Estrada Impeachment Dec. 19, 2000 (AM) Transcripts
December 19, 2000 (A.M.)
OPENING OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
(RE: RESOLUTION NO. 909 – INVESTIGATION INTO REPORTED ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF SURVEILLANCE AND WIRE TAPPING ALLEGEDLY BY THE PAOTCF)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000
AT 11:12 A.M., THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HILARIO G. DAVIDE JR., PRESIDING OFFICER, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO ORDER.
RESUMPTION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. We now acknowledge the arrival of the Presiding Officer, Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., Senate President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER [CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE]. The impeachment trial of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is now called to order.
The Sergeant at Arms is directed to make the proclamation.
Please be seated.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate is sitting for the trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.
THE SECRETARY. In the Matter of the Impeachment of His Excellency Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, Case No. 001-2000, for Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The agenda, the first item in the agenda for the Impeachment Court’s trial today would be on a resolution approved by the Senate in session this morning, entitled “Resolution No. 909.â€
Would the Secretary please read the title of the resolution?
THE SECRETARY. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE REPORTED ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF SURVEILLANCE AND WIRE-TAPPING ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-ORGANIZED CRIME TASK FORCE (PAOCTF) AGAINST SENATOR-JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT COURT, WITH THE END IN VIEW OF DETERMINING THE TRUTH OF THIS REPORT AND ENACTING REMEDIAL LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE SAME.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader is recognized.
THE MAJORITY LEADER [SEN. TATAD]. Mr. Chief Justice, the proposed resolution just read has been referred to the Impeachment Court pursuant to an earlier decision of the Senate in yesterday’s session to refer an earlier proposal made by the Majority Leader to create a 10-man select committee to inquire into reports of alleged heavy electronic surveillance on the telephone conversations of senators and nearly everyone else taking part in the Impeachment Trial of President Estrada. We felt that this was of sufficiently grave concern to everyone that it should be addressed by the Senate.
However, in the course of our discussions, our colleagues, Senators Roco and Drilon specifically, felt that this should be referred to the Impeachment Court so that this Court can consider and take whatever action is necessary to make sure that the dignity and safety of the Court and all its members are sufficiently addressed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, only to the extent as the alleged acts would affect the members of the Court.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. We would leave it to the Court to ascertain the extent of the injury or threatened injury and the extent of the actions that we would deem necessary.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair earlier heard, Your Honor, proposing a committee. Is it a committee of the Impeachment Court? Or would you suggest that the Impeachment Court be constituted as a committee of one?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I propose, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Court be constituted as a Committee of One, –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Whole?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. –Committee of the Whole.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection to the proposal?
The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Just to be clarified that the Resolution is addressed to the Senate and not to the Court. And if the Impeachment Court is acquiring jurisdiction over the facts alleged in the Senate, then we must be clear that we are focusing, addressing a component of the Resolution as to the ensuring of the safety and well-being of the members of the Court.
But I would like to believe, Your Honor, that this will not jeopardize the legislative work as proposed in the Resolution, in aid of legislation, considering, for example, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, that in the allegation there is cause to believe that even national security concern is at stake. And so if the Court has acquired jurisdiction, if only to ensure the safety of the members of the Court and well-being of the members of the Court, then the original form of the Resolution must not be set aside.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we hear from the Majority Leader as to the extent of the referral of the Resolution?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the main proposal is the proposal made by the Majority Leader on the Floor of the Senate yesterday. That was the basis of our decision to refer this to the Impeachment Court. The Resolution filed, read today, Proposed Senate Resolution No. 909, was originally recommended for referral to the committee mentioned in the Resolution itself, Committee on Justice and Human Rights. But we referred it similarly to the Impeachment Court, with the modification that we delete the phrase “IN AID OF LEGISLATIONâ€.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, therefore, by way of a response to the manifestation of the honorable Senator-Judge Biazon, vis-a-vis the statement of the Majority Leader, understands this to be the referral. It is not ousting the Senate of its jurisdiction over the main resolution. What is referred in that resolution to this Body would only be this particular portion of the alleged acts affecting senator-judges and members of the Prosecution of the Impeachment Court. I think that should be the proper construction of the referral because this particular act, if true, would indeed put in bad light and even would affect the rights of the members of the Court. While at the same time, it will also tend to degrade and affect the dignity of the performance of the acts and the duties of the members of the Court.
So that extent, the Chair would rule that, in effect, this is a resolution belonging concurrently to the jurisdiction of both the Senate and the Senate as an Impeachment Court.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Majority Leader again.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, we are informed that subpoena ad testificandum had been issued to the following individuals: Maj. Gen. Cesar Fortuno, Director General, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency; Dir. Gen. Panfilo Lacson, Chief, Philippine National Police; Gen. Jose Calimlim, Vice Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines; Carlito Pablo, Reporter, Philippine Daily Inquirer; Christine Herrera, Reporter, Philippine Daily Inquirer; and Manuel V. Pangilinan, President and CEO, the Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Company.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It appears, for the information of the Impeachment Court, that the subpoenas testificandum on each of the persons mentioned had been duly served according to the return of service submitted by our Sergeant At Arms. Are the parties so subpoenaed around now?
Yes, honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Since all of us are experiencing this thing for the first time, just for clarification, is the Court investigating an alleged occurrence? And if so, what are the procedures in the conduct of investigation by a court? Just for clarification, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The purpose of the investigation under Resolution No. 68 of the Senate on adopting the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings, the standing rules of the Senate had been adopted in like manner that it had adopted the Rules of Court. And so, in the meantime, the Rules of the Senate on the conduct of investigation on inquiries, in aid of legislation, may govern the conduct of this investigation this morning.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Again, as I said, I just had to raise this issue because this is the first time this thing is happening.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair would commend you for that inquiry, as a matter of fact.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will be the first to be called?
SEN. OSMENA (J). Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Osmena.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Further to the query of Senator-Judge Biazon, I heard the Chair say that the Senate’s investigation is in the aid of legislation. And my question is: What would be the objective of this Impeachment Court investigating this? Is this a contempt of the court proceeding? Are we trying to determine whether or not a contempt of court course of action would arise out of this investigation?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. While it may be true that the title of the resolution partly refer to, I say “partly†because it is only to the extent that it will affect the integrity, dignity, and rights of the members of the Impeachment Court is concerned, the outcome will be that the witnesses subpoenaed may be called to testify and enlighten on the issue raised in the resolution itself, and later on if the Court will determine that there is the possibility of an appropriate charge for contempt or whatever, the Court may take appropriate action this time in accordance with the Rules of Court.
SENATOR OSMENA (J). Mr. Chief Justice, is this therefore a precedent that will be followed in other contempt of court proceedings, including a contempt of court proceeding against a member of the Prosecution panel?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I was not able to get it well.
