By JOSEPH HOLANDES UBALDE
Interaksyon.com
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano Thursday asked the prosecution to produce a witness who can accurately testify to what happened when the Supreme Court justices voted to allow former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to leave the country last year.
Cayetano’s request came after he tried to pry from Justice Secretary Leila de Lima the source of her information on how the magistrates conducted themselves during the voting for the temporary restraining order favoring Arroyo’s travel.
De Lima cited executive privilege and refused to answer whether someone relayed to her details about the closed-door meeting.
Cayetano then asked prosecutor Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares if they received information from a single source. Colmenares denied having one.
“We only got it from media accounts and published documents,” he said.
But Cayetano remained keen on getting a name from the prosecution and said he wanted a witness who “can paint the entire picture” and not just spew out gossip.
“Kalalaki nating tao hindi dapat tayo tsismoso (We are men, we shouldn’t gossip),” he said.
Before the trial ended, Senate Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto asked the court to strike off Cayetano’s remark for being “sexist.”
Cayetano at first denied saying such words and only when Sotto stood by what he heard did he apologize.
In a brief moment of levity, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile refused to grant Sotto’s motion, eliciting laughter from the audience. Enrile said Cayetano’s entire statement should remain as part of his manifestation.
Enrile, however, ruled that De Lima’s testimony was mere hearsay but refused to take it off the court records.
Enrile said De Lima’s statements on why she considered Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order on former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s travel ban should remain in her testimony.
Lead defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas had asked the court to disregard De Lima’s testimony as hearsay and should not be taken as evidence since she was not present when the magistrates voted for the TRO last year.
This was echoed by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago who said the fact that De Lima was not privy to the behind-the-scenes process of the voting makes her unqualified to testify and renders her tesyimony as hearsay. While there are 11 exceptions to the hearsay rule, none of them applied in De Lima’s case.
However, Enrile clarified that the impeachment court may make certain exceptions in the treatment of testimonies.
“We must remember that we are not trying a criminal case, we are trying an impeachment case…the removal of the respondent from his position and disqualification…The rule of hearsay does not apply strictly in the impeachment court as far as I remember,” he said.
Santiago earlier expressed her opinion against taking De Lima’s testimony on Day 23 of the impeachment proceedings. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, she said the rule of the majority is followed and not the dissenting opinion.
Since De Lima was not present when the decision was made, Santiago also deemed her as unqualified to testify.
“Why are we splitting hairs? It is very clear. In effect, what we have been hearing is a series of opinions…the witness is not allowed to express her opinions unless she is qualified as an expert witness,” she said.
Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, who is oneof the prosecution’s spokespersons, said the decision of the court was “a major victory” for them.
“We finally saw the light in the trial, “Quimbo said. “The quantum of evidence is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but any evidence that the senator-judges deem as admissible.”