3 senators out: Can impeach court factor absences in conviction threshold? Azcuna answers

[0:00] former Associate Justice ng Supreme Court of the Philippines. [0:03] At ito yung mabigat, isa sa mga bumalangkas ng 1987 Constitution, [0:09] si the one and only po, Justice Adolf Ascuna. [0:16] Justice, good morning po, si Peter at Liza dito sa DZMM. [0:19] How are you, sir? [0:20] Hi, sir. [0:21] Hi, I'm okay. Thank you. [0:24] Thank you very much for the invitation. [0:27] Ours is the pleasure and honor, sir. [0:29] So, Justice, let me start by asking your assessment of how the six days of impeachment trial went. [0:40] Kayo po ba, on the balance, satisfied sa mga nangyari? [0:46] Not only on the prosecution versus defense, but the way the Senators acted in this impeachment trial, sir. [0:54] On the whole, I am satisfied because I can see that both parties [0:59] and especially the Senators themselves are trying their best to comply with the requirements of the Constitution [1:08] regarding how to conduct the impeachment trial. [1:14] Okay. [1:15] Justice, this is a pretty sensitive matter, ano po, pero I don't know whether you can weigh in on it. [1:21] Ito po kasing mga sa social media ay kumakalat nga po yung pinanindigan ng presiding officer na ang two-thirds ay still 16 votes to convict. [1:36] Ano po? [1:36] Eh, ang sabi nila, mukhang hindi talaga makukuha yung 16 na yun dahil unang-una, kulang na nga yung mga Senador. [1:44] And is it still practical kung dalawang Senador, tatlo na nga eh, ang nawawala? [1:50] Is there any way by which you can say, of all the active Senators present, parang gano'n, [1:59] is that something that can be revised or imposed? [2:04] Sa palagay ko, po, hindi po pwedeng baguhin yung language ng saligang batas na nagkalagay na kailangan yung two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. [2:23] Ah, kasi kung gustong sabihin na two-thirds of all those, only those participating and voting, [2:33] ah, ginamit po yung language na yan regarding the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional. [2:42] Nakalagay doon po sa provision ng Supreme Court Article 8 na to declare a law unconstitutional, [2:49] it needs a majority vote of all the justices participating and voting. [2:55] Ah, so yun ang language. [2:57] Kung yun ang language na ibig sabihin sa impeachment, sana yun ang ginamit namin. [3:02] Alam namin yung language na yun. [3:05] Ah, instead, ang ginamit na language ay all the members of the Senate. [3:11] So, talagang yun ang ibig sabihin, ah, all the members, the present members. [3:17] Kahit po nakakulong, ah, follow-up lang po on that matter po, ah, ah, justice. [3:25] Di po ba nakakulong po ngayon si Sen. Rodante Marcoleta at saka si Sen. Gingoy Estrada? [3:30] Meron pong request from Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano na papuntahin po sila kahit sila'y naka-detain for other charges [3:39] dito po sa Senado para mag-witness. [3:41] Ano po bang sinasabi ng konstitusyon natin dito? [3:44] Can they do that? Can they request that? [3:45] Pwede po ba na ilabas sila sa kulungan para po mag-participate sa impeachment trial? [3:51] Ah, wala pong, ah, sinabi sa saligang batas tungkol dyan. [3:55] Ah, nasa, ah, provision ng rules ng Senado yan kung, ah, saan ay maaari ba sila mag-participate, ah, by Zoom [4:07] or kailangan na dalhin sila dyan, ah, by arrangement with the Sandigan Bayan, it's all up to the Senate and the, ah, other authorities to arrange that. [4:19] Hindi po bawal yan. [4:23] Pero paano po, if ever po dumating sa punto justice na boboto na? [4:26] Ah, so by constitution, pwede po talaga sila kahit sila po ay sinuspindi ng Sandigan Bayan [4:31] o may mga iba pong judicial body na piniprevent sila from, ah, ah, doing their duty as a senator po, justice? [4:38] Ah, pwede pero sa ngayon, ah, mukhang malabo dahil, ah, ang rules ng, ah, Supreme Court, ah, ng, ah, Sandigan, Sandigan Bayan ruled against