Diokno on Madriaga: Real test of witness’ credibility will be at Senate trial — ANC

[0:01] All right, joining us this morning is Akbayan party list representative [0:04] Shel Diokno. Representative Diokno, good morning to you. [0:10] Oh, you're on mute. Good morning, Karen. Good morning to all the viewers. [0:18] All right, how would you describe Madriaga's testimony? [0:22] Well, you know, first of all, I have to emphasize that the real test of a credibility of a witness [0:30] will come during the trial because that's the time when a witness can be very vigorously cross-examined. [0:37] So doon magkakaalaman kung talagang may basis yung sinasabi niya. [0:41] What we're doing in the House Committee on Justice is really assessing probable cause. [0:47] Now, it's reasonable to say that we should not immediately believe any witness. [0:54] But there are, however, some points that would seem to be, in terms of the evidence that Madriaga said, [1:06] that would seem to help us in terms of assessing that. [1:10] Number one is the fact that he was willing to go under oath and to testify. [1:16] Number two is the fact that he waived bank secrecy. That's an indication of his openness. [1:23] But of course, in terms of the specifics of his testimony, those must be corroborated. [1:28] Now, earlier, you showed a clip of Representative Marcoleta saying that the statements were totally uncorroborated. [1:37] Actually, if you look at the answer of Vice President Sara Duterte, she attached a perjury complaint that she filed against Ramil Madriaga. [1:47] But if you read her perjury complaint, she did corroborate some of the things that he said. [1:55] For example, he said in his supplemental affidavit and the original affidavit that he was present in several virtual meetings with the Vice President. [2:06] That was confirmed in the perjury complaint that the PISARA filed. [2:11] Second, we all saw him handing the flag to VP Sara. In her perjury complaint, she mentioned that and did not deny that it happened. [2:22] And of course, the video itself corroborates that incident took place. [2:27] Next is the fact that Madriaga said he attended her inauguration as Vice President, and that is also in her perjury complaint. [2:37] He also said that he taught a course at the PSG. Although the circumstances were disputed by the Vice President, she did confirm in her perjury complaint that he did teach a course at the PSG. [2:53] And also, he testified that, well, he didn't testify, but he said in a statement that there was, that the Vice President Sara went to the jail where he's detained. [3:06] And she did admit that in her perjury complaint, but she said that she did not visit him. [3:12] Rather, she cited an inquiry report that stated that she visited the former Congressman Tevez. [3:19] So these are things that we are noting. [3:22] But of course, I cannot make any judgment yet on the credibility of the witness. [3:30] That will happen later on if ever this case reaches the trial. [3:33] Okay. Now, in searching, in determining rather probable cause, you only need a very low threshold. [3:43] Kasi di ba, ang probable cause sa Filipino ay may posibilidad na ginawa niya ang krimen. [3:49] Kaya mababa lang ang threshold. [3:51] When it comes to Madriaga, what are you looking for as a member of the committee? [3:56] Yes. First of all, yung ginagawa namin ay talagang nahahalintulad sa ginagawa ng isang piskal o prosecutor. [4:06] So we are here at the inquisitorial stage. [4:10] We're not yet at the adversarial stage, which will happen, if ever, at the Senate. [4:14] Now, what do we look for in the testimony of a witness? [4:19] Number one, of course, how is the testimony incredible, yung hindi kapanipaniwala? [4:26] Second, are there points that can be independently corroborated? [4:33] Third is, are there other witnesses or documents that can also support what this witness is saying? [4:40] And that's why I was saying, Karen, that it's really too early at this stage to make a judgment on the testimony of Madriaga. [4:51] Because dapat tingnan din natin kung nakokoroborate siya, aside from what I mentioned earlier, [4:58] that there were points that were corroborated by Vice President Sara in her perjury complaint. [5:03] Okay. Now, Madriaga said he was willing to waive, right, the bank secrecy in effect for those alleged accounts [5:13] that were asked by the former president for him to open. [5:18] So ang tanong dito, during the impeachment trial of former President Estrada, right? [5:25] I mean, clearly, in the trial, I believe that was the bank manager of BPI. [5:32] You know, the first one account was opened, [5:35] and the manager of that bank did determine that the account existed. [5:41] They verified the transactions as alleged in that account. [5:45] Are you able to do that in the House Justice Committee? [5:49] Or is that already the role of the Senate if they convene as a court? [5:54] Well, that