Gutierrez: Main highlight of House hearing was Madriaga’s testimony — ANC

[0:00] And joining us now is another legal mind to weigh in on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. [0:06] Attorney Barry Gutierrez was a lawyer for the complainant in the impeachment of then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2011. [0:13] Attorney Gutierrez, nice to be talking to you. Welcome to the program. Thanks for joining us today. [0:18] Nice to be here, Harvina, and good afternoon. [0:22] All right. First of all, I would like to get your assessment of the process that unfolded yesterday. [0:26] Sure. I think that the main highlight of yesterday's initial hearing, initial evidentiary hearing, was really the testimony of Aramil Mantriaga. [0:41] Because this is the portion of the impeachment complaints filed this year, which is new, at least compared to the issues that were raised last year. [0:52] So a lot of people were looking forward to hearing directly for the first time from this new witness who brings a fresh set of allegations. [1:03] And I think that while he delivered insofar as his affidavit and his testimony were concerned, [1:09] he went into very, very detailed discussions of his role as a supposed bad man for VP Sara Duterte, the amounts of money involved. [1:20] I think the soundbite of the day was actually his statement that it was not true that VP Sara had consumed 125 million pesos in 11 days. [1:35] In fact, he himself personally disbursed this same amount within a 24-hour period. [1:41] So I think that the allegations themselves and the detail within which he went into them demonstrates why the camp of VP Sara Duterte was very, very eager to not let this particular testimony come to light, [2:01] considering that at least taking it at face value, it raises a lot of questions that now have to be answered in the same level of detail by the camp of VP Sara Duterte. [2:12] And speaking of the camp of VP, we had her lawyer for that perjury case against Madriaga, Attorney Paolo Panelo, just a few minutes before we got you in on the call. [2:23] Precisely, he said, yesterday just showed why the VP shouldn't waste your time in the proceedings because it was all lies. [2:34] He claims that everything that Madriaga said in his supplemental affidavit added to the lies that he already said in the original affidavit. [2:44] Your thoughts on that, Attorney Gutierrez? [2:47] Well, you know, one, it's not completely unexpected that they would deny the allegations and the other statements made by Mr. Madriaga, [2:59] both in the original affidavit and in his supplemental affidavit submitted yesterday. [3:03] The statements standing by themselves are very damaging. [3:07] But, you know, aside from a bare denial, I would expect that if they are really confident that these are, in fact, fabrications, [3:16] that these are, in fact, completely fictional, as they have been claiming in media for the last several months, [3:23] then they should also go into the details. [3:25] Madriaga, in his affidavit and in his testimony, provided very, very specific details about six banks that he brought money to, [3:35] about meetings and conversations with Vice President Sara Duterte and other personalities within her inner circle. [3:42] So, if their intention is to cast doubt and to demonstrate that all these statements are completely false, [3:51] that they are works of fiction crafted by Madriaga, then they should get down to the details. [3:58] They should talk about specific instances that he brought up and show why these are demonstrably false. [4:06] Because the weakest defense is a bare denial. [4:10] That's actually the minimum that you should be expecting of a defendant in a proceeding such as this. [4:18] So, you know, if they want to be able to actually question the credibility [4:23] and establish what they have been saying about the supposed falsity of this statement, [4:28] then we should expect that they go into the nitty-gritty and also dispute these claims detail for detail. [4:36] And that's exactly what they intend to do. [4:38] It's just that it's not going to be at the House Justice Committee proceedings. [4:42] Attorney Panelo claiming just a while ago that that is not the proper forum. [4:47] You were there