- 2 days ago
Confused about the VP Sara impeachment issue?
Let’s talk about it LIVE.
Atty. Jay Pujanres, President of FLAG-Cebu, joins Beyond the Headlines to explain the legal process, key issues, and what Filipinos should watch out for.
Ask your questions in real time 👇
Let’s talk about it LIVE.
Atty. Jay Pujanres, President of FLAG-Cebu, joins Beyond the Headlines to explain the legal process, key issues, and what Filipinos should watch out for.
Ask your questions in real time 👇
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
01:00The ongoing impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte.
01:05And in the middle of all this is a clash of narratives.
01:09To help us unpack these stories, we're joined this afternoon by Attorney Jay Pujanes.
01:15Good afternoon, Attorney Jay.
01:17Good afternoon, DJ.
01:18Good afternoon, everyone.
01:19Yes, welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
01:21Happy to be here.
01:23So I'll start.
01:24My first question is regarding the pronouncement that the Supreme Court said April 7.
01:32And the Supreme Court actually is asking the House to explain the legal basis of the impeachment.
01:40In your opinion, do you think, given this, what's the strongest reason why the impeachment should move forward?
01:49Okay.
01:50It's just part of standard operating procedure for the Supreme Court to ask comment from the House.
01:56So if there's a complaint filed or petition filed before the Supreme Court, normally the SC would ask the respondent
02:03to file comment.
02:04Despite this, or in spite of the dependency of the case and the fact that the Supreme Court issued an
02:10order to comment,
02:11nevertheless, the House should still proceed with impeachment because it is their constitutional duty to do so.
02:19So under the Constitution, when a complaint is filed by a citizen and endorsed by a congressman,
02:26the complaint should be referred to the House Justice Committee and then should be determined,
02:34the House Justice Committee should determine probable cause.
02:38So that's what the House Justice Committee is doing right now.
02:42So that's the number one reason.
02:44Follow the constitutional procedure.
02:46And second also, for accountability.
02:49So considering that the issue of graft and corruption is very important,
02:53we must set a good example, set a deterrent for other public officials not to commit graft and corruption.
03:04Otherwise, they will meet what's happening right now if they are an impeachable official.
03:11So I think you've already answered this in part, but I still want to ask this question.
03:16This is among the frequently asked questions given the Middle East tension,
03:21the rising fuel prices, although there's a slight drop, but it's still high.
03:25And given the impact to the Philippine economy, do you think this should be part of the country's priorities,
03:36the impeachment, because the government is not a one-track mind entity.
03:45The government has multiple tasks.
03:50So aside from handling economics, the government, the state, is duty-bound also to handle corruption-related matters.
04:00First, we should take note that if we are indeed serious in getting rid of corruption,
04:08then if there is evidence to show that the vice president committed graft and corruption,
04:14the government should pursue that to the end, regardless of economic situation.
04:21Then you also mentioned about accountability and also calling public officials out,
04:28specifically against graft and corruption.
04:32Some people would also argue that there are also numerous allegations that are addressed to several public officials.
04:40So why Sara Duterte this time in particular?
04:44Okay.
04:45Because other public officials are not impeachable officials.
04:49There are only five impeachable officials.
04:52Under the Constitution, the only impeachable officials are the president, the vice president,
04:58members of the Supreme Court, members of constitutional commissions, and the ombudsman.
05:04Now, considering that there is a complaint filed against the vice president, an impeachment complaint,
05:13so that must follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
05:18So that is the reason why we have this impeachment proceeding right now.
05:22Although there are allegations about Martin Romualdez and Pangandaman, other officials,
05:27those officials are not impeachable officials.
05:30They will be prosecuted in different proceedings, not an impeachment proceeding.
05:36So not necessarily in the context of impeachment, because I agree.
05:41I've also read what you just said about impeachable officials and the Speaker of the House and Secretary Pangandaman,
05:52for example, they are not impeachable officials, but when it comes to also the accountability being applied,
06:04because these are also allegations, man.
06:07Do you think that whether in the context of impeachment or whether in the context of actual cases really filed,
06:15do you think the focus on the vice president is being treated differently?
06:23Because it looks like, we would say there are no big fishes yet with cases, even if the promise was
06:29before Christmas.
06:32And as of this time, there's really nothing that's seriously filed.
06:36But now, the Justice Committee is actively pursuing the impeachment.
06:41So in the context of allegations against corruption, what's your reply also for people to say that the vice president
06:50is being treated differently?
06:52Okay. I think you're referring to what's being shown in the media, or whether social media or traditional media.