is already the subject of a subpoena that was taken up yesterday. [6:02] And I do believe that that is within the authority of the House. [6:07] The bank secrecy law does not qualify, and it does include impeachment as an exception. [6:14] And I believe that our real purpose here is to get and assess the evidence. [6:20] So we're not here to make a judgment yet, as you said. [6:25] It's just a very preliminary determination of probable cause. [6:28] Pero kasama sa aming tungkulin ay tingnan kung ano ba talaga yung ebidensya. [6:34] And if there's evidence, then to make an assessment accordingly. [6:38] Okay. But if, let's say, those bank accounts, kasi we need na nga, sinabi na, so ibibigay yun. [6:46] The question is, you'd have to either call a witness from the bank to determine that those accounts are real, correct? [6:56] Okay. Well, first, let's see. Let's clarify. [6:59] The waiver that was executed yesterday by Madriaga pertains to his own bank accounts. [7:07] Because in his supplemental affidavit, he said that his accounts were, he actually served as a dummy. [7:14] That's the term he used. [7:16] And that billions of pesos went through his accounts. [7:20] So that would be, since he already executed the waiver, then we should be able to get those records and determine if those corroborate his statements. [7:30] But then an officer from the bank would have to determine and say that, yes, those records are true, that account exists, that kind of money flowed in and out of those accounts. [7:43] Because anybody can submit like a fake document or, in other words, you still need an officer of the bank, correct? [7:50] Yes. And there would be no impediment because the person involved already executed the waiver. [7:56] Okay. And that's what happened. This is where my question leads. [8:01] That's what happened in the hearing of former President Estrada in the Senate. [8:07] But what's different is there was an element of surprise. [8:10] I remember anchoring and covering that. [8:13] And the defense did not know that that bank account existed or that BPI would come. [8:21] So the element of surprise caught the defense team. [8:24] My question, Representative, is in going this far, clearly the defense team is not participating, right? [8:32] One, they can't cross-examine. That's not allowed in the House Committee on Justice. [8:39] Doesn't this help them prepare for the defense if all the evidence is presented early on? [8:47] Because all you need right now is, one, to bring it up to the Senate. [8:52] Madriaga is strong. [8:54] So I just wanted to ask you that. [8:56] This is not, this question is neutral in the sense that if it goes too far that all the evidence is presented, [9:06] doesn't this help Sarah Duterte's team to prepare? [9:11] Well, first of all, I don't think that it's necessary for all the evidence to be presented to the Committee of Justice. [9:18] And there may be evidence that will not be presented to us that could be presented still at the trial. [9:27] So we really cannot say at this point. [9:30] We don't even know whether we will get to a trial or not. [9:34] Why won't you know that? [9:37] I'm curious right now. [9:39] What made you say that? [9:40] That you don't know if you would get into a trial? [9:44] We will know when we finish the hearings and all the evidence that the endorsers present is laid before us. [9:52] And that's the time we make a judgment. [9:54] I don't want to make an angry judgment today, even after hearing the witnesses yesterday, because that's not our job. [10:02] Our job is to assess the entire impeachment complaints. [10:06] Do they have a sufficient evidentiary basis in terms of probable cause? [10:10] And then to make that decision at the end, the stage of the presentation. [10:16] But at the end, it's also a political exercise. [10:20] And we've seen that in past impeachment trials, right? [10:24] Wherein, even if you believe that there's enough grounds, you'd still, at the end of the day, you'd still need one-third to vote for it to pass to the Senate. [10:34] But many believe that there is one-third already at this point. [10:38] That will, we will know that for a fact after the committee finishes its work and submits the report to the plenary. [10:47] And then the plenary will then decide and take a vote. [10:51] And that's when we would know if there would be one-third or not. [10:55] Okay. [10:55] So, Representative, so Madriaga was an explosive witness. [11:00] Okay, that's been determined. [11:02] Number two, his credibility can't be questioned, of course. [11:06] It's not the role of the House Committee on Justice. [11:08] But to a degree, for you to endorse it, you would have to believe in his credibility. [11:15] Correct? [11:17] Yes, definitely. [11:18] I have to emphasize that our purpose here is number one, to make sure that unwarranted cases do not reach the Senate. [11:28] So, kung obvious na obvious na wala