SENATOR OSMENA (S). Is this a precedent that we will now follow in dealing with contempt of court proceedings….?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean the procedure?
SENATOR OSMENA (S). Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because insofar as the Impeachment Court is concerned, it can declare parties in contempt of court. And there are two kinds of contempt,–you have the direct contempt and the indirect contempt. In this particular case, this will be considered as an indirect contempt and it is only to enlighten us in light of what is alleged in the resolution.
SENATOR OSMENA (S). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will be the first to be called to enlighten the Impeachment Court?
THE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, in view of the fact that this resolution and my proposal earlier were both triggered by reports appearing in the popular press on this alleged illegal surveillance on the Senator-Judges, I propose that, to lay the basis for inquiry, we invite the reporters who wrote the original story.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is either Carlito Pablo or Christine Herrera.
THE MAJORITY FLOORLEADER. Both.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who would be the first of them?
THE MAJORITY FLOORLEADER. I don’t believe there is any injury to the Court if both….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Lady’s first? Would you prefer it should be the lady first?
THE MAJORITY FLOORLEADER. Lady’s first.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Can we have Christine Herrera?
THE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe these two journalists shared the byline. They share the byline.
Since they share the byline, they share the same story.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, they can be together.
SEN. TATAD. It may be proper for them to testify together.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Very well. The two can sit together.
SEN. TATAD. May we ask the Secretary to administer the oath.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To both.
SEN. TATAD. To both.
THE SECRETARY. Please stand up. Raise your right hand.
You, Christine Herrera and Carlito Pablo, 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. HERRERA. Yes.
MR. PABLO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. I noticed the presence of Atty. Raul Palabrica. I assume he is appearing as counsel for the witnesses. May the Court recognize his presence and he be allowed to advice the witnesses without interfering with their testimony, if the advice is so sought by the witnesses?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The presence of Atty. Raul Palabrica is recognized, but the Chair would like him to, please, make of record his appearance for the two.
MR. PALABRICA. Mr. Chief Justice, I am Attorney Raul Palabrica, general counsel of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. I am appearing as counsel of the two reporters.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And please be guided accordingly by directive or suggestion of Senator-Judge Drilon in the matter of your conduct while they are testifying.
May we have the full name, age, residence, civil status, and occupation or profession of Ms. Herrera first. State for the record your name.
MS. HERRERA. I am Christine Herrera.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your age.
MS. HERRERA. I am 32.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your status.
MS. HERRERA. Married.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your residence.
MRS. HERRERA. Quezon City.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your occupation…. Your specific place in Quezon City?
MRS. HERRERA. Cubao, Quezon City.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any street number?
MRS. HERRERA. Oxford Street, Cubao.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any number of the house?
MRS. HERRERA. 43.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, finally, your occupation or profession.
MRS. HERRERA. I am a reporter of the Daily Inquirer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Also for the record, can we hear from the second reporter. Would you state your name.
MR. PABLO. I am Carlito Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your age.
MR. PABLO. I am 35 years old.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your residence.
MR. PABLO. Amparo Subdivision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Specific address in that area.
MR. PABLO. Lauan Street, Amparo Subdivision, Novaliches, Caloocan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then your occupation or calling or profession.
MR. PABLO. I am a reporter of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For purposes of this incident, any one of the Judges may ask the question but should direct the question to any one of them but specify the name. Or, there is another option. We should first finish with the testimony of one of them and we go to the other since they are co-byliners.
Yes, what is the pleasure of the Honorable Senator-Judge Guingona?
SEN. GUINGONA. May we direct some inquiries to the senior of the two.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Namely?
SEN. GUINGONA. I do not know which one.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair also is not yet in a position to know who is the senior of the two. You can just probably directly address the question to Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo.
SEN. GUINGONA. I will direct the question to Ms. Herrera, therefore, with your permission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, for an orderly proceeding, may we be given a copy of the Daily Inquirer that is involved in this proceeding, if we have any?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Secretariat prepared to give xerox copies of the article in question? (Pause) Given yesterday already? But it was yesterday…. If you have extra copies for today, better yet.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And also, ipa-xerox, have it xeroxed. Machine copies therefore and thereof to be distributed to the members of the Impeachment Court. And also copies of the resolution itself.
You may now proceed, Honorable Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ms. Herrera, you, together with Mr. Carlito Pablo, wrote the article which appeared in yesterday’s Daily Inquirer column?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. May you inform this honorable Court what was the basis for your story as far as the bugging is concerned, the tapping of telephones of the persons mentioned in the article?
MS. HERRERA. May I correct you, Sir, that we did not wrote about the bugging. We just, we talked about the monitoring and surveillance.
SEN. GUINGONA. All right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need a copy of the article, Ms. Herrera, to refresh you as your memorandum which is allowed?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Your Honor, thank you.
SEN. GUINGONA. May you inform this honorable Court what is the meaning of “monitoring†as far as you are concerned?
MS. HERRERA. Based on our interview with the source, the monitoring means that they try to check all the called records of the Prosecutors and the Senator-Judges.
SEN. GUINGONA. When you say “they,†whom are you referring to?
MS. HERRERA. According to the source, the surveillance was being done by an intelligence group in the PNP.
SEN. GUINGONA. The intelligence group in the PNP. When you say “monitoring†and then you referred to “surveillance,†do you refer to monitoring and surveillance in an interchangeable capacity or concept?
MS. HERRERA. I am not sure I understood your question, Senator Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. You said you referred to your article as “monitoring†and “surveillance,†is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. Can you please explain to this honorable Court the meaning of “surveillance†as you know it?
MS. HERRERA. According to our source, the Senator-Judges and the Prosecutors were being monitored through the telephone calls they made before and during the trial, the impeachment trial. Based on their phone records, they try to find out the network or contacts of the Senator-Judges and the Prosecutors, the journalists and the military.
SEN. GUINGONA. So when did this monitoring and surveillance by the Philippine National Police begin?
MS. HERRERA. Based on the documents provided us, the full- blown surveillance was made during the impeachment trial. And Mr. Chavit Singson was monitored, his calls were monitored shortly before he came out in the open and accused the President. And it also became full blown during the impeachment trial.
SEN. GUINGONA. You referred to the subjects of the monitoring and the surveillance as members of the Impeachment Court and members of the Prosecution. Can you be definite or more particular, or is it all the members of the court and all the members of the Prosecution?
MS. HERRERA. Based on the documents that we have, the calls of the Prosecutors that were being monitored are those of Congressman Joker Arroyo, Congressman Sonny Belmonte, Congressman Salacnib Baterina, and Congressman Sergio Apostol, Sir.
Among the Senator-Judges, we don’t have the documents of Senator Blas Ople, Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Tessie Oreta and Ramon Revilla, Sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. Can you please repeat that?
MS. HERRERA. And the rest of the Senator-Judges were monitored.