07:01Because right now, attention is, of course, focused on the impeachment, because that is a very important case.
07:08I do agree that cases against other corrupt officials, like, for example, the allegation on the flood control scam, should
07:17be pursued.
07:19However, there's already a pending case before the Ombudsman, filed by the DOJ, if I'm not mistaken.
07:25And in fact, the contractor, Sara Diskaya, has been arrested.
07:31Okay. So, the flood control issue will be prosecuted differently, although attention has waned, because that is the nature of
07:43public attention.
07:45After some time, it fades.
07:47Right now, the focus is on the impeachment, because both traditional media and social media are so engrossed, and therefore,
07:57the public also becomes engrossed.
08:00So, that's why there's an impression that the attention is on the vice president.
08:08But let's not forget that cases have been filed already against those responsible for the flood control.
08:15It's pending in the Ombudsman.
08:17Yeah. So, yeah, because I think Sara Duterte is being tried in Lapu-Lapu City, right?
08:22Sara Diskaya.
08:23Sara Diskaya, sorry. Sara Diskaya is being tried in Lapu-Lapu City.
08:26Yes, that's correct.
08:27But some people would actually say that Sara Diskaya is, is, is her name Sara?
08:34Okay, now that you just called me out in terms of the last name.
08:39But some people would say that Sara Diskaya is the new Jennifer Napoles.
08:44In the sense that, in the sense that, in the sense that, she may just be an actor, and not
08:54necessarily the producer and the player.
08:57Okay. I will agree.
08:58Oh, no, no.
08:59Half.
09:01Sige.
09:01Okay. In the Napoles case, actually, Napoles is a principal to the NGO scam.
09:12It is similar to the flood control.
09:15Because in the Napoles case, Napoles made or profited from the government by creating bogus NGOs, non-existent NGOs.
09:27In the case of Sara Diskaya, Sara Diskaya profited by making it appear that there are flood control projects when,
09:36in fact, there are none.
09:37So, there's ghost flood control projects.
09:40So, they're the same in that kind of modus operandi.
09:44But, I disagree in the sense that, they're just small fish or just being used by some people.
09:55Politicians.
09:56Politicians.
09:57As a scapegoat.
09:58For me, Sara Diskaya is a co-principal.
10:03Let us not forget that in corruption, bribery, it takes two to tango.
10:08So, there's this corrupt public official and then there's the private citizen who bribes the government official or politician in
10:20order to profit from the government.
10:22So, both are equally guilty.
10:25The corrupt politician and the private citizen or contractor or businessman or businesswoman who made the bribery.
10:34So, I think that's, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's where the part that's not clear to
10:41some people, and maybe you can clarify that, it's because I would agree with you that this is a collaboration
10:49between a private person and also a government official.
10:54But, as of this time, the one that's being tried is the private individual, not necessarily whoever she was working
11:05with.
11:06Yes, but there's a pending case in the Ombudsman.
11:10Right now, in the RTC Lapolapo, I believe Sara Diskaya and DPWH officials are being charged there.
11:19Who is also, well, what they say, a small fish.
11:22Okay, so, you really want the big politician, like you want Martin Romualdez, for example.
11:29Or people who have the authority to dispense or even include it in the budget.
11:39Because, obviously, the engineers could not do it.
11:43They can take an action by declaring ghost projects as finished projects.
11:51Maybe that's their part of the task.
11:53But as to whether the money is going to be allocated in those projects and whether the funding will be
12:01released, there may be a bigger decision maker other than them.
12:06And those are the congressmen.
12:08Okay.
12:09But which of the congressmen?
12:12Because it could not be the entire House.
12:14It could not be everyone.
12:15It could not be all the congressmen.
12:17So, there must be specific individuals, specific congressmen.
12:21The problem there is that in criminal prosecution, you must adjuice evidence in order for a particular accused to be
12:30charged.
12:32Without credible evidence, a person could not be brought to court to face criminal prosecution.
12:39So, I understand many people want the head of Martin Romualdez.
12:46But right now, what is the evidence against Martin Romualdez?
12:51This is where we have to temper the expectation of the people.
12:55Because who are the ones accusing Martin Romualdez?
12:59Right now, we have Gutesa, who did not actually appear or who disappeared.
13:08He did not return, rather.
13:11And then we have Saldeco, who did not execute an affidavit nor testified or took an oath.
13:18He merely released a video, the authenticity of which is still being doubted as some think that it is AI.
13:28And then, there's also the 18 Marines, or some say Marites.
13:36Or 16 Marines and 2 Armies.
13:392 Armies.