it. [4:51] So, ayaw po, hindi pumayag yung Sandigan Bayan, so they cannot be brought there to attend physically. [5:01] Pangalawa, they have missed already, ah, six days of, ah, the trial, so it will not be fair for them to vote on, ah, on the proceedings since they were absent. [5:12] Okay, Justice Askunal, let's, ah, move on, sir, if you, if, ah, you will. [5:17] Doon po sa question on the mahiwagang BIR box, or at least, ah, in general, doon po sa tax records, ah, ni VP Sara na gustong isumpina, ipasumpina ng, ah, prosecution. [5:33] Um, please clarify for us po, talaga bang kailangan ng, absolutely, ah, absolutely kailangan ng permission, ah, or go signal ng Presidente ng Republika [5:46] para buksan, ah, i-release ang tax records ni VP Sara. [5:51] There is no other way, not even if it's the impeachment court saying buksan nyo yan. [5:58] Ah, yung, ah, matter of, ah, ah, opening the tax records for purposes of impeachment will be, ah, decided by the Senate on Monday. [6:12] So, ah, ah, ayaw ko po, ah, uunahan yung Senado, ah, sa mga bagay na yan. [6:20] Eh, tuturing ko lang na sa ngayon, ah, meron nga ang provision ng batas na confidential nyo yung tax records, [6:31] unless, ah, unless, ah, the, ah, bayar commissioner gets permission from the President to release it. [6:40] Yun ang, ah, status ng, ah, batas. [6:43] Ah, ngunit, whether or not that is, ah, going to prevail in spite of the provision of the Constitution [6:51] that the Senate has the power to try and decide all impeachment cases, ah, there is no Supreme Court decision on that [7:01] and, ah, on the first instance, ah, it is the Senate that should decide that whether or not it, it has the power to subpoena those records [7:11] and it will decide it on Monday. [7:13] Ah, okay. Um, ito naman po, eh, ano, um, what if the Senate, again, hypothetical po, [7:22] if the Senate, ah, decides na, okay, we will issue the subpoena to release the tax records [7:29] and, ah, they're actually requiring the records to be opened by the BIR. [7:35] Halimbawa lang po, gano'n ang naging, ah, desisyon ng, ah, ng, ah, Senado, ah, ng, ah, Senate impeachment court. [7:43] Eh, would that mean kailangan pa rin magpaalam ng BIR commissioner sa Pangulo? [7:48] Ah, ah, magandang tanong yan, ah, Rico, but I think, ah, in that event, ah, there is, ah, it's up to the BIR commissioner now [8:00] whether to immediately obey the subpoena or, ah, still follow the procedure under the law [8:06] to secure, ah, permission from the President. [8:10] Eh, ah, this is to protect himself in case of, ah, ah, liability, ah, under the, the law [8:16] for, ah, ah, disclosing tax records, ah, without the permission of the President as required by law. [8:24] At ito po yung, ano, karugtong po nun, ah, Justice Azkuna, ano po, eh, how many times, eh, na, nababasa natin sa jaryo, [8:33] naririnig natin sa TV radio reports na merong dinimanda because of, ah, ah, ah, tax evasion? [8:41] Eh, lumalabas po yung mga, ano, maaaring hindi lahat, pero lumalabas yung mga numero, ah, sa publiko [8:49] noong nahahabla o nakakasuhan ng tax evasion. [8:54] What's the difference between that and this case in the impeachment trial? [8:59] Ah, the difference that the law itself, ah, authorizes, ah, ah, revelation of tax records in a tax case [9:10] involving tax records, tax liability. That is an exception allowed by law. [9:16] This is not a tax case. So, that doesn't fall under that exception. [9:20] Mm-hmm. [9:21] At, ah, Justice, tatawid lang po ko dito sa isa po ngayon na naging desisyon ng House [9:26] Prosecution na magbawasa po sila ng witness dito po sa isa sa articles of impeachment [9:32] nila yung grave threat. So, walong witness po ang tinanggal nila sa kanilang listahan [9:36] for this particular part of the hearing. Ang hulib na po nila ipipresenta ay si [9:41] NBI Director Melvin Matibag next week. Ano po interpretasyon nyo dito na biglang [9:46] nagbawas po ng ganung kalaking