Ambush interview of Sen. Leila M. de Lima

Q: Ma'am, yung writ of habeas corpus, possible daw po ma-suspend. May grounds po ba?

De Lima: Unang-una, tanungin muna natin sila, seryoso ba? Kasi iba-iba na naman ang sinasabi nila. You know, after floating that idea about the possible suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, some of his men the next day, again, tried to downplay the meaning of the President's own statements by saying that he's just really floating the idea or just an idea. So unang-una, alamin muna natin, seryoso ba sila? But you know, that matter is serious matter, and therefore, if the President ever floats the idea, you know, he should be conscious of the possible effect that this might try to send some chilling effect kapag pino-float mo yung idea about resort to an extraordinary power such as that, the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus. Ganun ang magiging epekto. Pero kung seryoso siya, then he can start talking about it.

But ang posisyon ko po diyan, wala pong sapat na basis because the Constitution is very clear that it's limited only to cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. The phrase "when the public safety requires it" is not an independent ground. It qualifies the grounds of either invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. So itong drug problem is definitely not a case of invasion or rebellion. And then yung sinasabi naman na situation in Muslim Mindanao, I don't think...kasi ilang taon na yan na situation na yan sa Mindanao. This is decades old problem. So if former presidents, other than President Ferdinand Marcos, did not see the need to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on account of the insurgency problems--whether from Muslim insurgents or from communist insurgents in Luzon and in Visayas--ay bakit ngayon, iisipin ng Pangulo natin na mag-suspend ng privilege on the writ of habeas corpus?

Q: Kasi mas malala yung problema ng insurgency before like nung Marcos time, mas convenient...hindi ba sapat na yung...

De Lima: Well, martial law nga ang dineclare noon. And because of our experience sa martial law kaya mas naging istrikto yung drafters of the Constitution, kaya mas ni-restrict yung grounds for suspension of the privilege of the writ, only to cases of invasion or rebellion. So hindi dapat pinaglalaruan ang bagay na yan. Seryoso yan palagi, and therefore, bago yan sinasabi, ay kailangan pinag-iisipan muna yung magiging epekto.

Q: Ma'am, pa on-cam lang nung subpoena. What's your take on it?

De Lima: Meron na bang subpoena? Well, of course, any time ise-serve na ata ang subpoena na yan. I leave it up to my legal defense team kung ano ang gagawin nila. Expected ko naman lahat yan na itutuloy nila yung mga kaso na yan. Pero kung mano-notice niyo, pare-pareho lang naman ang nagiging basehan--ang basehan ay yung mga so-called testimonies of so-called witnesses na prinesent sa House inquiry na mga kasinungalingan naman ang sinasabi.

Q: Ma'am, can you just react dun sa dismissal order ng Ombudsman kay Sen. Joel Villanueva?

De Lima: It's very difficult for me to comment on that, out of courtesy to a colleague. What I can say only at this point is that, well, ibig sabihin ay nung ni-review din ng Ombudsman through its own independent fact-finding investigation, ay nakitaan na the NBI findings...kasi NBI ang una munang nag-imbestiga niyan, di ba, under my supervision. And then hindi yan dumaan sa DOJ. Pinadiretso ko na lang po yan sa Ombudsman, yung mga PDAF cases na yan, yung three batches. So that means, just like the first two batches, ay na-validate ng Ombudsman yung initial findings ng NBI. Pero binibigyan ngayon ng pagkakataon si Sen. Joel to prove his innocence or to present his defense against the complaint.

Q: Ma'am, tama ba, bale lumalabas kayo ho yung nag-file versus Sen. Joel?

De Lima: NBI, under my watch. Because remember, it was NBI ang unang nag-imbestiga nung mga PDAF cases na sakop ng testimonya ng mga whistleblowers na sina Benhur Luy. So dun sa imbestigasyon na yan, tatlong batches of senators and congressmen ang na-i-file ng NBI, diretso sa Ombudsman. Hindi ko na po yan pinadaan sa DOJ. Pinadiresto ko po yan sa Ombudsman for the Ombudsman's own independent evaluation of the evidence and the findings of the NBI. So it would appear na based on its own independent fact-finding investigation ay nakitaan ng basehan at this stage of the proceedings, at the Ombudsman's level. Na ibig sabihin, that would still be subject...na yun na nga yung court trial dun sa criminal aspect.

Q: Pero may administrative aspect din po?

De Lima: Lahat kasi ng kaso before the Ombudsman, may administrative and criminal aspects. But ito yung pagkakataon on the part of Sen. Joel to present his defense.

Q: So hindi pa naman final yun?

De Lima: Both of us firmly believe in the justice system. May pananalig kami pareho sa justice system. Only that, dun sa kaso niya, we were slugging it out noon nung ako ay DOJ Secretary dahil nga under my supervision yung pag-imbestiga ng NBI, tapos nung siya ay nasa TESDA.

Q: Ma'am, curious din kami. Kasi yung PDAF, mas maliit pa dun kina Jinggoy, sila Bong. Pero ito, may dismissal from service kay Sen. Villanueva?

De Lima: Hindi ko pa kasi nakita yung desisyon, yung resolution ng Ombudsman. I have to see kung ano yung ginamit na basis. Kasi may diretsong directive for the dismissal, ordering the Senate President to implement. I want to look into that.