA. The links to an extensive network, they may be jueteng operators, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Of course, it is. Because as referred to by Senator Drilon, some of your sales agents were, in fact, named as operators of jueteng, right?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, who selects the sales agents, Pagcor or Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Actually, they were pre-qualified by Prominent. But it was the Pagcor Board who approved that, the sales agents, the grant of …

SEN. CAYETANO. So, in fact, it is Prominent that selected?

MS. PADUA. No. They were the ones who pre-qualified that. But the Bingo department was the one who finally evaluated their…

SEN. CAYETANO. But what is your basis? You have no expertise. Do you have an expertise?

MS. PADUA. None, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. So, it was Prominent. Have you ever rejected a recommendation of Prominent?

MS. PADUA. None, so far, Your Honor. Because we believe that they were competent sales agents as certified by the consultants, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Now, you said that the Prominent gets so much because it guarantees sales quota, right?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Who sets the goal for the sales quota?

MS. PADUA. It was Pagcor who imposed on them the sales quota, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. But how would you know whether your sales quota is correct or not?

MS. PADUA. We also validated that. Considering that we are only on a trial basis and we have to review and reassess the situation, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. But the basis of your sales quota…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have two minutes, Your Honor.

SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Atty. Padua, could you tell this Court when Prominent forwarded the amount representing 23% to Pagcor?

MS. PADUA. Prominent remitted the corresponding Pagcor share right after the collection, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. So, on those specific dates?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, as required.

SEN. JAWORSKI. How about…When were those mobilization fees paid back to the franchisee or to the sales agents?

MS. PADUA. Right after we received the Notice of the Suspension by the Office of the President. And then Prominent immediately returned the money, Your Honor, to the sales agents.

SEN. JAWORSKI. And lastly, without necessarily touching the legality of jueteng, because of the reservation of this humble representation, could you just give us a brief rationale of Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. You mean, Your Honor, why we launched this Bingo 2-Ball, Your Honor?

SEN. JAWORSKI. Yes.

MS. PADUA. It was primarily to give the government additional revenues out of the Pagcor share that we will generate out of this Bingo 2-Ball operation, Sir.

SEN. JAWORSKI. But you still say that it is legal?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, we will work on that next time. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator-Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Atty. Padua, the Pagcor awarded the contract of consultancy to Prominent Management without bidding. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Without, Your Honor?

SEN. GUINGONA. Without bidding.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. There was no bidding conducted.

SEN. GUINGONA. But it had the clearance of the President.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And you collected the proceeds for the Pagcor Bingo 2-Ball on a trial basis.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. But when you collected the sums out of the trial proceeds, these are already public funds. Were they not?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. But despite the fact that they were public funds, you allowed Mr. Atong Ang to deposit the same in his account. Did you not?

MS. PADUA. Yes, we allowed Prominent to be the one who deposited this amount.

SEN. GUINGONA. And you insist that there were mobilization funds, service fees, and other kinds of fees that were all given to Pagcor when in truth and in fact during the Senate hearings, the Blue Ribbon, it was asserted and admitted, I think, that there were funds that were not remitted to Pagcor.

MS. PADUA. No, actually, the mobilization fees that we authorized Prominent to collect, that was for their account.

SEN. GUINGONA. And Mr. Atong Ang already had P70 million in his account when the Blue Ribbon hearings progressed in late September.

MS. PADUA. Actually, the mobilization fees consist of postdated checks and partly in cash, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. And each operator would pay a service fee. Would he not?

MS. PADUA. Cash bond, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes. And all of these were not remitted to Pagcor but went to Mr. Charlie Atong Ang. Did they not?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And in spite of this, you still claim that the Bingo 2-Balls was a legal operation?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. And it was so legal that you aborted the same?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time is up, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Just the answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we can have the answer.

SEN. GUINGONA. So legal that you aborted or the President had to suspend it. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes. There was a suspension made by the Office of the President, Your Honor.

SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the honorable Judge Sergio Osmeña III.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Atty. Padua, you said earlier that it was Pagcor that conceptualized this game.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). In what way? Do you have any background in gaming?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Would you please tell the Tribunal what your background is in gaming operations?

MS. PADUA. Before being appointed as the Managing Head of the Entertainment Department, I was then the Assistant Branch Manager of Casino Pilipino Pavillion and Casino Pilipino Silahis, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). No. But I am talking about the numbers game. Did you have any previous experience in Quick-2, Bingo 2, jueteng, et cetera?

MS. PADUA. I am not directly involved, Your Honor, but I have a working knowledge regarding the games.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, you conceptualized this? You yourself?

MS. PADUA. I am just one of those who conceptualized this.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Who were the others?

