LOOK: Marcoleta, Legarda join afternoon Senate session after Gatchalian election — ANC

[0:01] professor damase as we speak and we're looking at the video live feed from from the senate [0:08] do you think there you have senator vicente sort of the third um talking to senator marco let that [0:15] do you think that this is a picture of the philippine senate finally waking up from the [0:20] nightmare we all saw some two weeks ago well i hope i've not proven wrong but i think it is [0:28] i think there's recognition within the chamber you see there uh senator zubiri and hugging uh senator [0:35] ligarda i think there's this is a response to the senate of the senate rather um to the very strong [0:44] popular pushback against what was seen really as a dysfunctional upper chamber of of the of congress [0:52] and it might be the senate trying to win back some of the confidence that was clearly lost in the last [0:58] months um that the drama in the senate was unfolding beginning with the um with the [1:05] the failed attempt or yes uh senator but so we expect a lot from our senate in the sense that [1:12] this is a small chamber one of the smallest upper chambers in the world they're supposed to be [1:17] mature uh you know more national nationalist politicians who do not represent just specific [1:24] districts but a national mandate and therefore a lot of responsibility in fiscal management fiscalizing [1:30] is with the senate um we're hoping to see a lot more of that now um instead of the leadership changes [1:37] that we've been focused on in the last month or so professor we may be seeing all hearts and rainbows [1:44] now there at the senate but make no mistake about it this is just one day one day of the many days that [1:50] have yet to come and it's all going to be leading to july 6th which is the start of the vice president's [1:57] impeachment trial we still have to resolve um the situation of senator bongo and yesterday senator jingo [2:06] estrada was slapped with a 90-day preventive suspension how does this all now come into play [2:14] with july 6 just around the corner so there are open questions on um that that were left hanging [2:23] even with the change in the senate leadership or with the concession of senator cayetano [2:27] one of them is how to read the constitutional requirement on all of the members um when it comes [2:32] to deciding the impeachment threshold or the conviction threshold so the constitution says that [2:38] it's two-thirds of all of the members you currently have two competing interpretations of that [2:44] the first is a conventional interpretation that all of the members pertain to 24 senators [2:50] and um that's based on uh past practice where the senate really does try to look at all of the [2:57] available senators uh in in counting the numbers required in the constitution but the other emerging [3:05] interpretation um by justice scarpio professor carlo cruz many other academics is that if we interpret [3:12] uh that strictly to the point that we include in the denominator basically senators who cannot be [3:20] found senators who are um preventively suspended and therefore cannot perform their senate functions [3:27] or senators who are under detention and therefore cannot participate in senate hearings then we are [3:32] opening the uh practical uh possibility that many of the senate's functions will not be fulfilled [3:40] because of the uh uh an overly strict reading of the threshold uh provisions so the emerging view is [3:48] that we only count senators who are um present and able to participate um or uh able to participate and [3:56] not under uh detention um in those all of the members uh clauses we don't know yet um how that will be [4:04] interpreted the senate quorum is one thing that's been basically mooted by what we're seeing now [4:10] leadership is another thing because that's basically changed already but how to count the threshold vote [4:16] for conviction and impeachment is the open question and i think we're going to see in the next few days [4:21] um how the senate's attitude may be towards this um would they call for a rule change for example or will [4:28] they leave the question hanging until at a point where they can more or less get a feel of whether there's [4:34] a consensus on how to read this constitutional provision because essentially a professor how [4:39] can a vacant chair perform the duty of an elected senator i mean even if we talk about warm bodies [4:48] they're not there right they're not there so essentially we're talking about a vacant chair here [4:54] and how can a vacant chair perform the duties of an elected senator that's right and i think that's why [5:00] the emerging view is becoming increasingly persuasive especially when you consider the current senate's [5:09] composition so there are you know a couple of fraud control investigations still ongoing there may be [5:15] charges filed against other sitting senators and that might drastically lower the senate's number [5:21] to make it impossible for impeachment and i think that means that we look at the reason why those [5:27] absolute majority provisions exist um when the question is brought to the senate and the senate is [5:34] required by the constitution to to decide by all of its members it refers to simply important questions [5:41] where as many people as possible