SEN. GUINGONA. The rest of the Senator-Judges were monitored or subject of surveillance except…can you please repeat?
MS. HERRERA. Except Senators Blas Ople, Tessie Oreta, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Ramon Revilla.
SEN. ROCO. May we ask for copies of the documents?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean, the xerox copies of the…
SEN. ROCO. No, the witness, Mr. Chief Justice, refers to copies of the telephone. Just to ask for copies because it is referred to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you through, Your Honor?
SEN. GUINGONA. Not yet. I just…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet. So and you will be asking questions on these copies later on, Senator-Judge Roco?
SEN. ROCO. Yes. But since we are at the point where the witness keeps referring to records if we can have xerox copies of these records…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably, that may be also another point which the honorable Guingona might inquire into.
SEN. GUINGONA. I will just be brief so I can give the…to others. I just want to finish, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just finish…
SEN. GUINGONA. When you say surveillance and monitoring of telephones of judges, prosecutors, you refer to landlines only or those including cellphones?
MS. HERRERA. Landlines and mobile phones of the Globe telecom, Sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. Globe telephone. How about cellphones of other companies?
MS. HERRERA. The source claimed that the cellphones also by Smart, Piltel and Digitel. But we don’t have the documents to prove that, Sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. I see. But your source claimed that all the others were also monitored and surveilled.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir, all telephone communications.
SEN. GUINGONA. How about fax machines and other methods of communications? Were they also subject to monitoring and surveillance?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir. In fact, we noted in the documents that Senator Legarda’s fax number was monitored.
SEN. GUINGONA. So this monitoring and surveillance done by the PNP extended not only to landlines, not only to cellphones, but also to fax machines?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. GUINGONA. Could you tell us finally what is the unit in the PNP,if your source said so, that did this surveillance and monitoring?
MS. HERRERA. According to the source, he got the documents from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No further questions? Who raised his or her hand first? The honorable Senator Judge Leviste.
SEN. ROCO. Could I just ask for the….Can I just press for my request on the documents?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the request is granted if Ms. Herrera is ready with the documents. Are you ready with the documents?
SEN. ROCO. I think Atty. Palabrica…Actually, under the Rules on Inquiry, the lawyers may not participate but he can participate as an officer of Inquirer. I mean, if he can speak, Mr. Chief Justice, as an officer of Inquirer, it is better because then he can speak, please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The problem now here is, we did not have any subpoena issued to him as a witness. But probably, he can whisper as counsel of Ms. Herrera. He may advise her.
SEN. ROCO. But it might be simpler. He is the Ombudsman, I think, for the Inquirer. It might be simpler to adjust….since he is now within the physical jurisdiction of the Court, Mr. Presiding Officer, maybe he can just answer. Not as lawyer but as officer of Inquirer.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I interject at this point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Senate President.
THE PRESIDENT. That I worry that such an act may start a precedent for all our other investigations. Probably, it is better that Mr. Palabrica just advises her.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the witness had made a specific reference to records. So, she may produce it. However, if upon advice of her counsel it should not be produced, we will leave it to her and later on for the court to insist, if it is necessary to insist, the production of the documents.
MS. HERRERA. I did not bring the documents, sir. They are in safekeeping.
SEN. ROCO. The documents referred to in the article are not with us. Can we request then for subpoena duces tecum so that they can be produced?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need a subpoena duces tecum for that, Ms. Witness? Or you would volunteer to bring the records here when you are called back?
MS. HERRERA. We will formally submit the records and the documents, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without the necessity of the compulsory process of a subpoena duces tecum.
SEN. ROCO. It may be important though because I think one of the witnesses is the chairman of the PLDT. I don’t know. Maybe after this, maybe you would want to speak then to the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How soon can you produce these documents, Ms. Witness? Perhaps Atty. Palabrica can call the office and direct the transmittal of the documents here.
MS. HERRERA. Tomorrow morning, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be willing to come back tomorrow morning? Because if it can be done within 30 minutes, I think the office of the Inquirer is very near.
MS. HERRERA. Yes. It will be formally submitted by the General Counsel tomorrow, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, tomorrow yet. In the meantime, you can proceed.
SEN. ROCO. I understand Senator Loren may have copies of the documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we recognize the lady judge first. The honorable Senator-Judge Leviste.
SEN. LEVISTE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I would just want to put things in the proper perspective because I understand that Mr. Pablo and Ms. Herrera have been asked questions. And for those who have not read the article yesterday in the Inquirer, the headline comprehensively, perhaps we could backtrack a little to find out how they came about with this story.
I rise here, Mr. President, because I was one of the first, if not the first, they have called and consulted about the story last weekend. They came to my residence last Sunday morning after having called me Saturday to make an appointment.
I must admit that at the outset, Christine and Carlito who have been friends since way back, when they asked me whether I had any strong feelings against the possible wiretapping or surveillance or monitoring and showed me some physical evidence according to them, I almost immediately brushed it aside because they seemed to me, at least then, like simple billing statements of PLDT. However, upon close scrutiny, I saw that these were not simple billing statements and this was confirmed and explained to me by Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo and that is what I want them to explain to the court this morning. So, I just wanted to set the background.
At the time also, just for the record, they came to my residence with two bodyguards, if I may reveal that, because they said that there could have been some threats, not perhaps to their life but towards the publication of this story. The reason also why they did not try or attempt to interview many people for their comments is they wanted to keep the story under wraps to make sure that it would reach the editors during the deadline.
That is just the background of the story of how I got involved and why they have mentioned me in their headline story yesterday.
I would then like to ask Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo to explain to the court how they stumbled upon the story and how they are able to confirm that these documents of which I have a copy of my own fax number, how did these documents reach them, and how they are convinced or how can they tell us that these are indeed not simple billing statements.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you want an answer from each? Or would the answer of one be enough?
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, I would appreciate an answer first from Ms. Herrera and from Mr. Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ms. Herrera should first give the answer.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, thank you. The source, two weeks ago, the source called me up and then asked me if I could see him and then he also said that I should bring along Carlito. So, I called up Carlito and then we went to see the source and he told us the story.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes.
MS. HERRERA. So, he provide us with some documents and then we did not try to ask the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force officials first because we want to be very sure because the allegation was very serious, so we wanted to find out and verify if his claims were true. So after he gave us the documents, we went to…we asked for an appointment with officials of the PLDT and then asked them if those documents came from them. And they said: “It…They did not ready such documents.â€
SEN. LEVISTE. We just want to clarify, Ms. Herrera, that the documents you are referring to are these so-called records, “technical records†from PLDT, a copy of which I am holding. Is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Ms. Senator.
SEN. LEVISTE. Okay. Please proceed.
MS. HERRERA. And then, we also asked Congressman Golez to look at the documents, and then he made some calls, and he made some calls from the intelligence community, and then he said that “definitely it did not come from the military.â€
SEN. LEVISTE. I would like to clarify. Are these documents public documents or are they supposed to be private and confidential?