MS. PADUA. The gaming….

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Would you please name names?

MS. PADUA. No. In our department, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Yes. Who in your department?

MS. PADUA. We have the monitoring staff who are knowledge-able in this, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). All right. So, therefore, you must have put together a business plan because you intended to make money out of this.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, you have a business plan.

MS. PADUA. Actually, not a business plan, but more of a feasibility study, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). All right. So, you have one?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Will you furnish one to this Court? A copy of that to this Court.

MS. PADUA. Actually, we have these procedural guidelines.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). No, no. That is not a business plan. I am looking at your feasibility study, not of procedural guidelines.

MS. PADUA. Actually, what we did….

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I want to know how you expected to make money on Bingo 2-Ball.

MS. PADUA. It was Prominent who submitted to us this feasibility study.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. Okay. So, it is Prominent who did the feasibility study.

MS. PADUA. Yes. We required them, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Why Prominent? Are there people in Prominent who are experienced in jueteng or in Bingo 2-Ball?

MS. PADUA. Well, Mr. Atong Ang, who is connected with Power Management, he has some knowledge.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). How do you know that?

MS. PADUA. Because he has been with the Power Management and we hired him as a jai alai consultant.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). I see. And jai alai is the basis for masiao in the Visayas and Mindanao. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. I am not personally aware of that, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Now, who prepared these projections which is Exhibit “56”?

MS. PADUA. Our auditors, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Your auditors.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Why would an auditor prepare a projection? That should be the business group that will prepare the projection and the auditor just confirms whether numbers are accurate.

MS. PADUA. No. It was actually our auditors.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). All right. In any case, it seems that the daily take should have been P45 million?

MS. PADUA. That was the….that was our estimate, Your Honor. But considering that we are only in the trial-run stage, so we did not achieve that, Your Honor, but a portion of that, considering that we are in the first phase of this launching.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). But the P45 million refers to total gross sales for Bingo 2-Ball–

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). –which would amount to roughly one and a half billion pesos a month?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Okay. And Prominent collected the money?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). And they did not hit their targets so the Prominent refunded Pagcor because they guaranteed that they would collect what they said they would collect?

MS. PADUA. No. What was collected was in conformity with our perceived sales quota, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Well, that is right. You have your R.S.Q.–reported sales quota?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). And it seems you were only hitting about 16%….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes is up.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an unfinished question. Just finish the question.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. You were only hitting 16% of your reported sales quota.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). So, did Prominent pay you back for the uncollected 84%?

MS. PADUA. Because that was our agreed sales quota. Considering that we are in the early stage and there are some problems along the way, we really project to get that amount only.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Chair will now recognize the honorable Judge Revilla. And after that, the honorable Judge Biazon.

SEN. REVILLA. Atty. Padua, all these proceedings, the exposé, this Impeachment Trial came about Atong Ang’s refusal to give concession to the desire of Gov. Chavit Singson’s asking that he be

given the franchise in four provinces in Luzon. Do you know something about this?

MS. PADUA. I am not personally aware of that, Your Honor.

SEN. REVILLA. Hindi mo alam na iyan ang naging dahilan kung kaya tayo nandito ngayon. Sa aking palagay, iyan ang dahilan kung bakit nandito tayong lahat ngayon at maraming taong nanonood dito sa atin because of that. Iyan lamang maliit na bagay na iyan, hindi pinagbigyan ni Atong Ang ang kagustuhan ni Gov. Chavit Singson.

Wala kang alam diyan? You are supposed to know that. Pakisagot mo lamang. Bakit hiniya o hindi pinagbigyan ang kahilingan ni Gov. Chavit Singson na magkaroon siya ng kahit na apat na franchise lamang sa apat na probinsiya?

MS. PADUA. As far as I know, si Gov. Singson po ay…There was a time naging interesado po siya, but later on discarded that idea.

SEN. REVILLA. Hindi, sabihin ninyo ang buong katotohanan kung bakit. Alam mo iyon, eh. Siyempre ikaw ang nakakaalam diyan sa Pagcor. May dahilan iyan kung bakit tayo nandito ngayon lahat. Dapat sana, kung iyan ay pinagbigyan niya si Governor Singson, wala na tayo ngayon dito. Wala itong Impeachment Trial na ito.

MS. PADUA. As far as I know…

SEN. REVILLA. Sabihin nyo na ang buong katotohanan lang.

MS. PADUA. Ayaw po niya dahil ang gusto niya, huwag mag-operate ang Bingo 2-Balls doon sa kanyang areas na iyon. Parang humihingi siya ng ganoong concession, na huwag nang pakialaman iyong lugar niya, na huwag sakupin ng Bingo 2-Balls.

