Estrada Impeachment, January 17, 2001
AT 3:20 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.
Our Senate President Judge Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and the Honorable Presiding Officer, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE).
The resumption of the trial of the impeachment of His Excellency, the President, is now called to order.
We shall be led in prayer by Senator-Judge Teresa Aquino Oreta.
SEN. AQUINO ORETA. Let us bow our heads in prayer.
P R A Y E R
Teach us, Oh Lord to be kind and gentle in all the events of life: in disappointment, in the thoughtlessness of others, in the insincerity of those we trusted, in the unfaithfulness of those whom we have relied.
Let us put ourselves aside, to think of the happiness of others. To hide our little pains and heartaches so that we may be the only one to suffer them.
Teach us, Lord, to profit by the suffering that comes across our path. Let us so use it that it may mellow us, not to harden us nor bitter us, that it may make us patient, not irritable, that it may make us broad in our forgiveness not narrow, haughty and overbearing.
May no one be less good for having come within our influence. No one less true, no one less kind, less noble for having been a fellow traveller in our journey towards eternal life.
As we go our rounds from one distraction to another let us whisper from time to time a word of love for You.
May our lives be lived in the supernatural, full of power for the good and strong in its purpose of sanctity.
AMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please be seated.
The Sergeant At Arms may now make the proclamation.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of punishment while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary is directed to call the case.
THE SECRETARY (MR. LUTGARDO BARBO). Impeachment Case No. 001 2000, entitled:”In the Matter of the Impeachment of Joseph Ejercito Estrada, president of the Philippines, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.”
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, on…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the pleasure of the Honorable Senator Judge Roco?
SEN. ROCO. On a privileged motion, if you may, we notice there are no people in the prosecutors’ side–seats.
We respectfully move to adjourn until this matter is settled and we can proceed. We feel that we cannot proceed, Mr. Chief Justice, because even the most people…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The main reason for your motion, Your Honor, is the absence of the prosecutors.
SEN. ROCO. That is one, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if that would be so, that will be taken up when appearances are made and there will be no appearance.
SEN. ROCO. Yes, except that… I’ll submit and we will raise it after the appearance then.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
With your permission, Your Honor, let’s move to the appearances first to find out if there are prosecutors or private prosecutors.
The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we invite the parties to this trial to enter anew their appearance.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The appearances.
MR. DAZA. … for the defense, same appearances, ready.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer was given a copy a few minutes ago of a notice signed by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the Impeachment Court. It reads as follows:
“Notice is hereby respectfully served that at 2:20 p.m., this 17th day of January 2001, the office of the undersigned Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of Impeachment Court was in receipt of a Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appearance filed by the House Panel of Prosecutors led by Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Joker Arroyo, Sergio Antonio Apostol, Oscar Moreno, Wigberto Tañada, Raul Gonzalez, Salacnib Baterina, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Oscar Rodriguez, Roan Libarios and Clavel Martinez.”
For the record, the attached Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appearance is hereby quoted:
“The undersigned Panel of Prosecutors respectfully state, one, for the reasons stated in the letter of resignation of the public prosecutors submitted to the House of Representatives through Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella, a copy of which is attached hereto, the undersigned members of the Panel of Prosecutors hereby withdraw their appearance as public prosecutors in the instant case.
Respectfully submitted,
House of Representatives Panel of Prosecutorsâ€
The typewritten name and the signatures of all the parties earlier mentioned.
The letter addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives mentioned in the Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appearance is hereby quoted:
“January 17, 2001
The House of Representatives
Through: Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella
House of Representatives
Quezon City
Your Honors,
It is with deep regret that we tender our irrevocable collective resignation as prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings before the Senate against President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. We feel that we can no longer honorably discharge our constitutional duties as prosecutors.
The House of Representatives tasked us to present the truth. This we resolve to do, so that the Impeachment Court may impartially pass judgment on the President.
The Articles of Impeachment passed by the House have been repeatedly criticized and ridiculed. And from yesterday’s vote on the opening of the second Equitable PCI Bank envelope, it is clear to us that the judgment of the Impeachment Court will not be reached on the basis of truth that the people seek, but on the partisan votes of a majority of the senators-judges.
We fear that our further participation in the charade will only mislead the people, the ultimate judge. We do not wish to legitimize the proceedings of a tribunal that has lost the moral authority to render judgment on an impeachable official who has clearly lost the moral ascendancy to govern. The right to judge and the verdict of history must now pass to the sovereign Filipino people.
Very truly yours,â€
The printed names and the signatures of all except that of Prosecutor Salacnib Baterina.
The document doesn’t appear to have been signed by him.
Excuse me, my copy doesn’t bear the signature of Salacnib Baterina, but the copy of the secretary only bears the signature of Prosecutor Salacnib Baterina. It means it is unanimous.
As of this time, Your Honor, however…
SEN. ROCO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …and I’m referring now to the honorable movant for adjournment.
The Impeachment Court has not received any communication from the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives being the initiator of the impeachment, is the client of the duly designated prosecutors.
The Chair, therefore, would consider the application of Section 26 of Rule 138, before we can resolve the matter of adjournment as to when.
Section 26 of the Rule states:
“Change of Attorneys. An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or proceeding without the consent of his client should the court, on notice to the client and attorney and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in the place of the former one and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party. The client may, at any time, dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place. But if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. For the payment of such compensation, the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money and execution issued in pursuant of such judgments rendered in the case wherein the services had been retained by the client.”
