Zamora on SC petition vs VP impeachment: 'Expected'; House Justice panel hearings will continue

[0:00] all right i want to start first with uh i think your reaction right i mean your reaction right [0:07] now that sarah vice president duterte's legal team uh essentially once again went to the supreme [0:14] court it's a 186 petition and declaring that there's been a grave abuse of discretion on the [0:23] part of the house in terms of conducting the impeachment complaint hearings i want to get [0:29] your reaction on that first well of course we expected that and uh we uh we well we felt that [0:37] they were gonna file a petition before the supreme court i mean um you know they have she has her [0:44] lawyers and uh it is just natural for the lawyers to exhaust all remedies available to them all [0:52] right so you expected that yes now you did announce i find this interesting you did [1:00] that you already see enough votes for a solid impeachment case against the vice president [1:07] so given that you yeah given that you already see that there's enough votes to impeach her all you [1:13] need is one-third what do you think should happen next well what will happen next is the [1:22] continuation of the proceedings before the committee on justice where we will have a hearing [1:30] as stated in the rules of impeachment of the house of representatives so we will proceed with a [1:36] hearing of course i admit i said that we have enough votes and this is this statement was based [1:43] on um you know conversations with colleagues regarding the impeachment case and uh in fact [1:54] ma'am karen i admit that we probably won't have the same number of votes as last year [2:00] but based on will they be more more or will they be less i i'm not sure i i would think that it [2:09] would be less just because uh there are concerns by by some colleagues about impending the coming [2:18] elections and you know alliances that have to be made in the coming months in any case [2:26] yes, I mean i will admit to that and i will say that some of them express concerns um well we [2:52] we know that the vice president uh said that she was going to run so a lot of them as [2:57] especially those from Mindanao, are concerned about their political future. [3:03] All right. Okay, but they're not concerned that they believe the vice president has to be made accurate where she spent the funds in question right now? [3:22] Well, that's one of the things that I tell them. [3:28] I would tell my friends that the issues are in fact the same as those listed or as those alleged in the impeachment complaints last year. [3:42] And maybe it would be good to participate in the proceedings and see the evidence as presented before and as will be presented in the hearings before the Committee on Justice. [3:55] Okay. So when you did say that you see enough evidence, [4:00] that there's enough votes, there's a solid impeachment case, [4:03] did you imply that already at this point, since it is sufficient informed substance and grounds, that it already be brought to the plenary? [4:15] Not yet. Of course, we will follow the rules on impeachment proceedings, [4:23] and we will still have to determine probable cause as stated in our rules. [4:29] And maybe for the... [4:32] understanding of others, what we are doing right now is a preliminary investigation akin to the preliminary investigation in criminal cases. [4:42] So while I, again, we said that it appears that we have the numbers, we still have to go through the process. [4:52] We still have to vet documents, verify the authenticity of these documents, [5:01] especially the ones that are in the criminal case. [5:02] And then we will have to send those attached to the complaint and to the answer, if ever. [5:04] All right, the representative Luis Stroh has also made it clear that you really need to be careful. [5:13] He is careful to follow the rules. [5:15] Exactly. [5:16] For it not, they say, to bring it back to the Supreme Court again. [5:20] And that's the issue again. [5:25] That's correct. [5:26] So my question is, when it comes to evidence, right? [5:30] So let's look at the case of Propaganda. [5:31] right so let's say i think the biggest here would be madriaga as a witness uh what is the latitude [5:40] and the coverage of the house justice committee okay so hearing sins on under your rules under [5:50] your rules a non-member cannot ask right questions the lawyer itself of the vice president cannot [5:58] cross right they can't even ask questions to the witness themselves they can't cross right [6:05] they can't challenge the witness so i know i know i got an representative but the thing [6:12] house committee on justice okay so let me clarify that first ma'am karen they are not allowed to [6:20] cross to ask questions for the very reason that this is a preliminary investigation [6:26] and even in [6:28] the prosecutor's office the parties or the their councils are not allowed to do that [6:34] so it is the members of the justice committee who are acting as prosecutors [6:39] who are expected to propound questions to the witnesses and upon hangganan well we [6:48] we are limited by this preliminary investigation um we are there to check the veracity for example [6:58] as [6:58] as regards madriaga um we have not declared him to be uh either a competent