MS. HERRERA. They are supposed to be private and confidential, Your Honor.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. And who confirmed to you that these documents are private and confidential?
MS. HERRERA. It is the PLDT President, Manuel Pangilinan.
SEN. LEVISTE. You spoke with Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Ma’am.
SEN. LEVISTE. And he confirmed that these documents were not supposed to be taken out of PLDT?
MS. HERRERA. Correct.
SEN. LEVISTE. And, therefore, your source, who gave you these documents, had told you that these were illegally sourced from PLDT?
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. LEVISTE. Mr. Pablo, do you have anything to add to the testimony of Ms. Herrera?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo.
MR. PABLO. I just confirm what Ms. Herrera has said, Your Honor.
SEN. LEVISTE. Upon meeting with Mr. Pangilinan, Ms. Herrera, what did he tell you? Did he have any knowledge about the records of PLDT which were taken out of their company?
MS. HERRERA. We showed the documents at first to Atty. Rey Espinosa, the PLDT Director, and then Mr. Pangilinan joined us later and they were outraged that we had those documents when they should be private and confidential.
SEN. LEVISTE. Are there….as a technical name, what exactly are these documents? What do you call them? What did Mr. Pangilinan call these documents? Are they billing statements? Are they technical records? What is it really?
MS. HERRERA. They said it is “screen prints….â€
SEN. LEVISTE. Screen prints.
MS. HERRERA. ….from on-line billing. But my source said it is called “call detail recordâ€.
SEN. LEVISTE. “Call detail recordâ€.
MS. HERRERA. “CDRâ€
SEN. LEVISTE. According to your source, who is an alleged Senior PNP officer. That is what you told me. Is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. LEVISTE. So your source, according to you, is a Senior Police Officer in the active service who calls these documents….
MS. HERRERA. “Call detail recordâ€.
SEN. LEVISTE. “Call detail recordâ€. While Mr. Pangilinan confirmed that it is called….
MS. HERRERA. “Screen prints of on-line billingâ€.
SEN. LEVISTE. Which department of the PLDT is supposed to have custody of these records?
MS. HERRERA. I do not know, Ms. Senator.
SEN. LEVISTE. When Mr. Pangilinan expressed his outrage and distress to you upon finding out that you were in possession of these from an alleged source, what did he do? Did he form immediately a committee to investigate who is responsible for this?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Ma’am. He told us so.
SEN. LEVISTE. According to your source, how did these get into his hands?
MS. HERRERA. He claimed that those documents were smuggled out from the PAOCTF.
SEN. LEVISTE. Is he with the PAOCTF? Is your source from the PAOCTF?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice..
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. What is the last phrase? PAOCTF what?
SEN. LEVISTE. Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Mr. President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And then the last….
SEN. LEVISTE. PAOCTF.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Ah, PAOCTF.
SEN. LEVISTE. That is the short version of the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Task Force. Presidential Anti Organized Crime….It got into the hands of the…
MS. HERRERA. I regret that I cannot answer that upon the advice of my counsel.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, we understand.
I was just wondering, Mr. Chief Justice, if it is possible for the Court to convene into an executive session later on because I understand the predicament of the reporters that they may not be able to divulge the identity of this….. It is not possible. However, I will not push them or pressure them to reveal the identity of their source since from last weekend they had intimated to me the delicateness and sensitivity of this issue.
So, you are saying that the PNP officer is not part of the PAOCTF but received these documents, original records, from a member of the PAOCTF.
MS. HERRERA. I cannot answer that, Ms. Senator.
SEN. LEVISTE. No. I am just clarifying what you said earlier that the records came from PAOCTF.
MS. HERRERA. That was his claim, the source.
SEN. LEVISTE. That was his claim, yes. And according to him, how did the PAOCTF receive these documents?
MS. HERRERA. May I ask Carlito Pablo to…
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, Mr. Pablo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Your Honors. The source claimed that PAOCTF had insiders within PLDT whom they are paying to provide them with these records.
SEN. LEVISTE. These are PLDT employees who are supposed to be suppliers of confidential documents to PAOCTF. Is that what you mean?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Madam Senator.
SEN. LEVISTE. And you mentioned earlier about certain fax numbers and telephone numbers, and you had furnished me a copy of my own fax number in my home office. Are there any documents, at least pertaining to myself, that you have in your custody apart from this single fax number where all the calls and faxes were made?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May we request Senator-Judge Legarda to show the documents to the witness so probably we can even mark that as part of the testimony of the witnesses and the judges will be furnished a copy of the documents for our perusal.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes. This is a photocopy, Mr. President. Christine?
MS. HERRERA. As far as we remember, Madam Senator, that is all that we have.
SEN. LEVISTE. This is a photocopy of the documents you showed me, and this is all you have of me. But I recall that you had several documents and I recall of the documents which you had, you showed me two more of other senator-judges’, and if I may reveal it, that is Senate President Pimentel and Senator Flavier. Is that correct?
MS. HERRERA. That is correct.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Senator, can we have a copy of that? I mean, are you willing to have that marked as exhibit so that we can share it with the rest.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, Mr. President, it may be reproduced. But this is only a photocopy and the original is with Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes. All right.
SEN. LEVISTE. That is all for the meantime, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. We now call the Honorable Roco. He made a reservation.
SEN. ROCO. All I wanted was the record.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the document.
SEN. ROCO. I have been assured.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, no questions?
SEN. ROCO. I think the next questions, I would like to reserve questions for the head of PNP and maybe some questions for the head of the PLDT because I guess that is all that we can elicit from the witnesses without the documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyone else who would like to ask questions? The honorable Senator-Judge Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ms. Herrera, do you have only one source for this story?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. And this source is what you had referred to as a member of the PAOCTF, Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force?
MS. HERRERA. I refuse to answer that question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground, Ms. Herrera? A question of privilege?
MS. HERRERA. It may identify my source, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. We will deal with that later. So you are saying that there is only one source?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir, and we asked several other sources to confirm and corroborate these claims.
SEN. BIAZON. To corroborate?
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. BIAZON. Could you name these other sources?
MS. HERRERA. We talked with Congressman Golez, and Congressman Golez made some calls to his contacts in the military and they told him that it was not them.
SEN. BIAZON. And you are saying that whatever Congressman Golez told you in relation to the issue corroborates what information you were able to get from your source?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, we also asked Congressman Arroyo to…. We asked his opinion and he said that during the Aquino administration they did not do it and that under this administration, PAOCTF and/or the government has the capacity to do that.
SEN. BIAZON. Just that, the capacity to do it?
MS. HERRERA. And the resources, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. Would you be at liberty to say how Congressman Arroyo supported that statement, like the mention of acquisition of special equipment?
