Press Release
January 24, 2012

Transcript: Interview with Senator Trllanes IV

I.

On flexibility and liberality of rules

Q: 'Yung issue na ni-raise na a little bit flexible or liberal, sa tingin niyo ba hindi pa ganoon ang pagha-handle?

SAFT: Everything kasi is relative. What may be liberal to you may not be liberal to me. So ultimately, the (Senate) President will make a ruling, then if the body disagrees with it, there'll be a voting.

Q: Sir, hindi naman nasayang ang oras dahil walang nai-present na witnesses?

SAFT: Hindi naman. We're giving the defense panel a chance na ma-deliberate itong prejudicial issue.

Q: Sa rules, dapat bang sundin 'yung maluwag o mahigpit?

SAFT: Sa akin nga, nandito tayo to ferret out the truth. Kung hindi man niyan mapriprisinta ng mga abugado whether defense man o prosecution kailangan natin usisain further. Itong kaso na ito hindi dapat yung galing o hina ng abugado ang magko-convict o maga-aquit, kundi 'yung katotohanan.

Q: Sir, hindi kayo pabor sa mahigpit na rules sa presentation ng evidence?

SAFT: Kasi nga relative 'yan lahat. Sa ngayon ang basis natin is 'yung ruling ni Senate President, and kung may mago-object, pagbo-botohan, so we'll continue applying that (rule).

On the usage of Filipino

Q: Pabor ba kayo na mag-Tagalog na lang sa proceeding?

SAFT: Oo. 'Yun ang dapat, kasi 'yung taong-bayan dapat mag-participate dito. Dahil it's everybody's interest na ma-administer ang justice dito sa trial na ito.

Q: Sir, hindi kayo lawyer, can you comment on proof daw is necessary, substantial evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, what do you think of those requirements?

SAFT: The fact that it was never specified in the Constitution and in even on our rules, ibig sabihin niyan discretion 'yan ng senador. It's the senator's discretion what burden of proof or quantum of evidence he or she will use.

Q: When you decide, ano 'yung gagamitin niyo?

SAFT: Sabi ko nga hindi ko pinoproblema 'yan dahil pagdating ng araw na magbibigay na tayo ng hatol, klaro yan hindi lang sa akin kundi sa bawat sumusubaybay sa trial na 'to.

II:

Q: Nasayang ho ba ang araw na ito?

SAFT: Hindi naman. This is very very important for both the prosecution and the defense. So, kailangan maresolbahan ito dahil 'pag hindi natin binigyan ng panahon na mapag-usapan ito baka may magrereklamo na ni-railroad ito o nasagasaan ang kanilang mga karapatan. I believe tama lang 'yung ginawa ni Senate President.

On the handling of Senate President Enrile

Q: About the handling of Senate President, do you think fair naman siya?

SAFT: Yes. Very fair yung ating Senate President. Alam niyo the past week the Senate as a body got all the praises, in particular the Senate President. Sa amin, we gave him the full credit. Of course, katulad nang sinasabi ni Senator Villar, mayroon pa rin na magrereklamo diyan. You can never please everybody. Pero 'yung mga desisyon niya, mga ruling niya about the admission of evidence, so far na-satisfy naman 'yung defense and prosecution, wala namang reklamo on both sides.

Q: Sir, this is the second week already, pinag-uusapan pa yung liberality, hindi po ba na dapat prior to the trial naayos na po iyan?

SAFT: Ideally dapat, pero syempre you should expect both sides na palagi nilang ii-insist kung ano ang ikakabuti ng side nila, kung san sila makakalamang ii-insist nila 'yan. So every step of the way we should expect that from their lawyers, that's what they do.

On limiting the questioning by senator-judges

Q: Paano po ba ang limitation (ng mga senator-judges) in terms of questioning the witnesses?

SAFT: Alam niyo ho in my limited experience sa hudikatura bilang akusado, mahigit pitong taon akong nago-observe ng mga trial eh. Alam niyo ho 'yung mga judges, they can ask the witnesses directly just to satisfy kung mayroon silang mga gustong impormasyon, so ganoon 'yan. It's very important for us to get as much as information we need in order for us to arrive at a decision na buong-buo.

Q: So what you've been saying Sir, is that there's no limitation as to the manner of questioning these witnesses?

SAFT: Not based on our rules, everybody was asked to observe political neutrality, so that's it.

On flexibility and liberality of rules

Q; Ano yung masasabi niyo sa prosecution na they were asking for flexibility, in fact in the past four days lahat naman ng gusto nila eh napagbibigyan?

SAFT: Yan kasi 'yung nature ng impeachment, kailangan natin makita yung katotohanan. Alam niyo dito sa impeachment trial, hindi dapat yung galing o hina ng abudago yung magko-convict or maga-acquit sa akusado, yung katotohanan dapat. Ang katotohan lang ang magko-convict o maga-acquit. Kung mahina naman 'yung abugado, nandiyan ang senator-judge to find out for ourselves 'yung mga impormasyog hinahanap niya. Kung magaling naman mambola, kailangan naming i-check to filter 'yung pambobola na 'yun.