should be heard um and should be able to participate but as career [5:47] you point out some of the senators you will not be able to participate in the trial then it does make [5:52] sense um i think from that to lean on the emerging view that maybe we should only look at senators who [5:59] will be able or physically able to participate in these proceedings okay let's talk about senate president [6:06] sherwin gachalian just elected uh this morning um they also amended their own rules right um to have a [6:15] presiding officer if i'm not correct if i'm not if i'm not mistaken that can be separate from the senate [6:22] president um is that going to benefit this trial um the impending trial of the vice president that [6:33] yes you have a senate president who may be different from the presiding officer um when the impeachment [6:41] trial begins so i think we need to contextualize the rule change i understand that the rule change really [6:47] comes from the fact that senator gachalian is not a lawyer and would not you know um be able if he were [6:54] to manage the impeachment proceeding it might be a little more difficult i'd want to push back against [6:59] that point in the sense that you don't need a lawyer to participate in the impeachment proceedings in fact [7:05] it might highlight the unique um popular character of impeachment if we don't have a lawyer presiding over it [7:11] but that said if the senate in its wisdom finds that because of its tradition and its past practice [7:16] and impeachment it would help to have a lawyer preside over the uh impeachment of vice president [7:22] duterte then there's nothing in the constitution that prevents the senate from doing that the only [7:28] time that the constitution sets who the presiding officer in an impeachment would be is in the [7:33] impeachment of a president and in that case it's the chief justice who gets to preside [7:38] in fact the constitutional design only copies that from the united states where the chief justice has [7:44] to preside over the impeachment of a president because the usual president of the u.s senate who [7:49] is the vice president will have a conflict of interest in succeeding to the open seat that may [7:54] happen if a president is convicted so that's purely out of the constitutional uh constitutional choice [8:01] that was made by by the framers so in all other respects how the senate conducts its impeachment trial [8:09] is really up to the senate and if it changes its rules in order to allow a presiding officer [8:14] to be different than the senate president then i don't see any constitutional difficulty [8:19] in fact it might present um an opportunity for the senate to streamline its processes in the sense [8:24] that it will be able to conduct and do its normal legislative work while an impeachment trial is [8:30] ongoing to be presided by a different officer interesting view right there let's go to one of the senator [8:35] judges before we let you go professor tamase senator bongo as we all know his name has been cropping up [8:42] um when you talk about the flood control scandal and also when you talk about um the icc [8:49] in the event um that he there is uh that he is charged here for the flood control scandal and the arrest warrant is [8:57] out for him from the icc which one takes precedence over the other i think it depends on one timing and the [9:08] second is who will be the one enforcing it um certainly the domestic whether one is legally superior over [9:16] the other um might not be a proper question in the sense that you know an icc warrant in international [9:23] law um has the same force as and weight as a domestic warrant in our philippine law um and so a lot of [9:30] it will depend on practicalities like like timing for one um which wire gets to be issued first um if [9:37] it's a icc warrant you would run into the same problems that we've had with senator batos icc warrant [9:44] where sometimes there's a um push and pull between the executive's willingness to actually um carry out [9:51] that warrant but for a domestic warrant then it's more settled that a court can simply issue it and [9:57] that philippine authorities would be obliged to implement it um the second issue other than [10:03] therefore timing might be who will actually issue the warrant so as i said earlier if it's the icc [10:09] you know you may run into the same issues as with senator um senator baton de la rosa okay one final [10:15] issue i wanted to talk to you about again is that lengthy press con that we saw that was led by [10:22] former congressman mike defensor um senator sherwin gachalian yesterday said that you know there were [10:28] a lot of questions in so many words he is not they were calling it a blue ribbon committee hearing [10:34] but he's not a sitting senator he's not even a sitting congressman he's not member of any blue [10:38] ribbon committee so what did we just see yesterday and what do you make of all the allegations then made [10:44] yesterday by mike defensor and company so first it's not a committee hearing it's a press conference [10:52] that was held outside of the senate and therefore as a second um offshoot of that the usual protections [11:00] that will apply uh to sitting members of congress in these hearings will not apply uh to this case [11:09] um there is a litigation risk uh potential criminal