MS. HERRERA. He did not elaborate, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. So you have Congressman Golez, Congressman Arroyo as your additional sources, are you saying?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir. And Congressman Golez even said that the budget of the PAOCTF, the intelligence funds of the PAOCTF is bigger than that of the military’s.
SEN. BIAZON. You have mentioned you had a talk with the highest official of the PLDT, Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. Are you at liberty to reveal to us the subject of your conversation or dialogue?
MS. HERRERA. It’s in the papers, Sir. We came out with the statement….
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Would you kindly repeat for us what was taken up between you and Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. Yes. He seemed distressed, Sir, that the private and confidential documents were taken out of the PLDT, and that he said that it is an intrusion of privacy.
SEN. BIAZON. Since these are confidential documents that are supposed to be under the care of PLDT?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. And therefore, PLDT is responsible for the safekeeping of these confidential documents?
MS. HERRERA. I would think so, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. No. Was this discussed between you and Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. They said, Sir, that they can only release those documents with a proper court order.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, and therefore, he, in effect, was admitting that the safekeeping of these documents–
MS. HERRERA. There was a breach of confidence.
SEN. BIAZON. –is his responsibility?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. As the chief what? Operating Officer? President? Chairman?
MS. HERRERA. President and CEO, Sir.
SEN. BIAZON. Okay. Now, did he explain to you or any, did he intimate to you what he thought how these documents came into your hands or in the hands of your resource person?
MS. HERRERA. He said, Sir, that he immediately ordered an investigation and we don’t know yet the result of his probe.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes. Mr. Chief Justice, I think we would have to call Mr. Pangilinan. I would reserve questions to Mr. Pangilinan.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A subpoena was also issued to him.
The honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Just a few questions.
Ms. Herrera, you mentioned that the PAOC Task Force has moles which they pay in the PLDT. Did you say that earlier? Who said that?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
MR. PABLO. I said that.
SEN. DRILON. You said that, Mr. Pablo?
MR. PABLO. Yes, Sir.
SEN. DRILON. Now, did your source tell you in what section of the PLDT these moles are, or these paid agents are?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is addressed to whom, Mr. Pablo?
SEN. DRILON. To Mr. Pablo, since he was one who made the statement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, he did not. Our impression is that, these people have access to this confidential data.
SEN. DRILON. These people have access to this confidential data. Did your source tell you how many moles they have in the PLDT? Is it one, two, three, four, five?
MS. HERRERA. The source claim there were two insiders, sir, PAOCTF insiders.
SEN. DRILON. There were two PAOCTF.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the answer of Ms. Herrera, but the question was posed to Mr. Pablo. Would the latter have any answer?
SEN. DRILON. Would Mr. Pablo have any answer to that question? Or you confirm?
MR. PABLO. I confirm what Ms. Herrera had said.
SEN. DRILON. Are they employees of PLDT or are they employees of PAOCTF? Can I have a clarification on that, on either of the witnesses.
MR. PABLO. The source claim they were employees of PLDT, but they were being paid on the side by PAOCTF.
SEN. DRILON. I see. Did your source indicate to you how much payment was being made?
MR. PABLO. He claimed it was in the region of P40,000 a month.
SEN. DRILON. Forty thousand a month per–
Mr. PABLO. Each.
SEN. DRILON. –Each employee. And did your source tell you how regular is the reporting made?
MR. PABLO. We can only base that on the available records we have.
SEN. DRILON. All right. Talking about the records, Mr. Pablo, do you have possession of all the documents or, are these just partial? In other words, just part of a bunch of documents. Would you know if this is all or partial?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, our impression was that the documents we have are just samples of the documents being generated.
SEN. DRILON. I see. These are just samples of the documents being… So you would not have any idea of how extensive this surveillance would be.
MR. PABLO. Well, we could assume that if they have access to confidential data, they can access any information they want.
SEN. DRILON. I’ll ask you a general question: Are there other things which we have not asked you which you may wish to reveal to help us in this work? Because obviously, we do not know what the facts are. This is a fact-finding, and you have counsel here. Would you have other facts that you can reveal to us without violating your ethics or the law insofar as this is concerned?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, we have nothing more to reveal.
SEN. DRILON. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, I am very much interested in the credibility of the source. How credible is your source, Ms. Herrera and Mr. Pablo?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. First to answer would be Ms. Herrera.
MS. HERRERA. He is very reliable, Sir, based on my journalistic instincts.
SEN. SOTTO. Based on journalistic instincts.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the answer of Mr. Pablo.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, he presented us documents and we started from there.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes. The reason I said that and the reason I asked you that is that I feel that it should not be enough as far as you are concerned. But be that as it may, I am not interested to reveal the identity of the source. As a matter of fact, I would like to preserve the anonymity of their source. It would be completely against the very law that my grandfather sponsored.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sotto Law.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes. But I am very much concerned about the credibility because as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Services, Mr. Chief Justice, we have had experiences of call detail records and billing statements and other of these records falling into the hands of different people. Like a very concrete example is a friend of mine and it was placed into the records of the Senate Committee on Public Services. He is now separated from his wife because his wife got a copy of the detail called “record†of his cellphone and he had a number of calls, numerous calls, to a certain woman and certain other activities. So it can fall into the hands of….
I would like to ask Mr. Pangilinan later also because I would like to contest what he said that “documents through court orders.†I do not think so, Mr. Chief Justice. The Committee on Public Services has had numerous complaints of the records of telephone companies falling into the hands of so many type of people.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Reservations… Maybe, at the proper time, you can ask the questions on Mr. Pangilinan.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes. Again, have you had experiences with this source before that makes him credible?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ms. Herrera, the question is, do you have enough basis in the past which made you conclude that the source is credible?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. SOTTO. Are you at liberty to tell us-
MS. HERRERA. What sort of….
SEN. SOTTO. No. What incidents that made him very credible?
MS. HERRERA. I regret to answer that, Sir.
SEN. SOTTO. Because he can be used by some quarters to…. Anyway, we can discuss that later, probably debate on this issue, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would recognize the following in this order: The honorable Senator Enrile and then the honorable Senator Jaworski.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may continue, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Ms. Herrera, you said you obtained computer printouts of billing records of PLDT. Do you have these computer printouts of billing records in your possession?
MS. HERRERA. They are in safekeeping, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. They are in the?
MS. HERRERA. Safekeeping.
SEN. ENRILE. They are in safekeeping. Do you remember how many pages are these?
MS. HERRERA. About 5 inches thick, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Five inches of separate sheets of paper?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. You mentioned about 100 people covered by these computer printouts of billing records. Are these people given separate billing records based on your study of the computer printouts of these billing records in your possession?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. For instance, in my case, my name was mentioned. Do I have a separate billing record?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. Do you remember the telephone number that I used to make those calls?