SEN. REVILLA. Ang ibig mong sabihin, huwag magkaroon ng Bingo 2-Balls doon sa kanyang lugar at pagkatapos ang mamamayani na lamang ang jueteng doon sa kanyang probinsiya. Ganoon po ba?

MS. PADUA. Iyon po ang perception ko, Your Honor.

SEN. REVILLA. Iyan lang po, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.

SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Witness, in the meeting of May 30, 2000, the Board of Directors approved Best World Gaming and Entertainment Corporation’s proposed Quick Pick 2 Bingo as a variant of its on-line bingo games. Would you be able to secure a copy of this Board meeting? The minutes?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, on August 1, the Board of Directors also approved Quick Pick 1-2-3 Bingo.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. You also have a copy, or can you secure a copy of the minutes of the Board meeting?

MS. PADUA. I can secure a copy, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. Somewhere there, Pagcor Bingo 2 came into the picture. But there is no mention of a Board meeting, Board approval of the adoption of Pagcor Bingo 2.

MS. PADUA. We have here an approval sometime in September, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. September 1st or September 4. Is it September 4?

MS. PADUA. September 5, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. All right. May I refresh the witness that on its own, BWGE’s president, Mr. Dante Tan, informed you of their withdrawal from the conduct of Quick Pick 2 and 1-2-3 projects.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Fine. And this was appoved by the Board?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Now, there is no mention of a Board action on the adoption of Pagcor Bingo 2. Unless you have a Board action on this, you must have a record of the Board meetings somewhere. Do you have?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor. Actually, this is incorporated in this board recommendation. The Board of Directors passed upon my recommendation. This was approved on September 5, this very September 5 Board resolution.

SEN. BIAZON. And the Board resolution included approval on the concept and the conditions–

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, the….

SEN. BIAZON. –of the approval to conduct the Bingo 2-Balls?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, in the last paragraph, and may I read it, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you identify the exhibit number?

MS. PADUA. Exhibit “54”, Your Honor, second page, that is “54-A”, the Board approval of September 5, Your Honor.

SEN. BIAZON. Can we have a copy of the journal of the Board meeting?

MS. PADUA. No, this is actually the Board resolution itself and….

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, we would like to have a copy of the Board meeting, proceedings, the minutes.

MS. PADUA. This is the Board resolution, Your Honor, foregoing….

SEN. BIAZON. We would like to have the Board resolution and there must have been a Board meeting and a discussion and there must have been a record somewhere, Board minutes.

MS. PADUA. Ah, minutes, Sir?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor. You would want the….

SEN. BIAZON. Then that motion, Mr. Chief Justice, stands.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You would want the records brought to the Court by the witness?

SEN. BIAZON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The records mentioned by the witness during the interpellation by the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon should be brought by the former.

MS. PADUA. Mr. Chief Justice, I have here with me a copy of the Secretary’s Certificate as….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Board resolutions earlier mentioned. You mentioned of two prior Board resolutions. Now, Exhibit “54”, according to you, is the act of the Board itself–

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –is the approval itself. But the honorable Judge Biazon is requesting for copies of the Board resolutions of the earlier actions taken.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, I will submit.

SEN. BIAZON. The minutes of the Board meeting approving this, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also the minutes of the

Board meeting approving what has now been marked as Exhibit “54”.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, I will submit.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When can you bring these documents to the Court, tomorrow?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor, I will try.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, for a while. May we have the honorable Senator Roco?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, procedural motion, Mr. Chief Justice, because I have just been listening. But may I ask to review or to examine all these, the minutes, I think, of August 1, all the minutes of the Board meetings from August all the way to November 13.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have this addressed to the witness so she can be accordingly advised?

SEN. ROCO. Yes, we were going to request….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Witness, Atty. Padua.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are asked to bring to the Court tomorrow copies of the Board resolutions and the Board minutes of the dates mentioned by the honorable Senator Roco, namely?

SEN. ROCO. I understand just by listening from August 1, there must have been a Board meeting or whatever, the August Board meetings, then in September 5, the September Board meetings and….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We’ll put it this way. All board meetings and all minutes of Board meetings in connection with

this matter.

SEN. ROCO. No, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not that.

SEN. ROCO. Because it’s the context of the minutes of the Board meetings from August 1 to November 13.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All meetings?

SEN. ROCO. Of the Board meetings, yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So all meetings of the Board from August 1 up to?

SEN. ROCO. November 13 based on listening and the exhibits given to us this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. November 13. Would you be ready with that tomorrow, Madam Witness?

MS. PADUA. Actually, Your Honor, I will request our corporate secretary for these Board resolution copies.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The request is copies of the minutes of all Board meetings of Pagcor Board of Directors from 1 August 2000 up to 13 November 2000.