before as a complaint, as a lawyer of one of the complainants in the impeachment complaints [4:53] against then-Ombudsman Mercedes Gutierrez. [4:56] Talk to us about that moment then and why it should not be seen as a waste of time for the Vice President [5:06] to actually engage in this part of the process. [5:09] Because they're saying, Attorney Gutierrez, this is just going to be a waste of time. [5:13] They intend to answer detail by detail, as you said, but not here. [5:19] They're going to have that day at the Senate. [5:21] Your thoughts? [5:21] Well, first of all, I find that it's strange that that claim is being made by them at this point, [5:30] considering that last year, they were insisting on the exact opposite, [5:34] which was that the House rushed that particular process of impeachment [5:38] and that resulted in a denial of due process on the part of VP Sara Duterte. [5:44] In fact, in the Supreme Court decision that came out, upholding their position, [5:49] it was the Supreme Court that clarified that, among many other requirements, [5:54] the Vice President should be afforded her opportunity to respond to any charges [6:01] that contained in impeachment, even at the level of the House of Representatives. [6:05] So it's quite odd for them, having won that legal victory last year in the Supreme Court, [6:13] to now turn around and say, [6:15] well, we didn't want the opportunity to answer these charges anyway at the House. [6:19] We'll just do all these things in the Senate. [6:22] I think that has to be pointed out. [6:24] Secondly, going back to my own experience as a lawyer for complainants [6:30] in an impeachment proceeding that actually went through the House Committee on Justice. [6:36] This is a proceeding that the Supreme Court itself has said is akin to a preliminary investigation. [6:44] And in a preliminary investigation, it is the job of the prosecutor, [6:47] and in this case, it is the members of the House Committee on Justice, [6:51] to actually make a determination on probable cause. [6:54] In other words, it is their job to go through the complaints [6:59] to see if there is actually a foundation for believing [7:04] that these constitute impeachable offenses [7:07] that should be brought to the Senate for a fuller trial. [7:12] In other words, this is part of the screening process [7:15] because you don't want any frivolous accusation [7:19] that happened to be brought before the House of Representatives [7:22] and endorsed by a single member [7:24] to all the time go up immediately to the Senate [7:28] for a full-blown trial [7:29] with all the time and effort and expense [7:32] that that will actually intend. [7:34] So, it is highly surprising [7:37] that given the opportunity to participate at this level [7:40] and, you know, to, again, [7:42] to harp back to what is now ancient history, [7:46] during the time of the impeachment [7:48] of the Ombudsman Gutierrez, [7:50] who, by the way, I'm not related to, [7:52] let's make that clear, [7:55] they did. [7:56] Her lawyers actually attended. [7:58] Of course, since they were already also intending [8:02] and they, in fact, did file a case [8:03] before the Supreme Court [8:04] to question the validity of the proceedings, [8:07] they did so, again, ad cutela. [8:10] It was conditional that, you know, [8:12] we're not necessarily accepting the jurisdiction, [8:15] but they did attend. [8:16] And in the questions being raised [8:20] by members of the House of Representatives, [8:23] they were able to actually send their own questions [8:27] through the chair [8:28] to ask clarificatory questions of witnesses. [8:31] So, I think that the fact [8:33] that the Vice President's team [8:35] has decided to completely forego [8:37] this part of the proceedings, [8:39] well, I suppose it's a legal strategy on their part, [8:42] but they're missing an opportunity here [8:46] to immediately start building their case [8:51] that the statements of Madriaga are, in fact, unfounded [8:54] and that the other allegations contained in the impeachment [8:57] should not be considered [8:59] as being sufficient [9:02] to stand as grounds for impeachment. [9:06] So, I just think that [9:10] it is highly unusual [9:11] for them not to participate. [9:13] And if you