daming witness ang prosecution for this particular [9:52] articles of impeachment. Do you believe, Justice, na meet na nila yung kailangan nilang [9:56] mga substantial pieces of evidence to prove their point for this particular article? [10:01] Yes, the prosecution has the discretion to dispense with some of the witnesses kung sa [10:12] palagay nila sapat na yung napresenta nila. Nasa prosecution po yan, normal po yan sa [10:20] litigation na magbawas ng witness, kuminsan magdagdag ng witness as the trial goes on. [10:28] So, wala pong problema dyan. It is a decision of the prosecution really. And of course, [10:38] the Senate will have to approve that kasi napagkasundoan na yung listahan ng mga [10:43] witnesses sa pre-trial. [10:45] Justice, para lang po sa mga nanonood po sa atin ngayon, kasi po sui generis court [10:51] ito so hindi po siya criminal court. Pag po ganyan, di ba sa criminal court dapat [10:55] beyond reasonable doubt ang pieces of evidence, yung bigat ng ebidensya. For a sui generis [11:02] court, for impeachment court, gano'n po baka bigat dapat ang ebidensya may presenta [11:07] to impeach someone? [11:10] Hindi po criminal case kasi ito. Kaya yung proof beyond reasonable doubt, hindi po kailangan. [11:15] Ngunit, hindi po nakalagay din sa batas kung anong level ng ebidensya ang sapat o bang [11:25] magkaroon ng conviction. Nasa judgment po yan ng bawat senador kung sa tingin nila [11:33] sapat na yung ebidensya upang mapatunayan yung charge. [11:39] Merong nagsabi na ang equivalent diyan ay clear and convincing evidence. Pero palagay ko [11:49] hindi po yun ang rule. Ang rule is up to the senator in his judgment kung tapat na o hindi. [12:02] Pero is it safe to say po, Justice Skuna, na ang threshold for conviction is much lower [12:11] than the usual beyond reasonable doubt? [12:16] Yan po ang palagay ko dahil hindi naman ito criminal case. So it does not need proof beyond [12:22] reasonable doubt. But what is the level? Some say clear and convincing. Some say substantial [12:30] evidence. But it's really the appreciation of the senator judge. [12:38] Opo, Justice, meron din pong mula sa lower house, isa sa mga prosecutors, ang nagsabi na [12:46] perhaps yung four articles of impeachment eh hindi na ipipresent. And toto, ibig sabihin [12:55] baka dalawa, takdo lang daw, eh tumigil na sila. Do you think this is a [13:01] wise and practical decision, if at all? It is, again, a matter for the House of [13:12] Representatives to their prosecutors to decide whether or not to present evidence on all four [13:20] or five articles, uh, under the charge. Uh, and I think it has also to be approved by the Senate [13:30] because, uh, the whole, uh, articles containing all the charges were, uh, submitted and endorsed to the [13:38] Senate. So it is not, uh, for the House alone to decide, uh, whether or not to dispense with some of [13:45] the articles, it has to be approved, to my mind, by the Senate. [13:49] Ayun. Okay. Ah, ang kadugtong po niyan, ang kakambal na tanong niyan eh. So pwede, if they so choose, pwede po na [13:56] hanggang article four lang sila, kung ang feeling nila matibay na matibay na ito, you only need one [14:03] conviction, uh, of the four at tapos na ang boxing eh, ka nga, uh, justice. Is that correct? [14:10] Uh, that's right. They can, uh, with the approval of the Senate, uh, uh, decide to submit the case on, uh, one or two [14:21] or some, but not all of the articles, in my opinion. [14:25] Justice, uh, pahabo lang na question on my part. Si Atty. Michael Powa, ang, uh, spokesperson for [14:31] for the defense, ay na-interview kanina umaga ng ibang media, and the question was, ano po ang [14:37] magiging aksyon nila? Kasi ang gagamitin ng prosecution na batayan to request for the [14:42] documents, tax records, si Vice President San Duterte is yung corona trial. May sinabi po si [14:47] Atty. Powa kanina umaga, sabi niya parang may mga naging decision