MS. PADUA. Not only the particular August 1st, August 15 and November 13? Actually, the November 13 was….

SEN. ROCO. It says November 14. I think your exhibit says November 14. November 14.

MS. PADUA. Fourteen. Fourteen.

SEN. ROCO. November 14.

MS. PADUA. So the three minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Judge Roco, three minutes.

Not the minutes for the question, but the minutes of the Board, of meetings. Three.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. The minutes of the Board meetings.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of those three Board meetings.

MS. PADUA. Not only the excerpts, Sir?

SEN. ROCO. No, not only the excerpts. The whole Board meeting. And then….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not excerpts of the Board meetings.

SEN. ROCO. And then…. How many Board meetings? I don’t want to ask questions, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You can ask the question now.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. But it’s not on my two minutes because I’m on its procedure. I’m just trying to get copies and then I will ask to reserve if I see anything in the Board minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will not consider this as part of your two minutes because this is in relation to the production of documents.

SEN. ROCO. Yes. Yes, that is what I am trying to do.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. You may proceed with the…

SEN. ROCO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You are authorized to give the necessary instruction to the witness what to bring tomorrow.

SEN. ROCO. Atty….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Padua.

SEN. ROCO. Atty. Padua, what I am trying to get for purposes of the understanding of the Court are the full minutes of August 1. I understand that is material. Then September 5. I think your exhibit shows that there was a Board meeting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Kindly list them down, Atty. Padua.

SEN. ROCO. And then November 14. That’s based on what you have just given us. But it must be the full minutes and not excerpts.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO. And I want one Board minutes, full, that does not…. You can choose. Give me a sample Board minutes that does not affect these transactions. I want a feel of the…. I’ve been a corporate secretary also so you can do a lot of things with minutes. So I want to see a Board minutes of an ordinary meeting that did not discuss these matters. That’s all. The lawyers will call it…. I am trying to see the pattern of activity in terms of these Board minutes. Will that be okay?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you noted all?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.

SEN. ROCO. And then I’ll reserve. If I see anything, then I’ll

ask. If not….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you will reserve your question tomorrow?

SEN. ROCO. Two minutes. My two minutes. But please give it as soon as possible.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Obviously, therefore, the witness has to come back tomorrow.

SEN. ROCO. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Sen. Sergio Osmeña III.

SEN. ROCO. Thank you.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). It is also procedural, Mr. Chief Justice. Earlier, I requested for the feasibility studies that were conducted or done by Pagcor and done by Prominent with regard to Bingo 2-Ball.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Will the witness kindly bring them tomorrow?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May I request that it be men-tioned to the witness, honorable Sen. Serge Osmeña?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly enumerate those documents to the witness again?

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Yes. Atty. Padua, would you be able to bring the originals tomorrow of the feasibility studies conducted on the Bingo 2-Ball project by both Pagcor and Prominent?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge Guingona.

SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. May I also include a summation of the amounts that were received, including all funds, mobilization fund, the service fee, the guarantee fund, and from the time that it started, the project started on a trial basis until the time it was suspended.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you prepared, Madam Witness, to produce the documents suggested by Senator-Judge Guingona?

MS. PADUA. I will try my best, Your Honor, to secure all of these.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay.

MS. PADUA. Considering that the CorpSec will be preparing these.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So we can probably have a specific hour tomorrow for you to give you time to prepare the documents.

The honorable Senator-Judge Honasan and after that, the honorable Senator-Judge Loren Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. HONASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Chief Justice, I am not yet sure if this, the point I will raise falls under a matter of procedure or it can be counted against my two minutes to ask the question. But this Senator-Judge has been trying to get information from all available witnesses about jueteng. Let me call attention to Exhibit “57” and in the first paragraph, it says, “Bingo 2-Ball operations”–and this is the subject of a memorandum by our witness–“Bingo 2-Ball operations was aimed to compete if not eradicate the popular but unauthorized 2-numbers game called jueteng.”

So, I suppose, Mr. Chief Justice, Pagcor would have some data on jueteng, an unauthorized 2-numbers game. It is designed, or Bingo 2-Ball operations is designed to compete if not eradicate.” As an additional requirement, if I may ask, Mr. Chief Justice?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may ask.