MS. HERRERA. I have to refer to the documents, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. All right. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request the witness to submit to us a copy tomorrow so we can get that copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. ENRILE. Now, these billing records, computer printouts of these billing records, are these duplicates or the billing records themselves?
MS. HERRERA. They appear to be original, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Original. Did you show these billing records in your possession to the head of PLDT?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Pangilinan?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. And he identified these records to be authentic?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. They did not ask you to return these billing records?
MS. HERRERA. He did not.
SEN. ENRILE. They are not missing these as a part of their records? They are not missing these computer printouts of billing records in your possession-
MS. HERRERA. I do not know, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. –as a part of their records?
MS. HERRERA. I do not know, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. You mentioned 100 people and you mentioned in your story some of the people included in these 100 persons. Apart from those that you mentioned in your story, can you name other people that you did not mention in your story who are included in these 100 persons included in these computer printouts of billing records?
MS. HERRERA. So, apart from the Senator-Judges and Prosecutors, the other congressmen were Cong. Michael Defensor….
SEN. ENRILE. Cardinal Sin. Jaime Cardinal Sin, for instance.
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir. We don’t have that.
SEN. ENRILE. Corazon C. Aquino.
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir. We do have Jose “Peping†Cojuangco and his wife, Margarita.
SEN. ENRILE. Fidel V. Ramos.
MS. HERRERA. No.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Satur Ocampo?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Crispin Beltran?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the other opposition leaders?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Jose Maria Sison?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. So, only these people that you mentioned here are the ones that struck your attention?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Zobel de Ayala?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about Henry Sy?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. John Gokongwei?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. All the prominent businessmen?
MS. HERRERA. Only Mr. Pangilinan.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the Presiding Officer.
SEN. ENRILE. The Presiding Officer of this impeachment.
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Did these 100 persons include ranking military officers?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Who for instance?
MS. HERRERA. May I refer you to Mr. Carlito, Sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Pablo, you may answer.
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, included in the records was one number of ISAFP, the Intelligence Service of the AFP. We also have one number for the AFP COMEL, Communications and Electronics. We also have one number of the Computer Battalion of the Presidential Security Group.
SEN. ENRILE. I am not talking of units. I am talking of warm bodies. Is the telephone number of Angelo Reyes, the Chief of Staff, included in these 100 persons?
MR. PABLO. Mr. Senator, the names were not reflected in the records.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the telephone number of the Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force?
MR. PABLO. We didn’t see any, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the telephone number of the Commanding General of the Philippine Army?
MR. PABLO. There is none, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Ha?
MR. PABLO. We don’t have that number, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the Flag Officer in Command of the Philippine Navy, is his number also under surveillance?
MR. PABLO. We don’t have that number, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How about the telephone number of Panfilo Lacson, General Lacson?
MR. PABLO. We don’t have that number, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. They are not included. Did you check one by one these 100 persons mentioned in the computer printouts of the billing records in your possession?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer?
MS. HERRERA. May I answer, Mr. Senator?
SEN. ENRILE. Yes.
MS. HERRERA. I was told by General Zubia that his office number also was reflected there in the record.
SEN. ENRILE. O, so you were told. You did not check the 100 persons named in these billing records.
MS. HERRERA. I missed that number, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Can you make a listing of these 100 persons–
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. ENRILE. –and submit them along with this record that you promised to furnish this Impeachment Court?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. The total number of persons mentioned in these billing records or computer printouts of billing records in your possession.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Can you remember … Do you remember the period covered by these billing records, from what date to what date?
MS. HERRERA. For the Senator-Judges and Prosecutors, the monitoring began in October.
SEN. ENRILE. October what?
MS. HERRERA. October, some of them October 8.
SEN. ENRILE. The earliest?
MS. HERRERA. October 3.
SEN. ENRILE. And then?
MS. HERRERA. And then …
SEN. ENRILE. Up to now?
MS. HERRERA. Up to – yeah. The last number that I — the latest date that I remember was November…
SEN. ENRILE. Did your source tell you that the surveillance started on that earliest date of October?
MS. HERRERA. Some of those being monitored, Sir, started as early as June, July.
SEN. ENRILE. June, July.
MS. HERRERA. Like in the …
SEN. ENRILE. Who, for instance, among those that, if you can remember, among those whose names you saw in these computer printouts of billing records were surveilled since July?
MS. HERRERA. That was Mr. Bubby Dacer, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Bubby Dacer. So the name of Bubby Dacer is also included in this computer printout?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. How thick is the billing records of Bubby Dacer? Also one inch like Chavit Singson?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir, just …
SEN. ENRILE. Little less than Chavit Singson?
MS. HERRERA. Yes.
SEN. ENRILE. Does this billing record indicate the telephone numbers being called by the caller?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir, but most of them are mobile phone.
SEN. ENRILE. No, no. But I am just asking whether the numbers being called are also indicated by these computer printouts of the billing records?
MS. HERRERA. Oh, yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. And the calling number, is there any indication that the calling number is being called also by anyone of those numbers that have been previously called?
MS. HERRERA. In the case of Bubby Dacer, Sir, yes. Globe telephones where – the handy phones where billings were reflected there.
SEN. ENRILE. So, you would see from these records the calls of Dacer and the calls to Dacer?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. And would this billing records indicate the nature of any conversation or just the numbers and the billings?
MS. HERRERA. Just the number and the times of calls, Sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Now, did you check from Mr. Pangilinan who is the custodian of this kind of documents in his organization?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir, we did not.
SEN. ENRILE. Why not? Was that not important for you to determine the possible source of this particular… of these documents?
MS. HERRERA. Because we interviewed the PLDT president himself so…
SEN. ENRILE. Yeah, he is a PLDT president but somebody must be a custodian of these records.
MS. HERRERA. Yeah. He just…
SEN. ENRILE. Records could just not exist by themselves without somebody…
MS. HERRERA. He let us talk to three more people, Mr. — Atty. …
SEN. ENRILE. Who are those?
MS. HERRERA. Atty. Espinosa, another official, Ariel, I forgot his last name, and…
SEN. ENRILE. Did you ask the question who are the computer operators of the computer billing units of PLDT?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir, we did not because…
SEN. ENRILE. Why not?
MS. HERRERA. …we talked to the IT officer, IT official of PLDT already.
SEN. ENRILE. And what was the answer when you asked who are the custodians of these records?
MS. HERRERA. We missed to ask that, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. It was not important to find out who were the custodians?
MS. HERRERA. Because they said that those documents were private and confidential so…
SEN. ENRILE. But they were already in your possession. You have a right to find out who are the custodians of these records and I’m sure if that question was asked of the president of PLDT, he could very well have obtained the answer from his organization.
MS. HERRERA. We didn’t ask that, Mr. Senator.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We recognize the honorable Senator-Judge Jaworski. Then after that, the honorable Judge Biazon.
SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor. For just some questions.
First of all, in your earlier statement, you mentioned three or four names of other senators. And as I read the newspaper copy today, my name was not one of those that were being surveilled. Which is correct? Is the newspaper correct or you just missed out my name?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will answer?
SEN. JAWORSKI. Mr. Pablo or Ms. Herrera.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Ms. Herrera or Mr. Pablo?
MS. HERRERA. May I check the article first, Sir?
SEN. JAWORSKI. Yes.
MS. HERRERA. I just missed your name, Sir.
SEN. JAWORSKI. Okay. And during your conversation, did you ever come into a subject as to why these other senators are not being included?
MS. HERRERA. The source could not offer any explanation, except to say that he wasn’t able to get the records.
SEN. JAWORSKI. On another note, aside from Senator Legarda who are the other congressmen or senators did you approach? Are there other senators or congressmen that you approached relative to this subject?
MS. HERRERA. We only approached Congressmen Arroyo and Golez, Sir. and Senator Legarda.
SEN. JAWORSKI. Well, I hope next time you can try to approach me also.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. JAWORSKI. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Biazon.
SEN. BIAZON. To Ms. Herrera. There are names here you mentioned in your article — names of senators, congressmen and offices, such as NICA, PSG and the ISAF. Did you check if the number so listed in the documents you have referred to are listed in the public telephone directory?
MS. HERRERA. May I refer you to Mr. Carlitos Pablo.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes.
.MR. PABLO. We did not, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. You did not.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder please, louder please, Mr. Pablo.
MR. PABLO. We did not, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. You did not check whether or not the telephone numbers in the documents presented to you are listed in the public telephone directories?.
MR. PABLO. We did not, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. What made you think that there is something unusual in documents containing telephone numbers?
MR. PABLO. Can you ask the question again, Mr. Senator?
SEN. BIAZON. What made you think that there is something unusual in telephone numbers, when telephone numbers are listed in public telephone directories?
MR. PABLO. Because the records we have reflect not only one telephone number …
SEN. BIAZON. Yes.
MR. PABLO. …but all telephone numbers being called from that specific telephone number.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. Now, the question is still the same. Did you check if, say, I have ten telephone numbers because my name appears in your document, did you check if all of these ten telephone numbers of mine so reflected in the documents given to you are listed in the public telephone directories?
`MR. PABLO. We did not, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. You did not. So I go back to the question. What made you think it was unusual for a document to have telephone numbers listed and make a story out of it?
MR. PABLO. Because these records are not supposed to be lying around.
SEN. BIAZON. There you are. And that the documents shown to you are not supposed to be shown… publicly distributed?
MR. PABLO. That’s correct, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. All right. And so this is just the one that I wanted to go now. My other question is this. Since you have mentioned Presidential Security Group, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency numbers so reflected in the documents shown to you, would this not in your mind– of course, I am asking for opinion –if your mind have relations to issues on national security?
MR. PABLO. We do not know, Mr. Senator. We don’t know.
SEN. BIAZON. You do not know. But, indeed, in the documents shown to you, there are numbers of the Presidential Security Group, the National Intelligence Coordinating Authority and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
MR. PABLO. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. BIAZON. Yes, and among others.
MR. PABLO. Among others.
SEN. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, considering the lateness of the hour, since we still have to reconfigure the seating arrangements for our hearing at two o’clock this afternoon, may we ask the Majority Leader to make the proper motions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me see. You would still have questions for the witnesses?
SEN. DRILON. Just one question for the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Honorable Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Just one question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And also after that, the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. DRILON. You mentioned, Ms. Herrera, that on the basis of the documents, the full-blown surveillance was started after the Impeachment Trial began. What do you exactly or what did your source mean by a full-blown surveillance? The impression I get is that the degree of the surveillance or the activities relating to surveillance increased tremendously after the Impeachment Trial began. Is that what this means?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir, because based on the documents, there were some names whose billings or whose calls were monitored, say, August and then, there was no September, October, then November.
SEN. DRILON. And then…
MS. HERRERA. But in the cases of the — in the case of Senator–Judges, the calls were consistent, the documents were consistent, October, November.
SEN. DRILON. So…
MS. HERRERA. Some others were September. September, October, November.
SEN. DRILON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Honorable Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Ms. Herrera, this is a question that I must ask just to satisfy my mind. You said that your source is a senior police intelligence officer that was the one who gave you these computer printouts of these billing records. Am I correct on this?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. And I assume that he was the one who got it from PLDT? And do you assume that, too?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. Okay. If he got this from the PLDT and PAOCTF is the supposedly surveilling unit, don’t you find it rather inconsistent and illogical that a senior police intelligence officer would be able to get a computer printout from PLDT which is being surveilled by PAOCTF without the intelligence organization of PAOCTF knowing it?
MS. HERRERA. That’s why we went to Mr. Pangilinan to check, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. I am asking this question because bluntly, is it possible that Philippine Inquirer itself obtained these documents from PLDT? And since you do not want to reveal your source, you are using a senior police intelligence officer as a possible source.
MS. HERRERA. No, sir. The Inquirer does not make up stories.
SEN. ENRILE. How can we be sure that that is the fact? How can you prove it to us that that is the fact?
MS. HERRERA. The Inquirer does not make up stories, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. No. I know that is your position, but how can we be satisfied that that is the fact?
MS. HERRERA. The facts will speak for themselves, sir.
SEN. ENRILE. It does not speak for itself. It is your conclusion, but I am asking the question.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, honorable Judge Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, this is not a question. It is just a manifestation inasmuch as the Senate Rules apply.
I would just like to place into the record and correct a falsehood that was aired, what’s attributed to Congressman Arroyo by the witness saying that the entire budget of the Intelligence Fund of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force is larger than the intelligence fund of the Armed Forces, or something to that effect.
We would just like to call the attention of the Body, for the perusal of the Body and for the information of everybody, that the entire budget of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force is only P60 million. That includes their intelligence fund. The P500 million that they are talking about is the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission. That is different, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. Let that be made of record.
SEN. SOTTO. I should know. I am the chairman of the Subcommittee “E†on Finance.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
The honorable Senator Judge Osmena.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I would like to address a few questions to Mrs. Herrera.
Mrs., Senator-Judge Legarda testified here that, or rather, stated here at the point, at the time when she was asking you questions that you had gone to her on a Sunday morning with the billings. Is that not correct?
MS. HERRERA. Correct, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Okay. Now, you also, obviously from your story, you went to see Congressman Joker Arroyo?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). And you also went to see Congressman Roilo Golez?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Did you contact anyone else among the members of the Senate and the House that are mentioned in your story?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Did you try to contact the Senate President?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Did you try to contact Senator Drilon?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). So, obviously, as you said, you did not contact anybody else. Why did you only contact these three persons that you contacted?