naman talagang basehan, then it's our job to dismiss a case like that. [11:36] And also, we don't want to unduly burden our high officials with cases that are baseless. [11:45] That's why the requirement is probable cause. [11:49] So, we can ensure that only cases with merit reach the Senate. [11:54] Okay. [11:55] Now, Representative, I know that the income tax return, that's also being subpoenaed. [12:04] Yes. [12:04] Okay. [12:05] And the team of the vice president, I believe, including her husband, I could be corrected on this, please. [12:12] I know that they are against, and they say it's illegal to subpoena the income tax return. [12:17] Can you clarify to the public, is that a public document, that any individual, any citizen, can get the income tax return of a public official? [12:30] Well, for purposes of determining the probable cause in an impeachment complaint, I believe that that is within the authority of the Committee on Justice. [12:40] Now, of course, in terms of, can anyone get, that to me is really a non-issue here. [12:51] If I may, Karen, just move to the subject a little bit, there is one other thing that happened yesterday that I think is also very important, [13:03] and that is the disclosures made by Attorney Camora of the Commission on Audit about the notices of disallowance that were issued against VP TARA, [13:13] and which she appealed, but as disclosed, the appeals were denied. [13:18] For me, that's very telling, because legally, when a notice of disallowance is affirmed, [13:26] then that gives rise to an obligation on the part of the persons involved, the vice president, other OVP officials, [13:35] to restitute na dapat isoli yung pera. [13:39] And we're not talking about small amounts of money here. [13:42] We're talking about 73 million in 2022 and 375 million in 2023. [13:49] And for me... [13:50] So, kumbaga, halos ano na po ito? [13:53] Halos 500 million, close to 500 in total, right? [13:58] Yeah. [13:58] Like 450 million pesos. [14:02] Okay, go ahead, representative. [14:03] What was telling it to me is the fact that Attorney Camora said that the reason for this allowance had to do with the fact that these funds, [14:16] the confidential funds, were given by the special dispersing officer of the Office of the Vice President [14:23] Protection Security Group, you know, when you're holding public funds, you are responsible for that funds [14:36] and you are supposed to disgrace them in accordance with their purpose. [14:41] And to me, that's joint and several liability on the part of all the officials involved to return that money [14:51] because it was not properly dispersed. [14:55] And that is, to me, a big point that we must also take note of. [15:01] Oh, that would be under betrayal of public trust and it would be graft, correct? [15:07] Yes, it's also part of the allegations regarding how the confidential funds were used or misused. [15:16] And actually, there's a corroboration that's already taken place because Madriaga already alleged he was tasked [15:27] to organize the Vice President Security and Protection Group. [15:31] So then, it's determined that it exists, right? [15:35] And then, a P450 million was allegedly given to the VPSPG. [15:44] Tama po ba yung buong P450 na punta po lang doon? [15:49] Well, according to what I recall of the testimony, [15:54] is that at least insofar as the first P125 million, [15:59] it was even the OVP officials admitted that that was put in duffel bags and then given to Colonel LaChica. [16:10] I'm curious, the OVP officials also testified during the Quadcom hearings, right? [16:18] I believe that was last year, two years ago, or early last year, I'm not sure right now, [16:28] but the Quadcom was at length and the OVP officials testified there. [16:35] Ipapatawag ba sila ulit? [16:37] Or the Quadcom hearings, the committee report on the Quadcom, [16:41] can that be used as evidence also because they also testified under oath? [16:48] Well, their actual testimonies that were taken before the Quadcom [16:52] can be used as evidence here. [16:54] I don't think it's necessary to recall them as witnesses [16:59] because we really are, in terms of time, we don't want this to go on. [17:05] So, kumbaga, posible na hindi natapon yung Quadcom hearings, yung committee report doon. [17:14] Does somebody have to endorse that as evidence? [17:18] Yesterday, Congressman Chua, who will be our guest later, [17:23] actually did a similar kind of manifestation with respect to other matters [17:30] that were also testified to during the Quadcom. [17:33] So, I think that that's a very good action that also should be taken [17:40] for the issues regarding the OVP confidential funds. [17:44] Okay. So, when it comes to the income tax that will come from the BIR, correct? [17:50] Tama, sir, no? [17:51] Kasi the Ombudsman has already said he is willing to release the SAL-N. [17:56] Yes. And if I may add, Karen, when all public