SEN. HONASAN. Mrs. Padua, Atty. Padua, would Pagcor have any data on jueteng, on a nationwide basis, as a basis for finding out if Bingo 2-Ball, as designed, would be able to compete, if not eradicate? Would you have any data that would give the Court or at least this Senator-Judge an idea of what Bingo 2-Ball is competing against? Would Pagcor have any data, or can you tell us offhand what the extent of jueteng operations is all over the country in terms of, let’s say, a parameter? Like in the second to the last paragraph of your memorandum, you say here: “In 20 days of operations, Bingo 2-Ball’s gross sales quota totaled P106,206,661.”-“in 20 days of operations.” How does this match or stock up against an illegal 2-ball, 2 numbers game operation we call jueteng? Would you have any data now with you?

MS. PADUA. None, so far, Your Honor. Actually, this was based on our actual operation, Your Honor.

SEN. HONASAN. Can I please, can you please repeat?

MS. PADUA. This data was based on our actual gross sales generated for that period–20 days–Your Honor.

SEN. HONASAN. Okay. I can understand that. What about jueteng? What data would you have about jueteng, an illegal operations, that would form the basis for what you intend to compete, if not….

MS. PADUA. I will try to secure, Your Honor.

SEN. HONASAN. Mr. Chief Justice, this representation…..

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She will try, she will try to.

SEN. HONASAN. Whatever is in the data bank of Pagcor about jueteng would be appreciated by this Senator-Judge.

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. HONASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, Mrs. Padua.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Legarda-Leviste.

SEN. LEVISTE. With the permission of the honorable Chief Justice. I would just like to manifest my request to the witness to kindly present to the Impeachment Court tomorrow, in addition to the request of the other Senator-Judges, a copy of the order or the approval of the President of the Pagcor resolution awarding the Bingo 2-Ball which she had earlier mentioned. And she had mentioned earlier that this was probably not the first time where the authority of the President was given. So, if there were, if she could also kindly furnish the Impeachment Court with the other records that showed the approval of the President in other Pagcor projects, if any.

MS. PADUA. Actually, Your Honor, the approval, the clearance that I mentioned which was given by President Estrada was only verbal. Verbal only.

SEN. LEVISTE. No written memorandum or order or….

MS. PADUA. No written clearance, Your Honor. Only verbal.

SEN. LEVISTE. Verbal to whom?

MS. PADUA. To our chairman.

SEN. LEVISTE. So, it was just a conversation between the President and the chairman and you have no……

MS. PADUA. I am not privy to the conversation, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. There’s nothing in writing then for your records?

MS. PADUA. None, so far, Your Honor.

SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge Coseteng.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Just a few questions. You mentioned earlier, Mrs. Padua, that 23% of gross went to Prominent. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. No. Actually, 23%, that is the Pagcor share. It went all to us and then we have some deductions.

SEN. COSETENG. Okay, 23% of gross based on ….

MS. PADUA. Based on the guarantee, the total sales quota, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. You got the information also from the jueteng lords, right, as far as the quota is concerned? For example, if the quota was one million in a particular area, this one million was a quota given by the jueteng lords.

MS. PADUA. No. Actually, that’s the product of our study by Prominent.

SEN. COSETENG. Yes, the study. But who did you ask in the study?

MS. PADUA. That was conducted by Prominent, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. So, Prominent asked whom?

MS. PADUA. I am not aware of those circumstances, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Because, for example in the areas of operation, the guys who got the license or the franchise were also involved in jueteng. So if they declare to you, for example, a P1-million quota or P1.5-million quota, over the last 10 years, if they have been operating in the area like Magbuhos or Viceo, et cetera, they would have known that their collection represented a bigger amount.

So, if they were already collecting, for example, P10 million, they will declare to you, “O, ibigay mong quota sa amin, P1.5,” for example, or P1 million. So that the free portion, which is the P8.5 million or P9 million, as the case may be, was no longer subject to a 23% remittance to Pagcor. Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. So, your data was actually acquired from jueteng lords as well?

MS. PADUA. Prominent made reference to such empirical data, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. From the source of which is….?

MS. PADUA. I am not aware of the source. But it was Prominent who conducted that….

SEN. COSETENG. Yes. If in an area Viceo is the legal operator and Viceo was also the illegal operator, so he was paying Pagcor 23% of the gross of his quota and not paying Pagcor in excess of that, which is practically one and the same person. Is that the situation?

MS. PADUA. [Silence]

SEN. COSETENG. For example, you have Roxas in Tarlac or Magbuhos in Quezon, they were the known jueteng operators before Bingo 2-Ball came in. So, in other words, they’re both controlling the legal and the illegal? Is that correct?

MS. PADUA. When we launched the Bingo 2-Ball, that was one of our objectives–to eradicate jueteng. So we are just aware of this legal Bingo 2-Ball operation, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Well, I guess I couldn’t elicit any other answer. And the point I was just trying to make was that the data came from the illegal operators. But I suppose they’ve become all of a sudden legal by declaring a quota. And so the illegal collections, I suppose, was free of percentage to Pagcor in this sense.