The first paragraph is the more applicable paragraph. So, in view of this, if there is a the motion for adjournment may be entertained but we should fix a definite time as to when it should be while awaiting for the action of the House of Representatives.
SEN. ROCO. May we then reiterate the motion, Mr. Chief Justice, that we adjourn in a mode of continuance. As you wish, we will submit to the advise of the Chief Justice and we can be appropriately called at some other time when the condition shall have been met. And I would have preferred, Mr. Chief Justice, and the reason we chose a motion to dismiss ah, to adjourn, as a highly privileged motion…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. ROCO. …was precisely to preclude even the reading into the records of this particular appearance so that…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …
SEN. ROCO. …we would have precluded further debate.
So, may we ask that we adjourn on the basis with the conditions suggested by the Chief Justice.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, may we be heard on this motion?
SEN. ROCO. I think he is not a member of the Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. First, we should finish first the Senator Judges.
The honorable Senator Judge Sergio Osmeña, III. Then after that, the honorable Senator Judge Cayetano, and finally, the Majority Leader.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Chief Justice, I do not wish to speak on the motion to adjourn. But I just wanted to make a reservation that before we adjourn, that I be permitted to speak on a matter of personal privilege.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. With the permission of the principal movant, I would like to propose an amendment that the adjournment be made until such time as the House of Representatives shall have acted on the motion to withdraw by the public prosecutors.
The pertinent rule read by the Presiding Justice, the honorable Chief Justice Davide, appropriately indicated that it would be up to the client which, in this place, is the House of Representatives, to act on this motion to withdraw.
So, I move to amend that such postponement be held until after the House shall have acted on the Motion to Withdraw by the public prosecutors. The pertinent rule read by the Presiding Justice, the Honorable Chief Justice Davide, appropriately indicated that it will be up to the client, which in this place is the House of Representatives, to act on this Motion to Withdraw.
So I move to amend that such postponement be held until after the House shall have acted on this Motion to Withdraw by the public prosecutors.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Since it is a motion to the main motion …
SEN . CAYETANO. It is an amendment. It is an amendment, Mr. …
SEN. ROCO. We do accept the amendment in line with the advice of the Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponent accepts the amendment …
SEN. ROCO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … of the Senator Judge Cayetano?
SEN. ROCO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader first.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I would have wanted to propose a fixed time, say, Monday, 2:00 in the afternoon, but since the proposed amendment has been accepted …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there cannot be an amendment to the amendment.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. … there cannot be an amendment to that amendment.
Thank you very much. That’s all.
SEN. ROCO. So if there is no objection, Mr. Chief Justice …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Daza.
MR. DAZA. The defense would like to be heard of this motion for continuance. We have no objection to the motion for continuance but we would appeal to the discretion of the Court, especially the Chief Justice, to set a date certain to have the continuance conditioned on the action by the House on the application of the prosecutors to be allowed to withdraw is to leave the course of this trial to a contingency. It is possible that the House might act on it, perhaps, this afternoon or Monday, but it’s also possible that the House may not act on it within the next few days.
So, we would propose …
SEN. ROCO. On a point of order, on a point of order, Mr. Chief Justice.
REP. DAZA. I did not interrupt the Senator when he was talking.
SEN. ROCO. No, he is not a member of this Court.
MR. DAZA. No, no, no. I was recognized.
SEN. ROCO. He is not a member of this Court.
MR. DAZA. I was recognized by the Presiding Chief Justice. Even if you are a senator …
SEN. ROCO. There is an abuse of process.
MR. DAZA. No, no. I have the floor.
SEN. ROCO. He is not a member of this Court.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Point of order, Mr. …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Point of order.
MR. DAZA. I have been recognized by the Chief Justice and the Senator Judge should respect the recognition given by the Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There was already a … there was already a … a point of order that was raised and the point of order was properly raised by the Honorable Senator Roco. Because the motion cannot be amended by a member of the defense panel.
MR. DAZA. No, I’m not …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a motion taken only by the Impeachment Court, by members of the Impeachment Court and we would be governed suppletorily by the Rules of the Senate on matter of adjournment.
MR. DAZA. But … Mr. Chief Justice, with due respect. I stated from the start …
SEN. ROCO. Point of order.
MR. DAZA. … that I have no objection to the motion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly, that is exactly the matter. You are suggesting, in effect, for an amendment to the motion as amended. And, therefore …
MR. DAZA. Mr. Chief Justice, I appealed to the discretion of the Court. I said “appealing to the sound discretion …”
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Point of order, Mr. Chief Justice.
I believe this matter is limited solely to the Court at this point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly. That’s the point of the Presiding Officer. It is a matter that is within the sole and exclusive competence of the Impeachment Court.
MR. DAZA. And I appealed to the sound discretion of the Court, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no ruling yet by the Court.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, he has no right to speak at this point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense counsel should … cannot be recognized at this point.
MR. DAZA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending motion, as amended, to adjourn until such time when the House of Representatives, the client of the prosecutors who have filed their Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appearance, shall have been transmitted to the Impeachment Court.
Any objection? (Silence.)
There being none, the motion, as amended, is approved.
SEN. ROCO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the trial of this case is adjourned until the Court shall receive the action, one way or the other, by the House of Representatives of the Motion of Withdrawal of Appearance by the public prosecutors.
THE TRIAL WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:39 P.M.