naman ng Korte Suprema [14:52] after that eh, mga SC decisions na pwede namin gamitin for our part. Would you know [14:58] po kung ano po mga posibleng pwede nilang gamitin? Uh, hindi ko alam anong tinatukoy [15:04] niya, ngunit, uh, uh, uh, kailangan i-balance yung need for transparency and [15:10] accountability with the requirements of privacy and confidentiality under the laws for [15:16] tax records and bank records. Kaya, uh, it's a fine line. Uh, the presidents are not, uh, [15:24] uh, uh, uniform or clear on this point. So, ang ibig sabihin niya, kung alin man [15:30] ng disisyon ng Senado sa lunes, uh, kung hindi sila satisfied, pwede nilang dalhin sa [15:37] Supreme Court. [15:39] Alright. Uh, Justice, ito po eh, pinag-usapan na ng maraming beses, but I still would [15:44] really appreciate your views on this, ano po. Um, if, napakahabang trial itong ina-expect [15:50] natin, if along the way, the Vice President, Sara Duterte, decides to resign as a Vice President, [16:00] what happens then? Uh, siya po ba ay automatically mababan na to run for another elective office [16:08] thereafter? [16:09] Uh, if, uh, the Vice President, uh, resigns pending the trial, uh, there are, uh, uh, analysts [16:22] and experts who maintain that the case can still continue, uh, because of the other, uh, element [16:29] involved, which is the disqualification. So, it's not just removal that is at issue, but [16:36] also disqualification from public office, from office in the Republic. So, sa palagay ng mga [16:45] ibang observers, pwede ipatuloy pa rin in order to decide on the issue of disqualification. [16:52] Wala pong president dyan. [16:54] Ah. [16:55] Mga po. [16:56] So, hindi, hindi, hindi po matik, hindi automatic to na nag-resign, pag nag-resign siya, [17:02] ibig sabihin, uh, she's more or less accepting the fact na, um, matatalo siya and therefore, [17:09] hindi na siya makakatakbo sa 2028. Hindi po automatic yun. [17:13] Hindi po, dahil, uh, yung disqualification, kailangan ng hatol yan ng Senado. Eh, hindi [17:21] pwedeng, uh, sa resignation lamang, kasi yung resignation, uh, does not carry with it. [17:28] Disqualification. [17:30] Okay. [17:30] Only, uh, stepping down from office. [17:33] Ayun. Okay. Well, that, that's very clear. Um, Justice, panghuli ko na lang po, um, [17:39] meron pong nangyayaring mga sideshow sa ngayon dahil nga doon sa mga pahayag ni, uh, [17:46] ni, uh, Director Matibag ng NBI na they will, they will start or restart, as the case may be the [17:53] investigation into the 2019 Southeast Asian Games, uh, ano to? Purchases, cost and expenses. Ano po? [18:02] Um, um, if you were to be asked, Justice, um, dahil nga medyo nakakagulo na, base sa mga pahayag ni [18:10] dalawang kayetano, no, Senator Pia, tsaka Senator Alan Peter, no, nakakagulo sa impeachment [18:16] proceedings dahil they feel threatened, ano, and harassed, ano, ha, uh, would you suggest, uh, or recommend [18:24] to the DOJ and the NBI in particular, na, huwag niyo na, huwag niyo na munang, uh, umpisahan [18:31] yan, tsaka na lang yan. Would you, would you recommend such? [18:34] Uh, palagay ko po, uh, mas maganda kung, uh, hintay na lamang matapos ang, uh, impeachment [18:44] proceedings para hindi maging suspicious yung timing ng, uh, investigation against, uh, Senator, [18:51] uh, Senator, uh, Alan Peter Cayetano. Anyway, they have not, they have waited already. [18:58] So, sa palagay ko lang, uh, there's no urgency, uh, to start the investigation again now. [19:06] Okay. Maraming maraming salamat po. We, uh, we treasure the minutes you spent with us, uh, [19:13] Justice Ascuna. [19:14] Salamat din po, uh, Rico. [19:15] Okay. Si, uh, Peter po at saka si, uh, Liza Aquino. [19:18] Maraming salamat po, Justice. [19:19] Thank you very much. [19:20] Okay. Si, uh, Justice Adolfo Ascuna, former Associate Justice ng Supreme Court of the Philippines [19:27] at isa sa mga bumalangkas ng 1987 Constitution.