MS. PADUA. Well, actually, the sales quota that was initially imposed by Pagcor but that is subject to review, periodic review by Pagcor, Your Honor.

SEN. COSETENG. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. And finally we have the Senate President who made a reservation.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Ms. Padua, in your assessment as a result of your 20-day experiment on these operations, did the government make or lose money? Or was the contract eventually, you know, deleterious to the interest of government?

MS. PADUA. Records show that we collected the 23% Pagcor share from this Bingo 2-Ball operations, Your Honor. So, there was this amount of money that went to the government coffers, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. In the amount of what?

MS. PADUA. In the amount of …. Initially, it was P24 million, that is the 23%. But Prominent is entitled to 2%. So we got 21% out of that Pagcor share, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And definitely, finally, we recognize Senator-Judge Ramon Magsaysay Jr.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Just a couple of questions. You mentioned earlier, Atty. Padua, that the President gave a verbal instruction to Chairman Alice Reyes of Pagcor regarding the approval of Bingo 2-Ball without any written instructions. Can you tell us what were the instructions that were given to Chairperson Reyes, and are you privy to this?

MS. PADUA. Considering that I was not present during that time, Your Honor, when the chairman was given this verbal clearance by the President, so I am sorry that I am not competent to comment on this.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Did these instructions become written afterwards? Because this would be the basis of the basic contract between the Pagcor and the Prominent, meaning, putting it into practice or into actual implementation.

MS. PADUA. There was no written clearance from the Office of the President, but with that verbal clearance, we proceeded, Your Honor. And then we had this proposed contract agreement, Your Honor.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. And the President himself called up

Mrs. Reyes?

MS. PADUA. No. Actually, it was the chairman, in one of their meetings, the chairman was the one who cleared the matter to the Office of the President, to Mr. President.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. She called the Office of the President? Mrs. Reyes?

MS. PADUA. No, personally she went there to see the President.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. She went to Malacañang.

MS. PADUA. Yes.

SEN. MAGSAYSAY. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Before I make my motion, just to further clarify this point.

When you say “Chairperson Reyes clarifies with the Office of the President,”….

MS. PADUA. With the President, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. With the President himself?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. How are you able to make this categorical statement? You were not there?

MS. PADUA. Yes, actually, I was advised by Chairman that she sought the clearance from President Estrada, and the President gave her this verbal clearance, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. So you are quoting something that was told to you?

MS. PADUA. Yes, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. You have no personal knowledge?

MS. PADUA. That was only relayed to me, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. You have no personal knowledge?

MS. PADUA. No personal knowledge, actually, Your Honor.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chief Justice, it is now 7:57, three minutes shy of eight o’ clock.

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Before we act on the motion, the Chair would recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Revilla.

SEN. REVILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Before we suspend or adjourn this memorable trial, I would like to make a manifestation to have corrections on the statement that I made during our yesterday’s impeachment proceedings, particularly in relation to my questions raised to Gov. “Chavit” Singson. This manifestation, honorable Chief Justice, would refer to the specific weight of 1,000 pieces of P1,000 bills totaling P1 million.

Mr. Chief Justice, instead of 96 grams, what this humble representation really meant was 960 grams so that the records in this impeachment proceedings will clearly indicate that the average weight of 1,000 pieces of P1,000 bills is 960 grams, instead of 96 grams.

Mr. Chief Justice, this humble representation, therefore, moves that on January 3, 2001 transcript of this Impeachment Trial, particularly page 194, line 5, the number “96” grams should be deleted and substituted with the number “960”. And on line 6 of the same page, there are two instances where the number “96” appear. I move that these should be substituted with the number “960”. And finally, on line 1, page 195 of the same transcript of records, the number “96” should be deleted and replaced with the number “960”, Your Honor, so that the records of this Impeachment Court be accordingly corrected.

Marami pong salamat, Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The manifestation is noted. Any objection to the motion to correct? [Silence] The Chair hears none….

Yes, the Majority Leader.

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the corrections should be recorded as stated but I don’t believe we can change the transcript of the previous hearing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would indeed be the ruling. After the Chair shall hear no objection to the motion, the request for amendments or revisions to certain figures mentioned by the honorable Senator-Judge Ramon Revilla, in the course of his interpellation of the witness yesterday–Was it yesterday, today or the other day?–yesterday, is granted in the sense that the same shall appear in the transcripts for today as corrections made of earlier statements. It will not be a modification or an amendment of the transcripts of the very day the figures were given. And so, whatever would appear as “96” in the transcript for today be made to appear as corrected to “960 grams.”