13:40Okay, siga.
13:40Out of the 18, only 6 agreed to sign their affidavit because they were asked by the NBI to appear
13:51before them and answer questions.
13:53However, their lawyer, Attorney Tupasio, refused the one-on-one interview.
14:01They want it a joint interview, which is not allowed.
14:05It's not proper.
14:07So, if they are confident in their narration of facts, they should have answered the questions one-on-one.
14:16Secondly, they should have signed the affidavit that they should have signed the document that was the result of the
14:27interview before the NBI.
14:29Strangely, after the NBI interview and they already have the document, the narration of facts, ready for the 18 Marines
14:40to sign,
14:41the rest did not sign, only 6 signed.
14:45So, it tells a lot.
14:48Yeah, okay.
14:48So, some people would say that impeachment is not just a constitutional or legal proceeding, but it's also political.
14:57Do you also think this is related to the surveys that would actually point to the Vice President as the
15:06frontrunner?
15:07No, no, not at all.
15:09Because we have to take note that this proceeding actually started last year.
15:15And at that time, it's not yet election season.
15:19And even right now.
15:20Right now, it's not yet election season.
15:22It's two years from the election.
15:25So, it's not political.
15:26Although the process, the Supreme Court ruled that the process, it's not purely political.
15:36So, due process must still be applied.
15:39But this is not about politics.
15:41This is not about the fact that Sarah is the frontrunner for President in 2028.
15:49Because today, and even last year, when the cases were filed against her, she was not yet a candidate.
15:57And Sige, because I'm also going to ask you about the other potential candidate.
16:04But before we move to the other potential candidate, the reason why I raise that, it's because you've mentioned the
16:11impeachment last year.
16:13Which generated 215, meaning there were already 215 congressmen at that time who voted in favor of the impeachment.
16:25And there were technicalities which I will not ask you about.
16:29But it's in the context like fairness.
16:34Because if more or less, although there was an election in between.
16:38But if more or less the same people voted blindly, it's not necessarily the correct word.
16:46But at least there were 215 who voted.
16:49Why would the current proceeding even change that?
16:53Okay.
16:54Sige.
16:55Because we have to remember that at the time the impeachment complaints were filed last year, there was yet no
17:03ruling or any directive from the Supreme Court saying that when the complaint will be signed by at least one
17:11third of the House, it still has to be referred to the Committee on Justice, the House Committee on Justice.
17:18That did not exist yet at that time.
17:21So that was why when they reached the magic number one third, signed the complaint, they simply followed what was
17:29written in the Constitution, which is the bare minimum.
17:32It states there that upon the filing of a complaint signed by one third of the House, the complaint shall
17:41constitute as the articles of impeachment and trial with the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
17:48So the House followed that.
17:51So the House followed that.
17:51In the constitutional provisions, it did not state that when the one third of the House signs a complaint, they
17:59still have to refer it to the Committee on Justice.
18:02That is just now when the Supreme Court ruled in the first impeachment complaint that no, you still have to
18:07refer it to the Committee on Justice.
18:10So that's why I'm saying that last year, it's not because they're biased that they signed, that they immediately referred
18:18it to the Senate.
18:19It's because they followed the letter of the Constitution without yet the additional directive from the Supreme Court, which did
18:26not exist then.
18:28So now with the Supreme Court ruling that, hey, House, even though you reached the magic number one third, you
18:34will still have to refer it to the Committee on Justice, which is what is happening right now.
18:38So the House, although there's no magic number one third because the complaint that is pending right now is only
18:45signed or filed by a citizen endorsed by a congressman, and then the complaint is now being tried before the
18:54Committee on Justice merely to determine probable cause.
18:57So you're convinced that the 215 who previously signed, they really signed the complaint to impeach the Vice President with
19:12much thought, the 215 last year.
19:14Okay, I will give them the benefit of the doubt because under the law, it's presumed that government officials perform
19:24their duties regularly or just a regular performance of government or official duties.
19:31Now, so I would expect them to have read the complaint.
19:35So if we follow the previous precedent, for example, in the impeachment case of ERAP, when they reached the magic
19:43number one third, they referred the case immediately to the Senate.
19:49Also in the case of Corona, I remember distinctly, when they reached the magic number one third, they referred the
19:57case immediately to the Senate.
19:58It's presumed that those who signed the impeachment complaint, whether the one third or later on, it's presumed that they
20:11read the complaint, although they did not conduct what is being conducted right now, which is what we call the
20:18clarificatory hearing.
20:19The presumption under the law is that the person who signed, the congressman who signed the impeachment complaint, they read
20:27that complaint.