or an incompetent witness [7:10] um contrary to uh the statements made by some colleagues that uh uh maybe he is of questionable [7:19] character so it is uh incumbent upon us to check the veracity of his statements and um we are not [7:30] whether he was lying when he made his affidavit. [7:34] But we will not be conducting all of the searching questions [7:40] that are expected to come from the senators. [7:42] Yes. [7:43] I'm here to clarify that hypothetically, [7:50] let's say some of your colleagues end up saying Madriaga is a polluted witness. [7:56] That's irrelevant to the trial itself [8:00] because Madriaga can still be used against the vice president in the trial. [8:05] It is only the senator judges who can determine if he is lying, right? [8:11] Because you are not trial judges. [8:14] So yeah, that's the question. [8:15] Madriaga will come, he will say his testimony. [8:19] There will be congressmen who will say it's not true, you're polluted. [8:24] There will be congressmen who will say it's true what you're saying. [8:28] Technically, you can't write him off. [8:30] You can't write him off or include him in evidence. [8:33] You can't. [8:34] Because it's only in the trial proper [8:36] that the senator judges can make the decision [8:39] to say write him off or include him. [8:43] Yes, and I believe that our chairwoman [8:45] will be able to see whether the members are overreaching their limit. [8:55] Because most likely the senator judges just offhand [8:59] have covered their limits. [9:00] They've covered three impeachment trials already. [9:03] They will want to hear him in the trial, that's for sure. [9:08] Yes. [9:08] Yeah, they will want to, right? [9:10] And they will decide, they will cross him. [9:13] But for sure, they will want him in. [9:17] My question is, of the House Committee on Justice, [9:19] you need to secure him, right? [9:21] You need to secure him. [9:23] Once he's secured, what happens after? [9:26] Will you return him to detention? [9:29] Right? [9:30] Yes. [9:30] Because there is an existing case. [9:32] And, well, as of the last hearing, [9:38] when we approved the motions made then, [9:43] we all agreed that, of course, the jurisdiction [9:48] as regards Madriaga lies with the court [9:52] where the case is pending. [9:54] And we will be in coordination with the court [9:58] and the police and the other officials. [10:01] Yeah. [10:02] Because... [10:03] Because his safety is imperative. [10:05] That's right. [10:06] Yes. [10:07] Right? [10:07] Representative Shell Diokno, I think, made that clear. [10:11] Yes. [10:12] And he was the one who presented that. [10:13] And that's right, right? [10:17] The SAL-N is interesting because I firmly believe [10:21] that each and every public official must explain [10:25] how their SAL-N has changed while in office. [10:29] Yes. [10:30] But the question is, when the SAL-N comes to you, [10:33] because the SAL-N in itself, when it comes to you, [10:35] it's not a crime. [10:36] Yes. [10:37] In itself, right? [10:38] Yes. [10:39] In itself. [10:40] Yes. [10:41] My SAL-N went up. [10:42] It's not criminal. [10:43] Yes. [10:44] The crime is determined if you are unable to prove. [10:48] Correct. [10:49] Right? [10:50] The SAL-N went up legally. [10:51] Correct. [10:52] It's expected to be free. [10:53] Yes. [10:54] So when the SAL-N comes to you, [10:56] but when the SAL-N comes to you, [10:58] what can, how far can the house go? [11:02] When clearly, the camp of the vice president, [11:06] the vice president for sure, [11:08] will not explain it in the house. [11:10] Okay. [11:11] So what we will do with that is, [11:13] well, we subpoenaed the, [11:16] we subpoenaed SAL-N. [11:18] SAL-N. [11:19] I think it's based on the motion of Congredon. [11:22] And that was approved. [11:24] And I guess it will be used to show certain allegations [11:32] in the complaint regarding the SAL-N violation. [11:36] Or the non-disclosure in the SAL-N. [11:41] What do you mean non-disclosure? [11:46] When you have a SAL-N and it's increased, [11:49] that's disclosure. [11:50] I mean, I just want you to clarify. [11:52] It's the explanation. [11:53] It's not the non-disclosure. [11:55] If it's in the SAL-N, then it's disclosed. [11:58] What the vice president needs to do is explain. [12:01] What was alleged in the complaints, [12:04] in the two complaints, [12:05] is the non-disclosure of many, [12:08] many assets, [12:11] many figures, I believe. [12:13] And again, I know that this is the beef of the respondent [12:20] in saying that it was not properly identified [12:27] or there was no ultimate facts. [12:29] But again, like in previous SAL-N impeachment case, [12:33] like in Corona, [12:35] the statement of the non-disclosure of these, [12:39] of certain assets or even just one asset in the SAL-N [12:43] and the failure to show the proper increase [12:51] or the reason for that increase was, [12:54] well, that was used against Corona. [12:59] Yes. [13:00] But with CJ Corona, [13:02] there are properties that are named after him [13:05] that are not included in the SAL-N. [13:08] Yes. [13:09] What about the vice president, [13:10] for our viewers, [13:11] that are named after him [13:13] that are not included in the SAL-N? [13:15] If I'm not mistaken, [13:16] there are, well, [13:20] the first bank accounts [13:23] and I believe that... [13:27] The one alleged by what? [13:29] To clarify, [13:30] the one alleged by Senator Antonio Trillanes. [13:33] Yes. [13:35] And if I'm not mistaken, [13:36] as of last year... [13:37] Yes, that's one. [13:38] Okay. [13:39] In our proceedings, [13:40] in our, yeah, [13:42] proceedings for the impeachment last year, [13:44] they said that that account is still active. [13:48] And to add to that, [13:53] there are companies, [13:55] I believe, [13:56] that are connected with a respondent [13:59] that are not alleged in the SAL-N. [14:02] That's why there was also a motion [14:04] for production of documents [14:09] by the Securities and Exchange Commission. [14:11] There are companies, [14:16] are you saying, [14:17] of the vice president [14:18] where her name was in those companies? [14:21] Is that correct? [14:22] I have to go back to that, [14:26] Ma'am Karen, [14:27] because there are several companies [14:29] and, well, [14:31] we have to identify them. [14:33] But these are connected. [14:37] But is it... [14:38] Yes. [14:39] And is it already the job [14:41] in the House Justice Committee [14:44] to prove already [14:46] that these companies are connected to her [14:49] or she didn't declare it in the SAL-N? [14:51] And how far are you allowed to go? [14:54] Again... [14:55] Because for sure, [14:56] they'd want to disprove that in the trial. [14:58] And the prosecution, [15:00] if you are part, [15:01] if you're part of the prosecution, [15:03] you'll want to prove that in the trial [15:05] that they are connected. [15:07] So we are limited [15:10] to asking for the evidence [15:13] from both parties. [15:14] And based on that, [15:16] that is our basis for declaring [15:19] if there is probable cause. [15:20] Just for clarification, [15:23] probable cause is what would excite [15:27] in the mind of a layman [15:33] or a reasonable man [15:35] that there is ground to believe [15:38] that the person... [15:40] Yes. [15:41] That the person is probably guilty [15:45] of the crime [15:46] or of the offense charge. [15:48] So it is not an exact science. [15:52] It is not final. [15:54] Probably did nga. [15:59] That's why it's a probable cause. [16:01] So that's what we're driving at. [16:04] And with that probable cause, [16:06] we will go to the trial in the Senate. [16:13] Back to former CJ, [16:17] the late CJ Corona's issues. [16:20] For CJ Corona, [16:22] his is the accumulation [16:25] of ill-gotten wealth. [16:26] At one point, [16:28] yun na yung naging issue. [16:30] Whether his properties [16:34] manifestly are out of proportion [16:37] with his lawful income [16:41] and thus presumed to have been [16:43] unlawfully acquired. [16:47] Right? [16:48] So this is in the Sandigan Bayan. [16:50] This is part of the complaint [16:51] sa Sandigan Bayan. [16:52] Pero sa vice-presidente, [16:54] is it also an ill-gotten wealth? [16:56] An ill-gotten wealth issue? [16:58] Or sa totoo lang, [16:59] sapat na yung kailangan niyang ipaliwana [17:02] kung saan ginastos? [17:04] Yung 125 million in 11 days? [17:07] 600 plus million na confidential fund [17:10] na Mary Grace Piatos? [17:13] Kasi ill-gotten is nagpayaman ka. [17:16] Pero ang graft is [17:17] winaldas mo ang pera ng gobyerno. [17:20] Diba? Magkaiba yun eh. [17:22] Ill-gotten, ninakaw mo. [17:24] Pero yung pagwalda, [17:26] sapat na yun to impeach. Diba? [17:28] Yes. [17:29] So these are different issues. [17:31] And in fact, [17:32] in the last hearing, [17:33] we identified the issues [17:35] or the grounds [17:36] by which we will conduct our hearing [17:38] on probable cause. [17:40] So the issue on confidential funds [17:42] and the issue on [17:44] the confidential funds [17:46] of the office of the vice-president [17:48] and then of the DepEd, [17:50] that's in fact separate [17:51] from the next issues [17:53] of bribery. [17:55] And yes, Ma'am Karen, [17:56] ill-gotten wealth was mentioned [17:58] in the complaints as well. [17:59] Oo. So meron kayong graft [18:01] which is pagwaldaas, right? [18:03] ng pera ng bahayan. [18:05] Is it under plunder [18:08] in the complaint? [18:09] Did it state plunder? [18:13] Pagwaldaas, Ma'am Karen, [18:14] it's all under... [18:16] Graft. [18:18] Yes, graft and betrayal of public trust. [18:21] Oo. Oo. Okay. [18:23] So walang nakasulat na plunder, [18:26] per se. [18:27] Kasi with ERAP, [18:28] Betrayal of Public Trust, [18:29] pero ilalim nun, [18:31] mas may plunder eh. [18:32] Kaya nagkaroon ng 50 million [18:34] peso threshold, diba? [18:36] Yes. So you're not looking [18:38] at any threshold. [18:40] Oo. Okay. [18:41] And then yung threatening? [18:44] Yes, that is in fact very clear. [18:46] Oo. Oo. Oo. [18:48] In fact, Ma'am Karen, [18:51] in the proceedings last year, [18:53] I was one of the prosecutors [18:56] assigned to handle [18:58] the threats. [18:59] And that is a very clear [19:04] impeachable offense. [19:07] Yeah. Okay. [19:08] All right. [19:09] Now, we don't have enough time today, [19:11] but I want to thank you so much [19:13] for taking the time also to, [19:15] you know, go through this [19:17] na kinimay po natin, no? [19:19] Maraming salamat po, [19:20] Representative Zamora. [19:21] I hope to see you soon. [19:22] Thank you, Ma'am Karen. [19:23] I hope to see you soon also. [19:25] All right. You take care.