liability for defamation um not only against um [11:17] congressman defensor but against the witnesses who were present or supposed witnesses who were present [11:23] in that press conference um i think you'd have to look into uh the same time a constitutional requirement [11:30] that for public officers the requirement is actual malice that there must be a blatant disregard for the [11:37] truth um in relation to comments made against public officers before the people making those comments [11:43] will be held viable but given the character of the press conference yesterday where i think you're [11:49] starting to see against for example the photos of senator kiko uh long you know videos of what the [11:57] actual event was it wasn't a handover of uh bribes but it was actually a a relief operation in marawi then [12:06] you know there's certainly some possibility that you know people involved in yesterday's press [12:11] conference no face criminal charges if there's a willingness on the part of the affected public [12:16] officers to bring them uh to bring them to the proper authorities so to your mind did they present [12:24] any piece of compelling evidence to prove their allegations against everyone they mentioned yesterday [12:31] respectfully no so i for one there was already a rebuttal on the part of trying to explain the [12:37] context of that photo that was presented yesterday the second is with all due respect to these resource [12:44] persons you're starting to see serious inconsistencies in the testimony um and those inconsistencies change [12:52] almost on a day-to-day basis um every time you get to hear them in a senate hearing or in this case [12:58] a press conference the version changes the people involved change um there's also in the last testimony at [13:05] least the one before the press conference a good point made that the total number of bills that were [13:10] being um supposedly transferred to these maletas would exceed uh the circulation of the current [13:18] bill circulation in the philippines so the impossibility of the testimony is becoming clear um as each day [13:26] goes by so i think it's important in order not to there's always the risk that these types of press [13:32] conferences will take will have a life of their own and therefore consume the public's attention [13:37] it's important for institutions of accountability to properly push back so for one the senate blue [13:43] ribbon committee will be reconstituted because of the new change in leadership there's nothing that [13:48] harms them or stops them from calling back precisely these marines so that they can explain before a [13:54] committee now undoubtedly properly constituted um their testimony and to put them under oath or a proper oath [14:02] and therefore be subject to the same limitations that um apply to any person making these kinds of [14:07] charges or as some experts would also say they can just you know write their personal affidavit submitted [14:13] to the ombudsman if they do not want to participate at the senate blue ribbon committee hearing yes but i [14:20] think the importance of the senate potentially calling them back um is also for because of the damage that [14:29] was done to people who may have been innocent throughout this whole or the last few hearings [14:34] that were being conducted so the difficult it's it's certainly correct that if they wanted to push [14:39] this before the ombudsman the proper way to do it would be through a proper affidavit and that doesn't [14:44] mean hiding behind 18 as a group it means individually executing those affidavits and letting them um you know [14:52] be submitted to the ombudsman but the importance of probably calling them back as well is so that they [14:58] can correct cure uh amend whatever statement that they have made that may have been inaccurate [15:05] um in the same forum in the same public uh forum where they made those allegations so it's a way for [15:12] the senate to correct some of the sorry to say perjuries that may have been um stated in the past few [15:19] hearings attorney paulo tomase there associate dean and assistant professor at the up college of law [15:25] as always we appreciate your insights thanks for the guidance thanks for joining us today thank you [15:31] and good afternoon president marcus's trip to russia seen by an analyst as strengthening philippine foreign [15:38] policy the chief executive is set to arrive in russia anytime now professor aries arugai of the [15:44] university of the philippines says marcus's meeting with russian leader vladimir putin will reaffirm [15:49] manila's friend to all enemy to none approach to foreign relations arugai adds the philippines can [15:55] secure economic gains though security is expected to remain a thorny issue the philippines is striving [16:04] hard for energy resilience for food security and for trade and investment that russia could possibly [16:11] contribute to but as far as security i think uh in terms of strategic autonomy and in being able to help [16:20] russia uh assert for example our rights in the south china sea that might be a complicating factor [16:25] because at the moment most of our partners strategic partners countries that have helped us or at least [16:34] aligned with us on the south china sea issue are countries that don't have good relations with russia