20:27Otherwise, why would they sign it, right?
20:30So Siggy, now let's move to the surveys from the impeachment.
20:36So surveys will say currently that the frontrunner for the presidential race come 2028 is the Vice President.
20:46And then there are also surveys, I'm not sure if mine is the current one, that would say that while
20:54the Vice President is leading, but her popularity is declining.
21:00Correct.
21:01I've heard that with a recent survey also.
21:04And then there are names that are being floated as possible presidentials.
21:11So names such as Secretary Rimulya, and then there's also names like former Speaker Martin Romualdez, and there's also the
21:26former Vice President, and now the Mayor of Naga.
21:30So I'm referring to Lenny Robredo.
21:34Who among these do you think is, if ever, they will also declare, because as of this time, it's just
21:41the Vice President who openly declared that she's running.
21:44Who among these names, man, or personalities, you think is a formidable opponent?
21:50Should they decide to run in 2028?
21:54Okay.
21:55For me, it's Lenny Robredo on two grounds.
21:58Number one, track record.
22:00So based on her track record, she has zero corruption issue.
22:05And in fact, in her entire six years in office as Vice President, she has no confidential funds.
22:11Now, based also on surveys, she's the most viable candidate or opponent of Sarah Duterte.
22:20In fact, Okta is going to release a survey soon because their president made an announcement that they have a
22:27new survey.
22:28And based on the results, Lenny Robredo is catching up to Sarah.
22:32Sarah's lead is now only single digit, around 9%.
22:35And Lenny has not yet declared her candidacy.
22:39And do you think that she will really run?
22:43Because she denied it several times, that she's no longer interested to pursue the presidency.
22:53I would believe that when the time comes and when the people's call is that intense, she will make another
23:052022 declaration.
23:10If what happened in 2022 is going to happen in 2028, I think she's going to run.
23:16Because in 2022, let us not forget that she actually said that she will no longer run for president.
23:25When she was still vice president, she said that she will not run for president.
23:30But during the 2022, or when the election was forthcoming, or the deadline to file a certificate of candidacy is
23:41forthcoming,
23:42the people's call for her to run became so intense.
23:47The Kakampings actually were rallying for her to run because she was the most, for them,
23:53she was the most deserving and qualified to run for president of this country.
23:58So she made that sacrifice.
24:00Despite her initial statement that she's not going to run, she made a 360 or actually a 180 degree turn.
24:08It's now 180 before we call it 360.
24:11Which is incorrect.
24:13She made a 180 degree turn and she said that she's running for president.
24:18So I'm hoping that in 2028, when the people will make a similar call and make it more intense this
24:25time,
24:26she will feel the need to run again.
24:30So, Sige.
24:31So, maybe because I remember they asked also another guest in the show,
24:39specifically about confidential funds.
24:41Because you highlighted that the vice president did not have that.
24:45Yes.
24:46Lenny.
24:46Lenny.
24:47Yes.
24:47I mean, sorry, the former vice president.
24:49Yes.
24:49Lenny Robredo did not have that.
24:51Yes.
24:52And then I also heard that there are pronouncements by certain mayors.
24:57That they are also getting rid of their confidential fund.
25:01So I'll give you a chance.
25:02Gun-gun-hika.
25:03Yeah.
25:04Follow the example of Lenny.
25:05Yeah.
25:05So I'll give you the chance.
25:07Do you think the confidential fund is really not necessary?
25:10Okay.
25:12Confidential funds necessary insofar as the executive department.
25:16Like, for example, the president.
25:17Because that department handles intelligence.
25:20Vice president, they don't need confidential funds.
25:25In fact, the former vice president was able to operate to function well as vice president.
25:30Lenny Robredo was able to perform her duties as vice president remarkably well.
25:35Well, despite the absence of confidential funds.
25:38For me, confidential funds is often the source of corruption.
25:41It replaces the former pork barrel.
25:44Because the pork barrel is a lump sum allocation and it's not well liquidated.
25:49That's what they are doing right now with confidential funds.
25:53Because it's not properly liquidated.
25:55So they have loopholes wherein they can abuse it.
25:58That's why Sarah Duterte is being sued right now because of graft and corruption for her misuse of the confidential
26:06funds.
26:06In fact, COA issued a notice of disallowance for her to return 73 million of her confidential funds which she
26:15misused.
26:16And that COA, notice of disallowance, although it was previously on appeal by Sarah, but the appeal was denied.
26:24In other words, that's final already.