What is the pleasure of Prosecutor Apostol?

REP. APOSTOL. Before we adjourn on procedural matter….

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are we going to adjourn?

REP. APOSTOL. We are about to adjourn.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We are about to ask for your next witness.

REP. APOSTOL. We are ready with our next witness. This is the matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the Chief Justice–procedural matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

REP. APOSTOL. We requested for subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. What was issued merely was a subpoena ad testificandum. But we were more interested on the records. So if we….the witness is here but did not bring the records because what was issued was merely a subpoena ad testificandum, may we request that we be honored with the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For this witness?

REP. APOSTOL. For this witness.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness was already instructed to bring the records.

REP. APOSTOL. No, not this witness. The other witness who is now present, also coming from the SSS.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Subpoena….

REP. APOSTOL. The name is Gwen Marie Judith Dumol Samontino. Very long name. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You shorten the name. [Laughter]

REP. APOSTOL. I think it is Gwen Saman… Samantino… Samantino… Samantina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not Samantha..

REP. APOSTOL. Not really. Not Samantha.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So she will be a witness tomorrow?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She will be a witness tomorrow?

REP. APOSTOL. We will be requesting that she be admonished to come back tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is she? And do you have the list of the documents she is supposed to bring tomorrow?

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, and she is aware of that already. We have (counting by himself)… 9. She is here. The very beautiful one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In the meantime, we will excuse Atty. Emily Padua with instruction to come back tomorrow to bring the documents required by the members of the Court.

MS. PADUA. Thank you, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And we will fix your time tomorrow so you will have more time to collate these records.

MS. PADUA. Thank you, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Four o’clock tomorrow for Atty. Emily Padua.

MS. PADUA. Thank you, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then Samantha of SSS?

REP. APOSTOL. Samontina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam Samontina,…no, you will not testify. You’d only be advised to come back tomorrow. The

subpoena issued to you stands but, in addition, you have to bring tomorrow the following documents. Kindly enumerate now the documents, Prosecutor Apostol. Take note. Take down. You list

these documents to be dictated to you.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, she is already aware of

these documents.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She’s already aware. Are you sure that you’re aware of these documents na? Go over it again so you can bring the documents as required–copies of the documents.

REP. APOSTOL. Well, we have here, I will give it to her.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Give the list of the documents to the witness to be fair to the witness and for her to be able to prepare.

So, Samantha, you have to come back tomorrow.

Yes, what’s the pleasure of Atty. Daza?

REP. APOSTOL. May we request, Mr. Chief Justice, that the documents be brought here earlier for xerox and then premarking.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can you come at nine o’clock tomorrow, Samantha?

REP. APOSTOL. Samontina.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She agreed with a beautiful name.

REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, tomorrow, nine o’clock, at the Office of the Secretary, and a representative from the Defense should make himself available for that time.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we have another witness who is here, the representative of the LTO. May we request also that he be directed to come back tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is he? The witness from the LTO should come back tomorrow.

REP. APOSTOL. Ilona Madrid.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madrid. Ms. Madrid.

REP. APOSTOL. Eleonor Madrid.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ms. Madrid of LTO, you have to come back tomorrow. We have no time for you this evening.

REP. APOSTOL. And then, Mr. Chief Justice, we have three branch managers of Land Bank. They are also here. May we request that they …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You should have mentioned all the names so the Chair will only make one announcement. We could have shortened the proceedings. Who are they?

REP. APOSTOL. Mrs. Flores, Mrs. Balagot and Mrs. Almazar. And Mrs. Rodina. Four.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, Mrs. Flores, Mrs. Balagot, Mrs. Balaza?

REP. MORENO. Almazar.

REP. APOSTOL. Almazar.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Almazan?

REP. MORENO. Almazar, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They are advised to come back tomorrow. Any other witness?

REP. APOSTOL. Mrs. Rodinas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who else?

REP. APOSTOL. No more. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And Mrs. Rodina, too. Just be sure to enumerate all of these. You know, sometimes we lose our saliva here.

SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge Roco.

SEN. ROCO. The deadline given to Atty. Padua was four o’clock.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Four o’clock.

SEN. ROCO. May we suggest that she just submit by four o’clock and then maybe she should be called to appear again on Monday just in case we have questions. Because we will have to review.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, I think the proper directive should be for her to submit not later than four o’clock tomorrow the required documents, and for her to come back on Monday for the possible continuation of her testimony on these documents.

SEN. ROCO. If at all.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But where is Atty. Emily Padua?

REP. APOSTOL. She left already, Mr. Chief Justice. She’s very in a hurry …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. She left already. So we’ll have to wait for her. Anyway, she will come back tomorrow at four o’clock. And if Judge Roco will not be ready, then we can reset, reschedule the continuation of her testimony to Monday.

