00:00Sen. Dismissed after he returned to the Philippines.
00:05His hands were covered.
00:07But when he went to the Senate, the mayor covered his face.
00:11He was able to save his answers to the questions of the Senators.
00:14Despite the surrender of the leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Pastor Kibuloy,
00:19his face and body were also covered
00:23when he was presented yesterday and his companions.
00:28Should the faces and hands of the accused really be covered?
00:31Is that still part of their rights?
00:34We will clarify that with the legal expert, Atty. Renjo Marcastro Baldazar.
00:39Good evening to you, Atty. Baldazar.
00:41Good evening to all of our viewers.
00:45Atty., in some videos and photos, we can see that their faces and hands are hidden.
00:49They look like they are possessed.
00:51Why are the faces of the accused allowed to be hidden?
00:53Just like Alice Wu and Apollo Kibuloy.
00:56But why the others?
00:58Their faces are visible.
01:01Because we have the Data Privacy Act, the Republic Act 10173.
01:06Those mag shots are considered personal information
01:10because we will get to know the person.
01:13So, we cannot just process that.
01:16As a general rule, a person should have consent.
01:20Then, it is okay if there is no consent and we post it.
01:24However, we need to meet the three requirements, the PLT,
01:28Proportionate, Legitimate, and Transparent Purposes.
01:33Now, if our government has met their objective,
01:37that if they post it in a blurry way,
01:40we have satisfied the Proportionate, Legitimate, and Transparent Purposes.
01:45Yes.
01:46But we are used to it here in the Philippines,
01:51we are used to seeing the faces of the accused.
01:56All of a sudden, it changed.
01:59Is this a new law, Atty.?
02:01Actually, this law has been around for a long time.
02:04That is why, the public is just informed about this.
02:08That it cannot be done just like that.
02:11Because if we look at it, as an accused,
02:14they still have rights in the Constitution.
02:16Because we see that there is a tendency that if the person is heavy,
02:23they can hide everything.
02:25But if it's just a normal citizen,
02:27the face will be exposed, right?
02:29It will just be pointed like that.
02:30That's why there is a cap, right, Atty.?
02:32I believe that we have what we call a compelling state interest.
02:36So, if in the time of our government,
02:38they have achieved their interest in doing that,
02:43and that is valid and allowed.
02:46We often hear the answer,
02:49I invoke my right against self-incrimination.
02:52When do we have what we call self-incriminating questions to a person?
02:56When is the right use of this right, Atty.?
02:59Okay.
03:00So, when we say right against self-incrimination,
03:03it is used for testimonial compulsion only.
03:06It means, there is a question to you,
03:08and the answer to that will be used against you.
03:11So, you are the one who is being imprisoned.
03:12That is the right against self-incrimination.
03:15But, let's remember that,
03:16as I said, it's just a testimonial,
03:18it's just a statement, okay?
03:20So, it means, if it's a mechanical act,
03:22if you will wear shoes,
03:24if you will get a fingerprint,
03:26that is no longer a right against self-incrimination.
03:29Yes, yes, yes.
03:29So, Atty., what if,
03:31just like what we are seeing in the hearings,
03:34they will always invoke,
03:36the accused will always use that word, right?
03:40How can we get an answer or a statement,
03:42our judges?
03:44Okay, so, when it comes to the Senate hearing,
03:47they have inherent power to contempt a person.
03:51So, a witness can be imprisoned
03:54who does not want to cooperate with the Congress.
03:56Because, what's the point?
03:58Why are we still calling you here
04:00if you will not answer?
04:01But of course, it's a case-to-case basis,
04:04because of course,
04:05in the rules of our Congress,
04:07it is still not justified
04:10the right of our,
04:12the right as a person.
04:14But most of the time,
04:14that's the only thing you hear,
04:16against self-incrimination.
04:18What is the difference between a Senate hearing
04:20and a court hearing, Atty.?
04:21Okay, so, when we say Senate hearing,
04:23the purpose is in aid of legislation.
04:26We will make a law.
04:28So, generally, no one is imprisoned.
04:30Yes, that's right.
04:31That's why, Atty.,
04:33if no one is imprisoned,
04:34because in aid of legislation,
04:35why are you invoking the right
04:38against self-incrimination?
04:39Because,
04:41all that a person will say there,
04:43that's in record.
04:45So, it's okay if he's not used there,
04:47he won't be imprisoned.
04:48However, because he voted,
04:50all that he said is the truth,
04:52maybe he will be used later on.
04:54When it comes to court hearings,
04:56which is having the purpose
04:58of determining the guilt
04:59or innocence of the accused.
05:00I just have a question, Atty.,
05:02because a lot of people go to hearings
05:04in aid of legislation, right?
05:07Is there an obligation for the judges
05:08to make or amend the law
05:11once they go to hearings?
05:13Because, maybe they can be blamed
05:14if they didn't use those things?
05:16That's a political question.
05:19It means,
05:20they have the inherent power
05:21to make a law,
05:22but how will they do that?
05:24What is their priority there?
05:26It's up to them,
05:27because they are the ones we voted for.
05:29Yes.
05:30Atty., the PNP is still in custody,
05:32Guo and Kebuloy.
05:35Why are some accused
05:37going here
05:38and not to regular prisons?
05:40Is this considered a special treatment?
05:42It's different, right?
05:43Quezon City Jail,
05:44Manila City Jail,
05:46Pasay City Jail.
05:47Why are they there?
05:49Their cases,
05:50there are also those who are in prison.
05:52Their cases are the same.
05:53Why are they there?
05:54It's like this,
05:55we need to consider
05:56what the Constitution says.
05:58What is prohibited there
05:59are the secret detention places.
06:02Now,
06:02should we really put people there
06:05in the facilities you mentioned?
06:07We don't have express provisions of the law.
06:09That's why, of course, I said
06:10that our government's objective is good.
06:13Maybe what they are considering here
06:15is the security purposes.
06:18Or the security threats or safety reasons.
06:20Maybe, what is the reason
06:21why we are having a due process?
06:26To achieve justice.
06:28Now,
06:29where are we going to put a person
06:31and later on,
06:32maybe he will just disappear.
06:34So,
06:35much better,
06:35at least he is in that
06:37custodial facility,
06:38he will be more guarded.
06:40So, if the threat is big,
06:42he can be brought there?
06:43Yes, that's it.
06:45But it's not a special treatment?
06:46No, it's not.
06:47Okay.
06:48Thank you so much, Atty. Rene Omar Baltazar.
06:52Have a good evening, Atty.
07:10Atty. Rene Omar Baltazar
Comments