26:29So, you've mentioned that the executive has the duties to support intelligence and the need for confidential funds.
26:43But there are also people, and I'll give you the chance also to refute, just in case you disagree with
26:49them.
26:49There are also people that, correct me if I'm wrong, the president is having confidential funds valuing to 4.5
26:57billion annually.
26:58So, comparing that to that of the vice president, do you think the 4.5 billion annually would require more
27:10scrutiny?
27:11Because that's a frequently asked question, so I'm asking you that question.
27:15For me, both require the same level of scrutiny, whether that of the president or that of the other departments
27:25that have confidential funds.
27:28The scrutiny should be the same.
27:30Now, the problem here is that the large allocation for confidential funds for the office of the president, it actually
27:38started with Rodrigo Duterte.
27:42Before Rodrigo Duterte, during the time of Pinoy, the allocation for confidential funds for the office of the president is
27:49not that huge.
27:51But when Duterte became president, it ballooned.
27:54And it's now at this level.
27:56And it further ballooned.
27:58Yes.
28:00Agree.
28:03So, the scrutiny should be the same, both for the president or other agencies.
28:08So, do you think that's one thing also that the Justice Committee eventually will have to, not the Justice Committee,
28:15but at least the House eventually would pursue the 4.5 billion annually?
28:21The president, executive.
28:23I think there's this misconception that the House will have to conduct inquiry on the confidential funds despite the absence
28:38of a complaint because people are thinking that, hey, the House is conducting this inquiry as to Sarah.
28:45Sarah, they're not conducting the same inquiry as to BBM.
28:49It's because there's an impeachment complaint filed against Sarah questioning her use of her confidential funds, whereas in BBM's case,
28:58there's none.
28:59That's it.
29:00But do you also think that's because, at least for now, the president has the majority?
29:07No.
29:07For now?
29:08No.
29:09Because we have to remember that Sarah has so many lawyers.
29:13In fact, I'm wondering how she's able to afford those lawyers, especially Kaufman in the ICC, and then here in
29:23the Philippines, her impeachment lawyers.
29:26So, I'm wondering, despite this number of lawyers supporting her, why are they not able to file a case that
29:38contains evidence so as to convince the House to proceed with the case?
29:46So, now that we're back to the case, and then I'll reserve for later the technical part of it, but
29:55for this conversation, you are convinced that the ongoing hearing, we'll not call that mini-trial, no?
30:07The ongoing hearing is really trying to establish a probable cause and not just a compliance to the Supreme Court
30:21requirement to justify their votes.
30:26Actually, the ongoing hearing or clarificatory hearing is to determine probable cause, and it is actually in compliance with the
30:35Supreme Court directive.
30:36In the first impeachment case, my point actually is, is this more of just a compliance?
30:41So, sige na, let's do this para, it looks like a legal proceeding.
30:45Oh, okay, okay.
30:47So, you're just saying that parang lutong makaw.
30:50Something, yes, that's the term, yes.
30:52Are you convinced that this is not lutong makaw?
30:55Yes.
30:55Just for compliance so that it would justify the one-third and then let's go.
30:58Yes, if we base it on the hearing on April 14, the chairwoman, congresswoman, Jervil Luistro, she actually did a
31:11terrific job in preventing questions from being asked if those questions are probing questions already.
31:21Yeah, because if those questions are probing questions already, then it's a fishing expedition.
31:28Okay.
31:29Which is part of the vice president's contention.
31:31Defense.
31:32Defense.
31:33Yes.
31:34Now, considering the performance of the chairwoman, she was very fair.
31:38If that chairwoman had the intention to humiliate Vice President Duterte or obtain evidence that is in the nature of
31:50a fishing expedition that is no longer clarificatory, then she would have allowed all those probing questions.
31:58But even the questions from her allies were prohibited from being asked because for her, it's probing already and she
32:06wants the hearing to be fair and clarificatory only.
32:11So, I think you covered this already previously, but just to summarize that part, how confident are you that the
32:20current process complies with, although that's a separate discussion, complies with the constitutional requirements?
32:28For me, if we base it on the Supreme Court decision that even in the House level, the respondent is
32:36still entitled to due process and must be given the opportunity to be heard,
32:41and what's being done right now is the House actually is conducting this clarificatory hearing and gave Sarah Duterte the
32:51opportunity to be heard pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling,
32:55then for me, yes, this proceeding is actually clarificatory.
33:00And for me, the House right now, I'm confident that they're just following that Supreme Court ruling.