Now, it’s the turn of Atty. Daza. What is the pleasure of

Atty. Daza?

MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry that I cannot bring up something which is in a light vein. But I would like to make this statement not only as a member of the Defense team of the President but as an officer also of the Court..

At about the time that Atty. Padua was being cross-examined, a press release …

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A what?

MR. DAZA. A press release was being distributed among the members of the media by-lined, “Prosecution panel, House of Representatives,” and which says in part: “Erap earned more from Bingo 2-Balls, from jueteng. Pagcor official corroborates Singson.”

The opening paragraph says:

An official from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, Pagcor, today corroborated Gov. Luis Chavit Singson’s earlier claim that the President decided to stop jueteng because he stood to earn more from its legalized version, Bingo 2-Balls. Atty. Emilia Padua, managing head of Pagcor’s Entertainment and Bingo Department, confirmed the lopsided provisions in Pagcor’s arrangement with Prominent Marketing and Consultancy Group headed by Charlie “Atong” Ang.

Then the last paragraph of this press release issued under the name of the Prosecution panel says:

While the President was only collecting P10 million monthly from jueteng, he was bound to receive more than P100 million from Bingo 2-Balls.

As I said, this press release was being distributed to media even while Atty. Padua was on cross-examination.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How were you able to obtain it, that press release?

MR. DAZA. I don’t know. That’s why I would like to say this…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is your basis in saying that the press release was issued by the panel of prosecutors?

MR. DAZA. Well, it said here, it says, “Press release for January 2001, Prosecution Panel, House of Representatives.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol.

REP. APOSTOL. Yes, that is an intrigue. Yesterday, our witness was also hit by Pinoy Exposé, with another hitting the character of our two witnesses.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But just answer the…

REP. APOSTOL. We have nothing to do with that, and it is very bad that it is hitting us and we hate that.

MR. DAZA. Well, we hate this also. Much as you hate it, we should hate it more because what is stated here is not only unfair to our client but unfair to the witness, and perhaps even tending in some way to degrade the administration of justice being administered by this Court.

REP. APOSTOL. And that is very unfair to us also.

MR. DAZA. Well, that’s why I brought this up while the Prosecution panel is here. They are saying that the…

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have now the position of the Prosecution panel. If Your Honor believes that that, in fact, came from the Prosecution panel, you can file the appropriate motion.

MR. DAZA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because the Court considers not only the Defense but also the Prosecutors as officers of the Court and are responsible to the Court under the Canons of Legal Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

MR. DAZA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, we appreciate it very much but we are now saying that that is a very unfair intrigue against us, and we are disclaiming it. We have nothing to do with it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you have it. So I hope we can end the evening in a happier tone.

Before, however, an adjournment shall be moved or rather a suspension shall be moved, there have been complaints regarding delay in the service of pleadings by one party to the other. I’m referring to the Defense and the Prosecution and vice versa. The Chair understands that the Senate has provided the Defense and the Prosecution with one room each in the Senate. And the Presiding Officer suggests and requests that the Prosecution and the Defense should have one duly authorized representative in their respective offices here in the Senate during office hours to receive pleadings from one party to the other and vice versa effective tomorrow.

Then I understand also that considering the need to readjust our calendar to achieve a more expeditious termination of the Impeachment Trial, the Prosecution and the Defense are requested to attend another conference. Probably, this could be the third preliminary conference.

But it is no longer preliminary–mid-conference may be the proper term for that–at ten o’clock in the morning of Monday.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice. On Monday, we will already have our special session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ah, I see.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. It would begin at 10:00. So, probably if we can put it at 9:00 or 8:00.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight thirty.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, the first mid-trial conference between and among the Prosecution and the Defense and the lawyers of both sides will be at 8:30 o’clock in the morning of Monday, 8 January 2001, at the conference room, adjoining or adjacent to the Senate President’s Office, the same place we had for the first two preliminary conferences.

Now, the…

MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Flaminiano.

MR. FLAMINIANO. May we kindly be informed Mr. Chief Justice, how many lawyers on each side will attend the conference?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Even all of you can attend, or you can just send your representatives–

MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. –who can speak for, insofar as the Prosecution is concerned, the Prosecution; and insofar as the Defense is concerned, the Defense.

MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is now recognized.

SUSPENSION OF TRIAL

THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I now move that this Impeachment Trial stand in recess until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon, Friday, January 5th, 2001.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? [Silence] There being none, the motion is approved. The trial is suspended until two o’clock tomorrow afternoon.

It was 8:17 P.M.

THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 8:17 P.M.