On the handling of Senate President Enrile

Q: Sa tingin niyo masyadong mahigpit 'yung pamamalakad ng sistema ni Senate President Enrile?

SAFT: Hindi. I'm very happy on the way he's presiding on the impeachment court, at yung mga rulings niya, although in one particular ruling I dissented, pero ganoon 'yun. 'Pag magbibigay siya ng ruling, kung may mago-oppose pagbobotohan, majority wins.

Q: In the past, when we interviewed you, you said na sana mas mabilis yung proceeding, ngayon maagang nag-adjourn kasi hindi pa malinaw yung Article II, your comment Sir?

SAFT: Yes, mas maganda sana kung mas mabilis yung proceedings pero nag-raise ng issue yung depensa na very important to them, ganoon din sa prosecution so we cannot brush this aside, otherwise we will be accused of railroading this thing.

On flexibility and liberality of rules

Q: Anong nararapat na flexibility ang dapat ibigay sa prosecution?

SAFT: We cannot put a finger on that. Ang sa atin dito, we will deal in each situation as it comes. 'Pag pinag-usapan kasi ang flexibility and liberality hindi tayo matatapos diyan kasi everything is relative.

Q; Dapat bang palitan si Senate President Enrile?

SAFT: No, no. I'm very happy with the way Senate President is presiding over the impeachment court.

III:

Q: Senator, bilang isang hindi abugado, kayo po ay umuupo dito, with all the technicalities ano ang komento ninyo sa nagaganap?

SAFT: Very interesting, 'yun lang I was citing this little experience I had with the judiciary as an accused for seven years and we have observed during that time kung ano ang mga demeanor ng huwes, ng mga defense at prosecution lawyers during that time, so all of these is not new to me. Medyo kritikal kasi 'yung issue na pinag-uusapan kaya in the caucus earlier, we decided na bigyan ng panahon ito to exhaust all the arguments today so we can rule it out tomorrow.

On the standard of proof

Q: Senator Trillanes isa po sa napag-usapan is the standard of proof, ano po sa tingin ninyo ang dapat tanggangpin ng Senado as standard of proof?

SAFT: The fact na hindi siya nakalagay sa Konstitusyon at even in our rules ibig sabhin noon it is left to the individual senator kung ano ang hinahanap niya to convince him to acquit or to convict. So hindi pwede i-impose yan, so even we agreed on a particular standard of proof, hindi parin binding yun kasi what is preponderance of evidence to you might be beyond reasonable doubt to me.

Q: Lumabas po sa inyog caucus na talagang gusto niyong mangyari ito sa araw na ito?

SAFT: Yes, ang desiyson kanina is to let everybody present their arguments in relation in this particular issue.

On flexibility and liberality of rules

Q: Dapat po bang i-relax ng Senado ang rules?

SAFT: Subjective din 'yan and relative. So let's decide on it in a case to case basis, as it comes. So far pinapupurihan naman ang mga rulings ng ating Senate President so what is there to complain about?

Q: Bukas magpre-presenta na po ng memorandum ang prosecution team para po both sides will be heard. Do you expect the body to decide on that issue tomorrow?

SAFT: Yes we have to decide on it dahil nag-aantay ang taong-bayan kung ano na ba ang sitwasyon dito sa ating impeachment trial.

On the usage of Filipino

Q: This weekend may panukala galing mismo sa taong-bayan na gawin ang impeachment sa wikang Filipino. Napansin ko kanina na medyo marami na sa senador at maging si Justice Cuevas ay nagpi-Filipino na po, ito ba'y napag-agree-han amongst yourselves?

SAFT: Actually wala naman specific rules about it. Ito nga 'yung sinasabi ko noon pa na this is actually a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. How can you win their hearts and minds if you're alienating them by language alone? Dapat itong prosekusyon at depensa hindi lang ang kinukumbinsi nila yung mga senator-judges, pati 'yung public at large. They need to win them over to their side. And the best way to do that is by speaking the language they know.

On the decision making of senator-judges

Q: During the caucuses, ano 'yung takbo ng bawat senador, mayroon bang paggru-grupo-grupo?

SAFT: Alam niyo ang kagandahan ngayon, in this Senate I am privileged to witness and enjoin, talagang everybody is concerned with the institution and its implications sa bawat desisyon. So every argument is presented and counter-argument, we can vote on it kung dapat pagbotohan or minsan hindi lang nagde-decide, let things be. ' Yun 'yung nakikita ko, walang grupo-grupo, hind, maganda. Kaya nakikita niyo we're coming out there with one voice.

Q: Mesahe nyo po sa taong -bayan.

SAFT: Subaybayan po natin itong impeachment trial, bukod sa maraming matututunan eh marami ho ang nakasalalay dito. Malaki po ang nakasalalay sa ating bayan. Parte kayo ng mabebenepisyohan o maapektuhan ng mga desisyon namin.

News Latest News Feed