look at the way [9:15] that the Committee on Justice Chair yesterday, [9:18] Congresswoman Jinky Luisto, ran it, [9:21] she was very, very careful [9:23] to cut off members of the committee [9:27] who, in her estimation, [9:30] were already asking questions [9:31] that were probing in character. [9:33] Meaning, these were no longer simply clarifications [9:36] of allegations [9:37] already contained in the impeachment, [9:40] but were already attempting [9:41] to solicit additional information. [9:43] And I think that that is a testament [9:46] to how carefully [9:48] the House is conducting this entire proceeding [9:51] so as to adhere as closely as possible [9:54] to what they think [9:56] the Supreme Court has laid down [9:58] as the standard [9:59] at this level [10:00] or at this stage of the impeachment. [10:02] Yes, Attorney Gutierrez, [10:03] is it safe then to say [10:05] that the proceedings at this stage, [10:07] at this stage of the impeachment proceedings [10:09] against the Vice President, [10:10] that this actually benefits, [10:13] should benefit the Vice President [10:15] because this is sort of the screening process [10:18] because you don't want [10:19] it to be transmitted to the Senate [10:22] with all the falsities, [10:24] possible falsities, [10:25] that may be part of the articles of impeachment. [10:29] As you said, [10:31] sa panahon ngayon, [10:32] ito yung pagsasala [10:34] kung meron nga bang [10:36] sapat na ebidensya [10:39] para dalin ito sa Senado [10:40] para naman pagdating doon [10:42] ay nasala na ng husto. [10:46] Because they're saying [10:47] it's a waste of time, [10:48] but you're saying [10:48] this is actually, [10:50] this will actually benefit [10:51] the Vice President, [10:54] Attorney Gutierrez. [10:55] Kung mag-engage siya, [10:57] e kung mag-engage. [10:58] Yeah. [10:58] In fact, [11:00] that's the whole point [11:01] of both the House proceeding [11:03] in an impeachment [11:04] and a preliminary investigation [11:06] in criminal cases. [11:07] So that not every complaint [11:09] filed against a person [11:11] automatically goes to trial. [11:14] There is a screening process [11:15] as you very accurately put it. [11:19] This is really intended [11:20] to be that screening process. [11:22] And ordinarily, [11:23] ordinarily, [11:23] if I'm representing [11:24] or I'm advising a person [11:26] charged with a criminal complaint [11:30] and we are undergoing [11:31] the preliminary investigation, [11:33] my default advice [11:35] would be to engage [11:36] as fully as possible [11:37] in this process. [11:38] Because if we can already [11:40] demonstrate at this point [11:41] that the case is weak [11:43] and there is no probable cause, [11:44] then it doesn't even [11:45] have to go to trial. [11:46] Para dito pa lang, [11:48] ibasura na. [11:50] Yes. [11:50] That is the point. [11:52] So the fact that the... [11:53] And that was their argument [11:55] last time. [11:56] They were saying [11:57] we were not given [11:58] the opportunity [12:00] to actually answer [12:02] the charges against us [12:04] at the House. [12:05] They immediately [12:05] went up to the Senate [12:07] because they used [12:08] the fast-track method, [12:10] the one-third vote. [12:12] And the Supreme Court [12:12] in that decision, [12:15] and that part of the decision [12:19] has been criticized heavily. [12:21] But nonetheless, [12:22] the Supreme Court said [12:23] even in a situation [12:24] where the Constitution says [12:27] if you get a one-third vote, [12:29] the complaint will already [12:31] be elevated immediately [12:32] to the Senate, [12:32] the Supreme Court said [12:33] even in that case, [12:35] the respondent [12:36] should be given [12:37] an opportunity to answer. [12:38] Which again, [12:39] underscores even more [12:41] emphatically [12:42] that at this stage, [12:44] if you take advantage [12:45] of the opportunity [12:48] to answer, [12:48] you can actually, [12:50] theoretically at least, [12:53] already establish [12:55] that this case [12:56] should not even [12:56] proceed to trial at all. [12:58] Okay, I just have [12:59] a final question [12:59] for you, [13:00] Attorney Gutierrez, [13:00] because we're running [13:01] out of time. [13:02] You mentioned [13:02] how the supplemental