officials, when we submit our SAL-N, [18:06] actually execute a waiver where we agree to that other government records [18:12] may be inquired into by the relevant authorities. [18:17] So, I don't think that there's any real legal issue when we do that, [18:24] because Ms. Moore, every year, that is part of the SAL-N that we file. [18:30] And that's a waiver that is binding on all of us. [18:35] Okay. So, with Madriaga's testimony yesterday, and given the fact that he can't be cross-examined, [18:42] number one, he can't be questioned, right? [18:45] His credibility, it's not the forum for his credibility to be challenged. [18:51] Does this mean that his one testimony in the lower house yesterday, [18:59] yun na po yun? He will not come back again? [19:02] Yeah, that was part of the discussion. And from what I recall, what the chair said is that [19:08] she didn't close the door to it. But she said, let's take that up if it becomes necessary to do so. [19:16] Okay. So, you have Madriaga's testimony, the Quad Com Committee reports, [19:21] that actually had a lot of testimonies then, no? [19:25] And then the income tax return, and then the SAL-N. [19:29] Are there other pieces of evidence, Representative Diokno, that the Committee on Justice has called for? [19:39] Yes, I understand that there will be other witnesses or resource persons who will be invited to the next hearing on the 22nd. [19:49] At the close of the hearing yesterday, there was a request as well by Congresswoman Laila De Lima [19:54] to someone, former Senator Trillanes, because it is mentioned in the Sabalia and Cabrera complaints [20:03] that he made certain disclosures previously about unexplained wealth. [20:10] No. But then, Senator Antonio Trillanes, I believe, already testified during the Quad Com, [20:18] where he actually named the bank and alleged that there were more than 2 billion pesos, no, [20:24] in a joint account of former President Duterte and the Vice President, allegedly. [20:29] Kung baga, don't you remember, were you already, ano, in Congress then, Representative Diokno, or not yet? [20:36] Parang di pa, no? [20:38] Oo, wala pa. [20:39] Pero, in ano na yan, kung baga, that's what I'm asking. [20:42] Senator Trillanes already gave that under oath that was presented in the Quad Com. [20:49] So, papatawag ulit. [20:52] I'm not sure what the purpose of Congresswoman Laila is. [20:57] It might be better if you confirm this with her. [21:00] Yeah. [21:00] But given the seriousness of this charge, you know, yung unexplained wealth, [21:06] talagang napakabigat ng mga allegations na yan. [21:10] That may have been one of the reasons why she wanted him to appear prisoner. [21:15] And actually, with the unexplained wealth allegation, [21:21] looking back lang at former President Joseph Estrada's hearing, [21:26] and even Renato Corona, [21:28] when the bank officer is called in a Senate trial, [21:33] that's actually a game-changer. [21:35] Because then the bank determines factually, [21:38] yes, there's 2 billion in this account. [21:41] Yes, billions were deposited in this account. [21:44] Yes, there's 200 million in this account. [21:46] Which, actually, that's what happened to Estrada and Corona. [21:52] Yun yung mabigat dun eh. [21:53] When the bank officials are called. [21:58] Yes. [21:58] And I think that's something that will be taken up during the Senate trial. [22:04] So, kumbaga, you will not yet call bank officials. [22:09] Did you agree? [22:10] I mean, was that a part of the discussion? [22:12] Because that would seem like an already, [22:15] that's determining, let's say, the evidence itself, [22:20] the veracity of the evidence. [22:22] No, no subpoena has been issued for any banks to submit their records. [22:27] What was the evidence comes at the end of the hearing yesterday [22:31] was a request for the issuance of subpoena [22:37] to the Anti-Money Laundering Council. [22:40] Okay. [22:40] My last question, Representative Diocno, [22:44] during the first impeachment complaint [22:47] that was declared null and void, essentially, [22:50] by the Supreme Court, [22:52] that it did not exist, right? [22:55] You were a prosecutor. [22:58] You were going to be appointed, right, [23:00] as one of the prosecutors. [23:03] Yes. [23:04] I was supposed to be going to be, yes. [23:07] Would you be willing to be a prosecutor again [23:11] if this reaches the Senate for a trial? [23:15] Well, first of all, I'd like to see all the evidence [23:18] and make that decision at the proper time. [23:20] But to me, if we're talking about accountability, [23:24] I'm always willing to be part of a group [23:28] that is really after accountability. [23:31] If the evidence is sufficient, [23:34] then, of course, I would be very willing to serve. [23:37] On that note, thank you so much for joining me today. [23:40] Akbayan Partylist Representative, Shel Diocno. [23:43] Thank you, sir. [23:45] Thank you. Good day.