MS. HERRERA. It was a judgment call, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). It was a judgment call. Now, are you cognizant or were you conscious of the fact that all of these three people belong to the Opposition or anti-administration?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir, we approached them as senator-judge and prosecutors and congressmen.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Was there a basis in your judgment call of choosing only members of the Opposition to contact? You said it was a judgment call. So, therefore, your judgment must have been a rational judgment arrived at on the basis of certain facts that you knew. Did you deliberately choose members of the Opposition?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir, we chose them because they can be easily accessible–were……
SEN. OSMENA (J). Oh, but you never try to access the others. So you cannot say that one is easier to access than the other.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the answer?
MS. HERRERA. It’s still a judgment call, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). A judgment call. Now, you are Mrs. Herrera, is that not correct?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). How are you related to a congressman who is with the Opposition known as Ernesto Herrera?
MS. HERRERA. He is my husband’s uncle, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). Did that affect your judgment?
MS. HERRERA. No, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). It did not. Apparently, your story was intended to elicit critical reaction. Is that the reason why you did not approach people that are known to be in favor or affiliated with or associated with the Opposition? With the administration, I am sorry.
MS. HERRERA. No, it was not intended, Sir.
SEN. OSMENA (J). It was not intended.
Well, thank you very much, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the honorable Senator-Judge Leviste.
SEN. LEVISTE. If I may just enlighten the good gentleman, Sen. John Osmena the reason. It is possible that Mrs. Herrera had forgotten what she told me Saturday evening when she was very insistent in seeing me. I am her ninang in her wedding and I have known her for quite a while. And she intimated to me that this is a very important story to her in that, “Ninang, I know that you will not tell anybody until it reaches the press.â€
So anyway, I stand here. I just want to make one clarificatory question because I was listening earlier to Senator Enrile’s questions to Ms. Herrera where her answer was not the same as when she answered me regarding senior police officer.
The question I propounded earlier was: “Who acquired these records from PLDT?†According to Ms. Herrera, it was a PAOCTF operative who had these documents, who had given it to a senior police officer, who had, in turn, informed them of this. May I therefore ask whether this is the accurate story? Because her response to Senator Enrile was that it was a senior police officer who had access to these documents in PLDT. I just wanted to clarify that whether it is….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, you are asking now which is the correct answer of the witness.
SEN. LEVISTE. Yes, yes. It is possible that Ms. Herrera was– maybe did not understand the question of Senator Enrile or probably was confused. May I therefore seek clarification on this?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Madam witness?
MS. HERRERA. It was from insiders of PLDT to PAOCTF.
SEN. LEVISTE. Insider of PLDT to PAOCTF and later on to the senior police officer who informed you of this story? That’s what I understood.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer?
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. LEVISTE. Just to clarify, thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, because of the lateness of the hour….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is too early. It’s only 12:42. [Laughter]
Well, anyway, before you move for a suspension until a specific time, up to this point, the newspaper article in question has not even been marked in evidence. So, in other words, insofar as the record is concerned, there seems to be some deficiency in the proceeding.
Since this is the Impeachment Court, sitting as a Committee as a Whole, the Chair would suggest that the newspaper involved, the whole newspaper if any copy of that is here, be marked as “IC-1,†meaning, Impeachment Court 1, then (Contempt). And then the specific article entitled “Solons….‖what is this? This is the one, ano? [Holding a paper] You are referring to this as the specific article?–be marked as “IC-1-A (Contempt)â€. So, henceforth, this would be the Exhibit number for this document.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. SOTTO. Clarification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The honorable Judge Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. Mr. Chief Justice, just a point of clarification. In other words, based in your clarification statement that you gave us yesterday, the Impeachment Court may ask that a document be marked as Exhibit….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the Court.
SEN. SOTTO. If it is the document presented by a witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, and not only that.
SEN. SOTTO. And the Prosecution and the Defense?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not only that, Your Honor.
SEN. SOTTO. Not by a judge?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Not only that. In addition to that, the Senate referred the Resolution to the Impeachment Court. And the Impeachment Court is now conducting a preliminary inquiry, preliminary, to determining later on if the Court will issue a show-cause order or a motion to cite anyone in contempt of the Impeachment Court.
SEN. SOTTO. Okay, thank you. I am clarified.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader this time. It’s 12:44 yet ha; 12:44. [Laughter]
THE MAJORITY LEADER. We need to make use of the lunch hour with the understanding that we need to resume this hearing tomorrow at 10:30….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And we are not through with the two witnesses. And therefore, we will require again Ms. Christine Herrera and Mr. Carlito Pablo to come back tomorrow and to bring the documents required of the former, meaning Ms. Herrera, required earlier to be brought by you.
MS. HERRERA. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I, therefore, move to suspend this impeachment trial….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Osmeña would like to take the….
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Parliamentary inquiry. Since this is the Senate sitting as an impeachment inquest court, is it going to be the practice that in the mornings we will sit in this fashion to hear matters that relate to, shall we say, contempt of the court? And if that is the case, would it be in order to ask for a subpoena for the appearance of Prosecutor Clavel Asas-Martinez who is facing contempt of court? Because my information, Your Honor, is that she will not come to Manila until January.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Your Honor, since we are sitting as an Impeachment Court, the answer of the Chair will be, that since the motion to cite her in contempt has been filed, it will be taken up this afternoon, and the Presiding Officer will issue the appropriate order in connection therewith.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J). Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And there will be a hearing thereon afterwards, if necessary.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Before the final motion, can we formally request or order the others who have been subpoenaed to return tomorrow at 10:30, namely, General Fortuno, Police Dir. General Lacson, General Calimlim, and Mr. Pangilinan, at 10:30 tomorrow?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. The Secretary of the Senate as an Impeachment Court is directed to inform Maj. Gen. Cesar Fortuno, Dir. Gen. Panfilo Lacson, Gen. Jose Calimlim, and Mr. Manuel V. Pangilinan who are now in the holding room and to advise them to come back tomorrow at 10:30 o’clock in the morning for the continuation of this incident.
The Majority Leader is finally and definitely recognized.
SUSPENSION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move to suspend this impeachment trial until two o’ clock in the afternoon today.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But what about this incident?
THE MAJORITY LEADER. This will resume at 10:30. I will make that motion this afternoon so that we have a continuing….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request that that motion be made now since the witness is still around.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. I move that we suspend this hearing until 10:30 tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The hearing on the matter of the contempt began this morning is suspended until 10:30 o’clock tomorrow morning with witnesses Herrera and Pablo advised to return tomorrow in this same place for the continuation of their testimony. And on the second….For the trial proper, it will be resumed, as scheduled, at two o’clock this afternoon.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. For the trial proper, we will resume as scheduled at two o’ clock this afternoon.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
It was 12:48 p.m.