affidavit [13:04] really went into detail, [13:07] but was it too detailed [13:12] that it was actually embellished [13:15] because now people [13:16] are talking about [13:17] the painting. [13:17] Now you have an artist [13:19] coming from Davao [13:20] saying that [13:20] it is not true [13:22] what Madriaga claimed, [13:23] that he had commissioned [13:24] that painting [13:25] from a scholar [13:26] that he had in Laguna, [13:27] but that it was actually [13:28] her who was the master [13:32] behind that painting [13:34] and she actually gifted it [13:35] to the vice president. [13:36] Your thoughts on that? [13:38] Well, first on the painting, [13:40] I don't know if, [13:42] I saw a post earlier [13:44] this morning [13:44] claiming that [13:45] the painting [13:47] that the artist [13:47] was claiming [13:48] she gifted to V. Pizarra [13:49] is actually different [13:50] from the painting [13:51] Madriaga gave [13:52] and they had another name [13:54] of another person [13:54] showing another painting. [13:56] So I don't know [13:56] what the truth of that is. [13:58] But that said, [14:00] that's precisely the point. [14:02] I mean, [14:02] if you're just looking at it [14:04] from the point of view [14:05] of someone [14:06] who wants [14:07] V. Pizarra Duterte [14:10] impeached [14:10] and convicted, [14:12] yes, [14:13] you would want [14:14] to confine [14:15] or limit [14:16] the details [14:17] of these affidavits [14:18] only to the [14:19] most germane point [14:20] so, [14:21] mas mahirap [14:21] maghanap ng butas. [14:23] But the fact [14:23] that there are indeed [14:24] so many details, [14:26] including something [14:26] as specific [14:27] as a painting [14:28] that was supposedly [14:30] given to V. Pizarra Duterte, [14:32] actually, [14:33] to my mind, [14:35] lends even more [14:36] credence [14:37] to the testimony [14:38] because, [14:39] and, you know, [14:40] affords [14:41] a greater [14:41] degree of opportunity [14:44] for both [14:45] the House [14:46] and ultimately [14:47] the Senate [14:48] to check [14:49] the validity [14:50] or the integrity [14:51] of the statements [14:52] in these. [14:53] Because there are now [14:54] more handles [14:55] that you can look at. [14:56] There are more [14:56] factual points [14:58] that you can cross-check [15:00] and double-check. [15:01] So, [15:01] to my mind, [15:02] as a spectator, [15:05] this is actually [15:05] a good thing [15:06] if our purpose [15:07] is really to find out [15:08] what the truth is [15:09] regarding [15:10] these allegations. [15:12] Okay. [15:12] Final question [15:13] before we let you go. [15:14] This early, [15:15] though, [15:16] as a spectator, [15:18] do you think [15:19] from what happened [15:20] yesterday [15:21] that there is [15:21] probable cause? [15:24] I think that [15:25] the standard [15:25] of probable cause [15:26] is a fairly low [15:27] bar to clear. [15:30] It's essentially [15:31] just the idea [15:32] that a reasonable [15:34] person, [15:35] having seen [15:35] the allegations [15:36] and the evidence [15:37] thus far presented, [15:38] would believe [15:39] that a crime [15:40] has been committed [15:41] and that in this [15:42] particular case [15:43] that impeachable [15:43] offenses [15:44] have been committed [15:45] and that the [15:46] Vice President [15:47] is likely guilty [15:48] of them. [15:48] And I think that [15:49] if we take [15:50] at face value [15:51] the facts [15:54] that have come out [15:55] not only [15:55] in the Madriaga [15:56] affidavit [15:57] but in relation [15:58] to the other issues [15:59] such as, [16:00] for example, [16:00] the COA [16:01] statement [16:02] regarding the [16:03] disposition [16:04] of confidential [16:04] funds [16:05] and the fact [16:06] that the notice [16:07] of this allowance [16:07] has already [16:08] become final, [16:10] I think that [16:11] there is enough [16:12] to actually [16:13] conclude [16:15] that the [16:15] very minimum [16:17] threshold [16:17] of probable [16:18] cause has been [16:18] met [16:19] and that this [16:19] should proceed [16:20] to trial. [16:21] Attorney Barry [16:22] Gutierrez [16:23] there, [16:23] former [16:23] Akbayan [16:24] representative [16:24] joining us [16:25] this noon. [16:25] Maraming salamat po.