33:07And what about, and then your thoughts, what about also what some people would say that there is already a
33:16risk now of the public already forming their perception towards the vice president,
33:24even just by the ongoing clarificatory hearing, that even if this will not eventually reach the Senate, for the lack
33:35of a better term, but this is the term that some people would use, the damage is already done.
33:40Okay.
33:41We cannot avoid the public from forming their own opinions.
33:45In fact, even if the House did not conduct a clarificatory hearing, even if they merely referred it to the
33:54Senate, still, we cannot prevent the public from forming their opinion.
33:58Let us remember last year.
34:00Last year, there was no clarificatory hearing, but the public also formed their own opinion as to whether Sarah Duterte
34:06is guilty or not.
34:08Right?
34:09So this clarificatory hearing does not have that, for me, we cannot prevent the public from forming their own opinion.
34:17It's not because of this clarificatory hearing, it's in the nature of the public to form their own opinion.
34:23So how do you convince the other part?
34:25Because I know that the other part, that's why in the intro, this is a clashing of narrative.
34:31So the other part already convinced, but the other part not convinced yet.
34:36So how do you convince the other part of the public who would say that this is purely political, although
34:43you made a comment about that earlier, rather than accountability?
34:47Okay.
34:48For me, this is really accountability and not political.
34:53Because we have to take note that when the case was actually filed last year, or when the confidential funds
35:03issue became public, Sarah Duterte and BBM were allies.
35:09In fact, the person who confirmed Sarah spent $125 million in 11 days was Sarah's ally in Congress.
35:22I think that was Joy Belmonte.
35:24I forgot already.
35:26It's a lady congresswoman who, during cross-examination, or it was made in open session in Congress.
35:36She was asked a question and she confirmed that Sarah indeed spent $125 million in 11 days.
35:44That issue became public at a time when Sarah and BBM were still Uniteam.
35:51Now, when the case were filed, or cases were filed against Sarah, we noticed a sudden breakup of the Uniteam.
36:02Okay.
36:03So, if we analyze it from the day it became public until now, it's just a continuation.
36:11Why is it continuing?
36:12Because there's a graft and corruption issue exposed way back when BBM and Sarah assumed their office.
36:23And because of that graft and corruption issue that was exposed earlier on, it now continued because Sarah refused to
36:33answer questions during budget deliberations.
36:36She walks out or, I'm sorry to say this, she has this fraternal attitude that when asked a difficult question,
36:45she will say,
36:46I don't like that question, I refuse to answer that.
36:49So, she's either non-responsive or refuses to appear during budget deliberations.
36:56Because she did not answer questions about how she spent her confidential funds, then it has to go through the
37:02proper procedure.
37:03The only way you can compel an impeachable official like a vice president to answer questions on accountability or on
37:12graft and corruption issues is via impeachment proceeding.
37:17So, now, if we are sincere in really getting rid of graft and corruption, and if the government is indeed
37:25sincere in fulfilling its duties to hold accountable officials accountable for their misuse of funds,
37:34then they must proceed with the impeachment proceeding because Sarah Duterte is the second highest official of the land and
37:44with great power comes great responsibility, right?
37:47Sabi ni Spider-Man?
37:49Sige, so I'm now down to my last two questions na lang.
37:53So, on the flip side, Attorney Jay, if you put yourself on the shoes of those who are against the
37:59impeachment,
37:59what do you think is their best argument against impeachment?
38:09Well, actually, it's not really that important, but the biggest right now is the economic situation.
38:17That's it. That's the only thing.
38:19Because right now, they say the timing is not right because of the economic situation.
38:25That's why you should do away with the impeachment and government should focus on the economic situation, reducing fuel prices.
38:35But the government is not a one-track mind.
38:38The government can perform multiple functions at the same time, simultaneously.
38:43So, the government can address economic situation or economic problems.
38:47The government can also resolve graft and corruption issues.
38:50And do you think the current state would demonstrate that?
38:57That this is not a one-track government, no?
39:02That this is a government that can actually multitask and manage competing priorities?
39:09Okay.
39:11Because…
39:12No, no.
39:12Under the context of the question, actually, it's, yeah, theoretically, it should be.
39:15But in application, do you think that is really the case now?
39:21Yes.
39:22Because the president has several alter egos.
39:26Each department secretary is considered the alter ego of the president.
39:31So, to handle economic situation, we have, or the fuel crisis, for example, we have the Department of Energy.
39:38The energy secretary is actually, that's her duty.
39:41Now, we have seen actions of the government to address the fuel crisis, right?
39:48Now, we have the excise tax on petroleum products, an LPG, I believe.
39:54It's now removed, right?
39:56Kerosene.
39:56Or suspended.
39:57Kerosene.
39:58It's now suspended.
39:59And there are several proposals, actually, from Senator Kiko and the other Kakamping senators.
40:04I remember they have this proposal to suspend excise tax on fuel.
40:09You know what?
40:10I have a very interesting information for you.
40:13In 2018, former Vice President Lenora Bredo, she was still the vice president then, she objected to the imposition of
40:25excise tax on fuel.
40:26At that time, while there's a tax on gasoline, there's an excise tax on gasoline, it was not that high.
40:36And diesel was not taxed.
40:39There's no excise tax on diesel.
40:40But because of the train law, they imposed excise tax, higher excise tax on gasoline, and now tax diesel.
40:49Lenora Bredo warned about the ripple effects, or she called it reverberating effects.
40:55I agree.
40:56If you impose excise tax on fuel, it has serious and damaging effects on the economy.
41:03Why?
41:05The economy, most of the trucks, actually, that transport economic goods, they run on diesel.
41:12Actually, almost all run on diesel.
41:14That's why some people are even asking why kerosene and LPG, you know, and not diesel.
41:20Okay, okay, I'll answer that.
41:22But let me finish this.
41:23So, since trucks run on diesel, if there's an excise tax on diesel, then the transportation cost will increase.
41:33Now, if the transportation cost of goods will increase, then the goods in the market will be increasing.
41:39That's why we have it right now.
41:41All of the commodities are increasing.
41:45Prices of rice, sugar, meat, fish, everything, they're increasing because the government, in the time of Duterte, imposed excise tax
41:58on diesel.
42:00Now, that is what BBM inherited.
42:04Because there's that train law that imposed excise tax on fuel, we have now a situation where the price of
42:13gas and diesel were or are increasing year by year.
42:18I remember distinctly that before the train law, the price of diesel is way lower than the price of gasoline.
42:27But after the train law, the price of diesel catched up or caught up to gasoline.
42:34Now, right now, diesel is way more expensive than gasoline.
42:39Now, the Senators, the camping Senators I told you about, Kiko and Bam, they proposed a law that will suspend
42:48the excise tax on fuel.
42:49I agree with you that right now…
42:51Also, Congressman Le Viste.
42:52Congressman Le Viste, okay.
42:53Your favorite. I'm just kidding.
42:56Continue, okay.
42:57No opinion about Le Viste, by the way.
42:59Okay, continue.
43:00So, they proposed the suspension of the excise tax on fuel because there's a law.
43:05So, the BBM administration cannot just disregard the law.
43:09So, that's why it needs congressional legislation.
43:13Which he got.
43:15The law already at least for a certain period, is it three months or six months, to suspend excise tax.
43:22It's still a bill, but not yet enacted into law, right?
43:26It is already.
43:28What law is that?
43:29Because right now, there's a proposal both from the House, like Le Viste, you mentioned.
43:35I know Le Viste actually is VAT.
43:37A VAT.
43:38But I'm referring to excise.
43:39Okay.
43:40So, there's no law yet.
43:41That's why BAM and Kiko proposed a law to suspend excise tax on fuel.
43:47Okay.
43:48And then, kerosene is suspended right now.
43:52Sige-sige.
43:52Maybe I'll stand by myself.
43:53I'll stand corrected.
43:54And maybe the viewers will correct me.
43:56But I think the suspension of excise tax was already signed by the president.
44:05It's just a matter of implementing it.
44:09So, that's why some people are even asking that the president already has the go signal to suspend excise tax
44:16on fuel.
44:18But as of this time, at least except for kerosene and LPG, nothing has been significantly done on the others.
44:28So, I think the pending one now is on VAT.
44:31Say continue.
44:31I think it's different because the fact that Kiko and BAM proposed the suspension of excise tax on fuel, then
44:39there's no suspension yet.
44:41We have to take note that the passage of the bill is not that easy.
44:45It's either from the House and the Senate and then they consolidate it.
44:49There's that three reading.
44:51So, it would not be that fast.
44:54So, if there's a law, well, I'd good.
44:56But I suspect there's none yet because the proposal is just this year.
45:01No, I think I have to correct myself.
45:03I think what he got is on the emergency.
45:06No, which is emergency powers.
45:08Emergency power.
45:09Oh, which would allow him to suspend excise tax.
45:16Pero as to whether it's 100% or by how many percentage, it was not decided on.
45:23So, I'm referring to the emergency powers.
45:26Okay.
45:26The emergency power was proposed by a bill originating from the House?
45:32It's already signed into LONA.
45:35The president already signed it.
45:36And that's even the reason why, remember, it was fuming mad because they accelerated for that to be passed.
45:50And then, at least during that time, they did not see much action on the granting of the emergency powers.
45:59We will have to double-check on that fact.
46:02Because if that is a bill coming from the House, it will still have to go through the same process,
46:08like free reading.
46:10And then there's the emergency powers.
46:12Yeah.
46:12Regardless, if it is an emergency powers bill, it's still a bill.
46:16It has to go through free reading.
46:18And the Senate will also have its own version.
46:20And there will be a bicameral conference where both houses of Congress will consolidate the similar bills.
46:28So, I doubt if that is really true.
46:31Sige.
46:31But at least our viewers can correct me.
46:33But in terms of the state of emergency, Murak, I think it was state of energy emergency something, it's already
46:43signed into law.
46:45Maybe a declaration.
46:46But it's not a law or a bill.
46:49Sige.
46:49So, the viewers will correct me if ever.
46:52Sige.
46:52But continue.
46:52Because the executive can make executive declaration of a state of national emergency.
46:58State of national emergency.
46:59It's not a bill.
47:01It's a state of national emergency.
47:03Or was that fuel emergency?
47:06Part of it is supposedly having the power to reduce or suspend excise tax.
47:13Yes.
47:14There's a declaration.
47:15I know that.
47:15There's a declaration.
47:16But it's not a bill.
47:18The declaration was, I think, coming from the executive.
47:22Department.
47:23No, it originated from the Senate.
47:27The proposal.
47:28Yes.
47:29And then the executive signed into law.
47:33Made a declaration.
47:34Made a declaration.
47:35Yes.
47:35Not signed into law.
47:37Because there's a difference.
47:38If there's this resolution urging the president to declare a state of national emergency, that's just a resolution.
47:46It's not a bill.
47:48So, that resolution will not be signed by the president.
47:51If it's a bill, the bill from the Senate and the bill from the House will be consolidated by the
47:57bicameral conference.
47:58Of course, it will go through the three reading processes.
48:01After it's consolidated by the bicameral conference, it will now be forwarded to the president for the president to sign
48:09it into law.
48:09But if it's just a Senate resolution urging the president to declare a state of national emergency, the president need
48:17not sign that resolution, but can make an executive issuance declaring a state of national emergency.
48:25Anyhow, and I would have wanted to ask you also some specific of regarding the train law.
48:31Maybe it was, and the thought coming from it, maybe it's a disadvantage at this time because of the situation.
48:38But there are also advantages also that the train law was effectively able to advance.
48:45But anyway, I'm not calling for the total nullification of the train law, but we will have to admit that
48:54there are portions of the train law that are disadvantageous.
48:58One of it is the fuel tax or excess tax on fuel.
49:01But anyway, Sigur, in a time like this, how can we still move forward, given the impeachment, without becoming more
49:10divided?
49:10I'd like us to end in that conversation.
49:13For me, we should be united in one issue.
49:18Regardless of personalities, all of us are against corruption, correct?
49:24That is what we should unite on.
49:28Because if we don't unite on the issue, we will never advance forward.
49:34We will always be plagued by graft and corruption.
49:38If we attach ourselves to personalities, it's because our idol is being prosecuted.
49:44We will not support this.
49:46For me, we should unite on the issue or on getting rid of graft and corruption and support the process.
49:54Let's hear out the impeachment proceeding.
49:58Let's not prejudge the process yet that it's just political or not.
50:03Let's hear the evidence because we have not yet seen the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense.
50:10Sarah Duterte has not yet presented her defense.
50:13Actually, she has not appeared.
50:14And what's being shown right now in the clarificatory hearing is not the entirety of the prosecution's evidence.
50:24I think there will be more discussions moving forward, but this time on the technicality of the impeachment.
50:30But for now, thank you, Attorney Jay, for joining us in Behind the Headlines and at least shedding light from
50:35your perspective on the current impeachment proceeding.
50:39You're welcome and I'm happy to be here.
50:43And I actually enjoyed our conversation.
50:45It's my first time to be here.
50:48And we're also just as grateful.
50:50So impeachment is a constitutional process as it is a political exercise.
50:56So the country is not only watching what happens, but also how it happens.
51:02Because in that how, we define the kind of nation we are.
51:08So this is Beyond the Headlines and DJ Moises.
51:11Have a good afternoon.
51:42Beyond the Headlines and DJ Moises.
51:42Beyond the Headlines and DJ Moises.
51:44Beyond the Headlines and DJ Moises.
Comments